Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Bradburn Affect Scale

Question 1
I have a researcher looking for datasets containing the Bradburn Affect Scale. The CCHS (2001, 2013-2014) reference these. Are there others?

Answer 1
I searched through the DLI Microdata Search and found the following survey and applicable variables:

The General Social Survey, cycle 6, 1991 – Health has the following variables:

DVPOSAFF references the Bradburn positive affect scale

DVNEGAFF references the Bradburn negative affect scale

DVAFBAK and DVAFBAL2 reference the Bradburn affect balance

And as you mentioned, the CCHS 2014 and 2013-2014 also reference the scale the variable DOMDB. I hope this helps!

Question 2
Thank you for this. The researcher was hoping for something more recent. Is it possible to find out if future cycles of CCHS will include the Bradburn Affect Scale (including the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale)?

Answer 2
Here is the response we have received from the subject matter expert on the CCHS:

“When the CCHS was redesigned in 2015, the MDB module (which uses the Bradburn Affect Scale) was not included in the work. It does not currently exist as available content for provinces to choose as optional. Unless the provinces ask us to develop and offer that content again, I don’t think it will be included in the survey again any time soon.

The Rosenberg self-esteem scale was partially used in 2015 in Ontario, British Columbia, and Northwest Territories. I say partially because only six of the ten questions were used:

Q005: You feel that you have a number of good qualities.

Q010: You feel that you’re a person of worth at least equal to others.

Q015: You are able to do things as well as most other people.

Q020: You take a positive attitude toward yourself.

Q025: Overall, you are satisfied with yourself.

Q030: All in all, you’re inclined to feel you’re a failure.

It also looks like we used a modified version of the scale, in which we included a ‘neither agree nor disagree’ category along with the four usual: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

While SFE was included in 2015, it was not in 2016. So the module will not be on the next PUMF since we only produce PUMFs on two-year files. The researcher would have to access the SFE data through the RDC on the master file for 2015, or else request a custom tabulation.”