ArticleAssessment2025
Comparisons of Self-Report With Objective Measurements Suggest Faster Responding but Little Change in Response Quality Over Time in Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies.
Article in Assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptation and test-retest reliability of a mobile neurocognitive battery for assessing neurotoxicity in rural children in Bangladesh.Neurotoxicology · 2026Article
- Intensive, Repeated Self-Report Measures: Should We Be Concerned About Changes in Data Quality Over Time?JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- How do participant preferences, expectancies, and perceptions of ecological momentary assessment impact adherence? A mixed-methods analysis.Psychological assessment · 2025Article
- Ecological Momentary Assessment as a Measure of Intervention Change: Evaluation in 4 Digital Mental Health Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Response times (RTs) to ecological momentary assessment (EMA) items often decrease after repeated EMA administration, but whether this is accompanied by lower response quality requires investigation. We examined the relationship between EMA item RTs and EMA response quality. In one data set, declining response quality was operationalized as decreasing correspondence over time between subjective and objective measures of blood glucose taken at the same time. In a second EMA study data set, declining response quality was operationalized as decreasing correspondence between subjective ratings of memory test performance and objective memory test scores. We assumed that measurement error in the objective measures did not increase across time, meaning that decreasing correspondence across days within a person could be attributed to lower response quality. RTs to EMA items decreased across study days, while no decrements in the mean response quality were observed. Decreasing EMA item RTs across study days did not appear problematic overall.
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.