ArticlePsychological assessment2025
The importance of examining measurement properties in ecological momentary assessment research: An illustrative example in suicide research.
Article in Psychological assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ecological momentary assessment is a burgeoning methodology within suicide research, allowing for investigations of dynamics in suicidality and its risk factors in naturalistic settings. Less attention, however, has been paid to carefully examining whether measurement invariance is present across participants and prompts. This study examined the measurement properties of items assessing affective states in 237 adults with severe suicidal ideation (Mage = 27.12, 61.2% cisgender women, 86.9% White, 38.4% bisexual/pansexual). Utilizing latent Markov factor analysis, four questions were addressed: (a) how many measurement models (states) underlie the data? (b) how do these states differ? (c) were momentary suicidal intent and lifetime suicide attempts predictors of transitions between states? and (d) for whom does invariance hold? Results indicated that the best-fitting model had three states (R2entropy = .93). State 1 (Demoralization, 59% of observations) consisted of one factor characterized by high distress and lower arousal. State 2 (Agitated Arousal, 28%) consisted of one factor characterized by high distress and arousal. State 3 (Content, 13%) consisted of one factor characterized by low distress and absent arousal. Although these states were very stable across observations, momentary suicidal intent and suicide attempt history predicted transitions. Only a minority of participants (11.1%) remained in the same state throughout the entire study; thus, within-person and between-person invariance were insufficient. These findings underscore the importance of meticulous inspection of measurement properties when conducting intensive longitudinal research, as observations cannot be validly compared if measurement invariance is not met. (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.