The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the Spanish POMS assesses the same factors as the original form of the questionnaire. We started from a version with 63 items, representing seven conceptual dimensions. This version was administered to a sample of 364 adult athletes. In the whole sample, exploratory factor analytic findings suggested a more parsimonious measurement model, with 44 items and 6 first-order factors. Then the data from said sample were randomly divided into two sets, each containing about 50% of the subjects. The fit of the first sample set (n = 166) to the proposed model was adequate. Four of the main goodness-of-fit indices exhibited the following values: CFI = .95, NNFI = .95, SRMR = .083, and RMSEA = .064. We tested the same model in the second data set (n = 198), in which the fit was also acceptable, with values of .95, .94, .088, and .066 for CFI, NNFI, SRMR, and RMSEA, respectively. In addition, we used multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to provide evidence on the invariance of the model.

The Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales are among the most widely used instruments for the assessment of psychosis proneness. The main goal of the present work was to study the dimensional structure underlying the Revised Physical Anhedonia Scale (RPhA), the Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (RSAS), the Magical Ideation Scale (MIS) and the Perceptual Aberration Scale (PAS). It was also explored whether the dimensions underlying these scales were invariant across gender and age. The sample was made up of 710 university students with a mean age of 19.8 years (SD = 1.9). The results showed that the dimensional structure of the Wisconsin scales was similar to that found in previous studies, displaying a Positive dimension and a Negative dimension, the Social Anhedonia Scale being related to both dimensions. Moreover, the factor structure of the schizotypy scales was found to be invariant across participants' gender and age.