Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Testing Different Versions of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales in a Clinical Sample
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Testing Different Versions of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales in a Clinical Sample
Do you wish to request the book?
Testing Different Versions of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales in a Clinical Sample
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Testing Different Versions of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales in a Clinical Sample
2014
Overview
As a tool to investigate the experiences of six primary emotions, Davis, Panksepp, and Normansell developed the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (ANPS). However, the psychometric properties of the ANPS have been questioned, and in particular the factor structure. This study replicates earlier psychometric studies on ANPS in a sample of (546) personality disordered patients, and also includes ANPS-S, a recent short version of ANPS by Pingault and colleagues, and a truncated version of BANPS by Barrett and colleagues.
The study of the full ANPS revealed acceptable internal consistencies of the primary emotion subscales, ranging from 0.74-0.87. However, factor analyses revealed poor to mediocre fit for a six factor solution. Correlational analyses, in addition, revealed too high correlations between PLAY and SEEK, and between SADNESS and FEAR. The two short versions displayed better psychometric properties. The range of internal consistency was 0.61-0.80 for the BANPS scales and 0.65-84 for the ANPS-S. Backward Cronbach Alpha Curves indicated potentials for improvement on all three versions of the questionnaire. Items retained in the short versions did not systematically cover the full theoretical content of the long scales, in particular for CARE and SADNESS in the BANPS. The major problems seem to reside in the operationalization of the CARE and SADNESS subscales of ANPS.
Further work needs to be done in order to realize a psychometrically sound instrument for the assessment of primary emotional experiences.
Publisher
Public Library of Science,Public Library of Science (PLoS)
