2 Important Clinical Scales: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and Suicide Intent Scale

Introduction

Affect and suicidal intent represent two critical dimensions of psychological assessment. While affective states capture the ongoing emotional experience of individuals, suicidal intent reflects cognitive-behavioral risk linked to self-harm and mortality (Sarason & Sarason, 2005; Barlow & Durand, 1999). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and the Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) are widely recognized standardized tools that help clinicians and researchers evaluate these dimensions systematically.

Affective balance influences well-being, motivation, and resilience, whereas suicidal intent reflects the culmination of severe psychopathological distress (Carson, Butcher, Mineka, & Hooley, 2007). By understanding both, clinicians can better conceptualize emotional regulation, identify risk factors, and design effective interventions.

Read More: DSM vs ICD

Affect

Affect refers to the experience of feeling or emotion—comprising two primary dimensions: Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

• • Positive Affect represents enthusiasm, alertness, and engagement (e.g., joy, interest, pride).
  • Negative Affect reflects distress and aversive mood states (e.g., fear, anger, guilt).

High PA and low NA indicate psychological well-being, whereas low PA and high NA often mark depression and anxiety (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2004).

Assessing affective dimensions provides insight into personality structure, stress response, and vulnerability to psychopathology (Alloy, Riskind, & Manos, 2005).

Suicidal Intent

Suicidal intent encompasses the degree of purposefulness and planning associated with a suicide attempt. It reflects not merely ideation but the seriousness of an individual’s intent to die (Kaplan, Sadock, & Grebb, 1994).

Assessment of suicidal intent helps differentiate between parasuicidal gestures, suicidal ideation, and genuine lethal attempts (Davison, Neal, & Kring, 2004). It is essential for risk management, safety planning, and crisis intervention.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

Developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988), the PANAS operationalizes affect as two independent dimensions-Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA)-rather than opposite poles of a single continuum. This model revolutionized affective research, offering a psychometrically sound and empirically validated tool (Sarason & Sarason, 2005).

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

The PANAS aligns with trait and state conceptualizations of emotion, making it applicable for both momentary mood and general disposition assessments (Taylor, 2006).

Structure and Format

The PANAS consists of 20 adjectives, divided equally between:

• • 10 Positive Affect terms (e.g., interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive, active)
  • 10 Negative Affect terms (e.g., distressed, upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery, afraid)

Respondents rate the extent to which they have experienced each feeling on a 5-point Likert scale:
1 = Very slightly or not at all
5 = Extremely

Scores are summed to yield separate PA and NA totals, each ranging from 10 to 50.

Administration and Scoring

The PANAS can be administered in 2–5 minutes, in self-report or digital format. Instructions can vary by temporal frame—“right now,” “today,” “past few weeks,” or “in general”—depending on whether state or trait affect is being assessed (Brannon & Feist, 2007).

High PA scores indicate active engagement and energy; high NA scores reflect emotional distress. Both can co-exist, capturing complex affective patterns (Carson et al., 2007).

Psychometric Properties

• • Reliability: Internal consistency α ranges between 0.86–0.90 (PA) and 0.84–0.87 (NA).
  • Validity: Demonstrated construct validity across cultures and contexts.
  • Sensitivity: Responsive to clinical change, particularly in affective and anxiety disorders.

These qualities make PANAS valuable for research on stress, coping, and therapeutic outcome evaluation (Alloy et al., 2005).

Suicide Intent Scale (SIS)

Developed by Aaron Beck and colleagues (1974), the Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) measures the intensity and seriousness of intent in individuals who have made suicide attempts. It aids in assessing the risk of future suicidal behavior, distinguishing between accidental and intentional acts (Kaplan et al., 1994).

Items Assessed in the Suicide Intent Scale

The SIS is rooted in cognitive theory—emphasizing thought content, planning, and the individual’s expectations surrounding death (Sarason & Sarason, 2005).

Structure and Content

The SIS contains 15 items, grouped into two parts:

1. 1. Objective Circumstances (Items 1–8): Isolation, timing, precautions, method, and degree of planning.
   2. Subjective Self-Report (Items 9–15): Expectations of fatality, attitude toward living/dying, final acts, and communication of intent.

Each item is scored 0–2, yielding a total score from 0 to 30. Higher scores indicate stronger intent to die.

Administration and Interpretation

Administered by trained clinicians in semi-structured interviews, the SIS typically takes 15–25 minutes.

• • Low scores (0–9): Accidental or impulsive acts
  • Moderate scores (10–19): Ambivalent intent
  • High scores (20–30): Strong, deliberate intent

Interpretation must be contextualized with medical, psychosocial, and psychiatric data to ensure accurate risk classification (Davison et al., 2004).

Psychometric Strengths

• • Reliability: Internal consistency α ≈ 0.89; inter-rater reliability >0.90.
  • Validity: Strong correlation with suicide lethality scales and clinician judgment.
  • Predictive Utility: SIS scores predict subsequent suicidal behavior and hospitalization risk (Carson et al., 2007).

Conclusion

Both the PANAS and SIS are indispensable tools in affective and risk assessment. The PANAS offers insight into the dual dimensions of emotional experience, whereas the SIS provides a structured means of evaluating suicidal seriousness. Together, they enable clinicians to assess both emotional well-being and life-threatening intent, forming an essential part of holistic mental health evaluation (Carson et al., 2007; Kaplan et al., 1994).

References 

Alloy, L. B., Riskind, J. H., & Manos, M. J. (2005). Abnormal Psychology: Current Perspectives (9th ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill: New Delhi.

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2005). Psychological Testing (7th ed.). Pearson Education: India.

Barlow, D. H., & Durand, V. M. (1999). Abnormal Psychology (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Brannon, L., & Feist, J. (2007). Introduction to Health Psychology. Thomson Wadsworth: Singapore.

Carson, R. C., Butcher, J. N., Mineka, S., & Hooley, J. M. (2007). Abnormal Psychology (13th ed.). Pearson Education India.

Davison, G. C., Neal, J. M., & Kring, A. M. (2004). Abnormal Psychology (9th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kaplan, H. I., Sadock, B. J., & Grebb, J. A. (1994). Kaplan and Sadock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry (7th ed.). B. I. Waverly Pvt. Ltd: New Delhi.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2004). Abnormal Psychology (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill: New York, USA.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2005). Abnormal Psychology. Dorling Kindersley: New Delhi.

Taylor, S. (2006). Health Psychology. Tata McGraw-Hill: New Delhi.