ArticleBrain and behavior2026
Psychometric Evaluation of Ecological Momentary Assessment Items for Mood in a Non-Clinical Sample.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) enables the real-time measurement of emotional states in daily life, reducing recall bias and capturing clinically meaningful fluctuations. However, evidence regarding the reliability and validity of EMA measures remains limited, and validated instruments are scarce, highlighting the need for EMA-specific psychometric evaluation.
objectiveTo assess the reliability, validity, and structural characteristics of a brief 11-item smartphone-based EMA of mood in a non-clinical sample.
methodsWe used data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating a 1-week digital self-efficacy training in a stress-enriched non-clinical sample of 93 Swiss university students. Baseline psychometric assessments included the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI II), the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE), the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The EMA assessment included moods such as cheerful, irritated, anxious, happy, insecure, lonely, relaxed, sad, overthinking, focused, and stressed. Analyses included descriptive statistics, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and external validity (correlations between baseline questionnaires and participant-level aggregated EMA ratings from the first 24 h). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and network analyses assessed the structure.
resultsWe considered the data of all 93 participants for the analysis. Participants (78.5% female) were on average 23.27 years of age (SD = 3.49). EMA items showed normal distribution, good internal consistency (α = 0.88), and low correlations (0.19-0.39) with the BDI II, the PANAS positive affect subscale, and the GSE. Moderate correlations (0.40-0.48) were found with the PANAS negative affect subscale, the STAI, and the PSS. An exploratory factor analysis indicated two or three factors, while network analysis revealed positive and negative affect communities. Confirmatory analysis suggested that the network model showed the most favorable fit indices among the models examined (CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.01).
conclusionThe smartphone-based EMA mood item set provided preliminary evidence of reliability and validity in this stress-enriched non-clinical student sample. Findings suggest differentiation between positive and negative affective states, as well as between depressive and anxiety-related features. These results support the potential utility of the item set for monitoring transient mood states in non-clinical populations.
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.