The State COPAS Scales: Development, Validation, and Confirmatory Analyses. Cathy Lawrenz, Rod Van Whitlock, Bernard Lubin

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The State COPAS Scales: Development, Validation, and Confirmatory Analyses. Cathy Lawrenz, Rod Van Whitlock, Bernard Lubin"

Cameron Grant
6 years ago
Views:

1 State COPAS Scales 1 Running Head: STATE COPAS SCALES The State COPAS Scales: Development, Validation, and Confirmatory Analyses Cathy Lawrenz, Rod Van Whitlock, Bernard Lubin University of Missouri-Kansas City Tomoyuki Yasuda Pennsylvania State University Kristen Kennedy Emporia State University Poster Submitted for Presentation (Division 12) at the Annual Meetings of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August, 2003

2 State COPAS Scales 2 THE STATE COPAS SCALES: DEVELOPMENT, VALIDATION, AND CONFIRMATORY ANALYSES The need for brief, narrow-band instruments with high reliability and validity for initial assessment and for outcome evaluation in clinical settings has been discussed in some depth (Beutler, Goodrich, Fisher, & Williams,1999; Derogatis & Lynn,1999; Lambert & Finch,1999). This need has become even more important with the continued growth of the managed care movement and its emphasis on cost containment and brief treatment. The Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales (COPAS: Lubin & Whitlock, 2000; Lubin & Whitlock, 2002) were developed partly with this need in mind, but also with the purpose of combining clinically relevant personality and affect scales in one instrument. Another major purpose was to include a balance of positive and negative affect scales so that the instrument could be used for strengths based assessment as well as the determination and measurement of deficits. The development and validation of both the COPAS personality and trait ( How I generally feel ) versions of the positive and negative affect scales have previously been reported (Lubin & Whitlock, 2000, 2002a). However, trait versions of instruments, which are assumed to be relatively stable overtime, may be less useful in research and clinical situations where sensitivity to change due to intervention effects is necessary, such as client progress monitoring or outcome research. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and initial validation of a state form of the COPAS positive and negative affect scales in non-referred samples of adults and college students. Method Participants The samples consisted of both college students from urban and rural universities and a suburban community college (n= 1342) and adults (n=634). The mean age and number of years of education completed for college students were 21.9 years (SD= 7.2) and 13.1 years (SD= 1.3) respectively. The mean age and years of education completed for adults were 34.2 years (SD=10.38, range= 18-78) and 12.6 years (SD= 2.6, range= 7-20) respectively.

3 State COPAS Scales 3 Instruments All participants completed the state COPAS Positive and Negative Affect Scales (Lubin & Whitlock, 2002). The COPAS Scales consist of 78 affect adjective rating scales purporting to measure five negative affects (Depression, Hostility, Agitation, Anxiety, and Social Anxiety) and five positive affects (Contentment, Joy, Love, Vitality, and Excitement). The state instructions ask the participant to respond to each rating according to how they have felt during the past week, including today. Reliability and validity of the trait COPAS is discussed in Lubin & Whitlock (2002). A subset of college students (n = 492 and adults n = 200) also completed both the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45: Lambert & Finch, 1999), the Brief Life Satisfaction Scales (BLSS, Lubin & Whitlock, 2002b), and the Affect Balance Scale (ABS: Bradburn, 1969). Subsets of volunteers also agreed to complete the COPAS scales either at 1, 2 or 3 week intervals, or weekly for 5 weeks. Results Factor Analysis Exploratory factor analyses of the COPAS Negative Affect Scales and Positive Affect Scales were conducted separately, resulting in five negative affect (Depression, Hostility, Agitation, Anxiety, and Social Anxiety) and five positive affect (Contentment, Joy, Love, Vitality, and Excitement) dimensions, similar to results for the trait scales (Lubin & Whitlock, 2002). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that for both the negative affect and positive affect dimensions, a five factor solution was the best fit in each case (Negative Affect: GFI =.94, CFI =.99, and RMSEA =.08; Positive Affect: GFI =.95, CFI =.98, and RMSEA =.08) Reliability The internal consistencies for the COPAS Affect Scales are shown in Table 1 (see Table 1). Cronbach s alphas ranged from.66 to.92. All but 1 were greater than.70, a commonly accepted cutoff for acceptable internal consistency. The test-retest reliabilities of the COPAS Negative Affect Scales and the COPAS Positive Affect Scales are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. These correlations ranged from the mid 20 s to the mid 80 s depending on the length of the testing interval, with generally lower correlations associated with longer intervals.

4 State COPAS Scales 4 Validity Correlations with the OQ-45 (Lambert & Finch, 1994) and the ABS showed that the COPAS Negative Affect Scales were positively associated with the symptom scales of the OQ-45, while the COPAS Positive Affect Scales were negatively correlated with the OQ-45 scales. The opposite was found for the relationships between the COPAS Scales and the BLSS and the ABS which purport to measure life satisfaction and positive affect. Discussion Results will be discussed in terms of the importance of measuring both positive and negative affect, and more importantly specific and unique positive and negative affects in both research with referred and non-referred populations and in clinical practice.

5 State COPAS Scales 5 References Beutler, L. E., Goodrich, G., Fisher, D., & Williams, O. B.(1999). Use of psychological tests/instruments for treatment planning. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.). The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment. (2 nd ed., pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine. Derogatis, L. R.,& Lynn, L. L. (1999). Psychological tests in screening for psychiatric disorder. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.). The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment. (2 nd ed., pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lambert, M. J., & Finch, A. E. (1999). The outcome questionnaire. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lubin, B.,& Whitlock, R. V.(2002a). Development of n instrument that integrates the measurement of positive affect, negative affect, and personality: The Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, Lubin, B., and Whitlock, R. V. (2002b). Psychometric Properties of the Brief LifeSatisfaction Scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, in press. Lubin, B., & Whitlock, R. V. (2000). The Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales: Technical Manual. Unpublished manuscript. Kansas City, MO: University of Missouri-Kansas City.

6 State COPAS Scales 6 Table 1. Internal Consistency of the State COPAS Scales. Negative Affect N D H Ag Ax SA College Students Adults Positive Affect N Cn J L V Ex College Students Adults

7 State COPAS Scales 7 Table 2. Test Retest Reliability of the State COPAS Negative Affect Scales. Scale Interval D H Ag Ax SA College Students CS-1 1 (n= 30) (n= 21) (n= 27) CS-2 (n= 273) 1* * * * Adults (n=232) 1* * * * * mean correlation across number of weeks

8 State COPAS Scales 8 Table 3. Test-Retest Reliability of the State COPAS Positive Affect Scales. Scale Interval N Cn J L V Ex College Students CS-1 1 (n= 30) (n= 21) (n= 27) CS-2 (n=273) 1* * * * Adults (n=232) 1* * * * * mean correlation across number of weeks

Development of a Measure that Integrates Positive and Negative Affect and Personality: The Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales

Development of a Measure that Integrates Positive and Negative Affect and Personality: The Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales Bernard Lubin and Rod Van Whitlock University of Missouri at Kansas