Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the three principal scales ranged from .86 to .88 ( Matthews et al., 1990a ;
N5388). A further study ( Matthews et al., 2002 ) reported a similar range of alpha coefficients ranging from .82
to .88 ( N5788).
Test/C0Retest
In several subsamples of the Matthews et al. (2002) sample, participants completed the UMACL before and
after performance on one of several cognitive tasks, typically of 10 /C015 min in duration. Correlations between
pre-test and post-test scores ranged from .43 to .47 ( N5517). One subsample ( N5112) performed a working
memory task on occasions separated by three weeks. The test /C0retest correlations for post-task mood ranged from
.14 to .48. An occupational subsample ( N586) performed a work simulation on two occasions approximately six
months apart, whereby test /C0retest correlations ranged from .17 to .39, as expected for a situationally-sensitive
mood-state measure ( Matthews et al., 2002 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Matthews et al. (1990) reported that the UMACL Tense Arousal scale correlated positively with the 8SQ
Anxiety scale (.52). Also, the correlation between Eysenck’s (EPI) Neuroticism scale and the UMACL Tense
Arousal scale was found to be .38 ( Matthews et al., 1990a ).Matthews et al. (1990a,b) also reported that the
Energetic Arousal scale correlated significantly with tonic skin conductance level (.32), and the Tense Arousal
scale correlated negatively ( 2.38) with cardiac inter-beat-interval, consistent with Thayer’s evidence that self-
report arousal converges to some extent with autonomic arousal. Matthews et al. (1999) assessed the ‘Big Five’
using Goldberg’s (1992) adjectival measure ( N5229). Energetic Arousal correlated with Conscientiousness (.20);
Tense Arousal correlated with Neuroticism (.20); Hedonic Tone correlated with Agreeableness (.14).
Divergent/Discriminant
Matthews et al. (1990) reported that the UMACL Energetic Arousal scale correlated negatively with the 8SQ
Fatigue scale ( R52 .81); and that the Hedonic Tone scale correlated negatively with the 8SQ Guilt scale ( 2.78).
Matthews and Gilliland (1999) reported correlations between the UMACL and the Eysenck personality dimen-
sions that establish divergence from these traits. Data were reported from two samples ( N5158; N5762).
Neuroticism correlated more highly than extraversion with each of the three UMACL scales. In the larger of the
two samples, correlations between Neuroticism and mood were 2.13 for Energetic Arousal, and 2.28 for
Hedonic Tone. Matthews et al. (1990a) also showed that scales were only weakly related to various demographic
factors and to a social desirability measure.
Construct/Factor Analytic
An exploratory principal factor analysis with oblique (direct oblimin) rotation, was reported by Matthews
et al. (1990a) , using a sample of 388 participants in studies of human performance. Revelle and Rocklin’s (1979)
Very Simple Structure (VSS) procedure indicated three factors should be extracted. These factors corresponded to
the hypothesized dimensions of Energetic Arousal, Tense Arousal and Hedonic Tone, respectively.
Criterion/Predictive
Matthews et al. (1990a) demonstrated that the UMACL Hedonic Tone scale is more sensitive to monetary
reward than either of the arousal scales. The UMACL scales, especially Energetic Arousal, also predict objective
measures of attention in performance studies ( Matthews, Davies, & Lees 1990b ). The UMACL is sensitive to a
range of experimental manipulations of stress and has been used to assess state responses in studies of cardio-
vascular effort-regulation (de Burgo & Gendolla, 2009 ), dietary supplements (Brown et al., 2009), glucose regula-
tion in diabetes (Hermanns et al., 2007), and circadian rhythms ( Martin & Marrington, 2005 ). The UMACL
has also been used in field studies of stressors such as driver stress ( Matthews, 2002 ) and test anxiety
(Matthews et al., 1999 ).
Location
Matthews, G., Jones, D.M., & Chamberlain, A.G. (1990). Refining the measurement of mood: The UWIST
Mood Adjective Checklist. British Journal of Psychology, 81 ,1 7/C042.215 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS