↓ Skip to main content

What's in a Day? A Guide to Decomposing the Variance in Intensive Longitudinal Data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What's in a Day? A Guide to Decomposing the Variance in Intensive Longitudinal Data
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00891
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia de Haan-Rietdijk, Peter Kuppens, Ellen L. Hamaker

Abstract

In recent years there has been a growing interest in the use of intensive longitudinal research designs to study within-person processes. Examples are studies that use experience sampling data and autoregressive modeling to investigate emotion dynamics and between-person differences therein. Such designs often involve multiple measurements per day and multiple days per person, and it is not clear how this nesting of the data should be accounted for: That is, should such data be considered as two-level data (which is common practice at this point), with occasions nested in persons, or as three-level data with beeps nested in days which are nested in persons. We show that a significance test of the day-level variance in an empty three-level model is not reliable when there is autocorrelation. Furthermore, we show that misspecifying the number of levels can lead to spurious or misleading findings, such as inflated variance or autoregression estimates. Throughout the paper we present instructions and R code for the implementation of the proposed models, which includes a novel three-level AR(1) model that estimates moment-to-moment inertia and day-to-day inertia. Based on our simulations we recommend model selection using autoregressive multilevel models in combination with the AIC. We illustrate this method using empirical emotion data from two independent samples, and discuss the implications and the relevance of the existence of a day level for the field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 144 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 26%
Student > Master 27 18%
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 81 55%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 34 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2023.
All research outputs
#5,408,241
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,717
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,666
of 361,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#145
of 410 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 410 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.