Breast cancer (BC) has a substantial impact on women’s emotional well‑being. This study examined the psychometric properties of the Negative and Positive Affect Scales (NAPAS) to provide validity evidence for their use in women with BC. We evaluated validity evidence based on internal structure and on relationships with other variables (general health, life satisfaction, self‑esteem and resilience), as well as item analysis, reliability of scale scores and measurement invariance across age groups (N = 202). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a two‑correlated factor structure, negative affect (NA) and positive affect (PA), χ²(53) = 137.807, CFI = .994, NNFI = .993, RMSEA = .089, SRMR = .067. This structure was invariant between age groups (≤ 50 vs. > 50 years). The homogeneity indices and the reliability of the scores were adequate. PA was positively associated with life satisfaction, self‑esteem and resilience, and negatively associated with general health and its dimensions. NA showed the opposite pattern of associations. The findings support the use of the NAPAS as a measure of affective well‑being in women with BC. Given its strong associations with mental health indicators, the scale may be useful in clinical settings for assessment and intervention planning.
Validity is a fundamental aspect of psychological assessment because it examines the extent to which interpretations of the scores produced by an instrument support its intended purpose. While validation studies are frequently conducted, they often emphasize specific phases or validation methods, such as pilot testing or expert judgments, while neglecting current additional sources of validity evidence that could improve an instrument’s psychometric properties. This limitation is partly due to a lack of detailed easy-to-use guidelines, which make validation processes inaccessible to non-expert researchers and practitioners. Additionally, the traditional focus on quantitative methods often overlooks the potential benefits of complementary approaches to validation that will help people design more comprehensive validation studies. To address these challenges, the present study introduces PROVAL, a nine-step protocol designed to guide researchers in conducting validation studies. PROVAL promotes a reflective approach to help researchers and practitioners identify and prioritize the most important sources of validity evidence for their specific validation requirements. An illustrative application of PROVAL is presented, demonstrating its usefulness in optimizing resources and ensuring instruments effectively fulfill their intended purposes.
The Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition-Spanish (MASC-SP) assesses general mentalization performance and associated error patterns: over-mentalization, under-mentalization, and non-mentalization. This study aims to provide the first large-scale psychometric evaluation and normative framework for MASC-SP scores in Spanish-speaking adults. 2,582 healthy adults completed the MASC-SP via a secure online platform. The psychometric evaluation included factor analysis, measurement invariance, internal consistency, and floor/ceiling effects. Normative data were stratified by demographic variables and are presented as empirical percentiles and z-scores. MASC-SP scores showed a predominantly unifactorial structure, with internal consistency ranging from questionable to good. A floor effect was observed in the non-mentalization error score. Female participants and those with a university education scored higher and made fewer errors than men and those without a university education. Age-related results were heterogeneous. The results support interpreting the MASC-SP total score as a robust quantitative indicator of general mentalization performance and the error scores as secondary qualitative indicators of different error patterns. Normative data stratified by sex and educational level provide a useful reference for research and clinical settings. However, norms stratified by age groups should be applied with caution due to their questionable clinical and developmental relevance.
Although digital interventions show potential for reducing suicidal ideation and behavior, the evidence base is mixed and characterized by methodological variability. This study synthesizes randomized clinical trials that have evaluated their effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Seventeen studies (N = 5.089) met the inclusion criteria. Effect sizes were estimated using random-effects models, and we conducted analyses for type of control group (traditional vs. active), moderators (age, delivery setting, and intervention format), and follow-up. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also examined. Digital interventions significantly reduced suicidal ideation (g = -0.61), with effects maintained at follow up (g = -0.77). Significant effects were observed with respect to both traditional and active controls. There was a moderate reduction in relative risk of suicide attempts, although it was not statistically significant. Moderator analysis indicated a greater effect for clinical populations, self-guided interventions, and younger participants. There was no robust evidence of publication bias. Digital interventions may represent a promising complementary approach for reducing suicidal ideation and potentially lowering suicide risk. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously given the heterogeneity of the studies and the limited evidence regarding suicide attempts.
