Introduction: Cardiovascular reactivity refers to changes in blood pressure and heart rate in response to internal or external stimuli. Previous research has shown that excessively high and low cardiovascular reactivity are associated with an increased risk of cardiac problems. Dispositional optimism has been associated with numerous health benefits, including better cardiovascular responses to stressors, and reduced mortality risk. Conversely, pessimism has been associated with negative health outcomes and worse cardiovascular reactivity to stress. Mood, comprising positive and negative affect, can significantly impact psychological adjustment and physical health. Therefore, it is important to consider mood as a potential confounding variable in the link between optimism and cardiovascular reactivity. The study hypothesized that optimism and pessimism would still influence cardiovascular reactivity even when mood variables were controlled for.Methods: A within-subjects correlational design with 107 young adult participants was used. Sociodemographic and clinical questionnaires were administered to collect information on participants’ characteristics. The Dispositional Optimism Scale (LOT-R) and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) were used to assess participants’ levels of optimism, pessimism, and mood. Measures of cardiovascular reactivity, including systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR), were taken during a stressor task (PASAT).Results: There is a moderate positive correlation between dispositional optimism and positive affect, while pessimism demonstrated a moderate positive association with negative affect. Linear regression analyses were conducted, controlling baseline reactivity variables, gender, and body mass index. The results showed that pessimism had a significant negative effect on SBP reactivity, suggesting that higher levels of pessimism decreased SBP response. Optimism had a significant positive effect on DBP reactivity, while pessimism had a significant negative effect.Discussion: Overall, these results suggest that dispositional optimism and pessimism are related to cardiovascular reactivity, even after controlling for positive and negative affect. Pessimism was associated with lower SBP reactivity, while both optimism and pessimism influenced DBP reactivity. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that optimism enables more effective stress management during challenging events, whereas pessimism can serve as a risk factor, heightening the likelihood of experiencing future cardiac issued caused by blunted cardiovascular reactivity.

This study aimed to validate the two-factor structure of the Spanish version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in a sample of Ecuadorian young adults, examining its reliability, construct validity, and measurement invariance across gender. A total of nine hundred and eighteen participants completed the PANAS, along with measures of personality traits and negative life events. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measurement invariance testing, and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted. The two-factor model showed excellent fit after removing the item Alerta (“Alert”), which exhibited poor loading likely due to contextual reinterpretation. Both Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) scales demonstrated strong internal consistency (α >0.89). Discriminant validity was supported by near-zero latent correlations and compliance with the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Partial metric and scalar invariance across gender were observed, with DIF analyses revealing item-level differences, especially for fear— and hostility—related emotions. Criterion validity was confirmed via expected correlations with life events and personality traits. The PANAS shows robust psychometric properties in this population, although some items exhibit gender-based variability in interpretation. Cultural sensitivity and periodic item review are essential in emotional assessment tools to ensure conceptual and contextual validity.

Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala Multidimensional de Autoeficacia Infantil

Background/Objectives: Most longitudinal evidence on post-acute COVID-19 comes from hospitalized patients in high-income countries and less is known about community samples in low- and middle-income settings. This study examined changes in perceived recovery, symptom burden, general health perception, and functional difficulties over six months in Ecuadorian adults with confirmed COVID-19. Methods: In a prospective observational cohort in Quito, Ecuador, 120 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were assessed at baseline (within four weeks of diagnosis) and again three and six months after the baseline assessment; 91 completed all three assessments. The Spanish-language ISARIC follow-up survey covered 39 symptoms, perceived recovery, the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS, and six Washington Group functioning items rated retrospectively for the pre-COVID period and currently. Analyses were exploratory and descriptive, and all p-values are nominal and unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Results: Participants’ perceived complete recovery improved (χ² = 15.24, p < 0.001), as did perceived general health (F(2, 178) = 5.80, p = 0.004). Chest pain, palpitations, muscle weakness, confusion, tinnitus, and diarrhea declined over follow-up. At six months, 37.4% still reported headaches, 35.2% fatigue, 35.2% confusion or inattention, and 25.3% sleep disturbance. Among EQ-5D-5L domains, only pain/discomfort improved (p = 0.012). Vision, walking, memory, and communication declined from pre-COVID to baseline and improved between baseline and six months; pre-COVID and six-month levels were not compared directly. Conclusions: Recovery over six months was gradual but incomplete, with a substantial minority reporting ongoing or recurrent symptoms at six months. These findings describe post-acute symptom burden following confirmed COVID-19 rather than formally diagnosed post-COVID-19 condition.

This study reports an initial psychometric evaluation of the SER5, a forced-choice Big Five inventory scored with Thurstonian item response theory (TIRT), and compares its trait estimates with a Likert-type comparison measure, the Big Five Personality Trait Short Questionnaire, in a Latin American personnel-selection context. A total of 6583 job applicants completed the SER5, presented as non-consequential, during real selection processes on an online recruitment platform used across Latin America. A confirmatory TIRT model supported the intended five-factor structure with good global fit; however, exploratory analyses (parallel analysis and the Maximal Kaiser Criterion) did not recover five dimensions, consistent with the rank-deficiency expected for the instrument's all-homopolar block design. Marginal reliability exceeded 0.70 for all factors except Emotional Stability (ρ = 0.62), and conditional precision varied markedly across the trait range. Discriminant validity was weak, with a mean absolute inter-trait correlation less favorable than that of every forced-choice inventory in a recent benchmark, consistent with a block-design limitation, although alternative designs were not compared. In a subsample of 714 complete cases, convergent correlations with the Likert comparison measure were modest, although TIRT scores converged significantly better than raw forced-choice scores for Extraversion and Agreeableness; for Openness, TIRT scoring only removed a negative raw-score association. Overall, forced-choice and Likert scores were not interchangeable: TIRT scoring appears necessary but not sufficient, block design is a plausible key constraint, and the SER5, designed as a supplementary screening tool, still requires criterion validation. Organizations should not transfer norms or cut-off scores across response formats.