Divergent/Discriminant
Heuchert and McNair (2012, pp. 44 /C046)reported that both the POMS 2-A and POMS 2-Y discriminated effectively
between normal individuals and clinical patients suffering primarily from either anxiety or depression. In addition,
the Vigor /C0Activity and Friendliness scales exhibited negative co rrelations with the six clinical disorder scales ranging
from2.21 to2.47 for the POMS 2-A, and from 2.07 to2.28 for the POMS 2-Y (Heuchert & McNair, pp. 43 /C044).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The factor structure of the original POMS instrument was confirmed by Boyle (1987b) in an Australian sample
of 289 undergraduates, using an iterative PAF procedure, with factor extraction number based on Cattell’s Scree
test ( Cattell, 1978; Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977 ), and with oblique simple structure rotation (see Child, 2006 , pp.
77/C078). Terry et al. (2003) carried out a multi-sample CFA analysis of the adolescent version (POMS-A;
N52,549) supporting the subscale structure (best fitting model: chi-square 53966.49, CFI 5.91, TLI 5.90, and
RMSEA 5.03). More recently, Heuchert and McNair (2012, p. 43) reported the results of a CFA (based on 1000
normals and 215 clinical patients for the POMS 2-A) which revealed an NFI 5.92, NNFZI 5.91, CFI 5.93, and
RMSEA 5.10. They also reported a separate CFA for the POMS 2-Y (based on 500 normal individuals and 133
clinical patients) which revealed an NFI 5.92, NNFI 5.92, CFI 5.94, and RMSEA 5.10, thereby providing empiri-
cal support for the structure of the POMS 2-A and POMS 2-Y measures.
Criterion/Predictive
Using a sample of 312 Grade 11 and 12 students, Newcombe and Boyle (1995) reported that the POMS was a
significant predictor of sports participants’ personality profiles and that, ‘univariate tests showed the participants
to be more extraverted and vigorous, and less anxious, neurotic, depressed and confused.’ (p. 277). Sobhanian,
Boyle, Bahr, and Fallo (2006) reported that mean scores on the POMS subscales (except for Vigor) were signifi-
cantly elevated when refugees were incarcerated in the Woomera Detention Centre, and subsequently declined
following their release into the Australian community.
Location
Heuchert, J.P. & McNair, D.M. (2012). Profile of Mood States, 2nd Edition: POMS 2 . North Tonawanda, NY:
Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Results and Comments
The POMS has been commercially available for over 40 years. It has been modified and adapted to different
needs and translated into no fewer than 42 other languages. With the introduction of the POMS 2 ( Heuchert &
McNair, 2012 ), some changes were made to the core of adjectives, as well as updating and expanding the norms,
for example, including a normative sample of over 60-year-olds. Its brevity, even in the longest versions, and flexi-
bility in administration suggests its popularity will continue. The POMS 2 manual ( Heuchert & McNair, 2012 )
does not provide a scoring key or instructions for hand scoring. Users should be aware that scoring of the POMS
2 must be carried out using the publisher’s online scoring service, even for paper-and-pencil administrations.
POMS 2 SAMPLE ITEMS
The following seven adjectives (one for each subscale) are typical of those in the POMS 2.
POMS 2 Scale Sample Adjective
Anger/C0Hostility Furious
Confusion /C0Bewilderment Muddled
Depression /C0Dejection Hopeless
Fatigue /C0Inertia Exhausted
Friendliness Friendly
Tension /C0Anxiety Uneasy
Vigor/C0Activity Energetic
Notes :
Copyright r2012, Juvia P. Heuchert, Ph.D. and Douglas M. McNair, Ph.D., under exclusive license to Multi-
Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.205 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS