关于PANAS的进一步考虑:来自四个不同阿根廷样本的研究的贡献

Q3 Psychology
Estefanía Caicedo-Cavagnis, Yanina Michelini, A. Belaus, D. Mola, J. C. Godoy, Cecilia Reyna
{"title":"关于PANAS的进一步考虑:来自四个不同阿根廷样本的研究的贡献","authors":"Estefanía Caicedo-Cavagnis, Yanina Michelini, A. Belaus, D. Mola, J. C. Godoy, Cecilia Reyna","doi":"10.14349/SUMAPSI.2018.V25.N2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this research we analyzed the psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in samples coming from four independent studies: university students (Study 1, n = 392; Study 2, n = 395), general adult population (Study 3, n = 316), and athletes (Study 4, n = 533). Through confirmatory analyses we evaluated the following models: (a) two-factor model (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), (b) three-factor model by Mehrabian (1997), (c) three-factor model by Gaudreau, Sánchez and Blondin (2006) and (d) bi-factor model (Leue & Beauducel, 2011), all of them in their oblique and orthogonal variants. Several models presented an acceptable fit, but only after allowing correlated errors and excluding the items alert and excited. While orthogonal solutions of the three models showed the best fit in Studies 2, 3 and 4, oblique solutions presented the best fit in Study 1. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and omega indexes oscillated between .55 and .89. Considering the original theoretical model and the practical utility of the PANAS, we favor the model of two orthogonal factors, excluding the aforementioned items.","PeriodicalId":38992,"journal":{"name":"Suma Psicologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Further considerations regarding PANAS: Contributions from four studies with different Argentinean samples\",\"authors\":\"Estefanía Caicedo-Cavagnis, Yanina Michelini, A. Belaus, D. Mola, J. C. Godoy, Cecilia Reyna\",\"doi\":\"10.14349/SUMAPSI.2018.V25.N2.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this research we analyzed the psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in samples coming from four independent studies: university students (Study 1, n = 392; Study 2, n = 395), general adult population (Study 3, n = 316), and athletes (Study 4, n = 533). Through confirmatory analyses we evaluated the following models: (a) two-factor model (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), (b) three-factor model by Mehrabian (1997), (c) three-factor model by Gaudreau, Sánchez and Blondin (2006) and (d) bi-factor model (Leue & Beauducel, 2011), all of them in their oblique and orthogonal variants. Several models presented an acceptable fit, but only after allowing correlated errors and excluding the items alert and excited. While orthogonal solutions of the three models showed the best fit in Studies 2, 3 and 4, oblique solutions presented the best fit in Study 1. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and omega indexes oscillated between .55 and .89. Considering the original theoretical model and the practical utility of the PANAS, we favor the model of two orthogonal factors, excluding the aforementioned items.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Suma Psicologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Suma Psicologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14349/SUMAPSI.2018.V25.N2.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suma Psicologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14349/SUMAPSI.2018.V25.N2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在本研究中,我们分析了来自四个独立研究样本的积极和消极情绪表(PANAS)的心理测量特性:大学生(研究1,n = 392;研究2,n = 395),一般成年人(研究3,n = 316)和运动员(研究4,n = 533)。通过验证性分析,我们评估了以下模型:(a)双因素模型(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), (b) Mehrabian(1997)的三因素模型,(c) Gaudreau, Sánchez和Blondin(2006)的三因素模型和(d)双因素模型(Leue & Beauducel, 2011),所有这些模型都是斜向和正交变量。几个模型呈现出可接受的拟合,但只有在允许相关误差并排除警报和兴奋项之后。研究2、3、4中三个模型的正交解拟合最佳,而研究1中三个模型的斜解拟合最佳。Cronbach的alpha、复合信度和omega指数在0.55到0.89之间波动。考虑到原有的理论模型和PANAS的实际效用,我们倾向于两个正交因素的模型,排除上述项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Further considerations regarding PANAS: Contributions from four studies with different Argentinean samples
In this research we analyzed the psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in samples coming from four independent studies: university students (Study 1, n = 392; Study 2, n = 395), general adult population (Study 3, n = 316), and athletes (Study 4, n = 533). Through confirmatory analyses we evaluated the following models: (a) two-factor model (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), (b) three-factor model by Mehrabian (1997), (c) three-factor model by Gaudreau, Sánchez and Blondin (2006) and (d) bi-factor model (Leue & Beauducel, 2011), all of them in their oblique and orthogonal variants. Several models presented an acceptable fit, but only after allowing correlated errors and excluding the items alert and excited. While orthogonal solutions of the three models showed the best fit in Studies 2, 3 and 4, oblique solutions presented the best fit in Study 1. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and omega indexes oscillated between .55 and .89. Considering the original theoretical model and the practical utility of the PANAS, we favor the model of two orthogonal factors, excluding the aforementioned items.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Suma Psicologica
Suma Psicologica Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信