Haslbeck Jonas M B, Martínez Alberto Jover, Roefs Anne J, Fried Eiko I, Lemmens Lotte H J M, Groot Esmee, Edelsbrunner Peter A
Psychological Methods Group, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Behav Res Methods. 2025 Jul 2;57(8):217. doi: 10.3758/s13428-025-02706-2.
Measuring subjective experiences in ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies has become pervasive in psychological science. A design choice that has to be made in all of these studies is which response scale to use. However, to date there is little guidance on this choice in the context of EMA. As a first step towards understanding the effects of different response scales, we experimentally vary the response scale and assess whether the resulting time series of subjective experiences are systematically different. We conducted a between-person experiment comparing a seven-point Likert scale ( ) with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; ) in an EMA study measuring affective states over 14 days. Using Bayesian multilevel models, we found that the VAS resulted in moderately higher within-person item means, lag-0 correlations, lag-1 autocorrelations, as well as lower within-person skewnesses and response frequencies of exact zeros. We found the largest difference in correlations with external criteria related to psychopathology, where correlations for the VAS were much higher. We did not observe reliable differences in within-person item variances, root mean squared successive differences, missing data, duration of measurements, and ratings about the experiences with the EMA survey. Apart from higher within-person means and higher correlations with external criteria in the VAS group, the differences were relatively small. While more research on response scales in EMA is needed, based on our results we conclude that the VAS should be preferred in studies aiming at capturing affective states relating to general psychopathology, as well as for items whose variation occurs close to scale limits. We conclude by discussing how our findings may contribute to a larger research agenda that addresses the fit of different response scales for different research aims.
在生态瞬时评估(EMA)研究中测量主观体验在心理学领域已变得十分普遍。在所有这些研究中都必须做出的一个设计选择是使用哪种反应量表。然而,迄今为止,在EMA背景下关于这一选择几乎没有指导意见。作为理解不同反应量表效果的第一步,我们通过实验改变反应量表,并评估由此产生的主观体验时间序列是否存在系统性差异。我们进行了一项个体间实验,在一项为期14天测量情感状态的EMA研究中,将七点李克特量表与视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行比较。使用贝叶斯多层次模型,我们发现VAS导致个体内项目均值、滞后0相关性、滞后1自相关性适度更高,以及个体内偏度和精确零反应频率更低。我们发现与心理病理学相关的外部标准的相关性差异最大,其中VAS的相关性要高得多。我们没有观察到个体内项目方差、连续均方根差、缺失数据、测量持续时间以及对EMA调查体验的评分方面的可靠差异。除了VAS组中个体内均值更高以及与外部标准的相关性更高外,差异相对较小。虽然在EMA中对反应量表还需要更多研究,但基于我们的结果,我们得出结论,在旨在捕捉与一般心理病理学相关的情感状态的研究中,以及对于变化接近量表极限的项目,VAS应该是更可取的。我们最后讨论了我们的发现如何可能有助于一个更大的研究议程,该议程解决不同反应量表与不同研究目标的适配问题。