The PANAS structure revisited: On the validity of a bifactor model in community and forensic samples.

Abstract

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a widely used inventory for the assessment of affect in psychology and other applied sciences. Despite its popularity, the structure of the PANAS is still under debate. On the one hand, there is evidence of the traditional 2-factor model with Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) as uncorrelated factors. On the other hand, a more complex structure of the PANAS has been discussed. To shed further light on the core dimensions of the PANAS, 2 studies investigated the structure of the PANAS in 2 German samples (N = 354 and N = 364, respectively) by means of confirmatory factor analysis. The factor analysis results of Study 1 for a traitlike time frame instruction suggested a suboptimal model fit for the uncorrelated 2-factor model and the 3-factor model with PA, Afraid, and Upset as factors, whereas a superior model fit occurred for a bifactor model with traitlike PA, NA, and a general 3rd factor named Affective Polarity. In Study 2, the bifactor model was replicated for a statelike PANAS time frame instruction and evidence of criterion validity was provided for PA, NA, and Affective Polarity factors in 2 sex offender subgroups and in a community sample. With Affective Polarity, we introduce an affect dimension that captures additional variance beyond PA and NA. Because of the adjectives with relevant loadings on Affective Polarity, this general factor represents an individual's orientation toward approach and withdrawal, respectively.

Psychometric properties of Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) original and short forms in an African American community sample

“…Data from the validation sample suggested that people generally endorse greater levels of PA ( M = 35.0, SD = 7.9), compared to NA ( M = 18.1, SD = 5.9), such that the distributions display negative (PA) and positive (NA) skew (Watson et al, 1988). These findings, which help approximate the relative frequency of a given PANAS score, have been reproduced in community and clinical samples (e.g., Crawford and Henry, 2004; Leue and Beauducel, 2011; Watson and Clark, 1994). PANAS scores have demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity (Watson et al, 1988; Watson and Clark, 1994); however, the factor structure has been more widely disputed.…”

“…For example, Crawford and Henry (2004) found that the bivariate model with a PA-NA intercorrelation and correlated uniquenesses fit better than Mehrabian's hierarchical model (notably, correlated uniquenesses were not included in any of the three-factor models in this study). Additionally, Leue and Beauducel (2011) produced a different model in which a general first-order factor termed Affective Polarity was added to the bivariate model. It has also been suggested that both the oblique two- and three-factor structures are plausible, but that the three-factor model provides superior fit (Killgore, 2000).…”

Specificity of affective instability in patients with borderline personality disorder compared to posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia nervosa, and healthy controls.

“…However, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the dimensionality of affect (e.g., Leue & Beauducel, 2011; Schimmack & Grob, 2000), with cross-Atlantic differences between North America (favoring 2-dimensional models) and Europe (favoring 3-dimensional models). Although 3-dimensional models appear to out-perform 2-dimensional models with regard to data fit (Leue & Beauducel, 2011; Schimmack & Grob, 2000), even 3-dimensional models are not sufficient to distinguish between specific basic emotions (Schimmack & Grob, 2000). Furthermore, opinions differ as to whether trait measures can be used to assess state affect because they are thought to differ in their structure, which may preclude their mutual use (Schimmack & Grob, 2000; Schimmack et al, 2000).…”

Affective states contribute to trait reports of affective well-being.

“…(e) Finally, and regarding the shape effect, findings on the underlying structure of affect may be biased if variations on trait measures also reflect state variation. For example, the PANAS has often been applied across age groups, normal and clinical populations, and countries to ascertain its construct validity (Leue & Beauducel, 2011). If the measures confound state and trait, insights about affect structure are not clearly attributable to state or trait, but represent a mixture of both.…”