Validation of the PANAS: A Measure of Positive and Negative Affect for Use with Cross-National Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Positive and negative affect is a relevant facet of well-being for community-dwelling older adults. This article reports the validation of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), by means of confirmatory analysis.Methods: A community-dwelling cross-national sample of 1291 older adults aged 75 years-old and older voluntarily completed the PANAS. The relations between variables in the model were evaluated using structural equation based on maximum likelihood estimation. The distributional properties, cross-sample stability, internal reliability, and convergent, external and criterion-related validities of the PANAS were analyzed and found to be psychometrically acceptable.Results: Our results outcomes support for the hypothesis that the PANAS is valid and reliable in the two 10-item mood scales, hence fit for use with older adults, within a culturally diverse view of well-being.Conclusions: The psychometric properties of the PANAS are satisfactory in this older sample, and according to those of its early version. Taken together, these results substantiate the validity of this measure when applied to an older community cross-national population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it