Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38947283›Full record

ArticlePsychologica Belgica2024

A Comparison of Measures for Assessing Profile Similarity in Dyads.

Chiara Carlier, Julian D Karch, Peter Kuppens, Eva Ceulemans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Beyond snapshots: A systematic review of dyadic and triadic parent-adolescent ecological momentary assessment studies across diverse and general populations.Journal of research on adolescence : the official journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Noisy Self Goes Online: Intraindividual Personality Variability and Self-Coherence in Digital Engagement.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Chiara CarlierDepartment of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4985-6240
Julian D KarchDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1625-2822
Peter KuppensDepartment of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2363-2356
Eva CeulemansDepartment of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7611-4683

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Profile similarity measures are used to quantify the similarity of two sets of ratings on multiple variables. Yet, it remains unclear how different measures are distinct or overlap and what type of information they precisely convey, making it unclear what measures are best applied under varying circumstances. With this study, we aim to provide clarity with respect to how existing measures interrelate and provide recommendations for their use by comparing a wide range of profile similarity measures. We have taken four steps. First, we reviewed 88 similarity measures by applying them to multiple cross-sectional and intensive longitudinal data sets on emotional experience and retained 43 useful profile similarity measures after eliminating duplicates, complements, or measures that were unsuitable for the intended purpose. Second, we have clustered these 43 measures into similarly behaving groups, and found three general clusters: one cluster with difference measures, one cluster with product measures that could be split into four more nuanced groups and one miscellaneous cluster that could be split into two more nuanced groups. Third, we have interpreted what unifies these groups and their subgroups and what information they convey based on theory and formulas. Last, based on our findings, we discuss recommendations with respect to the choice of measure, propose to avoid using the Pearson correlation, and suggest to center profile items when stereotypical patterns threaten to confound the computation of similarity.

Indexed as

clusteringdistancedyadsmeasuresprofilesSimilarity

Identifiers

PMID38947283
PMCPMC11212783

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.