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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.08.011Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) has been widely used as a self-report measure of affect in community and clinical contexts. However, evaluations of the psychometric properties of PANAS scores have been limited in diverse ethnic groups. Several short forms of the PANAS have also been proposed, but very little is known about the psychometric properties of these versions.

Methods

The present study investigated the psychometric properties, including the factor structure of the original PANAS and two short forms in an African American community sample (N=239). Descriptive, internal consistency reliability, factorial validity, and measurement invariance analyses were conducted.

Results

All PANAS subscales from the original and short forms had adequate internal consistency. For the original PANAS, the model specifying three correlated factors (Positive Affect, Afraid, Upset) with correlated uniquenesses from redundant items provided the best fit to the data. However, the two-factor model (Positive Affect, Negative Affect) with correlated uniquenesses was also supported. For both short forms, the two-factor model with correlated uniquenesses fit the data best. Factors from all forms were generally invariant across age and gender, although there was some minor invariance at the item level.

Limitations

Participants were from a limited geographic area and one ethnic group. Indicators of anxiety, depression, and cultural characteristics were not measured.

Conclusion

The factor structure was replicated, suggesting no immediate concerns regarding the valid interpretation of PANAS scores. The results support the reliability and validity of the PANAS and its short forms for use among African Americans.

Introduction

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a widely-used self-report measure developed by Watson et al. (1988) to assess two broad domains of affect, termed Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA). Both PA and NA represent largely independent constructs ranging from low to high levels of emotional experience (Watson et al., 1988). Low PA scores reflect ‘sadness and lethargy’ whereas high PA scores reflect ‘high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement’ (Watson et al., 1988). Low NA scores describe ‘a state of calmness and serenity’ whereas high NA scores suggest ‘subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement’ (Watson et al., 1988).

The utility of the PANAS is underscored by its wide recognition as a tool that can measure variation in affect, and can potentially even differentiate between some clinical syndromes, based on the tripartite model (Clark and Watson, 1991). Anxiety and depression have been historically difficult to discriminate via patient report, clinical interview, or other scales (Clark and Watson, 1991), particularly because most instruments only measure the common factor of broad NA (Watson and Clark, 1984). The tripartite model posits that both depression and anxiety are characterized by high NA, but also unshared features of PA (Mineka et al., 1998). As such, the PANAS has been suggested as an adjunct for clinical decision-making and designing intervention approaches (Denollet and DeVries, 2006). However, it should be noted that the PANAS was not developed specifically for clinical use. Rather, it was designed to measure affect in diverse contexts, and it has been widely used in theoretical work on emotion.

During scale development, the PANAS items were empirically derived from a larger list of 27 adjectives within nine mood categories, which were originally proposed by Zevon and Tellegen (1982). The PANAS was originally validated using predominantly White samples of university students and employees (Watson et al., 1988). 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.

Some researchers have argued for the bipolar model of affect, suggesting that PA and NA are polar sides of a single dimension which are either inhibited or activated at a particular moment (Carroll et al., 1999; van Schuur and Kiers, 1994). This framework suggests that affective (co)activation (i.e., mixed emotions) allows people to experience PA and NA simultaneously, as if they were independent (Larsen et al., 2001). The bipolar model has been contested by researchers who support the bivariate model of affect (see Cacioppo et al., 1997), wherein PA and NA represent two separate dimensions. However, there is disagreement regarding the independence of these factors. Watson et al. (1988) proposed that the PANAS is a pure measure of the independent constructs of PA and NA, as suggested by the weak and negative intercorrelation found among the factors. This orthogonal two-factor structure was found using data-driven exploratory factor analysis, but has been difficult to reproduce using theory-driven confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Other researchers (Crawford and Henry, 2004; Crocker, 1997; Joiner et al., 1997, Lonigan et al., 1999, Merz and Roesch, 2011; Terracciano et al., 2003) have supported an oblique model in which PA and NA are separate and distinct, but also moderately associated.

Moreover, Crocker (1997) has suggested that misspecification in the two-factor oblique measurement model may be reduced by allowing for 13 correlated uniquenesses among redundant items. Redundant items are adjectives derived from within the same single mood content category of the nine categories originally proposed by Zevon and Tellegen (1982). The content categories and relevant PANAS items are: (a) attentive (attentive, interested, alert), (b) excited (enthusiastic, excited, inspired), (c) proud (proud, determined), (d) strong (strong, active), (e) distressed (distressed, upset), (f) angry (hostile, irritable), (g) fearful (scared, afraid), (h) guilty (ashamed, guilty), and (i) nervous (nervous, jittery). For example, scared and afraid were both derived from the ‘fearful’ category and thus have overlapping content; this creates a flawed measurement model. Thus, model fit is enhanced when accounting for these redundancies (Crawford and Henry, 2004, Merz and Roesch, 2011, Tuccitto et al., 2010).

Although the PANAS was designed to measure general affective domains, not refined features of affect, a three-factor structure of the PANAS, including a higher-order factor, has also been proposed. Using data from undergraduate students and a community sample, Mehrabian (1997) found that PA stands alone as a first-order factor, but that NA was a higher-order factor partitioned into the first-order factors of Afraid and Upset. This suggests that NA merits finer separation beyond general negative emotionality (Mehrabian, 1997). Using such a hierarchical structure may enable greater precision in understanding an individual's affective state (Markon et al., 2005), and thus may be useful when a more specific level of detail is desired from PANAS data.

The three-factor structure of the PANAS has received some support in a study that used CFA and allowed for correlated uniquenesses among the redundant items from Zevon and Tellegen's (1982) checklist (Gaudreau et al., 2006). However, other studies have challenged Mehrabian's (1997) model. 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).

Several short forms of the PANAS have also been proposed. Despite being relatively brief, the PANAS may be considered lengthy when used in contexts that include many assessments, wherein response fatigue may be problematic. Thus, Kercher (1992) developed a 10-item short form that was tested by Mackinnon et al. (1999). Although Mackinnon and colleagues confirmed the factor structure of this short form, they noted that predictable item covariances among similar items weakened the content coverage of the measure. As a result, the short form was modified by Thompson (2007) to enhance content validity, and to establish an English-language short form that could be employed in international contexts. This version demonstrated a reasonable two-factor (PA, NA) structure, temporal stability, internal reliability, and invariant item loadings (Thompson, 2007). Notably, Thompson (2007) did not allow for correlated uniquenesses among redundant items from Zevon and Tellegen's (1982) checklist.

The PANAS has been translated into many languages, and administered both in the United States and internationally (e.g., Balatsky and Diener, 1993, Gaudreau et al., 2006, Joiner et al., 1997, Krohne et al., 1996, Leue and Beauducel, 2011, Lim et al., 2010, Pandey and Srivastava, 2008, Sato and Yasuda, 2001, Terracciano et al., 2003). Although the original PANAS has been broadly employed in multi-ethnic samples (e.g., Brondolo et al., 2008, Hammond et al., 2010, Kendzor et al., 2009), as has Thompson's (2007) short form (e.g., Chung-Yang, 2010, Lee et al., 2010, Yoo et al., 2010), examination of the validity of PANAS scores in American ethnic groups remains limited.

It is surprising that, to date, there have been no studies specifically evaluating the psychometric properties of PANAS scores in African Americans. Although several psychometric evaluations (e.g., Lonigan et al., 1999, Tuccitto et al., 2010, Villodas et al., 2011) have utilized multiethnic samples with small proportions (<.5–17.0%) of African Americans, subsamples of this size are insufficient to generalize results to the overall African American population, or to conduct separate group analyses. One recent study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the PANAS-X (a version of the PANAS which allows for eight types of time instructions) in identifying anxiety disorders in a community sample of 91 African American women (Petrie et al., 2013), although no studies to date have specifically evaluated the measurement characteristics of the PANAS in this population.

It is problematic that so little psychometric information is available on PANAS scores in this population given wide recognition that measures can perform differently across cultural and ethnic groups (Corral and Landrine, 2010, Groth-Marnat, 2009). While there is no reason to expect that African Americans should endorse PANAS items differently from other ethnic groups, it cannot be assumed that any measure will perform equivalently in a group that was not included during measure development (Corral and Landrine, 2010, Groth-Marnat, 2009, Okazaki and Sue, 1995). Given that the PANAS has been applied in African American samples in research, and has even been suggested as a clinical tool (Petrie et al., 2013), it is imperative to provide evidence that the PANAS acceptably measures PA and NA in this population.

Factor analysis has been recommended as a preliminary method of establishing cross-cultural validity of a measure's scores (Allen and Walsh, 2000, Ben-Porath, 1990, Geisinger, 1994). If the internal structure is not upheld, concerns are raised regarding whether the resulting data can be validly interpreted in a new group (Allen and Walsh, 2000, Ben-Porath, 1990, Geisinger, 1994). Therefore, the goal of the present study was to conduct a psychometric evaluation of PANAS data, including a test of previously derived factor structures, to determine the applicability of PANAS scores among African Americans.

The first aim of the study was to present item- and scale-level descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability for all PA and NA scales from the original and short forms of the PANAS. We hypothesized that the PA items and scales would be negatively skewed and that the NA items and scales would be positively skewed. We also hypothesized that the PA and NA scales from all forms would have adequate internal consistency.

The study's second aim was to examine the factorial validity of PANAS scores using CFA. Our hypothesis for this aim was that the two-factor (bivariate) model would fit better than the one-factor (bipolar) model. The second hypothesis was that model fit would improve by allowing for the 13 correlated uniquenesses chosen via Zevon and Tellegen's (1982) mood checklist, but specifying only the significant uniquenesses in a given model. Our third hypothesis was that model fit would be improved by allowing the PA and NA factors to correlate. As part of the second aim, we also examined whether Mehrabian's (1997) hierarchical conceptualization of the PANAS would enhance the measurement model; no hypothesis was specified as this was considered exploratory.

The third aim of the study was to evaluate the factorial validity of two different short forms of the PANAS proposed by Mackinnon et al. (1999) and Thompson (2007) using CFA. Our first hypothesis for this aim was that a two-factor (bivariate) model would fit better than a one-factor (bipolar) model for each version. Our second hypothesis was that model fit would be improved by allowing for statistically significant correlated residuals for each version. Our third hypothesis was that model fit would be improved by allowing PA and NA to correlate.

Upon determination of the best-fitting models for the original and short forms, the fourth aim of the study was to establish invariance of the PANAS items and factors across demographic characteristics (age, gender). This was accomplished by testing a multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC; or CFA with covariates) model that tested for potential mean differences in the factors and also differential item functioning. We hypothesized that all PANAS factors and items would be invariant across age and gender.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 239 adults who self-identified as African American with ages ranging from 18 to 78 (M=43.20, SD=13.48). There were 138 men (57.7%) and 101 women (42.3%). Participants were recruited by African American community health educators from sites throughout San Diego County, including beauty salons, health fairs, social/civic groups, and churches (Sadler et al., 2005). Participants gave informed consent, and filled out a paper-and-pencil survey packet on site. Participants were

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and raw scores converted to percentiles for the PA and NA scales on the original and short forms. For the PA items, means ranged from 3.29 to 3.83 (SDs 1.16–1.31); medians ranged from 3 to 4. The univariate distribution for the PA items and PA scale displayed statistically significant negative skew (p<.05), although skew was greater at the item level. For the NA items, means ranged from 1.52 to 2.38 (SDs .93–1.27); medians ranged from 1 to 2. The

Discussion

The current study provided evidence in support of the utility of PANAS scores from the original form and two short forms in a community sample of African Americans. For the first aim, both item- and scale-level descriptive statistics suggested that respondents generally endorsed higher levels of PA and lower levels of NA. Additionally, internal consistency reliability was adequate for both PA and NA subscales in both the original and short forms. These findings correspond to findings from other

Role of funding source

This research study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute [Grant numbers R25CA65745, 5P30CA023100]; the San Diego Community Foundation; the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation; the AVON Foundation; the National Institutes of Health, Division of National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities [EXPORT Grant number P60MD00220]; and the National Cancer Institute Minority Institution/Cancer Center Partnership Program Grants [Grant numbers U56CA92079/U56CA92081,

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jacqueline Jaszka for her assistance with this project.

References (56)

  • E. Brondolo et al.

    Perceived racism and negative affect: analyses of trait and state measures of affect in a community sample

    Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

    (2008)
  • J.T. Cacioppo et al.

    Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: the case of attitudes and evaluative space

    Personality and Social Psychology Review

    (1997)
  • J.M. Carroll et al.

    On the psychometric principles of affect

    Review of General Psychology

    (1999)
  • G.A. Chung-Yang

    The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being

    Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

    (2010)
  • L. Clark et al.

    Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications

    Journal of Abnormal Psychology

    (1991)
  • I. Corral et al.

    Methodological and statistical issues in research with diverse samples: the problem of measurement equivalence

  • J.R. Crawford et al.

    The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample

    British Journal of Clinical Psychology

    (2004)
  • P.R. Crocker

    A confirmatory factor analysis of the positive affect negative affect schedule (PANAS) with a youth sport sample

    Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

    (1997)
  • P. Gaudreau et al.

    Positive and negative affective states in a performance-related setting: testing the factorial structure of the PANAS across two samples of French-Canadian participants

    European Journal of Psychological Assessment

    (2006)
  • K.F. Geisinger

    Cross-cultural normative assessment: translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments

    Psychological Assessment

    (1994)
  • G. Groth-Marnat

    Handbook of Psychological Assessment

    (2009)
  • M.S. Hammond et al.

    A test of the tripartite model of career indecision of Brown and Krane for African Americans incorporating emotional intelligence and positive affect

    Journal of Career Assessment

    (2010)
  • L. Hu et al.

    Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives

    Structural Equation Modeling

    (1999)
  • T.E. Joiner et al.

    Development and factor analytic validation of the SPANAS among women in Spain: (More) cross-cultural convergence in the structure of mood

    Journal of Personality Assessment

    (1997)
  • D.E. Kendzor et al.

    Pathways between socioeconomic status and modifiable risk factors among African American smokers

    Journal of Behavioral Medicine

    (2009)
  • K. Kercher

    Assessing subjective well-being in the old-old. The PANAS as a measure of orthogonal dimensions of positive and negative affect

    Researching on Aging

    (1992)
  • W.D.S. Killgore

    Evidence for a third factor on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule in a college student sample

    Perceptual and Motor Skills

    (2000)
  • H.W. Krohne et al.

    Investigations with a German version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

    Diagnostica

    (1996)
  • Cited by (107)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text