Conclusion
Rose Cull, Daniel Cull in Museums and Well-being, 2023
Researchers at University College London published a freely available toolkit23 that includes downloads to allow you to utilise the system in your own museum setting. This toolkit was born from experience in running the Heritage in Hospitals (HinH) project (2008–2011). Based on this experience, they’ve kept it simple.24 The toolkit was developed after a series of Arts and Humanities Research Council-funded workshops in London, Newcastle and Manchester. During these workshops a desire for a generic museum-focused measure of well-being outcomes was expressed. In essence the authors of this toolkit brought their experience from a more clinical setting, hospitals and care homes, and proposed a simplified approach for the museum sector. The chosen methods were selected after a review of the health, well-being and quality of life scales commonly used in clinical settings.25 However, in practice the project team found them to be time-consuming when used outside the healthcare environments, as well as containing superfluous words and overlapping content. The chosen scales included the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) for psychological well-being,26and two Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for subjective wellness and happiness.27 These scales ask participants to rate negative and positive words for the emotions, and rating their wellness or happiness on a vertical scale.
Recovery-stress balance and psychobiosocial states monitoring of road cyclists
Michael Kellmann, Jürgen Beckmann in Sport, Recovery, and Performance, 2017
Robazza, Bertollo, Ruiz, and Bortoli (2016) have subsequently examined the characteristics and the factor structure of the items comprised in the individualised profiling of psychobiosocial states (Ruiz et al., 2016). The psychobiosocial states scale was administered in a first study to a sample of athletes in a trait-like manner (i.e., asking them to think of how they usually feel within the hour before an important competition). Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the data showed satisfactory fit indices for a two-factor, 15-item solution comprised of eight functional items and seven dysfunctional items. Results of a second study in a different sample provided evidence of substantial measurement and structural invariance of all dimensions across samples. Concurrent validity of the scale was also examined. Concurrent measures were the five scales (i.e., Anger, Anxiety, Dejection, Excitement, and Happiness) of the Sport Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ; Jones, Lane, Bray, Uphill, & Catlin, 2005), the two scales (i.e., Positive and Negative Affect) of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), and the four scales (i.e., Self-Confidence, Emotional Arousal Control, Worry, and Concentration Disruption) of the Sport Performance Psychological Inventory (IPPS-48; Robazza, Bortoli, & Gramaccioni, 2009). Interestingly, findings revealed a low association between the psychobiosocial scale and the other measures, suggesting that the scale taps unique constructs.
Current research on development and adaptation in late life
Peter G. Coleman, Ann O’Hanlon in Aging and Development, 2017
Positive and negative affect, and self-esteem were measured by Hebrew versions of two well-established English language scales, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988) and the Self-esteem Questionnaire (Rosenberg, 1965). As expected – and in line with previous studies – the young-old group had a higher level of self-esteem than the old-old group. The later stages of aging bring significant losses which tend to lower self-esteem. However, in support of their more challenging hypotheses they found that the relationship between positive and negative affect differed in the two groups. As in young and middle-aged adults, positive and negative affect were strongly negatively related in those in their sixties and seventies. But in those over the age of 80 years they positively correlated together. In addition, a more pronounced beneficial association between affect complexity and self-esteem was shown in the older group.
Discrimination, Subjective Wellbeing, and the Role of Gender: A Mediation Model of LGB Minority Stress
Published in Journal of Homosexuality, 2019
Sarah E. Conlin, Richard P. Douglass, Staci Ouch
We measured levels of positive and negative affect using the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This scale consists of a 10-item positive affect scale and a 10-item negative affect scale. Participants were told to indicate to what extent they have felt each way during the past week and responded to items such as “interested,” “excited,” “irritable,” and “nervous” on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very slightly or not at all to very much. Watson et al. found this scale to correlate in the expected direction with measures of depression and psychological distress and found the internal consistency reliabilities of scale scores to range from α = .86 to α = .90 for the positive affect subscale and α = .84 to α = .87 for the negative affect subscale. In the present study, the estimated internal consistency reliability was α = .91 for the positive affect subscale scores and α = .92 for the negative affect subscale scores. Higher scores indicate higher levels of positive and negative affect, respectively.
Disentangling Gratitude: A Theoretical and Psychometric Examination of the Gratitude Resentment and Appreciation Test–Revised Short (GRAT–RS)
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2019
Joseph H. Hammer, Rachel E. Brenner
The positive affect subscale from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to measure positive affect over the past week. The 10-item positive affect subscale (PANAS PA) consists of items, such as “excited” and “strong” (Watson et al., 1988, p. 1070). Participants indicate the extent to which they experienced each emotion over the past week on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). The items are averaged to create a total score, with higher scores indicating more positive affect. Previous studies produced concurrent evidence of validity for the PANAS PA through associations with other measures of positive and negative mood (Watson et al., 1998), as well as happiness in undergraduate and adult community samples (Wei, Liao, Ku, & Shaffer, 2011). The PANAS PA yielded an internal consistency estimate of reliability of .89 in an adult community sample (Wei et al., 2011) and .89 in this study, 95% CI [.88, .91] and a mean of 3.30 (SD = .79).
Pilot Study of Hypnotic Relaxation Therapy for Well-Being (HRT-WB): A New Intervention to Enhance Well-Being and Positive Affect
Published in International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 2022
Hyeji Na, Vindhya Ekanayake, Victor Padilla, Gary R. Elkins
Positive and negative affect was measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). The PANAS is a well-established 20-item scale that assesses the experience of positive and negative emotions (10 items each). The positive affect (PA) subscale includes emotions such as “enthusiastic” and “inspired,” whereas the negative affect (NA) subscale includes emotions such as “nervous” and “distressed.” Respondents rate the extent to which they have experienced each emotion during the past week on a 5-point scale, resulting in a total score for each subscale. The PANAS subscales have been found to have good internal consistency (α = .84-.90) (Watson et al., 1988). Internal consistency of the PA subscale (α = .88) and NA subscale (α = .81) in this study was also good. Validity has been established through positive correlations between NA and measures of depressive symptoms and through negative correlations between PA and distress indicators (Rush & Hofer, 2014; Watson et al., 1988).
Related Knowledge Centers
- Factor Analysis
- Negative Affectivity
- Positive Affectivity