title: Factorial and construct validity of the Italian Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS).
abstract: This study provides evidence that an Italian version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a reliable and valid self-report measure. In an Italian sample (N = 600), the PANAS showed solid psychometric properties, and several American findings with the PANAS were replicated. The replicability of the PANAS factor structure was confirmed by high congruence coefficients between the American and Italian varimax solutions. Alternative models were tested with Confirmatory Factor Analysis; as in previous studies, the two-factor model achieved the best fit, but absolute fit indices varied with the estimation methods used. The independence/bipolarity issue was also explored: Positive and negative affect scales remain substantially independent after accounting for measurement error and acquiescence. Some predictions from the tripartite model of anxiety and depression were confirmed, and external correlates of the PANAS replicated those found in other languages and cultures. These analyses offer strong support for the construct validity of the Italian PANAS.
authors.affiliation: National Institute on Aging, NIH, USA.
authors.forename: Antonio
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Terracciano
authors.forename: Robert R
authors.initials: RR
authors.lastname: McCrae
authors.forename: Paul T
authors.initials: PT
authors.lastname: Costa
references.citation: J Pers. 2001 Dec;69(6):1007-31
references.pmid: 11767816
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70
references.pmid: 3397865
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1956 Nov 2;65(4):345-55
references.pmid: 13373215
references.citation: J Pers. 1992 Jun;60(2):441-76
references.pmid: 1635050
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 1997 Jun;68(3):600-15
references.pmid: 9170299
references.citation: J Abnorm Psychol. 1991 Aug;100(3):316-36
references.pmid: 1918611
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1985 Sep;98(2):219-35
references.pmid: 3901060
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;51:201-26
references.pmid: 10751970
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1992 Sep;112(2):351-62
references.pmid: 1454899
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980 Apr;38(4):668-78
references.pmid: 7381680
references.citation: J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999 Jun;67(3):374-86
references.pmid: 10369058
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 2001 Oct;77(2):359-79
references.pmid: 11693864
references.citation: J Pers. 2001 Dec;69(6):819-46
references.pmid: 11767820
references.citation: Psychol Rep. 2000 Jun;86(3 Pt 2):1209-12
references.pmid: 10932581
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1999 Mar;35(2):466-77
references.pmid: 10082017
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 1985 Feb;49(1):71-5
references.pmid: 16367493
references.citation: Psychol Rep. 2001 Jun;88(3 Pt 1):861-2
references.pmid: 11508035
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 1997 Apr;68(2):267-96
references.pmid: 16370781
references.citation: Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1984 May;37 ( Pt 1):62-83
references.pmid: 6733054
references.citation: J Clin Psychol. 1983 Mar;39(2):249-51
references.pmid: 6841626
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Aug;81(2):322-331
references.pmid: 11519935
references.citation: Pers Individ Dif. 2003;35(8):1859-1872
references.pmid: 19002272
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Aug;79(2):286-300
references.pmid: 10948981
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Jun;64(6):1029-41
references.pmid: 8326466