This is an open access article under the CC-BY-SA license. REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019, 120-129 Available online at: http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within the academic setting *1Kartika Nur Fathiyah; 2Asmadi Alsa; 3Diana Setiyawati 1Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Jl. Colombo No. 1, Karangmalang, Depok, Sleman, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia 2,3Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada Jl. Sosio Humaniora Bulaksumur, Karangmalang, Sepok, Sleman, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia *Corresponding Author. E-mail: kartika.fip_uny@yahoo.co.id Submitted: 9 July 2019 | Revised: 5 September 2019 | Accepted: 12 September 2019 Abstract This analysis study is one of several stages that must be passed before testing the structural model. This study is initiated due to the limited information related to the measurement of the Positive Affect Scale within the academic settings. The research method used in this study was a quantitative method. It was done in among 724 students of state junior high schools in Sleman, Yogyakarta. The instrument development consisted of guideline arrangement, language feasibility testing, content validation through expert judgments, trials to measure the item discrimination index, item selection based on the item discrimination results, items representation for each indicator, and the construct validity test for the selected items. The testing of the measurement model used the data analysis techniques of Structural Equation Models (SEM) with the assistance of the AMOS program version of 21. The results of the study show that the validity analysis of the Positive Affect Scale within the academic setting was able to produce items that can reveal constructs or latent concepts appropriately. Keywords: positive affect scale, validity analysis, academic setting Permalink/DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v5i2.25992 Introduction Affect plays a significant role in peo- ple’s life (Nath & Pradhan, 2012) consisting of positive and negative form. Affect usually refers to one's emotion that is recognized and described as pleasantness or unpleasantness (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The nega- tive form provides short-term benefits to fa- cilitate the tendency of specific behaviors in the form of responses, while the positive af- fect brings long-term benefits (Fredrickson, 1998). The negative form includes tension, hopelessness, fear, and irritation, while the positive form covers spirit, strength, active- ness, desire, and stamina (Yik, Russell, & Steiger, 2011). The positive affect reflects the expan- sion of high energy, vigor and alert that make an individuals excited, full of concentration, and pleasant feeling. On the other hand, the low positive affect creates sadness and fatigue (Watson et al., 1988). The positive affect means a person's tendency to have a variety of positive emotional experiences (Watson et al., 1988). Related to the trait (the tendency of an individual state to be relatively stable), the po- sitive affect is associated with the more fre- quent and intense episodes experienced by individuals. Based on the state (the person’s condition at a certain time), the positive affect is a beneficial emotional experienced at a par- ticular time (Watson & Tellegen, 1985). The positive affect is a key component of assessment and effective coping towards stressful situations (Folkman, 2008), and an antidote to negative emotions that can reduce its harmful influence (Fredrickson, Tugade, https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v5i2.25992 Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 - 121 ISSN 2460-6995 Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). It develops a mental readiness to grow and step out from unpleas- ant situations and escalates sources of psycho- logical coping to face stressors (Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000). This affect can also maintain physical and psycho- logical health (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001), and build personal resources and well- being (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Based on Neurobiological perspective, the positive affect occurs due to the release of large amounts of dopamine from temporary phasic to synaptic clefts. The dopamine is then multiplied through the midbrain of the dopaminergic system to the striatum, limbic area, and prefrontal cortex (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999). Several studies have found that positive effects improve performance based on front striatal dopaminergic inter- actions among healthy individuals (Demanet, Liefooghe, & Verbruggen, 2011). Studies in various settings have revealed the role of positive affect in improving indi- vidual outcomes (Samios, Abel, & Rodzik, 2013; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005); Steptoe, Dockray, & Wardle, 2009). In the academic field, the role of positive affect is considered as very meaningful (Schutz & Lanehart, 2002; Goetz, Pekrun, Hall, & Haag, 2006) because it affects teaching and learning (Schutz & Lanehart, 2002), student’s subjec- tive well-being, process quality, learning a- chievement, teacher interaction with students, and learning process effectiveness (Goetz et al., 2006). Those roles indicate the importance of positive affect within the academic setting. In fact, the availability of information on the positive affect in the academic setting is very limited (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Pekrun, 2011) and tends to have little attention from researchers (Pekrun et al., 2010). Therefore, Linnenbrink (2006) and also Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, and Linkins (2009) suggest that psychological studies within an academic context should be gained more, especially de- velopment of positive affect scale within aca- demic setting, as instrument to measure and support the optimal school functioning. This research aims at elevating the study on the role of positive affect within the academic setting by developing a proper in- strument. Many researches in various settings on the positive affect including those in the academic setting have been using the concept of Watson et al. (1988) considered less speci- fic. As a result, the positive affect cannot be optimally explored based on its context. In the academic settings, Pekrun (1992) identifies the positive affect or emotions from motivation, learning process, and student per- formance. He classifies positive affect in the academic setting into positive affect related to assignments and social. Regarding the task, the positive affect comes from (a) the process, as a pleasure when undergoing the academic process; (b) anticipatory joy, as a positive af- fect that arises before the academic process takes place with happy feeling imagining the results to be achieved and the expectation to- wards the academic activities; and (c) prospec- tive, a positive affect after the academic proc- ess takes place shown by a joy feeling because of the achieved success (joy of success), and satisfaction, pride and relief after undergoing the academic process. Meanwhile, the social concerns on the positive affect that appears because of social interactions during the aca- demic process. The indicators are gratitude, empathy, admiration, and sympathy or love. The specific measurement model dis- cusses the relation between latent variables (constructs) and measurement indicators, by conducting an instrument construct validity analysis to reveal how well the measurement indicators measure the latent (construct) con- cept. Construct validity test includes explora- tory and confirmatory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is for situations where the relation between ob- served and latent variables is not known so it requires exploration to determine how and how closely the observed variables relate to the underlying (latent) factors. Conversely, in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the factor structure is assumed to be known (Dachlan, 2014). Because the indicators of this research have been theorized by Pekrun (1992), the analysis was done using CFA. Thus, this paper aims to confirm whether the scale of positive affect within academic setting built already matched between the data ob- tained with the underlying theory. Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati 122 - Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 ISSN 2460-6995 Method The research method used in this study was quantitative method. This study was con- ducted among the junior high school students in Sleman, Yogyakarta. The subject involved in this study were 724 students, including 359 students in the field trial stage and 365 for the empirical data collection. The data collection at each stage was done to different subjects. The analysis in the field trial used discrimi- nation test, while the validation analysis in this study was the analysis of the empirical data collection in addition to the model testing. The instrument development consisted of guideline arrangement, language feasibility test, content validation through calculated by Aiken’s V formula, discrimination index, item selection based on the item discrimination re- sults, items representation for each indicator, the construct validity test in the selected items and validity and reliability test. The Aiken’s formula is described as follows (Aiken, 1985). Notes: 1 = the lowest of validity assessment score (equal to 1) c = the highest of validity assessment score (equal to 4) r = the score from the assessor n = number of assessors = r-1 The testing of positive affect scale in the academic setting employed Structural Equation Models (SEM) with the assistance of AMOS program version 21. To determine the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) according to Dachlan (2014), it used several criteria: Chi- Square and p-values, CMIN/DF, GFI, AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index), CFI (Com- parative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis In- dex), and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation). Findings and Discussion Findings The initial step of the study in carrying out the validity test of the positive affect scale is to make the guidelines for the instruments. This guideline was arranged referring Pekrun's (1992) theory regarding the general taxonomy of positive emotions relevant to motivation, learning process, and student performance. The scale contains two aspects: (1) task and (2) social aspects. The positive affect scale comprises statements related to school activ- ties. The students were asked to respond each statement based on their experience, feeling, and thought. This scale contains statements that support (favorable) and those that do not support (unfavorable). There were two mod- els of answer choices to respond to the state- ments. The first model includes the frequen- cy/intensity of ‘never’, ‘rarely’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’, and ‘always’ with the score range from 1 (never) to 5 (always) respectively, while the second model focuses on its appropriateness containing ‘very inappropriate’, ‘inappropri- ate’, ‘sometimes’, ‘appropriate’, and ‘very ap- propriate’ with the score range from 1 (very inappropriate) to 5 (very appropriate) respec- tively. The number on the positive affect scale of the trial stage were 30 items. The details of the dimensions, indicators, and number of items is shown in Table 1, while the scale is presented in Figure 1. Table 1. The guideline of positive affect scale Aspects Indicator Sub-Indicators Number of Test Item Tasks Process Joy 3 Anticipatory joy 3 Prospective Hope 3 Retrospective Joy about success 3 Satisfaction 3 Pride 3 Social Gratitude 3 Empathy 3 Admire 3 Love 3 Total number of test items 30 V = ∑s/[n(c-1)] Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 - 123 ISSN 2460-6995 Figure 1. The positive affect scale statements After preparing the guidelines, the lan- guage feasibility was tested to ensure that the sentence in the scale was understandable by the reader and present the same meaning as the researchers’ intention (Azwar, 2016). The respondents of the test were seven junior high school students from various levels (two stu- dents from the seventh grade, three from the eighth grade, and two from the ninth grade). They also came from various types of schools: POSITIVE AFFECT SCALE Instruction The following statements are about your experiences, your feeling and your thought related to the school activities. Please, give response on each statement with cross mark (X) based on your condition with the following possible answers. Never Nv Never experiencing Rarely Rr Rarely experiencing Sometimes Sm Sometimes experiencing Often Oft Often experiencing Always Alw Always experiencing A. The frequency of experiencing the following items in schools 1. You are enthusiastic in completing the school assignments Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. Your feel comfortable at the school Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 3. You feel happy when imagining the school assignments has been finished Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 4. You feel happy when imagining the school graduation Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 5. You miss your school friends Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 6. You want to do the best for your school Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 7. You care to your friends who experience learning difficulty Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 8. You feel happy when your friend attain academic success Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw B. The frequency of expectation towards following items in schools : 1. You expect to complete your assignments as best as you can Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. You expect to graduate with the highest score Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw C. The frequency of happiness due to the following items. 1. You succeed to finish the difficult test/ exercise item Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. You gain better school results that the previous semester Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw D. The frequency of satisfaction due to the following items. 1. The teachers’ teaching strategies Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. The test score Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw E. The frequency of proud feeling due to the following items. 1. Your academic achievement Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. Your learning progress Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw F. The frequency of relief feeling due to the following items. 1. You gain the scores above the Minimum Completeness Criteria Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. You have finished all your school assignments Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw G. The frequency of being grateful due to the following items. 1. You have kind friend in the school Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. You are taught by the caring teachers Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw H. The frequency of admiring due to the following items. 1. Teachers’ explanation in the classroom Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw 2. The effective learning strategies from the classmate for achieving high academic outcomes Nv Rr Sm Oft Alw Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati 124 - Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 ISSN 2460-6995 state, private and Islamic-based schools. Each respondent was asked to examine and provide an assessment on the extent to which the i- tems presented on the scale to be understood. After making sure with language feasi- bility, the content validation was following. It was the expert judgment from those who have the relevant scientific capacity to the is- sue measured, aimed at knowing whether the items were in line with the measured aspects. The assessment was focused on the appropri- ateness between the item indicators and the measured variables, and the writing proce- dures, and evaluation for high social desirabil- ity (Azwar, 2016). This expert judgment was then calculated using Aiken’s V formula to obtain content validity coefficient based on the measured construct (Azwar, 2016). The obtained scores from the Aiken's V formula calculation ranged from 0 to 1, the bigger number of coefficients indicates that the item shows better content validity (Azwar, 2016). The items in the instrument were as- sessed by 21 experts with educational back- ground at least Master Degree in Psychology. The suitability level between the item and in- dicator ranged from 1 to 5 (five points): 1 is ‘very inappropriate’, 2 is ‘inappropriate’, 3 is ‘moderate’, 4 is ‘appropriate’, and 5 is ‘very appropriate’. Based on the coefficient Table of Aiken by taking the value p=0.01 (1% mar- gin of error) from 21 assessors, the score limit to be used so the items can be received was 0.71. The content validation with Aiken coef- ficient value moved from 0.88-0.96, the mean value of Aiken (V) was 0.91. Thus, the items are suitable with its indicators according to experts which means the positive affect scale is considered to have good content validity. The next step after the expert judgment was the item discrimination test. This test was done to obtain items with high discrimination index to distinguish individuals or groups of individuals who have and do not have meas- ured attributes. The approach employed total item consistency which showed the suitability between item functions and its scale functions (Azwar, 2016). The score for each item was correlated with the total score. The high cor- relation values indicated that the item had a high function towards the overall scale func- tion. The items less than 0.30, according to Azwar (2016), can be interpreted to have a low discrimination index (invalid) so it can be deleted. Based on the item discrimination test using Pearson's total item correlation with the assistance of SPSS V.21, the discrimination index of high positive affect scale items moved from 0.330-0.652. Further, these items were selected to be tested in its construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis. The item selection on positive affect scale was done by selecting two items having the highest discrimination index on each indi- cator and considering the item representation as the indicator. The selected items in positive affect scale for confirmatory tests can be seen in Table 2. After obtaining the selected item, the construct validity was done by CFA to test the validity of the scale’s indicators as the measurement of latent construct. The con- struct validity provides the belief that the indi- cators taken from the sample really illustrate the actual scores in the population. Thus, this analysis confirms empirically based on the sample data to provide theoretical truths for latent variables. Table 2. The selected items in the Positive Affect Scale for confirmatory tests Aspect Indicator Sub Indicator Old Version Number Revised Version Number Task Process Joy A2, A3 A1, A2 Prospective Anticipa-tory joy A4, A5 A3, A4 Hope B1, B2 B1, B2 Retrospective Joy about success C1, C2 C1, C2 Satisfaction D1, D2 D1, D2 Pride E1, E2 E1, E2 Relief F1, F3 F1, F2 Social Gratitude G2, G3 G1, G2 Empathy A7, A8 A7, A8 Admiration H1, H3 H1, H2 Sympathy A11, A12 A5, A6 Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 - 125 ISSN 2460-6995 Table 3. The Criteria of Goodness-of-Fit (GoF) Parameter Critical Scores Experts Chi-Square Closer to 0 is better Arbuckle (2013), Kline (2011) Chi-Square/df < 2 Byrne (2001) Probability ≥ 0.05 Kline (2011) GFI ≥ 0.90 Kline (2011), Dachlan (2014), Ghozali (2017) AGFI ≥ 0.90 Kline (2011), Dachlan (2014), Ghozali (2017), CFI ≥ 0.90 Kline (2011), Dachan (2014), Ghozali (2017) TLI ≥ 0.90 Arbuckle (2012), Dachlan (2014), Ghozali (2017) RMSEA ≤ 0.05 Kline Dachlan (2014) |-------------------- 175.338 |* 191.820 |*** 208.302 |******* 224.784 |************ 241.266 |******************* 257.748 |****************** 274.230 |***************** N = 1000 290.712 |*************** Mean = 266.192 307.194 |********* S. e. = 1.225 323.676 |******* 340.158 |**** 356.639 |** 373.121 |* 389.603 |* 406.085 |* |-------------------- Figure 2. The results of bootstrapping data in Positive Affect Scale The construct validity can be analyzed from the factor load value (squared multiple correlation) indicators of latent constructs (Ghozali, 2017). To measure the suitability of the model, it was used the measurement of GoF known as the values of CMIN, df, p, GoF, AGFI, TLI, and RMSEA. This GoF standard referred to the opinions of Kline (2011), Arbuckle (2013), and Ghozali (2017). The criteria of GoF can be seen in Table 3. The factor load value towards the latent construct to maintain the item on positive affect scale was 0.40. It was based on the opinion of Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2010) who mention that the deter- mination of the minimum limit of factor load with 200 subjects or more is 0.40. In line with this ides, Hair et al. (2010) and Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma (2003) state that the item should have the factor load of 0.40-0.90, while the value less than 0.40 should be dis- regarded. The confirmatory analysis of positive affect scale used maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method. The requirement that must be fulfilled by ML method was multi- variate normality (Byrne, 2010). The multi- variate normality test in Positive Affect Scale showed c.r of 35,069. Because the value of c.r was beyond the range of -2.58 to +2.58, the data were declared abnormal, so it did not meet the assumption of multivariate nor- mality. To overcome the non-normal data, the bootstrap procedure was applied. The visual- ization of the bootstrapping results on Posi- tive Affect Scale data with the sample of 1000, the percentile confidence level of 95%, and the bias corrected confidence interval of 95% can be seen in Figure 2. Figure 2 showed that Chi-square distri- bution value with 1000 bootstrap samples in Positive Affect Scale was 266.192; the cluster values in the multivariate center were normal with 266 because there were several values Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati 126 - Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 ISSN 2460-6995 above and under 266 that were comparable. After fulfilling the normality requirements of the data, the confirmatory analysis was con- ducted. The preliminary results indicated that Positive Affect Scale measurement model was not in accordance with the model criteria (GoF), as presented in Figure 3. In Figure 3, it can be seen that Positive Affect Scale did not meet the measurement model of GoF criteria. This was indicated by Chi-square results=1286.932 (relatively high), chi-square/df=209, p=0.00 (critical score p≥ 0.05), GoF, AGFI, TLI, and CFI which was still far below 0.9 (critical value ≥0.9) and RMSEA = 0.119 (critical value ≤0.05). To achieve GoF criteria to positive af- fect scale, the items that can be used were those with loading factor of 0.5. Thus, the D2 items were deleted since they did not meet the criteria (loading factor=0.49). The next item selection was by paying attention to the modi- fication suggestions by AMOS program, such as removing items Affect C2, F2, E1, A6, G2, E1, A4, E2, A8, H2, A5, D1, B2, and G1 since it had variance with some other items (cross-loading) with relatively high MI values. Based on the modifications made, posi- tive affect scale can reach the measurement fit value as shown in Figure 4, i.e. Chi-square of 15.602 with p=0.76; Chi-square/df=1.734; GFI=0.986; AGFI=0.967; TLI=0.978; CFI= 0.987; and RMSEA=0.045 according to the established GoF criteria. In detail, a summary of the analysis of Positive Affect Scale factors based on GoF criteria can be seen in Table 4. Six items are selected in Table 4: affect A1, A3, B1 (related to the assignment aspects) and affect A7 and H1 (representing the social aspects). After modifications, items in the po- sitive affect scale had been empirically con- firmed to the established GoF criteria. Figure 3. Analysis of confirmatory factors on Positive Affectivity Scale which is not accordance with the criteria of Goodness of Fit (GoF) Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 - 127 ISSN 2460-6995 Figure 4. CFA on Positive Affect Scale based on Goodness of Fit (GoF) Table 4. Summary of CFA on Positive Affect Scale based on GoF Aspect Item Scores of Loading Factors Significance (p) Assignment AffectA1 0.691 significant AffectA3 0.531 significant AffectB1 0.628 significant AffectC1 0.616 significant Social AffectA7 0.699 significant AffectH1 0.506 significant Discussion This research is one of several stages before testing the structural model of positive affect scale as one of the research instru- ments. The results of the study indicate that the positive affect scale in the academic set- ting is able to produce items that can reveal the latent constructs or concepts appropri- ately. There are six selected items in which four items represent the assignment aspects, and two items are related to the social aspects. Associated with the development of po- sitive affect instruments by Watson et al. (1988), positive affect instruments in the aca- demic domain generated through this research enriched the study of previous positive affect instruments. The positive affect instrument of Watson et al., (1988) was general for all do- mains, while the positive affect instrument re- sulting from this study is more specifically re- vealing the positive affect that develops in academic settings. Thus, the discussion on positive effects in academic settings becomes more detailed and clear according to context. This study can give beneficial contribu- tion dealing with the limited studies on the affect in the academic setting as stated by Linnenbrink-Garcia and Pekrun (2011) and Pekrun et al. (2002). It is expected that psy- chological dynamics within the academic con- text can be investigated comprehensively to build appropriate and efficient solution to- wards various educational problems. Conclusion It is concluded that the validity test of positive affect scale within the academic do- main can produce items that can reveal con- structs or latent concepts appropriately. By having correct and proper information related to psychological dynamics within the academ- ic context, it can support to create appropriate and efficient solution for various educational problems to improve the quality of education. Further studies are expected to continue its coverage on a wider range of area to see if the research findings can be applied to other unexamined subjects and contexts. Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati 128 - Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 ISSN 2460-6995 References Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012 Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). IBM® SPSS® AmosTM 22 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation. Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/003 3-295X.106.3.529 Azwar, S. (2016). Konstruksi tes kemampuan kognitif. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic concept, application, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Dachlan, U. (2014). Panduan lengkap Struktural Equation Modeling tingkat dasar: Metodologi, konsepsi, aplikasi (dengan Amos) (1st ed.). Semarang: Lentera Ilmu. Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 804–813. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804 Demanet, J., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2011). Valence, arousal, and cognitive control: A voluntary task-switching study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(336), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00 336 Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 21(1), 3–14. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10615800701740457 Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319. https://doi. org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psycho- logical Science, 13(2), 172–175. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280. 00431 Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010796329 158 Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365–376. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.365 Ghozali, I. (2017). Model persamaan struktural Kkonsep dan aplikasi dengan program AMOS 24 Update Bayesian SEM (7th ed.). Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Hall, N., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions from a social-cognitive perspective: Antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 289–308. https:// doi.org/10.1348/000709905X42860 Hair, G., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Kline, R. (2011). Principle and practice of Sructural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions and academic engagement: Introduction to the special issue. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cedpsych.2010.11.004 Linnenbrink, E. A. (2006). Emotion research in education: Theoretical and Psychometric characteristic of positive affect scale within... Kartika Nur Fathiyah, Asmadi Alsa, & Diana Setiyawati Copyright © 2019, REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 5(2), 2019 - 129 ISSN 2460-6995 methodological perspectives on the integration of affect, motivation, and cognition. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.10 07/s10648-006-9028-x Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/003 3-2909.131.6.803 Nath, P., & Pradhan, R. K. (2012). Influence of positive affect on physical health and psychological well-being: Examining the mediating role of psychological resilience. Journal of Health Management, 14(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10. 1177/097206341201400206 Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. https://doi.org/10.4135/97 81412985772 Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology, 41(4), 359– 376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.146405 97.1992.tb00712.x Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105. https://doi. org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4 Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., Perry, R. P., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., … Perry, R. P. (2010). Academic Emotions in Students ’ Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement : A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Academic Emotions in Students ’ Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement : A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. (October 2014), 37–41. https:/ /doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702 Samios, C., Abel, L. M., & Rodzik, A. K. (2013). The protective role of compassion satisfaction for therapists who work with sexual violence survivors: An application of the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(6), 610–623. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10615806.2013.784278 Schutz, P. A., & Lanehart, S. L. (2002). Introduction: Emotions in education. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 67–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP 3702_1 Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902 934563 Steptoe, A., Dockray, S., & Wardle, J. (2009). Positive affect and psychobiological processes relevant to health. Journal of Personality, 77(6), 1747–1776. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.005 99.x Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.54.6.1063 Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98. 2.219 Yik, M., Russell, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2011). A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11(4), 705–731. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0023980