ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Measurement invariance and differential item functioning of the positive and negative affect schedule: a psychometric study in Ecuadorian young adults.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Soft skills and potential covariates in first year health science students in Latin America: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to validate the two-factor structure of the Spanish version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in a sample of Ecuadorian young adults, examining its reliability, construct validity, and measurement invariance across gender. A total of nine hundred and eighteen participants completed the PANAS, along with measures of personality traits and negative life events. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measurement invariance testing, and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted. The two-factor model showed excellent fit after removing the item Alerta ("Alert"), which exhibited poor loading likely due to contextual reinterpretation. Both Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) scales demonstrated strong internal consistency (α >0.89). Discriminant validity was supported by near-zero latent correlations and compliance with the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Partial metric and scalar invariance across gender were observed, with DIF analyses revealing item-level differences, especially for fear- and hostility-related emotions. Criterion validity was confirmed via expected correlations with life events and personality traits. The PANAS shows robust psychometric properties in this population, although some items exhibit gender-based variability in interpretation. Cultural sensitivity and periodic item review are essential in emotional assessment tools to ensure conceptual and contextual validity.
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.