Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42629363›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2026

Improving the comparability of momentary affect assessments and accounting for item-specific effects in within-person affect dynamics.

Tobias Koch, Miriam F Jähne, Kenneth Koslowski, Peter Koval, Tanja Lischetzke, Daniel McNeish, Jana Holtmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tobias KochInstitute of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany. tobias.koch@uni-jena.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8143-3566
Miriam F JähneInstitute of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7760-764X
Kenneth KoslowskiWilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5296-5267
Peter KovalMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2460-0943
Tanja LischetzkeDepartment of Psychology, RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-5127
Daniel McNeishDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1643-9408
Jana HoltmannWilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7949-0772

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) 539550566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A primary objective of intensive longitudinal studies is to investigate within-person dynamics. In this context, item heterogeneity plays a critical role, as within-person processes may vary across items within a scale. A common example is the assessment of momentary affect using adjective lists (e.g., sad, angry, anxious, stressed), where each item captures different facets of positive or negative affect, providing unique and non-interchangeable information. However, standard practices often overlook item heterogeneity by aggregating item scores or assuming a single within-person factor in dynamic structural equation models. This simplification does not permit a fine-grained analysis of within-person dynamics and compromises cross-study comparability when item pools differ across studies. In this article, we reanalyze five large-scale intensive longitudinal datasets assessing momentary affect to illustrate how item heterogeneity can be explicitly modeled. We introduce a flexible modeling approach that accommodates item-specific and person-specific dynamics while improving psychometric comparability across studies, based on residual dynamic structural equation modeling with reference items. We compare this method to conventional modeling strategies and provide practical guidance for addressing item heterogeneity in the analysis of intensive longitudinal data.

Identifiers

PMID42629363
PMCPMC13498562

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.