↓ Skip to main content

Discrete- vs. Continuous-Time Modeling of Unequally Spaced Experience Sampling Method Data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Discrete- vs. Continuous-Time Modeling of Unequally Spaced Experience Sampling Method Data
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01849
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia de Haan-Rietdijk, Manuel C. Voelkle, Loes Keijsers, Ellen L. Hamaker

Abstract

The Experience Sampling Method is a common approach in psychological research for collecting intensive longitudinal data with high ecological validity. One characteristic of ESM data is that it is often unequally spaced, because the measurement intervals within a day are deliberately varied, and measurement continues over several days. This poses a problem for discrete-time (DT) modeling approaches, which are based on the assumption that all measurements are equally spaced. Nevertheless, DT approaches such as (vector) autoregressive modeling are often used to analyze ESM data, for instance in the context of affective dynamics research. There are equivalent continuous-time (CT) models, but they are more difficult to implement. In this paper we take a pragmatic approach and evaluate the practical relevance of the violated model assumption in DT AR(1) and VAR(1) models, for the N = 1 case. We use simulated data under an ESM measurement design to investigate the bias in the parameters of interest under four different model implementations, ranging from the true CT model that accounts for all the exact measurement times, to the crudest possible DT model implementation, where even the nighttime is treated as a regular interval. An analysis of empirical affect data illustrates how the differences between DT and CT modeling can play out in practice. We find that the size and the direction of the bias in DT (V)AR models for unequally spaced ESM data depend quite strongly on the true parameter in addition to data characteristics. Our recommendation is to use CT modeling whenever possible, especially now that new software implementations have become available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 28%
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 23 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 40%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Mathematics 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 31 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,034,476
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,117
of 33,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,496
of 334,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#267
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 334,732 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 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 56% of its contemporaries.