ArticleNeuroscience applied2026
Capturing affective states in everyday life - Comparing psychometric properties of two affect measures.
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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.