ArticleJournal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment2020
Comparing Signal-Contingent and Event-Contingent Experience Sampling Ratings of Affect in a Sample of Psychotherapy Outpatients.
Article in Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sampling methodology and observed data patterns in ecological momentary assessment: A study of nonsuicidal self-injury among high-risk young adults.Psychological assessment · 2026Article
- Saliva cell-free mitochondrial DNA (cf-mtDNA) as a dynamic biomarker of stress and emotion in daily life: Evidence from two independent repeated-measures studies.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Introducing PROSPECT: a novel process for prospectively tracking research engagement.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- The Use of Ecological Momentary Assessments to Measure Perceived Stress in People With Aphasia: A Feasibility Study.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Post-concussion symptom burden and dynamics: Insights from a digital health intervention and machine learning.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- A Multi-Method Study of Interpersonal Complementarity and Mentalization.Journal of research in personality · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Experience sampling methods are widely used in clinical psychology to study affective dynamics in psychopathology. The present study examined whether affect ratings (valence and arousal) differed as a function of assessment schedule (signal- versus event-contingent) in a clinical sample and considered various approaches to modeling these ratings. A total of 40 community mental health center outpatients completed ratings of their affective experiences over a 21-day period using both signal-contingent schedules (random prompts) and event-contingent schedules (ratings following social interactions). We tested whether assessment schedules impacted 1) the central tendency (mean) and variability (standard deviation) of valence or arousal considered individually, 2) the joint variability in valence and arousal via the entropy metric, and 3) the between-person differences in configuration of valence-arousal landscapes via the Earth Mover's Distance (EMD) metric. We found that event-contingent schedules, relative to signal-contingent schedules, captured higher average levels of pleasant valence and emotional arousal ratings. Moreover, signal-contingent schedules captured greater variability within and between individuals on arousal-valence landscapes compared to event-contingent schedules. Altogether, findings suggest that the two assessment schedules should not be treated interchangeably in the assessment of affect over time. Researchers must be cautious in generalizing results across studies utilizing different experience sampling assessment schedules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.