ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2026
Modeling intraindividual means and variances from ecological momentary assessment data: comparing standard computational formulas to mixed-effects location-scale model estimates.
Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Data analysis for behavioral medicine: an introduction to the special issue.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditionally, intraindividual means and variances derived from ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data have been calculated using standard computational formulas (SCF), such as subject-level means and standard deviations. However, these SCF methods assume uniform precision across subjects, disregarding variation in the number of observations, missing data issues, and the non-continuous nature of data scales. This study evaluated the predictive accuracy of the coefficients of intraindividual means and variances computed via SCF against those estimated using random effects from a Mixed-Effects Location Scale (MELS) model. A five-scenario simulation study was conducted: (1) varying numbers of observations per subject, (2) varying mean-to-variance ratios, (3) varying proportions of missing data under a missing completely at random (MCAR) assumption, (4) varying proportions of missing data under a missing at random (MAR) assumption, and (5) varying categories of ordinal scale responses. Bias and coverage of the mean levels and variability coefficients were compared across methods. In addition, a real-life dataset was used to compare the difference of means and variances between SCF and MELS approaches. Results consistently showed that the MELS model approach outperformed SCF method, yielding lower bias and higher coverage of the coefficients across all scenarios. These findings support the use of MELS for more accurate and reliable estimation of intraindividual means and variances in EMA data, highlighting its advantages for subsequent predictive modeling.
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.