Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36475718›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of clinical psychology2023

Evaluation of Pressing Issues in Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Arthur A Stone, Stefan Schneider, Joshua M Smyth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of clinical psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

109 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The utility of bluetooth and smartphone technology to detect peer contact.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2026
    Article

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Arthur A StoneDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; email: arthuras@usc.edu.
Stefan SchneiderDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; email: arthuras@usc.edu.
Joshua M SmythDepartment of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Advancing the Science and Practice of Ecological Momentary AssessmentR37AG057685 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Arthur A Stone · 2018 to 2026
$9.4M
NIA NIH HHS R37 AG057685
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentResearch DesignHumansReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studiescomparison standardscontent validityEcological Momentary AssessmentExperience Sampling Methodgold standardmissingnessreliabilityselection biastraining

Identifiers

PMID36475718
PMCPMC12991416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.