Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42098572›Full record

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.

Wei-Lin Wang, Chih-Hsiang Yang, Rachel Nordgren, Jixin Li, Stephen Intille, Genevieve F Dunton, Donald Hedeker

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Wei-Lin WangDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, 1845 N. Soto St., Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA. weilinwa@usc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5617-4320
Chih-Hsiang YangDepartment of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
Rachel NordgrenDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA.
Jixin LiKhoury College of Computer Sciences and Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
Stephen IntilleKhoury College of Computer Sciences and Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
Genevieve F DuntonDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, 1845 N. Soto St., Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA.
Donald HedekerDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA.

Funding

Novel Statistical Models for Intensive Longitudinal Analyses of Cancer Control BehaviorsR01CA240713 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Genevieve Fridlund Dunton, Donald Hedeker · 2019 to 2026
$4.1M
Maternal Stress and Children's Obesity RiskR01HL119255 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI DUNTON, GENEVIEVE FRIDLUND · 2013 to 2017
$4.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA240713NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL119255
6 · The paper itself

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

Ecological Momentary AssessmentModels, StatisticalComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansEcological momentary assessmentIntraindividual variabilityLongitudinal data analysis methodsMissing dataMixed-effects location scale model

Identifiers

PMID42098572
PMCPMC13192405

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.