How Accurate & Consistent are Self-Report responses via Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) in Ecological Momentary Assessment & Digital Studies?
Examined in a large EMA study (N = 3,761) w/L. Cloos @bsiepe.bsky.social @marilynpicciri1.bsky.social @eikofried.bsky.social @shirleybwang.bsky.social ... 🧵:
Examined in a large EMA study (N = 3,761) w/L. Cloos @bsiepe.bsky.social @marilynpicciri1.bsky.social @eikofried.bsky.social @shirleybwang.bsky.social ... 🧵:
Comments
1: Ubiquity of digital technologies (ESM/EMA) has increased assessment of individuals' thoughts, behaviors & experiences via electronic devices, often measured via VAS.
Two commonly used forms include a) unipolar (0-100) & b) bipolar (e.g. -50 to 50) VAS.
▶️ 1: Tactile precision (ability to accurately select a value)
And consistency of scale interpretation
▶️ 2: Between respondents (e.g. differing interpretations)
▶️ 3: Within respondents over time (e.g reactivity to repeated measurement)
▶️ 1: To what degree participants could provide a specific value on VAS
▶️ 2: Agreement on what participants perceived as the neutral point on a unipolar & bipolar VAS item
▶️ 3: The test-retest consistency of affect ratings pre- and post a 30-day EMA period
When instructed to provide a specific number '31', we found high precision (M = 31.01; SD = 3.28), with 87.0% of subjects scoring between 30-32.
We found no meaningful predictors (e.g., sex, age, education, BMI) influencing tactile precision.
The majority of participants agreed & provided the expected neutral points on both unipolar (50) & bipolar (0) VAS item, with 82.19% & 88.89% indicating the scale midpoint (50 & 0, ± 5) as neutral point respectively
Subjects agreed more on neutral point for bipolar item
Pleasure working together on this, Shirley! Very rewarding.
(But seriously, that week was such a highlight of...my whole research career? Hopefully the start of more to come!)