Retrospective Assessment (RA) scores are often found to be higher than the mean of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) scores about a concurrent period. This difference is generally interpreted as bias towards salient experiences in RA. During RA, participants are often asked to summarize their experiences in unspecific terms, which may indeed facilitate bias. At least in this unspecific form, the summary that participants apply to their remembered experiences can take many different forms. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (N = 92) using a repeated N = 1 approach. We reported on interindividual differences between EMA data and RA score, and assessed for each participant whether it was likely that their RA score was an approximation of the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA data. We found considerable interpersonal differences in the difference between EMA scores and RA scores, as well as some extreme cases. Furthermore, for a considerable part of the sample (n = 46 for positive affect, n = 60 for negative affect), we did not reject the null hypothesis that their RA score represented the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA data. We conclude that in its current unspecific form, RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether more specific forms of RA reduce bias, while acknowledging interindividual differences.
Modelling suicide ideation from beep to beep: Application of network analysis to ecological momentary assessment data
