Advertisement

The 10-Item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, Child and Parent Shortened Versions: Application of Item Response Theory for More Efficient Assessment

  • Chad Ebesutani
  • Jennifer Regan
  • Ashley Smith
  • Steven Reise
  • Charmaine Higa-McMillan
  • Bruce F. Chorpita
Article

Abstract

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS-C/P; child and parent versions) yield positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) scales that are clinically useful for identifying youth with anxiety and mood problems. Despite the advantages that item response theory (IRT) offers relative to classical test theory with respect to shortening test instruments, no studies to date have applied IRT methodology to the PANAS-C/P scales. In the present study, we thus applied IRT methodology using a school-based development sample (child sample: N = 799; parent sample: N = 553) and developed a shortened 5-item PA scale (joyful, cheerful, happy, lively, proud) and a 5-item NA scale (miserable, mad, afraid, scared, sad) for the sake of simultaneously increasing the assessment efficiency of the PANAS-C/P scales while improving the psychometric properties of the scales. The reduced PA and NA child scales classified relevant diagnostic groups in a separate clinic-referred validation sample (N = 662) just as well as the original PANAS-C child scales and may be used to help identify youth with internalizing disorders in need of mental health services.

Keywords

PANAS-C Positive Affect Negative Affect Item Response Theory Depression Psychometric properties 

References

  1. Analyse-it Software, Ltd. (2008). Analyse-it for Microsoft Excel (version 2.12).Google Scholar
  2. Baker F (2001). The basics of item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Maryland College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. (1993). An examination of the psychometric properties of measures of negative affect in the PANAS-X scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 836–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Chorpita, B. F., & Daleiden, E. L. (2002). Tripartite dimensions of emotion in a child clinical sample: Measurement strategies and implications for clinical utility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 1150–1160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1994). Who (or what) can do psychotherapy: The status and challenge of nonprofessional therapies. Psychological Science, 5, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLong, E., DeLong, D., & Clarke-Pearson, D. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44, 837–845.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebesutani, C., Okamura, K., Higa-McMillan, C., & Chorpita, B. F. (2011a). A Psychometric analysis of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children – Parent Version in a school sample. Psychological Assessment. Google Scholar
  11. Ebesutani, C., Smith, A., Bernstein, A., Chorpita, B. F., Higa-McMillan, C., & Nakamura, B. J. (2011b). A bifactor model of negative emotion: Negative affectivity comprised of fear and distress among older youth. Psychological Assessment.Google Scholar
  12. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Emons, W., Sijtsma, K., & Meijer, R. (2007). On the Consistency of Individual Classification Using Short Scales. Psychological Methods, 12, 105–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferdinand, R. (2008). Validity of the CBCL/YSR DSM-IV scales Anxiety Problems and Affective Problems. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 126–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forbes, E., & Dahl, R. (2005). Neural systems of positive affect: Relevance to understanding child and adolescent depression? Development and Psychopathology, 17, 827–850.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbons, R. D., & Hedeker, D. R. (1992). Full-information item bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 57, 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029–1041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes, A. A., & Kendall, P. C. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children (PANAS-C) in children with anxiety disorders. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 40, 343–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacques, H., & Mash, E. (2004). A test of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression in elementary and high school boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 13–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., et al. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment, 11, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyneham, H. J., Abbott, M. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2007). Interrater reliability of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV: child and parent version. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 731–736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Multivariate Software, Inc. (2010). mvIRT – A User-Friendly IRT Program. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2007). Mplus 4.21. Los Angeles; CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  24. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Reise, S. (2009). Bifactor and Item Response Theory Analyses of Interviewer Report Scales of Cognitive Functioning in Schizophrenia. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  26. Reise, S., & Henson, J. M. (2003). A discussion of modern versus traditional psychometrics as applied to personality assessment scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 93–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reise, S., Moore, T., & Haviland, M. (2010). Bifactor Models and Rotations: Exploring the Extent to which Multidimensional Data Yield Univocal Scale Scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 544–559.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reise, S., & Waller, N. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richardson, L. M., & Austad, C. S. (1991). Realities of mental health practice in managed-care settings. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 22, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Samejima F (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, No. 17. Google Scholar
  31. Silverman, W. K., & Albano, A. M. (1996). Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Child and Parent Versions. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  32. Stout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement of mood: Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 267–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wood, J. J., Piacentini, J. C., Bergman, R. L., McCracken, J., & Barrios, V. (2002). Concurrent validity of the anxiety disorders section of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV: child and parent versions. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 335–342.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad Ebesutani
    • 1
  • Jennifer Regan
    • 2
  • Ashley Smith
    • 2
  • Steven Reise
    • 2
  • Charmaine Higa-McMillan
    • 3
  • Bruce F. Chorpita
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of HawaiiHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations