Differences in within- and between-person factor structure of positive and negative affect: Analysis of two intensive measurement studies using multilevel structural equation modeling.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a widely used measure of emotional experience. The factor structure of the PANAS has been examined predominantly with cross-sectional designs, which fails to disaggregate within-person variation from between-person differences. There is still uncertainty as to the factor structure of positive and negative affect and whether they constitute 2 distinct independent factors. The present study examined the within-person and between-person factor structure of the PANAS in 2 independent samples that reported daily affect over 7 and 14 occasions, respectively. Results from multilevel confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a 2-factor structure at both the within-person and between-person levels, with correlated specific factors for overlapping items, provided good model fit. The best-fitting solution was one where within-person factors of positive and negative affect were inversely correlated, but between-person factors were independent. The structure was further validated through multilevel structural equation modeling examining the effects of cognitive interference, daily stress, physical symptoms, and physical activity on positive and negative affect factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".