Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41129392›Full record

ArticlePsychological assessment2025

Minimum sampling recommendations for applied ambulatory assessment.

Aidan G C Wright, Florian Scharf, Johannes Zimmermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Aidan G C WrightDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-2369-0601
Florian ScharfDepartment of Psychology, University of Kassel.
Johannes ZimmermannDepartment of Psychology, University of Kassel.

Funding

Using Smartphone Assessments for Personalized Prediction of Problematic Alcohol UseR01AA026879 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WRIGHT, AIDAN GREGORY CRAVER · 2020 to 2024
$3.1M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA026879NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ambulatory assessment is popular in research settings for its ability to assess real-world functioning. It is useful for estimating an individual's typical level of a behavior (individual mean), how (un)stable that behavior is (individual standard deviation), how behaviors associate with others or specific contexts (within-person correlation), and shifts in those statistics that might signal an important change in functioning (e.g., early warning signal). However, many of the methodological advances have not made the jump from the lab to clinical practice. Effective use of ambulatory assessment in applied settings to understand functioning and guide potential interventions requires development and application of psychometric standards for N = 1 assessments. We conducted a simulation study to determine how many assessments are necessary to achieve sufficiently reliable (i.e., precise and stable) estimates of an individual's mean and standard deviation on a single variable as well as the correlation between two variables. To ensure the ecological validity of the simulation conditions, we used real time series data from a large sample that included psychiatric patients and nonpatients (capturing realistic levels of autocorrelation and skewness). We found that the minimum number of assessments depends on the statistic of interest and the temporal characteristics of the variable of interest. Individual means can be estimated reliably with a reasonably small number of observations under most conditions, but adequately precise and stable individual correlations require more assessments than may be achievable in many applied settings. Implications of these results for the potential of applied ambulatory assessment in clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Mental DisordersPsychometricsFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID41129392
PMCPMC12683972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.