A 3-Faced Construct Validation and a Bifactor Subjective Well-Being Model Using the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience , Greek Version

The present study focused on the dimensionality of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) by: 1) providing evidence that the Greek version of SPANE is a robust affect measure; 2) constructing a new, briefer SPANE version, the SPANE-8 with promising psychometric profile. The construct validation was implemented on 2272 Greek adults using the “3-faced construct validation method”, a construct validation procedure based on sample-splitting. Sample was split in three parts. EFA and Bifactor EFA models were evaluated in the 20% subsample. Then, in the 40% subsample, a total of 10 CFA models were examined (ICM-CFA, Bifactor CFA, ESEM and Bifactor ESEM models). The optimal models of SPANE-12 and SPANE-8 were successfully cross-validated in another 40% subsample. Strict measurement invariance, using the optimal model as a baseline model was successful for both SPANE versions. Reliability (α and ω) and AVE convergent validity were also satisfactory. Correlation analysis based on 10 different measures showed a consistent scheme of relations for both versions. Finally, a Bifactor CFA subjective well-being model using SPANE to measure affect was adequately fitted. In sum, the Greek version of SPANE-12 and the new SPANE-8 are invariant, reliable and valid measures of affect. Normative data are made available.

Positive and negative affect can either describe a state, meaning that they may reflect relatively temporary mood fluctuations, or a trait that describes a permanent, stable and rigid personal characteristic, referred to as positive and negative affectivity or trait PA and trait NA respectively (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989).
Studies have shown that trait PA is linked to extroversion and therefore individuals with high positive affectivity are found to be happier and more energetic, whereas those with low levels of positive affectivity are more vulnerable to depression.On the other hand, trait NA is associated with anxiety and neuroticism and thus individuals who demonstrate high negative affectivity are more likely to experience high levels of distress, while those who report low negative affectivity tend to be more content (Tellegen, 1985;Watson & Pennebaker, 1989;Watson & Clark, 1984;Costa & McCrae, 1980;Clark & Watson, 1991;Clark, Steer, & Beck, 1994;Jolly et al., 1994).
Given the importance of well-being in people's lives as well as the two-factor structure of affect, an abundance of scales has been developed to measure the pleasant and unpleasant emotions, with the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) adopted as the predominant instrument for assessing positive and negative affect, mainly due to its psychometric properties' superiority (Thompson, 2007;Gray & Watson, 2007;Diener et al., 2010).The PANAS is a tool consisting of two scales, one measuring PA and one measuring NA.Although it is the most widely used measure of well-being and despite its favorable validity and reliability, the PANAS does not come without limitations and shortcomings.Among the most common criticisms of the instrument is that it includes several items that are not considered to be feelings, especially within the PA scale (e.g.active, alert, strong, determined), and some others that are infrequent (e.g.inspired), while several core emotions (e.g.happy, sad) are omitted from the general scales (Diener et al., 2010).The scale has also been criticized for disregarding the difference in the desirability of T. A. Kyriazos et al. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.950711145 Psychology feelings in different cultures and contexts (Schimmack, Diener, & Oishi, 2002;Oishi, Schimmack, & Colcombe, 2003;Diener et al., 2010;Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006), as well as for overrepresenting some feelings (e.g.anxiety) using several similar adjectives for describing them (e.g.jittery, nervous, scared and afraid are all emotions that represent anxiety), meaning that the scale is weighted towards a certain type of feeling (Thompson, 2007;Crawford & Henry, 2004).
In order to overcome the drawbacks of the PANAS and the rest existing scales, Diener and his colleagues (2010) developed the new Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (SPANE).SPANE measures a number of both pleasant and unpleasant experiences related to feelings of well-being and ill-being by asking individuals to recall their activities and experiences during the past four weeks and report the duration of the corresponding feelings experienced.Although the initial psychometric analysis (Diener et al., 2010) as well as subsequent evaluations across several different cultures (Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014) failed to figure out whether the SPANE was advantageous in relation to the PANAS, the study conducted by Jovanović (2015) confirmed its incremental validity over the latter.
The authors of SPANE (Diener et al., 2010) suggest that the scale has various advantages in comparison to the existing scales.First of all, it gauges a full set of both general and specific emotions felt by the respondents as it includes a wide range of emotional states using adjectives of high significance.In addition, SPANE does not ask from respondents to rate each feeling in terms of intensity as PANAS does but instead it asks them to estimate the amount of time they passed in a particular state in the previous four weeks.This approach is consistent with the view that the overall perceptions of subjective well-being are based more on the frequency of an experience than on its intensity (Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1991;Diener, Colvin, Pavot, & Allman, 1991).Besides, the scale captures feelings that were ignored by most previous instruments and it reflects all levels of arousal for feelings so it can apply and perform well across different cultures.
Finally, the four weeks period, as adopted by SPANE, contributes to the creation of a balance between memory efficiency and experience sampling.
Generally, two leading approaches have emerged in the literature on well-being: one that deals with subjective happiness and aims to the achievement of pleasure attainment and pain avoidance (hedonic well-being; e.g.Ryan & Deci, 2001;Maltby, Day, & Barber, 2005), and one that deals with human potential, self-realization and meaning in life (eudaimonic well-being; Ryan & Deci, 2001;Ryff, 1989;Ryff & Keyes, 1995).The two constructs are considered to be related but distinct.For this reason, while hedonic well-being scales encourage participants' evaluations based on feelings, eudaimonic well-being scales assess individuals' functioning based on cognitive processes rather than emotional experiences (Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008).SPANE was developed to gauge the hedonic well-being as opposed to e.g. the Flourishing Scale (FS; Diener et al., 2010) that measures the eudaimonic well-being.It is a brief and easily comprehensible scale that can assess a wide range of emotions using a limited number of items.Specifically, it comprises only twelve items in total, six devoted to positive feelings (SPANE-P subscale) and six related to negative feelings (SPANE-N subscale) while it also assesses the balance between the two (SPANE-B) by subtracting SPANE-N scores from SPANE-P scores.For both positive and negative feelings, 3 items are general (e.g.positive, negative), and three are more specific (e.g.happy, sad).
The scale showed good psychometric properties in the original scale validation study as it reported internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) of .87 for SPANE-P, .81 for SPANE-N, and .89for SPANE-B, while test-retest reliability coefficients over one month were shown to be .62,.63 and .68 for SPANE-P, SPANE-N and SPANE-B respectively.A single factor structure is supported for both SPANE-P and SPANE-N based on the results from a principal axis factor analysis.The factor loadings of all the items of both subscales ranged from .58 to .81 and from .49 to .78 for SPANE-P and SPANE-N respectively.Also, the two subscales correlated significantly and negatively with each other (r = −.60).The scale performed well in terms of convergent validity with other measures of emotion, happiness, and life satisfaction such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the construct validity of SPANE-P, SPANE-N and SPANE-B was good, with moderate to extremely high correlations with scores of several other well-being measures.Finally, the scale has been translated into more than 9 languages and has been investigated for its psychometric properties across several cultures including Portugal (Silva & Caetano, 2013), China (Li, Bai, & Wang, 2013;Tong & Wang, 2017), Japan (Sumi, 2014), Turkey (Telef, 2015), Italy (Giuntoli et al., 2017), Germany (Rahm, Heise, & Schuldt, 2017), India (Singh, Junnarkar, & Jaswal, 2017), and Serbia (Jovanović, 2015).
In this study, during the evaluation of the original SPANE, a second shorter version of SPANE (SPANE-8) emerged, containing 8 items (4 in SPANE-P and 4 in SPANE-N).SPANE-8 is a revised structure containing one general feeling per dimension instead of three in the original SPANE (Diener et al., 2010: p. 145).
We removed the 2 out of 3 general feelings with the weakest factor loadings per factor.The logic behind this removal is that a general feeling is adequately measured with one item for the positive and one for the negative feelings.
The purpose of this study is to validate the SPANE in the Greek context and explore its psychometric properties among non-clinical Greek population.More specifically, the objectives of this study are the following: 1) To establish the construct validity of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience, Greek Version using both exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis techniques like Bifactor EFA, Bifactor CFA, ESEM and Bifactor ESEM; 2) to examine measurement invariance of SPANE across gender; 3) to study the internal consistency reliability, construct reliability (Hoque et al., 2017) and AVE-based convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) of the SPANE; 4) to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of the SPANE with other constructs; 5) to provide normative data; 6) to evaluate a subjective well-being
Three positive feelings and 3 negative feelings are general, and the rest are specific (Diener et al., 2010: p. 145).Items are scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always).Experiences are evaluated over a 4-week time frame.The positive score (SPANE-P) and the negative score (SPANE-N) can range from 6 to 30.Their difference (Affect Balance or SPANE-B) can vary from −24 to 24.

Scale of Positive and Negative Experience 8 (SPANE-8)
Except for the original version (SPANE-12), this study also proposed a second version (SPANE-8) containing 8 items (4 in SPANE-P and 4 in SPANE-N).SPANE-8 is a revised structure containing one general feeling per dimension (item pleasant in positive experiences and bad in negative ones) instead of 3 in the original SPANE (Diener et al., 2010: p. 145).Thus, 2 general feelings per factor were excluded as overlapping content, leaving a total of 8 items in the scale instead of 12.Among the general positive and negative feelings items, the items with the lowest factor loadings during CFA were excluded.This resulted in a briefer and more parsimonious structure with 4 positive (Pleasant, Happy, Joyful, Contented) and 4 negative items (Bad, Sad, Afraid, Angry).

Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS)
The WEMWBS was developed by the Universities of Warwick and Edinburgh (Tennant et al., 2007).It is a 14-item unidimensional, self-report scale tapping on positive aspects of mental well-being and psychological functioning (e.g., "I've been feeling cheerful").All items are positively phrased.They are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from "None of the time" to "All of the time" indicating frequency of positivity in mental state.Responses are summed to a score ranging from 14 to 70.WEMWBS has been reported to have adequate internal consistency reliability in student samples and general population samples, with alpha values of .89 and .91 respectively (Tennant et al., 2007).Internal consistency reliability in this study was α = .91.

Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
BRS (Smith, Dalen, Wiggins, Tooley, Christopher, & Bernard, 2008) is a brief measure of resilience.It contains 6 items tapping on the ability to bounce back from stress and difficulties (e.g., "I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times").Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).Smith et al. (2008) reported an adequate reliability, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .80 -.91.Internal reliability in this study was α = .80.

Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF)
Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (Keyes et al., 2008) is a self-report 14-item questionnaire, measuring the three aspects of well-being proposed by Keyes (2002): emotional (EWB), social (SWB) and psychological (PWB), e.g., "How often did you feel interested in life?".Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale, suggesting the frequency of experiences (never, once or twice a month, about once a week, two or three times a week, almost every day, every day) in the past month.Internal consistency reliability for the total MHC-SF scale (Cronbach's alpha) reported by Keyes (2005) to be adequate (>.80).Internal reliability for the total scale in this study was α = .90.

The Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6)
The GQ-6 (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002) is a 6-item self-report questionnaire to evaluate proneness to gratitude experience in everyday life (e.g., "I have so much in life to be thankful for").Respondents answer each item on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).GQ-6 has a single factor structure.Scores range from 6 (less grateful) to 42 (most grateful) after reversing items 3 and 6.The internal consistency reliability of the scale re-T. A. Kyriazos et al. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.950711149 Psychology ported to be alpha = .82(McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002).Internal reliability in this study was α = .68.

Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ)
The MLQ (Steger et al., 2006) measures presence of and search for meaning in life, with a total of 10 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale (from "Absolutely True" to "Absolutely Untrue").An example item is "I understand my life's meaning".Internal reliability in this study was α = .78

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Grifin, 1985) is a scale of perceived life satisfaction (e.g., "So far I have gotten the important things I want in life").Five items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was reported from .79 to .89(Pavot & Diener, 1993).Internal reliability in this study was α = .88.

Trait Hope Scale (HS)
Trait Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) is an assessment tool of trait hope (e.g., "I meet the goals that I set for myself").HS has two factors: Agency and Pathways.
Responses are rated from 1 (Definitely False) to 8 (Definitely True) with a score range from 8 to 64.Snyder et al. (1991) reported that Cronbach's alphas for the total scale varied from .74 to .84.Internal reliability in this study was α = .89.

World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief Scale
(WHOQOL-BREF) WHO Quality of Life-Brief scale (WHOQOL Group, 1998a, 1988b) is a self-report assessment tool measuring aspects of perceived quality of life.It is the short version of the WHOQOL-100 (c.f.Skevington, 1999).It contains 26 items (e.g., "How would you rate your quality of life?") reflecting all 24 facets of life quality that WHOQOL-100 covers.Answers are rated by four different types of a 5-point Likert scale indicating either intensity, or capacity, or frequency, or judgement (Skevington et al., 2004).Minimum possible rating in every Likert scale is 1 (minimum perceived QOL) and maximum is 5 (maximum perceived QOL).The instrument is divided in four domains-Physical health, Psychological health, Social Relations and Environment-with satisfactory Cronbach's alphas, .82,.81,.68,and .80respectively (Skevington, Lotfy, & O'Connell, 2004).
Internal reliability in this study was α = .91.

Procedure
Data were collected with the assistance of 150 psychology students from 2 different psychology courses (Psychometrics and Research Methods in Psychology).Students forwarded a link to an electronic test battery (in Google Forms© format) to 15 -20 adults from their social environment.Students were extra-credited for their participation in the study.All the fields in the form of the digital battery were required to eliminate missing values.A letter was included in the test battery to inform participants about the purpose of this study.The process of data collection was the following.First, students received a short, free workshop on the administration of digital psychology questionnaires by the research team.Then, a period of pilot-testing the digital test battery followed to track any flaws in the digital procedure and to record the time required to complete the battery (approximately 15 minutes).Finally, after successful pilot testing, students were provided with a link to the official study.

Research Design
The sample was split in three parts to study the construct validity of SPANE-12 and SPANE-8 in 3 different subsamples (see Table 1).Research was applied in two levels: 1) on three subsamples (EFA, CFA1 and CFA2) to evaluate construct validity and confirm it; 2) on the full sample (Total sample), to evaluate strict measurement invariance across gender.This is a construct validation procedure we called the "3-faced construct validation method" (see also Kyriazos et al., in press).More specifically, in the above method the sample is randomly split in three parts (20%, 40%, 40%).In all three emerging subsamples (20% EFA, 40% CFA1, 40% CFA2) the threshold for sample to variable ratio (N/p) is set to 5/1 for EFA (Osborne & Costello, 2004;Singh et al., 2016) and to 10/1 for CFA (DeVellis, 2017).After splitting the sample, the method consists of the following phases.In the first phase, an EFA is carried-out in the 20% of the sample to establish a structure.Then, in the second phase, a CFA (CFA1) follows in the second part of the sample (40%) evaluating multiple models.By default, in this phase it is a good practice to evaluate at a minimum, a single-factor, multifactor, Bifactor, and higher-order CFA models.Next, in the third phase, the optimal model from the CFA 1 will be replicated in a different sample of equal power (40%).The CFA 2 is designed to crosscheck the findings of the CFA 1. Finally, Psychology

Data Management
The full sample contained N = 2272 cases.All variables had no missing values because all the digital test-battery fields were required (see details in Procedure section).
To validate the factor structure of SPANE, the total sample (N = 2272) was randomly split into three parts (20%, 40% and 40%) to implement a construct validation procedure we call the "3-faced construct validation method" (see also Kyriazos et al., in press).Although splitting a sample is generally suggested for the development of new models (Schumacker & Lomax, 2015), the above analysis strategy was adopted because this sample was large enough to maintain adequate power after splitting.Specifically, the sample-to-variable ratio (N/p) for the EFA subsample (N EFA = 452), CFA1 subsample (N CFA1 = 910) and CFA2 subsample (N CFA2 = 910) was 37.67/1 and 75.83/1 respectively.An acceptable sample-to-variable ratio can range anywhere from 10/1 (Osborne & Costello, 2004;Singh et al., 2016) to 20/1 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2015).Alternatively, a sample having 500 to 1000 cases is generally regarded either satisfactory or excellent (Comrey & Lee, 1992).
For both SPANE-12 and SPANE-8, a total of 5 EFA models were evaluated in the EFA subsample (N = 472).For SPANE-12, the following models were tested.Happiness/Sadness factor and PA and NA as specific factors.Generally, Bifactor models can successfully reproduce higher order structures (Howard et al., 2016).
For SPANE-8 the following alternative models were tested.MODEL 1a and 1b contained only the 6 items of SPANE-P and SPANE-N respectively (Diener et al., 2010 for SPANE-12), to test the assumption that PA and NA are independent constructs (Watson et al., 1988;Crawford & Henry, 2004).MODEL 2 was the two factor structure with SPANE-P and SPANE-N in two different factors.Regarding the fit of the above SPANE-8 models, all fit indices showed acceptable fit.The 2-factor solution achieved the following fit measures (Chi-square = 17.64,Chi-square/df = 1.36,RMSE = .028,CFI = .995,and TLI = .989,SRMR = .018,factor loadings .390-.893, and factor correlation −.584).Table 3 contains the fit statistics for all models.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
In this phase of the 3-faced construct validation method, we examined both
For SPANE-12 the following 9 models were tested (see Table 4).MODEL 1 has both positive and negative experiences collapsed into one factor.It is a standard practice to test the assumption of maximum parsimony with a unidimensional ICM-CFA model (Crawford & Henry, 2004;Brown, 2015).However, in this case, the model is also based on the hypothesis that PA and NA are opposite ends of a single dimension (Russell & Carroll, 1999;Crawford & Henry, 2004).
MODEL 2 has positive and negative experiences separated into two factors (also proposed by Giuntoli et al., 2017;Singh et al., 2017;Rahm et al., 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014).MODEL 3 is a variation of MODEL 2 with three error covariances added.MODEL 4 is a model with multiple, theoretically based, error covariances (see Figure 1 due to constraining secondary factor loadings to zero (Marsh et al., 2014).
MODEL 6 is a variation of MODEL 5 with error covariances added.MODEL 7 is a Bifactor (Schmid & Leiman, 1957) CFA model suggested by Li et al. (2013).MODEL 8 is a Bifactor ESEM (c.f.Reise, 2012;Marsh et al., 2013), model (never tested before).MODEL 9 is a 4-factor structure (never tested before).Factor 1 has 3 general positive items, factor 2 has 3 specific positive items, factor 3 has 3 general negative items and factor 4 has 3 specific negative items.This structure incorporates the additional differentiation of items in general and specific (Diener et al., 2010), apart from positive and negative (see Figure 1(b)).A higher order model was not tested due to misspecification, i.e. under-identification (Wang & Wang, 2012;Brown, 2015).
Regarding the fit of the SPANE-12 models tested, MODEL 1 had a poor fit.
MODEL 2 showed a tolerably acceptable fit.MODEL 3 was the variation of MODEL 2 with error covariances permitted in items 3 -5, 7 -12, 2 -8, showing a very good fit (Chi-square = 150.20,Chi-square/df = 3.07, RMSE = .048,CFI = .975,and TLI = .967,SRMR = .026,factor loadings for SPANE-12 P .647Psychology error covariances were permitted in specific SPANE-P and SPANE-N items, based on the categorization of items either as General or Specific (see Figure 1(a)).The fit of this model was acceptable, however MODEL 4 was less parsimonious than MODEL 3. MODELS 5 and 6 were the ESEM models, with also an acceptable fit.The 12 items of SPANE-12 were allowed to load on both Positive and Negative Experiences factors in these two ESEM (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2009) models.Nevertheless, in this case there were no cross-loadings and the fit of ICM and ESEM models was equally satisfactory.Note, the primary factor loadings of 2-factor ESEM model ranged from .647-.805 (SPANE-P) and .418 -.895 (SPANE-N) and factor correlation was −.628.Therefore, ESEM is most suitable than a corresponding ICM-CFA model when fitting the data better, otherwise the ICM-CFA model is preferable as more parsimonious (Marsh et al., 2014).MODELS 7 and 8 were a Bifactor (Schmid & Leiman, 1957) CFA and a Bifactor ESEM (c.f.Reise, 2012) model respectively (Figure 1) with also adequate fit to the data.However, Bifactor models always tend to show acceptable fit, thus they have been criticized as doubtful (Joshanloo, Jose, & Kielpikowski, 2017;Joshanloo & Jovanovic, 2016).MODEL 9 showed a decent fit with measures within acceptable limits but with less parsimonious structure (see Figure Regarding the 2-factor ICM-CFA model tested for SPANE-8, it showed a good fit to the data, Chi-square = 26.05,Chi-square/df = 1.37,RMSE = .020,CFI = .996,and TLI = .994,SRMR = .020.The factor loadings for SPANE-8 P ranged from .639 to .771, and for SPANE-8 N from .413 to .811, with a factor correlation of −.662.Table 4 contains all the fit statistics for the 10 alternative CFA models tested for both SPANE versions. To summarize the findings in the CFA 1 subsample (N = 910), the following models showed an overall optimal fit after considering fit measures, factor loadings and factor intercorrelations: 1) for SPANE-12, the 2-factor ICM-CFA with 3 error covariances permitted in items 3 -5, 7 -12 and 2 -8 (MODEL 3); 2) for SPANE-8, the 2-factor ICM-CFA.This bi-dimensional structure has also been proposed by many studies as optimal (Giuntoli et al., 2017;Singh et al., 2017;Rahm et al., 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014), supporting these preliminary findings further.

Cross-Validating the Optimal CFA Model in a Different Subsample
After determining that the 2-factor ICM-CFA model was the optimal structure emerging from the CFA 1 subsample (N = 910), for both SPANE-12 and SPANE-8, a crosscheck of this model followed to verify model fit in a second subsample (CFA2, N = 910) of equal power.See Table 1 for details about the "3-faced construct validation method" (see also Kyriazos et al., in press).2).All items loaded on the intended latent factors.After taking into consideration the above findings (fit statistics and factor loadings) for both SPANE versions, we used this successfully cross-validated 2-factor structure as a baseline model to evaluate measurement invariance across gender.

Evaluation of the Bifactor CFA Subjective Well-Being Model
For the measurement of subjective well-being, empirical literature (Linley et al., 2009) suggests using two constructs: 1) positive/negative affect, and 2) life satisfaction.The current study examined if the above empirical hierarchical model of subjective well-being (empirically by Linley et al., 2009; also postulated by Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999 as quoted in Ruini, 2017) is confirmable in the current sample with a Bifactor CFA structure.Bifactor structure is an alternative to original proposed higher-order CFA model (Linley et al., 2009) because it successfully reproduces higher order structures (Howard et al., 2016) which in this case is inapplicable due to misspecification (Wang & Wang, 2012;Brown, 2015).
To test this Bifactor SWB model (see Figure 3) we used the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) to measure life satisfaction and the two newly validated SPANE versions (SPANE-12 and SPANE-8) to measure affect.Specifically, we tested two Bifactor CFA models.The first had a general subjective well-being factor and SWLS, SPANE-12 P and SPANE12-N as specific factors (Figure 3(a)).The second had a general subjective well-being factor and SWLS, SPANE-8 P and SPANE 8-N as specific factors (Figure 3(b)).The SWB model of both SPANE versions had an adequate fit (see Table 9), with all measures within acceptable limits, and chi-square/df on the verge of acceptability.The satisfactory fit of the model to the data suggests that the proposed subjective well-being model is tenable using SPANE-12 or SPANE-8 to measure the affect component (see Figure 3).

Normative Data for SPANE-12 & SPANE-8
For both SPANE versions tested the means and ranges for the SPANE-P, SPANE-N and SPANE-B dimensions for the total sample (N = 2272) are presented in Table 10.
Means are not informative of individual scores, given the non-normality of the data (Crawford & Henry, 2004).Therefore,

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of two versions of SPANE: SPANE-12 (Diener et al., 2010) and SPANE-8.SPANE-8 is a new, shorter version proposed by the present study.SPANE-8 contains 1 instead of 3 items of general affect in each original SPANE factor (Diener et al., 2010: p. 145).Among the general positive and negative items, 2 items with the lowest CFA factor loadings were excluded.This resulted to a briefer and more parsimonious structure with a total of 4 positive (Pleasant, Happy, Joyful, Contented) and 4 negative (Bad, Sad, Afraid, Angry) items.Items excluded were: 1) In SPANE-P item 1 (positive) and 3 (good) and 2) In SPANE-N item 2 (negative) and 6 (unpleasant).
The main findings that emerged for both SPANE versions are: 1) the two factor model (with SPANE-P and SPANE-N as dimensions) showed the optimal fit (also proposed by Giuntoli et al., 2017;Singh et al., 2017;Rahm et al., 2017;Silva & Caetano, 2013;Sumi, 2014 andattributed to Diener et al., 2010); 2) full, strict measurement invariance across gender was supported; 3) alpha and omega reliability and AVE convergent validity were adequate; 4) a consistent, overarching pattern of relationships was present from the correlation analysis, common for both versions; 5) the SPANE-12 and SPANE-8 had a high positive correlation indicating that on average 97% of the variance in SPANE-12 is explained by SPANE-8; 6) a Bifactor CFA Subjective well-being model (in a similar vein by Linley et al., 2009) was tenable in our data using both SPANE-12 and SPANE-8 to measure affect.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Path Diagrams of 2 alternative models of the total 9 tested for SPANE-12.(a) 2-factor ICM-CFA model with theoretical covariances between general and specific items; (b) A 4-factor model proposed (P General, P Specific, N General and N specific).

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The subjective well-being measure using the Bifactor CFA method.(a) With SPANE-12 and SWLS as specific factors and a general subjective well-being factor (b) with SPANE-8 and SWLS as specific factors and a general subjective well-being Factor.
T. A.Kyriazos et al.DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.950711150Psychology and frequency of symptoms over the last week (from 0 = did not apply to me at all to 3 = applied to me very much, or most of the time).The higher the score the more intense/frequent the emotions of distress.Each factor has a discrete score varying from 0 to 9. Cronbach's alpha for the total DASS-9 was reported by Yu-
an MGCFA finalizes the validation procedure to establish measurement invariance across gender or/and age using the optimal model as a baseline model.If either the CFA 2 or the measurement invariance fails to revalidate the optimal CFA1 model, then the second best model of the CFA 1 is crosschecked etc. (see Table1for an overview of the method).Note that if the sample is not adequate, then only CFA is implemented (keeping the N/p ratio threshold > 10/1) and measurement invariance with the Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes method (MIMIC) follows.The above steps is a generally suggested process of construct validation (c.f.Kyriazos et al., in press).Regarding the factor analysis methods used in this study, in the first subsample (EFA subsample, N EFA = 452), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Bifactor Exploratory Factor Analysis (Bifactor EFA) were carried out.Independent of mental distress, well-being, positivity and quality of life.Next, a Bifactor CFA Subjective Well-being Model was evaluated, using SPANE to measure affect.Finally, normative data were calculated over the entire sample.Data were collected T. A.Kyriazos et al.DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.

Table 2 .
Jennrich and Bentler (2011)s.Wang, 2012), like this split sample.The factors were rotated with Geomin factor rotation in the standard EFA model.Additionally, for the EFA Bifactor model, the technique proposed byJennrich and Bentler (2011)was applied.EFA model fit was evaluated by the standards proposed byHu & Bentler T. A. Kyriazos et al.DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.950711153 Psychology

Table 6 .
Fit Measures of the nested models tested to validate measurement invariance.
Wang & Wang, 2012)used in all models.Error covariances for men and women differ across models (c.f.Wang & Wang, 2012).

Table 9 .
Fit statistics for the subjective well-being Bifactor CFA Model for SPANE-12 and SPANE-8.