The factor structure of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised (MAACL-R): Some statistical considerations

In response to Zuckerman's comments on my factor analyses of the MAACL-R, I focus on the statistical issues of the cutoff criterion for factor loadings and the evidence for the discriminant validity of the five-factor solution. Based upon the conclusions I draw in these two areas, I recommend that researchers either (a) use the two factor solution to the MAACL-R represented in the summary scores of Dysphoria and Positive Affect + Sensation Seeking or (b) include all MAACL-R scales in their studies and analyze their data to determine whether it is statistically appropriate to report results from a single scale (A, D, H, PA, or SS) rather than from the summary scores.     

Reliability and validity of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List - Revised

A recent factor analysis of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL) changed the Anxiety, Depression, and Hostility scales from bipolar to unipolar scales and added two new scales: Positive Affect and Sensation Seeking. Internal reliability of the MAACL-R scales, computed for normal and patient samples, was adequate for state and trait forms except for Sensation Seeking. Test-retest reliability in college students was higher for the trait form with retest intervals of from 2 to 8 weeks than for the state form with retest intervals of from 2 to 5 days. The pattern of correlations among self-, peer, and counselor ratings and the MAACL-R scales for normal and patient samples indicates improved discriminant validity and equally good convergent validity as the old scales. The use of standard scores that are indexed to the number of items checked reduced scale intercorrelations by controlling the acquiescence set.The financial support of the Weldon Springs Endowment Fund, University of Missouri at Kansas City, toward the completion of this research project is gratefully acknowledged.     

Dimensionality of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised: A comparison of factor analytic procedures

The purpose of the study was to determine the factor structure of the revised Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL-R). The data from 307 undergraduate students who completed the MAACL-R were factor analyzed using both principal-components and principal-axis techniques. Based upon research with the original MAACL, two- and five-factor solutions to the MAACL-R factor structure were examined. The principal-components and principal-axis techniques yielded similar item loadings for each solution and the results of both techniques indicated the superiority of the two-factor solution. The two identified factors could be best characterized as representing independent dimensions of negative and positive affect. These findings are interpreted as providing support for the use of the MAACL-R summary scores of Dysphoria and PASS (Positive Affect and Sensation Seeking) rather than for the use of the five MAACL-R subscales.     

Over-specified referring expressions impair comprehension: an ERP study

Speakers often include extra information when producing referring expressions, which is inconsistent with the Maxim of Quantity (Grice, 1975). In this study, we investigated how comprehension is affected by unnecessary information. The literature is mixed: some studies have found that extra information facilitates comprehension and others reported impairments. We used an attentional-cueing paradigm to assess how quickly participants could orient attention to an object upon hearing a referring expression, such as the red square. If there are two squares differing in color, then the modifier is required. However, if there is only one (red) square, then the modifier is unnecessary. We also recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) in order to investigate online processing. Reaction times were significantly longer for referring expressions that contained extra information, and ERPs revealed a centroparietal negativity (N400) that emerged approximately 200–300 ms after modifier onset. We conclude that referring expressions with an unnecessary pre-nominal modifier impair comprehension performance.     

P-technique factor analyses of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL)

The Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL) has been found to have five first-order factors representing Anxiety, Depression, Hostility, Positive Affect, and Sensation Seeking and two second-order factors representing Positive Affect and Sensation Seeking (PASS) and Dysphoria. The present study examines whether these first- and second-order conceptions of affect (based on R-technique factor analysis) can also account for patterns of intraindividual variability in affect (based on P-technique factor analysis) in eight elderly women. Although the hypothesized five-factor model of affect was not testable in all of the present P-technique datasets, the results were consistent with this interindividual model of affect. Moreover, evidence of second-order (PASS and Dysphoria) and third-order (generalized distress) factors was found in one data set. Sufficient convergence in findings between the present P-technique research and prior R-technique research suggests that the MAACL is robust in describing both inter- and intraindividual components of affect in elderly women.This paper is based on the doctoral research of the first author and was partially supported by the National Institute of Aging Grant T32 AC 00048-12 to The Pennsylvania State University and a Grant-in-Aid of Research from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. The authors wish to thank John R. Nesselroade for his helpful comments on an early draft of this paper.     

Discriminant validity of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List - revised

Four groups of patients (depressives, schizophrenics, substance dependents and abusers), a miscellaneous group of other patients, and a group of matched normals from a general population sample were compared on the scales of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List - Revised (MAACL-R). All scales showed highly significant differentiation among the groups. An index consisting of Depression minus Positive Affect scales was particularly effective in discriminating between depressive and other groups. A discriminant function analysis showed that the depressive could be distinguished from other patient groups and normals with an accuracy of 72% correct. The normals could be distinguished from all of the patient groups with a 60% accuracy, and 87% if the substance abuser group is ignored. The discriminant validity among the nondepressive patient groups was not nearly as good.     

Broad or narrow affect scores for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List? Comment on Hunsley's “dimensionality of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised”

Hunsley's paper constitutes the second independent replication of four of the five factors in the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised (MAACL-R), even though he used the trait instead of the state form used to construct the scales and a more stringent factor loading criterion than Zuckerman and Lubin. Hunsley also did a two-factor analysis (positive and negative affects) of the MAACL items and concluded on the basis of the scree test that this was a more optimal solution than the five-factor one. This conclusion is questioned on the basis that the scales were devised to improve discriminant validity of the subscales, which they have done, particularly if standard scores are used. Since four of the five factors are replicable in state and trait versions of the MAACL-R and clinical studies show discriminant validity for the subscales, there is no reason to ignore the components of the two broader affect factors. Such factors can be assessed through use of the two standard summary scores for the MAACL: Dysphoria (A + D + H) and Positive Affect plus Sensation Seeking (PA + SS).