ArticlePsychological assessment2025
Minimum sampling recommendations for applied ambulatory assessment.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a psychological test battery to measure cognition in daily life.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- The construct validity of daily cognitive variability.Psychology and aging · 2026Article
- Minimum sampling recommendations for applied ambulatory assessment.Psychological assessment · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.