An Application of a Mixed-Effects Location Scale Model for Analysis of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) Data

Abstract. The mixed-effects location scale model is an extension of a multilevel model for longitudinal data. It allows covariates to affect both the within-subject variance and the between-subject variance (i.e., the intercept variance) beyond their influence on the means. Typically, the model is applied to two-level data (e.g., the repeated measurements of persons), although researchers are often faced with three-level data (e.g., the repeated measurements of persons within specific situations). Here, we describe an extension of the two-level mixed-effects location scale model to such three-level data. Furthermore, we show how the suggested model can be estimated with Bayesian software, and we present the results of a small simulation study that was conducted to investigate the statistical properties of the suggested approach. Finally, we illustrate the approach by presenting an example from a psychological study that employed ecological momentary assessment.

Download Full-text

Differences in Affective Dynamics Among Eating-Disorder Diagnostic Groups

Clinical Psychological Science ◽

10.1177/2167702620917196 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (5) ◽

pp. 857-871

Author(s):

Gail A. Williams-Kerver ◽

Stephen A. Wonderlich ◽

Ross D. Crosby ◽

Li Cao ◽

Kathryn E. Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Eating Disorder ◽

Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽

Mixed Models ◽

Emotional Experience ◽

Affect Intensity ◽

Emotion Differentiation ◽

Affective Experiences ◽

Ecological Momentary ◽

Ema Data ◽

Momentary Assessment

Emotion-regulation theories suggest that affect intensity is crucial in the development and maintenance of eating disorders. However, other aspects of emotional experience, such as lability, differentiation, and inertia, are not as well understood. This study is the first to use ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to examine differences in several daily negative affect (NA) indicators among adults diagnosed with anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), or binge-eating disorder (BED). We used EMA data from three large studies to run a series of linear mixed models; the results showed that participants in the AN and BN groups experienced significantly greater NA intensity and better emotion differentiation than participants in the BED group. Alternatively, the BN group demonstrated significantly greater NA lability than the AN group and greater NA inertia than the BED group. These results suggest that several daily affective experiences differ among eating-disorder diagnostic groups and have implications toward distinct conceptualizations and treatments.

Download Full-text

Affect fluctuations examined with ecological momentary assessment in patients with current or remitted depression and anxiety disorders

Psychological Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0033291720000689 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

R. A. Schoevers ◽

C. D. van Borkulo ◽

F. Lamers ◽

M.N. Servaas ◽

J. A. Bastiaansen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Anxiety Disorder ◽

Anxiety Disorders ◽

Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽

Affect Regulation ◽

Depression And Anxiety ◽

Remitted Depression ◽

Ecological Momentary ◽

Ema Data ◽

Momentary Assessment ◽

A Current

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in day-to-day affect fluctuations of patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. Few studies have compared repeated assessments of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) across diagnostic groups, and fluctuation patterns were not uniformly defined. The aim of this study is to compare affect fluctuations in patients with a current episode of depressive or anxiety disorder, in remitted patients and in controls, using affect instability as a core concept but also describing other measures of variability and adjusting for possible confounders. Methods Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data were obtained from 365 participants of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety with current (n = 95), remitted (n = 178) or no (n = 92) DSM-IV defined depression/anxiety disorder. For 2 weeks, five times per day, participants filled-out items on PA and NA. Affect instability was calculated as the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD). Tests on group differences in RMSSD, within-person variance, and autocorrelation were performed, controlling for mean affect levels. Results Current depression/anxiety patients had the highest affect instability in both PA and NA, followed by remitters and then controls. Instability differences between groups remained significant when controlling for mean affect levels, but differences between current and remitted were no longer significant. Conclusions Patients with a current disorder have higher instability of NA and PA than remitted patients and controls. Especially with regard to NA, this could be interpreted as patients with a current disorder being more sensitive to internal and external stressors and having suboptimal affect regulation.

Download Full-text

Are Retrospective Assessments Means of People’s Experiences? Accounting for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variability when Comparing Retrospective Assessment Data to Ecological Momentary Assessment Data

10.31234/osf.io/nc5uq ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

IJsbrand Leertouwer ◽

Noémi Katalin Schuurman ◽

Jeroen Vermunt

Keyword(s):

Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽

Assessment Data ◽

Interindividual Differences ◽

Retrospective Assessment ◽

The Mean ◽

The Difference ◽

Ecological Momentary ◽

Ema Data ◽

Momentary Assessment ◽

Intrapersonal Variability

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.

Download Full-text