info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Consideraciones adicionales sobre Panas: Contribuciones de cuatro estudios con muestras argentinas distintas
Further considerations regarding Panas: Contributions from four studies with different argentinean samples
Fecha
2018-07Registro en:
Caicedo Cavagnis, Estefanía Elena; Michelini, Yanina Noelia; Belaus, Anabel; Mola, Débora Jeanette; Godoy, Juan Carlos; et al.; Consideraciones adicionales sobre Panas: Contribuciones de cuatro estudios con muestras argentinas distintas; Konrad Lorenz Editores; Suma Psicologica; 25; 2; 7-2018; 133-145
0121-4381
2145-9797
CONICET Digital
CONICET
Autor
Caicedo Cavagnis, Estefanía Elena
Michelini, Yanina Noelia
Belaus, Anabel
Mola, Débora Jeanette
Godoy, Juan Carlos
Reyna, Cecilia
Resumen
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.