SynthesisPsychological assessment2022
Little evidence for consistent initial elevation bias in self-reported momentary affect: A coordinated analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies.
Synthesis in Psychological assessment, 2022. 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.
- Intensive, Repeated Self-Report Measures: Should We Be Concerned About Changes in Data Quality Over Time?JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Ecological Momentary Assessment as a Measure of Intervention Change: Evaluation in 4 Digital Mental Health Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Comparing Likert and visual analogue scales in ecological momentary assessment.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Response times in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA): shedding light on the response process with a drift diffusion model.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Measurement Reactivity in Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies of Movement-Related Behaviors.Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour · 2024Article
- Reliability of Data Collected via Ecological Momentary Assessment on the Example of FeverApp Registry.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Response bias characterized by decreases in self-reported subjective states when measured repeatedly over short time-frames is a potential concern in social science. Recent work suggests that this initial elevation bias (IEB) is pronounced among young adult students' self-reports of affect when using ambulatory methods, but it is unclear if such bias extends broadly across samples, designs, and constructs. We examined the conditions wherein reliable and robust IEB may manifest by conducting a coordinated analysis of seven ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies with diverse lifespan samples to test the generalizability of IEB across study designs and affective constructs (momentary negative and positive affect). Overall, evidence for substantial IEB across studies was weak. No reliable evidence emerged for IEB in negative affect, with evidence for a small magnitude IEB for positive affect when comparing initial reports with reports made 1 week later, although the latter was not evident in other comparisons and was attenuated to nonsignificance when controlling for temporal factors. The magnitude and direction of IEB varied, but in mostly nonsystematic ways, as a function of study design and affective valence. Meta-analytic summary revealed consistently low combined effect sizes (Cohen's
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.