1932

Abstract

The use of repeated, momentary, real-world assessment methods known as the Experience Sampling Method and Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) has been broadly embraced over the last few decades. These methods have extended our assessment reach beyond lengthy retrospective self-reports as they can capture everyday experiences in their immediate context, including affect, behavior, symptoms, and cognitions. In this review we evaluate nine conceptual, methodological, and psychometric issues about EMA with the goal of stimulating conversation and guiding future research on these matters: the extent to which participants are actually reporting momentary experiences, respondents’ interpretation of momentary questions, the use of comparison standards in responding, efforts to increase the EMA reporting period beyond the moment to longer periods within a day, training of EMA study participants, concerns about selection bias of respondents, the impact of missing EMA assessments, the reliability of momentary data, and for which purposes EMA might be considered a gold standard for assessment. Resolution of these issues should have far-reaching implications for advancing the field.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-083128
2023-05-09
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/clinpsy/19/1/annurev-clinpsy-080921-083128.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-083128&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aaron LA, Mancl L, Turner JA, Sawchuk CN, Klein KM. 2004. Reasons for missing interviews in the daily electronic assessment of pain, mood, and stress. Pain 109:3389–98
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Affleck G, Tennen H, Urrows S, Higgins P, Abeles M et al. 1998. Fibromyalgia and women's pursuit of personal goals: a daily process analysis. Health Psychol. 17:140–47
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariely D. 1998. Combining experiences over time: the effects of duration, intensity changes, and on-line measurements on retrospective pain evaluations. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 11:19–45
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arslan RC, Reitz AK, Driebe JC, Gerlach TM, Penke L. 2021. Routinely randomize potential sources of measurement reactivity to estimate and adjust for biases in subjective reports. Psychol. Methods 26:2175–85
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benedict C, Hahn AL, Diefenbach MA, Ford JS. 2019. Recruitment via social media: advantages and potential biases. Digit. Health 5:2055207619867223
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennett DA. 2001. How can I deal with missing data in my study?. Aust. N.Z. J. Public Health 25:5464–69
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boesen VB, Nissen SB, Groenvold M, Bjorner JB, Hegedus L et al. 2018. Conversion of standard retrospective patient-reported outcomes to momentary versions: cognitive interviewing reveals varying degrees of momentary compatibility. Qual. Life Res. 27:41065–76
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolger N, Davis A, Rafaeli E. 2003. Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:579–616
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolger N, Laurenceau JP. 2013. Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Broderick JE, Schwartz JE, Vikingstad G, Pribbernow M, Grossman S, Stone AA. 2008. The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods. Pain 139:1146–57
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Broderick JE, Stone AA, Calvanese P, Schwartz JE, Turk DC. 2006. Recalled pain ratings: a complex and poorly defined task. J. Pain 7:2142–49
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brunswik E. 1941. Systematic and Representative Design of Psychological Experiments Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlozzi NE, Schilling S, Freedman J, Kalpakjian CZ, Kratz AL. 2018. The reliability of end of day and ecological momentary assessments of pain and pain interference in individuals with spinal cord injury. Qual. Life Res. 27:113003–12
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheng A, Zamarro G, Orriens B. 2020. Personality as a predictor of unit nonresponse in an Internet panel. Sociol. Methods Res. 49:3672–98
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Christodoulou C, Schneider S, Stone AA. 2014. Validation of a brief yesterday measure of hedonic well-being and daily activities: comparison with the day reconstruction method. Soc. Indic. Res. 115:3907–17
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Clauw DJ, Mease P, Palmer RH, Gendreau RM, Wang Y. 2008. Milnacipran for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults: a 15-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose clinical trial. Clin. Ther. 30:111988–2004
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Collins LM, Schafer JL, Kam C-M. 2001. A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychol. Methods 6:4330–51
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Conner TS, Barrett LF. 2012. Trends in ambulatory self-report: the role of momentary experience in psychosomatic medicine. Psychosom. Med. 74:4327–37
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cranford JA, Shrout PE, Iida M, Rafaeli E, Yip T, Bolger N. 2006. A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably?. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32:7917–29
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Csikszentmihalyi M, Hunter J. 2003. Happiness in everyday life: the uses of experience sampling. J. Happiness Stud. 4:2185–99
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cursio JF, Mermelstein RJ, Hedeker D. 2019. Latent trait shared-parameter mixed models for missing ecological momentary assessment data. Stat. Med. 38:4660–73
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Degroote L, DeSmet A, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Dyck D, Crombez G. 2020. Content validity and methodological considerations in ecological momentary assessment studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 17:135
    [Google Scholar]
  23. DeVries M. 1987. Investigating mental disorders in their natural settings: introduction to the special issue. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 175:509–13
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Du H, Wang L. 2018. Reliabilities of intraindividual variability indicators with autocorrelated longitudinal data: implications for longitudinal study designs. Multivar. Behav. Res. 53:4502–20
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dzubur E, Huh J, Maher JP, Intille SS, Dunton GF. 2018. Response patterns and intra-dyadic factors related to compliance with ecological momentary assessment among mothers and children. Transl. Behav. Med. 8:2233–42
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ebner-Priemer UW, Trull TJ 2009. Ecological momentary assessment of mood disorders and mood dysregulation. Psychol. Assess. 21:4463–75
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Edmondson D, Shaffer JA, Chaplin WF, Burg MM, Stone AA, Schwartz JE. 2013. Trait anxiety and trait anger measured by ecological momentary assessment and their correspondence with traditional trait questionnaires. J. Res. Personal. 47:6843–52
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Eid M, Diener E. 1999. Intraindividual variability in affect: reliability, validity, and personality correlates. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 76:662–76
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Eisele G, Lafit G, Vachon H, Kuppens P, Houben M et al. 2021a. Affective structure, measurement invariance, and reliability across different experience sampling protocols. J. Res. Personal 92104094
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Eisele G, Vachon H, Lafit G, Kuppens P, Houben M et al. 2022. The effects of sampling frequency and questionnaire length on perceived burden, compliance, and careless responding in experience sampling data in a student population. Assessment 29:136–51
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Eisele G, Vachon H, Myin-Germeys I, Viechtbauer W. 2021b. Reported affect changes as a function of response delay: findings from a pooled dataset of nine experience sampling studies. Front. Psychol. 12:580684
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Enders CK. 2011. Missing not at random models for latent growth curve analyses. Psychol. Methods 16:11–16
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Enders CK, Du H, Keller B. 2020. A model-based imputation procedure for multilevel regression models with random coefficients, interaction effects, and nonlinear terms. Psychol. Methods 25:188–112
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Estabrook R, Grimm KJ, Bowles RP. 2012. A Monte Carlo simulation study of the reliability of intraindividual variability. Psychol. Aging 27:3560–76
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fisher AJ, Medaglia JD, Jeronimus BF. 2018. Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. PNAS 115:27E6106–15
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fisher CD, To ML. 2012. Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 33:865–77
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Geldhof GJ, Preacher KJ, Zyphur MJ. 2014. Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychol. Methods 19:172–91
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Giles EL, Robalino S, McColl E, Sniehotta FF, Adams J 2014. The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 9:3e90347
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gorin AA, Stone AA 2001. Recall biases and cognitive errors in retrospective self-reports: a call for momentary assessments. Handbook of Health Psychology A Baum, T Revenson, J Singer 405–14. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Grund S, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A. 2018. Multiple imputation of missing data for multilevel models: simulations and recommendations. Organ. Res. Methods 21:1111–49
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hamaker EL, Wichers M. 2017. No time like the present: discovering the hidden dynamics in intensive longitudinal data. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26:10–15
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Heavey CL, Hurlburt RT, Lefforge NL. 2012. Toward a phenomenology of feelings. Emotion 12:4763–77
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Heron KE, Everhart RS, McHale SM, Smyth JM. 2017. Using mobile-technology-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods with youth: a systematic review and recommendations. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 42:101087–107
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Himmelstein PH, Woods WC, Wright AGC. 2019. A comparison of signal- and event-contingent ambulatory assessment of interpersonal behavior and affect in social situations. Psychol. Assess. 31:7952–60
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hu Y, Nesselroade JR, Erbacher MK, Boker SM, Burt SA et al. 2016. Test reliability at the individual level. Struct. Equ. Model. 23:4532–43
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hurlburt RT. 1997. Randomly sampling thinking in the natural environment. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 65:6941–49
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hurlburt RT, Akhter SA. 2006. The Descriptive Experience Sampling method. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 5:3–4271–301
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hurlburt RT, Alderson-Day B, Fernyhough C, Kuhn S. 2017. Response: Commentary: Can inner experience be apprehended in high fidelity? Examining brain activation and experience from multiple perspectives. Front. Psychol. 8:628
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hurlburt RT, Heavey CL. 2015. Investigating pristine inner experience: implications for experience sampling and questionnaires. Conscious. Cogn. 31:148–59
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Jaso BA, Kraus NI, Heller AS. 2022. Identification of careless responding in ecological momentary assessment research: from posthoc analyses to real-time data monitoring. Psychol. Methods 27:6958–81
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Jensen MP, Mardekian J, Lakshminarayanan M, Boye ME. 2008. Validity of 24-h recall ratings of pain severity: biasing effects of “Peak” and “End” pain. Pain 137:422–27
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Jones A, Remmerswaal D, Verveer I, Robinson E, Franken IHA et al. 2019. Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta-analysis. Addiction 114:4609–19
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Junghaenel DU, Broderick JE, Schneider S, May M, Bolton A et al. 2018. Frames of reference in self-reports of health, well-being, fatigue, and pain: a qualitative examination. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 13:3585–601
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Stone AA. 2004. A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the Day Reconstruction Method. Science 306:57021776–80
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kahneman D, Wakker PP, Sarin R. 1997. Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Q. J. Econ. 112:375–406
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Keusch F, Struminskaya B, Antoun C, Couper MP, Kreuter F. 2019. Willingness to participate in passive mobile data collection. Public Opin. Q. 83:Suppl. 1210–35
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kikuchi H, Yoshiuchi K, Miyasaka N, Ohashi K, Yamamoto Y et al. 2006. Reliability of recalled self-report on headache intensity: investigation using ecological momentary assessment technique. Cephalalgia 26:111335–43
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kirtley OJ, Lafit G, Achterhof GR, Hiekkaranta AP, Myin-Germeys I. 2021. Making the black box transparent: a template and tutorial for registration of studies using experience-sampling methods. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 4:1 https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920924686
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kost R, Lee L, Yessis J, Coller B, Henderson D, Res. Particip. Percept. Surv. Focus Group Subcomm 2011. Assessing research participants’ perceptions of their clinical research experiences. Clin. Transl. Sci. 4:6403–13
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Krosnick JA. 1991. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 5:213–36
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lai MH. 2021. Composite reliability of multilevel data: It's about observed scores and construct meanings. Psychol. Methods 26:90–102
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Lee W, Cho SJ. 2017. The consequences of ignoring item parameter drift in longitudinal item response models. Appl. Meas. Educ. 30:129–46
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Li S, Psihogios AM, McKelvey ER, Ahmed A, Rabbi M, Murphy S 2020. Micro-randomized trials for promoting engagement in mobile health data collection: adolescent/young adult oral chemotherapy adherence as an example. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 21:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Liao Y, Skelton K, Dunton G, Bruening M. 2016. A systematic review of methods and procedures used in ecological momentary assessments of diet and physical activity research in youth: an adapted STROBE checklist for reporting EMA studies (CREMAS). J. Med. Internet Res. 18:6e151
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Lin X, Mermelstein R, Hedeker D. 2018. A shared parameter location scale mixed effect model for EMA data subject to informative missing. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 18:4227–43
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Liu Y, Millsap RE, West SG, Tein JY, Tanaka R, Grimm KJ. 2017. Testing measurement invariance in longitudinal data with ordered-categorical measures. Psychol. Methods 22:3486–506
    [Google Scholar]
  68. May M, Junghaenel DU, Ono M, Stone AA, Schneider S. 2018. Ecological momentary assessment methodology in chronic pain research: a systematic review. J. Pain 19:7699–716
    [Google Scholar]
  69. McLean DC, Nakamura J, Csikszentmihalyi M. 2017. Explaining system missing: missing data and experience sampling method. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 8:4434–41
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Meade AW, Craig SB. 2012. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol. Methods 17:3437–55
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Mehl MR, Conner TS, eds. 2011. Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Mellenberg GJ. 1982. Contingency table models for assessing item bias. J. Educ. Stat. 7:2105–8
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Messiah A, Grondin O, Encrenaz G. 2011. Factors associated with missing data in an experience sampling investigation of substance use determinants. Drug Alcohol Depend. 114:2–3153–58
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Miron-Shatz T, Stone A, Kahneman D. 2009. Memories of yesterday's emotions: Does the valence of experience affect the memory-experience gap?. Emotion 9:6885–91
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Morren M, van Dulmen S, Ouwerkerk J, Bensing J. 2009. Compliance with momentary pain measurement using electronic diaries: a systematic review. Eur. J. Pain 13:4354–65
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Murray AL, Eisner M, Ribeaud D, Booth T. 2022. Validation of a brief measure of aggression for ecological momentary assessment research: the Aggression-ES-A. Assessment 29:2296–308
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Muthén B. 1997. Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data. Sociol. Methodol. 27:453–80
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Myin-Germeys I, Oorschot M, Collip D, Lataster J, Delespaul P, van Os J. 2009. Experience sampling research in psychopathology: opening the black box of daily life. Psychol. Med. 39:91533–47
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Neubauer AB, Scott SB, Sliwinski MJ, Smyth JM. 2020. How was your day? Convergence of aggregated momentary and retrospective end-of-day affect ratings across the adult life span. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 119:185–203
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Nezlek JB. 2011. Multilevel Modeling for Social and Personality Psychology Los Angeles: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Parducci A, Wedell DH. 1986. The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 12:4496–516
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Podsakoff N, Spoelma T, Chawla N, Gabriel A. 2019. What predicts within-person variance in applied psychology constructs? An empirical examination. J. Appl. Psychol. 104:6727–54
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Putnick DL, Bornstein MH. 2016. Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Dev. Rev. 41:71–90
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Ram N, Gerstorf D. 2009. Time-structured and net intraindividual variability: tools for examining the development of dynamic characteristics and processes. Psychol. Aging 24:4778–91
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Redelmeier DA, Kahneman D. 1996. Patients' memories of pain medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain 66:3–8
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Redelmeier DA, Katz J, Kahneman D. 2003. Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Pain 104:187–94
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Reis HT, Gable SL 2000. Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology HT Reis, CM Judd 190–222. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Rintala A, Wampers M, Myin-Germeys I, Viechtbauer W. 2020. Momentary predictors of compliance in studies using the experience sampling method. Psychiatry Res. 286:112896
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Robinson KA, Dennison CR, Wayman DM, Pronovost PJ, Needham DM. 2007. Systematic review identifies number of strategies important for retaining study participants. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60:8757–65
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Robinson MD, Clore GL. 2002. Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychol. Bull. 128:934–60
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Ross M. 1989. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol. Rev. 96:341–57
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Rubin DB. 1976. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63:581–92
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Schafer JL. 1999. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8:13–15
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Schafer JL, Graham JW. 2002. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Methods 7:2147–77
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Schneider S, May M, Stone AA 2018. Careless responding in Internet-based quality of life assessments. Qual. Life Res. 27:1077–88
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Schneider S, Stone AA. 2016. Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes. Qual. Life Res. 25:3497–506
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Schneider S, Stone AA, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE. 2011. Peak and end effects in patients' daily recall of pain and fatigue: a within-subjects analysis. J. Pain 12:2228–35
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Schuman H, Presser S. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Schuurman NK, Hamaker EL. 2019. Measurement error and person-specific reliability in multilevel autoregressive modeling. Psychol. Methods 24:170–91
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Schüz N, Walters JA, Frandsen M, Bower J, Ferguson SG. 2013. Compliance with an EMA monitoring protocol and its relationship with participant and smoking characteristics. Nicotine Tob. Res. 16:Suppl. 2S88–92
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Schwartz JE, Stone AA 2007. Analysis of real-time momentary data: a practical guide. The Science of Real-Time Data Capture AA Stone, S Shiffman, AA Atienza, L Nebeling 76–113. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Schwarz N. 1999. Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. Am. Psychol. 54:93–105
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Schwarz N 2007. Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: the rationale for real-time data capture. The Science of Real-Time Data Capture AA Stone, S Shiffman, AA Atienza, L Nebeling 11–26. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Schwarz N, Oyserman D. 2001. Asking questions about behavior: cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. Am. J. Eval. 22:127–60
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Scollon CN, Kim-Prieto C, Diener E. 2009. Experience sampling: promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. Social Indicators Research Series, Vol. 39: Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener157–80. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Scott SB, Graham-Engeland JE, Engeland CG, Smyth JM, Almeida DM et al. 2015. The Effects of Stress on Cognitive Aging, Physiology and Emotion (ESCAPE) project. BMC Psychiatry 15:146
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Scott SB, Ram N, Smyth JM, Almeida DM, Sliwinski MJ. 2017. Age differences in negative emotional responses to daily stressors depend on time since event. Dev. Psychol. 53:1177–90
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Scott SB, Sliwinski MJ, Zawadzki M, Stawski RS, Kim J et al. 2020. A coordinated analysis of variance in affect in daily life. Assessment 27:81683–98
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Shiffman S. 2014. Conceptualizing analyses of ecological momentary assessment data. Nicotine Tob. Res. 16:Suppl. 2S76–87
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. 2008. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 4:1–32
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Silvia PJ, Kwapil TR, Eddington KM, Brown LH. 2013. Missed beeps and missing data: dispositional and situational predictors of nonresponse in experience sampling research. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 31:4471–81
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Silvia PJ, Kwapil TR, Walsh MA, Myin-Germeys I. 2014. Planned missing-data designs in experience-sampling research: Monte Carlo simulations of efficient designs for assessing within-person constructs. Behav. Res. Methods 46:141–54
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sliwinski MJ. 2008. Measurement-burst designs for social health research. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2:245–61
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Smith KE, Mason TB, Juarascio A, Schaefer LM, Crosby RD et al. 2019. Moving beyond self-report data collection in the natural environment: a review of the past and future directions for ambulatory assessment in eating disorders. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 52:101157–75
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Smith SM, Amtmann D, Askew RL, Gewandter JS, Hunsinger M et al. 2016. Pain intensity rating training: results from an exploratory study of the ACTTION PROTECCT system. Pain 157:51056–64
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Smyth JM, Jones DR, Wen CKF, Materia FT, Schneider S, Stone A. 2021. Influence of ecological momentary assessment study design features on reported willingness to participate and perceptions of potential research studies: an experimental study. BMJ Open 11:7e049154
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Smyth JM, Juth V, Ma J, Sliwinski M. 2017. A slice of life: ecologically valid methods for research on social relationships and health across the lifespan. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 11:10e12356
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Smyth JM, Ockenfels MC, Porter L, Kirschbaum C, Hellhammer DH, Stone AA. 1998. Stressors and mood measured on a momentary basis are associated with salivary cortisol secretion. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23:4353–70
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Smyth JM, Stone AA. 2003. Ecological Momentary Assessment research in behavioral medicine. J. Happiness Stud. 4:135–52
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Snijders TAB 2005. Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, Vol. 3 BS Everitt, DC Howell 1570–73. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Sokolovsky AW, Mermelstein RJ, Hedeker D. 2014. Factors predicting compliance to ecological momentary assessment among adolescent smokers. Nicotine Tob. Res. 16:3351–58
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Stone AA, Broderick JB, Shiffman SS, Schwartz JE. 2004. Understanding recall of weekly pain from a momentary assessment perspective: absolute agreement, between- and within-person consistency, and judged change in weekly pain. Pain 107:61–69
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Stone AA, Broderick JE. 2007. Real-time data collection for pain: appraisal and current status. Pain Med. 8:S85–93
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Stone AA, Obbarius A, Junghaenel DU, Wen C, Schneider S. 2021. High resolution, field approaches for assessing pain: Ecological Momentary Assessment. Pain 162:4–9
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Stone AA, Schwartz JE, Smyth J, Kirschbaum C, Cohen S et al. 2001. Individual differences in the diurnal cycle of salivary free cortisol: a replication of flattened cycles for some individuals. Psychoneuroendocrinology 26:3295–306
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Stone AA, Shiffman S. 1994. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Ann. Behav. Med. 16:199–202
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Stone AA, Shiffman S. 2002. Capturing momentary, self-report data: a proposal for reporting guidelines. Ann. Behav. Med. 24:3236–43
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Atienza AA, Nebling L, eds. 2007. The Science of Real-Time Data Capture: Self-Reports in Health Research Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Tourangeau R 1984. Cognitive sciences and survey methods. Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge Between Disciplines T Jabine, M Straf, J Tanur, R Tourangeau 73–100. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Tourangeau R, Rips L, Rasinski K. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Trull TJ, Ebner-Priemer UW. 2020. Ambulatory assessment in psychopathology research: a review of recommended reporting guidelines and current practices. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 129:56–63
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Smith D, Langa KM, Fagerlin A. 2005. What is perfect health to an 85-year-old? Evidence for scale recalibration in subjective health ratings. Med. Care 43:101054–57
    [Google Scholar]
  133. van Berkel N, Goncalves J, Hosio S, Sarsenbayerva Z, Velloso E, Kostakos V. 2020. Overcoming compliance bias in self-report studies: a cross-study analysis. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 134:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  134. van den Brink M, Bandell-Hoekstra FNG, Abu-Saad H. 2001. The occurrence of recall bias in pediatric headache: a comparison of questionnaire and diary data. Headache 41:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Versluis A, Verkuil B, Lane RD, Hagemann D, Thayer JF, Brosschot JF. 2021. Ecological momentary assessment of emotional awareness: preliminary evaluation of psychometric properties. Curr. Psychol. 40:1402–10
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Wanke M. 2002. Conversational norms and the interpretation of vague quantifiers. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 16:3301–7
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Watkinson P, Wood AM, Lloyd DM, Brown GD. 2013. Pain ratings reflect cognitive context: a range frequency model of pain perception. Pain 154:5743–49
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Wen CKF, Junghaenel DU, Newman DB, Schneider S, Mendez M et al. 2021. The effect of training on participant adherence with a reporting time frame for momentary subjective experiences in Ecological Momentary Assessment: cognitive interview study. JMIR Form. Res. 5:5e28007
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Wen CKF, Schneider S, Stone AA, Spruijt-Metz D. 2017. Compliance with mobile ecological momentary assessment protocols in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:4e132
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Wendt LP, Wright AG, Pilkonis PA, Woods WC, Denissen JJ et al. 2020. Indicators of affect dynamics: structure, reliability, and personality correlates. Eur. J. Personal. 34:1060–72
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Willis GB. 2005. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design New York: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Winkielman P, Knauper B, Schwarz N. 1998. Looking back at anger: Reference periods change the interpretation of emotion frequency questions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75:3719–28
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-083128
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error