Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828125›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience applied2026

Capturing affective states in everyday life - Comparing psychometric properties of two affect measures.

Matthias F Limberger, Lisa M Störkel, Johanna Hepp, Inga Niedtfeld, Markus Reichert, Philip S Santangelo, Lisa-Marie Hartnagel, Oksana Berhe, Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, Heike Tost and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience applied, 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

11 authors.

Matthias F LimbergerMental mHealth Lab, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Lisa M StörkelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Johanna HeppDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Inga NiedtfeldDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Markus ReichertDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Philip S SantangeloDepartment of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, Luxembourg University, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Lisa-Marie HartnagelMental mHealth Lab, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Oksana BerheDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Andreas Meyer-LindenbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Heike TostDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Ulrich W Ebner-PriemerMental mHealth Lab, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

E-diary items and scales face three contradicting challenges, originating from their repeated assessment: To achieve high compliance and to limit participant's burden a minimal number of items is aspired, to achieve reliability on a momentary level more items per scale are advantageous. As psychometric properties and distributions of e-diary scales are important but rarely reported, we used a clinical- (N = 51) and a community-based (N = 353) intensive longitudinal dataset comprising the momentary Multidimensional Mood Questionnaire (mMDMQ) and the Positive and Negative Affect Items (PNAI), both measuring affect, to investigate and compare, in an exploratory approach, distribution indices, psychometric properties, and assumptions for multilevel modeling. In the community sample, all scales of the mMDMQ and the positive affect scale of the PNAI showed very good psychometric properties and distributions. In contrast, the negative affect scale of the PNAI showed right-skewness and floor effects on the item and scale level, and even in the residuals of the multilevel models. In the clinical sample, the overall picture was opposite with mMDMQ again showing reasonable distributions, but this time positive affect of the PNAI revealing problematic properties. Carefully selecting momentary scales and reporting their psychometric properties is essential in e-diary research.

Indexed as

Ambulatory assessmentEcological momentary assessmente-diaryExperience sampling methodNegative affectPsychometric properties

Identifiers

PMID42828125
PMCPMC13631613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.