Have you thanked your spouse today?: Felt and expressed gratitude among married couples. Per-

No abstract

We highlight critical conceptual and statistical issues and how to resolve them in conducting Satorra-Bentler (SB) scaled difference chi-square tests. Concerning the original (Satorra & Bentler, 2001) and new (Satorra & Bentler, 2010) scaled difference tests, a fundamental difference exists in how to compute properly a model's scaling correction factor (c), depending on the particular SEM software used. Because of how LISREL defines the SB scaled chi-square, LISREL users should compute c for each model by dividing the model's NTWLS chi-square by its SB chi-square, to recover c accurately with both tests. EQS and Mplus users, in contrast, should divide the model's ML chi-square by its SB chi-square to recover c. Because ML estimation does not minimize the NTWLS chi-square, however, it can produce a negative difference in nested NTWLS chi-square values. Thus, we recommend the standard practice of testing the scaled difference in ML chi-square values for models M 1 and M 0 (after properly recovering c for each model), to avoid an inadmissible test-numerator. We illustrate the difference in computations across software programs for the original and new scaled tests and provide LISREL, EQS, and Mplus syntax in both single-and multiple-group form for specifying the model M 10 that is involved in the new test.

The REALM-SF provides researchers a brief, validated instrument for assessing patient literacy in diverse research settings.

Findings underscore the complexity of factors (types of informants and dimensions of psychopathology) that underlie AIDS risk in troubled youths, and they offer specific directions for designing and implementing uniquely tailored AIDS prevention programs, for example, by targeting delinquent behavior and including high-risk peers and important family members in interventions.

This study provides evidence that people evaluate their control over events and over feelings separately with respect to both positive and negative experiences Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that subjects made separate self-evaluations of control regarding their ability to (a) avoid negative outcomes, (b) cope with negative outcomes, (c) obtain positive outcomes, and (d) savor positive outcomes In addition, beliefs about avoiding and obtaining were more highly correlated (r = 50) than were beliefs about coping and savoring (r = 27) It IS argued that coping and savoring involve different sets of cognitive and behavioral skills Multiple regression analyses generally indicated that beliefs about avoiding and coping related more strongly to measures of subjective distress, whereas beliefs about obtaining and savonng related more strongly to measures of subjective well-being These four control beliets are discussed m relation to other conceptual models of control, and ways m which savonng may promote perceived control are descnbed Although successful mastery or control of the environment is often assumed to be beneficial and rewarding to the individual (deCharms, 1968, Phares, 1976, White, 1959, there is relatively little agreement as to how people go about evaluating personal control in their lives Some basic

Structural equation modeling was used to test hypotheses about (a) the dimensionality of measures of dispositional hope (the Adult Hope Scale, AHS) and dispositional optimism (the Life Orientation Test, LOT), (b) the extent and source of conceptual overlap and divergence between hope and optimism, and (c) patterns of discriminant validity for each trait. Separate two-factor models best fit the hope (Agency and Pathways, r = .68) and optimism (Optimism and Pessimism, r =-.63) data. Analyzing the combined AHS and LOT data, a measurement model with separate, correlated second-order factors of Hope and Optimism (r = .80) provided a better fit than did a higher-order model with a single second-order factor. Optimism correlated equally with both Agency and Pathways, whereas Pessimism was more strongly correlated with Agency than with Pathways. Confirming hypotheses, second-order Optimism had a stronger influence on the use of positive reappraisal as a coping strategy than did second-order Hope, whereas second-order Hope had a stronger influence on level of general self-efficacy than did second-order Optimism. We suggest that hope focuses more directly on the personal attainment of specific goals, whereas optimism focuses more broadly on the expected quality of future outcomes in general.

cognitive imagery, happiness, memorabilia, positive affect, reminiscence,