As self-reports of affect are limited in several regards, an indirect measure of affect, the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT; Quirin, Kazén, & Kuhl, 2009) has previously been developed and adapted to more than 10 languages (Quirin et al., 2018), showing adequate reliability and validity. Based on a sample of 242 Spanish adults (111 males), we evaluate a trimmed 18 items version of the IPANAT (IPANAT-18). Item reductive procedures consisted in a random selection of the stimuli words used in the IPANAT. Psychometric properties of the IPANAT-18 were evaluated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In addition, correlational analyses were used to determine the relationship between the brief and the full version of the IPANAT, and with explicit measures of affect. We replicated a two-factors structure of positive affect versus negative affect and found a good fit for the IPANAT-18 model (CFI = 1; TLI = 1; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .03). Reliability was adequate (implicit PA, α = .86; implicit NA, α = .77) and the pattern of relationships with explicit affect measures were congruent and consistent with previous findings. Differences between the mean scores of implicit affect assessed with 18 items or 36 items were statistically non-significant, and showed strong correlations (PA, r = .92, p < .01; NA, r = .88, p < .01). In sum, the IPANAT-18 showed satisfactory psychometric properties and constitutes a useful tool for economically measuring affective processes such as in experimental and economical multiple assessment (e.g., daily diary) settings.

中文翻译：

---

隐式正面和负面影响测试 (IPANAT-18) 的简要版本

由于情感的自我报告在几个方面受到限制，间接的情感测量方法，即内隐积极和消极情感测试 (IPANAT; Quirin, Kazén, & Kuhl, 2009) 之前已经开发并适用于 10 多种语言 (Quirin et al., 2018)，显示出足够的信度和效度。基于 242 名西班牙成年人（111 名男性）的样本，我们评估了 IPANAT (IPANAT-18) 的精简版 18 项。项目还原程序包括随机选择 IPANAT 中使用的刺激词。IPANAT-18 的心理测量特性通过验证性因素分析进行​​评估。此外，相关分析被用于确定 IPANAT 的简要和完整版本之间的关系，以及明确的影响测量。我们复制了积极影响与消极影响的双因素结构，发现它非常适合 IPANAT-18 模型（CFI = 1；TLI = 1；RMSEA = .00；SRMR = .03）。可靠性是足够的（隐性 PA，α = .86；隐性 NA，α = .77）并且与显性影响测量的关系模式是一致的并且与先前的发现一致。用 18 个项目或 36 个项目评估的内隐情感平均得分之间的差异在统计学上不显着，并显示出强相关性（PA，r = .92，p < .01；NA，r = .88，p < .01） . 总而言之，IPANAT-18 显示出令人满意的心理测量特性，并构成了一种有用的工具，可用于经济地衡量情感过程，例如在实验和经济多重评估（例如，每日日记）环境中。TLI = 1; RMSEA = .00；SRMR = .03）。可靠性是足够的（隐性 PA，α = .86；隐性 NA，α = .77）并且与显性影响测量的关系模式是一致的并且与先前的发现一致。用 18 个项目或 36 个项目评估的内隐情感平均得分之间的差异在统计学上不显着，并显示出强相关性（PA，r = .92，p < .01；NA，r = .88，p < .01） . 总而言之，IPANAT-18 显示出令人满意的心理测量特性，并构成了一种有用的工具，可用于经济地衡量情感过程，例如在实验和经济多重评估（例如，每日日记）环境中。TLI = 1; RMSEA = .00；SRMR = .03）。可靠性是足够的（隐性 PA，α = .86；隐性 NA，α = .77）并且与显性影响测量的关系模式是一致的并且与先前的发现一致。用 18 个项目或 36 个项目评估的内隐情感平均得分之间的差异在统计学上不显着，并显示出强相关性（PA，r = .92，p < .01；NA，r = .88，p < .01） . 总而言之，IPANAT-18 显示出令人满意的心理测量特性，并构成了一种有用的工具，可用于经济地衡量情感过程，例如在实验和经济多重评估（例如，每日日记）环境中。77) 并且与显性影响测量的关系模式与先前的发现一致且一致。用 18 个项目或 36 个项目评估的内隐情感平均得分之间的差异在统计学上不显着，并显示出强相关性（PA，r = .92，p < .01；NA，r = .88，p < .01） . 总而言之，IPANAT-18 显示出令人满意的心理测量特性，并构成了一种有用的工具，可用于经济地衡量情感过程，例如在实验和经济多重评估（例如，每日日记）环境中。77) 并且与显性影响测量的关系模式与先前的发现一致且一致。用 18 个项目或 36 个项目评估的内隐情感平均得分之间的差异在统计学上不显着，并显示出强相关性（PA，r = .92，p < .01；NA，r = .88，p < .01） . 总而言之，IPANAT-18 显示出令人满意的心理测量特性，并构成了一种有用的工具，可用于经济地衡量情感过程，例如在实验和经济多重评估（例如，每日日记）环境中。