ArticlePsychologica Belgica2020
A Brief Version of the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT-18).
Article in Psychologica Belgica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of coloring therapy on patients with generalized anxiety disorder.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2022Trial
- The impact of self-control on aggressive behavior: the chained mediating role of hostile attribution bias and positive/negative implicit affect.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Criterion Validity of the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test: Prediction of Facial Affect Perception.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As self-reports of affect are limited in several regards, an indirect measure of affect, the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT; Quirin, Kazén, & Kuhl, 2009) has previously been developed and adapted to more than 10 languages (Quirin et al., 2018), showing adequate reliability and validity. Based on a sample of 242 Spanish adults (111 males), we evaluate a trimmed 18 items version of the IPANAT (IPANAT-18). Item reductive procedures consisted in a random selection of the stimuli words used in the IPANAT. Psychometric properties of the IPANAT-18 were evaluated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In addition, correlational analyses were used to determine the relationship between the brief and the full version of the IPANAT, and with explicit measures of affect. We replicated a two-factors structure of positive affect versus negative affect and found a good fit for the IPANAT-18 model (CFI = 1; TLI = 1; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .03). Reliability was adequate (implicit PA, α = .86; implicit NA, α = .77) and the pattern of relationships with explicit affect measures were congruent and consistent with previous findings. Differences between the mean scores of implicit affect assessed with 18 items or 36 items were statistically non-significant, and showed strong correlations (PA,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.