The Psychometric Properties of the Prioritizing Positivity Scale

Abstract

The tendency to use pleasant states as a key criterion for how to structure daily life is called prioritizing positivity and has been measured with a 6-item scale. The Prioritizing Positivity Scale (PPS) is increasingly being used by researchers, but a comprehensive examination of its psychometric quality remains absent from the literature. Using three independent samples of adults (study 1: n = 176, study 2: n = 226, study 3: n = 240), we tested the scale’s (1) factor structure, (2) reliability, (3) convergent and discriminant validity, and (4) measurement invariance. Results suggested that the 6th item was problematic (low factor loading, conceptually distinct from other items) and when removed, a single-factor structure was appropriate. The revised 5-item PPS demonstrated satisfactory reliability, construct validity and measurement invariance. The revised 5-item PPS offers a brief and valid way to measure a personality difference shown to predict well-being.

Acknowledgments

We thank Kathryn C. Adair and Christian E. Waugh for their helpful comments on a draft of this article.

Notes

1 Throughout this article, we use Cohen’s (1988) guidelines to discuss the size of the validity coefficients - correlations between 0.1 and 0.3 are considered small, 0.3 to 0.5 medium, and greater than 0.5 large. However, some correlations were predicted to fall within the interval 0.2 to 0.4, and thus we reference a fourth category, small-to-medium, to discuss these correlations.

2 In other studies that analyzed data from this sample (e.g., Study 1 in Fredrickson et al., 2017), participants were excluded if they did not attend a meditation class, which comprised part of the intervention. Because we are using baseline data, three individuals excluded in prior studies were included in the current work.

3 Similarly, previous work (e.g., Study 2 in Fredrickson et al., 2017) excluded participants that did not attend a class or provide data following the baseline assessment (n = 9). These individuals were included in the present study. Five participants that withdrew from the study, however, were not included in analyses.

4 After the baseline assessment, this sample was randomly assigned to participate in a laboratory experiment on meditation (for additional information see Van Cappellen et al., 2019).

Additional information

Funding

This paper reflects a secondary data analysis of three independent studies supported by the following NIH research grants: R01NR012899, and R01CA170128, and R01AT007884.