Cited by 126Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research TopicsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Structural validity and reliability of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): evidence from a large Brazilian community sample

Open access
Carvalho, Hudson W. de, Andreoli, Sérgio B., Lara, Diogo R., Patrick, Christopher J., Quintana, Maria Inês, Bressan, Rodrigo A., Melo, Marcelo F. de, Mari, Jair de J. +1 more·2013·Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Positive and negative affect are the two psychobiological-dispositional dimensions reflecting proneness to positive and negative activation that influence the extent to which individuals experience life events as joyful or as distressful. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a structured questionnaire that provides independent indexes of positive and negative affect. This study aimed to validate a Brazilian interview-version of the PANAS by means of factor and internal consistency analysis. METHODS: A representative community sample of 3,728 individuals residing in the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, voluntarily completed the PANAS. Exploratory structural equation model analysis was based on maximum likelihood estimation and reliability was calculated via Cronbach's alpha coefficient. RESULTS: Our results provide support for the hypothesis that the PANAS reliably measures two distinct dimensions of positive and negative affect. CONCLUSION: The structure and reliability of the Brazilian version of the PANAS are consistent with those of its original version. Taken together, these results attest the validity of the Brazilian adaptation of the instrument.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1590/1516-4446-2012-0957

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Sandı ´n B, Chorot P, Lostao L, Joiner TE, Santed MA, Valiente RM. [The PANAS scales of positive and negative affect: factor analytic validation and cross-cultural convergence]. Psicothema. 1999;11:37- 51.
  2. Krohne HW, Egloff B, Kohlmann CW, Tausch A. [Investigations with a German version of the positive and negative affect Schedule (PANAS)]. Diagnostica. 1996;42:139-56.
  3. Giacomoni CH, Hutz CS. [Positive and negative affect schedule for children: development and validation studies]. Psicol Esc Educ. 2006;10:235-45.
  4. Albuquerque AS, Tro ´ccoli BT. [Development of a subjective well- being scale]. Psic: Teor e Pesq. 2004;20:153-64.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carvalho, H. W. D., Andreoli, S. B., Lara, D. R., Patrick, C. J., Quintana, M. I., Bressan, R. A., Melo, M. F. D., Mari, J. D. J., & Jorge, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
  • Universidade Católica de Santos (BR)
  • Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
Venue
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria
Published
2013-06
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
169-172
ISSN
1516-4446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973909711
Cited by
126
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
PANAS, positive affect, negative affect, questionnaire validation, Brazilian adaptation, factor structure, internal consistency, community sample
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Aged, Brazil, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Psychological Tests, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reference Values, Translating, Reproducibility of Results, Likelihood Functions, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review