回顾性评估是人们经历的手段吗?在比较回顾性评估数据和生态瞬时评估数据时,考虑人际和个人的变异性。

Q2 Psychology
IJsbrand Leertouwer, Noémi K Schuurman, Jeroen K Vermunt
{"title":"回顾性评估是人们经历的手段吗?在比较回顾性评估数据和生态瞬时评估数据时,考虑人际和个人的变异性。","authors":"IJsbrand Leertouwer,&nbsp;Noémi K Schuurman,&nbsp;Jeroen K Vermunt","doi":"10.17505/jpor.2022.24855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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, leaving room for personal interpretation. As a result, participants may use various strategies to summarize their experiences. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (<i>N</i> = 92) using a repeated <i>N</i> = 1 approach. We 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 scores. 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 (<i>n</i> = 46 for positive affect, <i>n</i> = 56 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 scores. We conclude that in its current unspecific form RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether differences between RA and EMA are mitigated using more specific forms of RA, while acknowledging interindividual differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":36744,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Person-Oriented Research","volume":"8 2","pages":"52-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9773960/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Retrospective Assessments Means of People's Experiences?: Accounting for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variability when Comparing Retrospective Assessment Data to Ecological Momentary Assessment Data.\",\"authors\":\"IJsbrand Leertouwer,&nbsp;Noémi K Schuurman,&nbsp;Jeroen K Vermunt\",\"doi\":\"10.17505/jpor.2022.24855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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, leaving room for personal interpretation. As a result, participants may use various strategies to summarize their experiences. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (<i>N</i> = 92) using a repeated <i>N</i> = 1 approach. We 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 scores. 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 (<i>n</i> = 46 for positive affect, <i>n</i> = 56 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 scores. We conclude that in its current unspecific form RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether differences between RA and EMA are mitigated using more specific forms of RA, while acknowledging interindividual differences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Person-Oriented Research\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"52-70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9773960/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Person-Oriented Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2022.24855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Person-Oriented Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2022.24855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回顾性评估(RA)得分通常高于同期生态瞬时评估(EMA)得分的平均值。这种差异通常被解释为对RA突出经验的偏向。在RA期间,参与者经常被要求用不具体的术语总结他们的经历,留下个人解释的空间。因此,参与者可能会使用不同的策略来总结他们的经验。在本研究中,我们使用重复的N = 1方法重新分析了现有数据集(N = 92)。我们评估了每个参与者的RA评分是否可能是他们的EMA评分所捕获的经历的平均值的近似值。我们发现在EMA评分和RA评分之间存在相当大的人际差异,以及一些极端情况。此外,对于相当一部分样本(积极情感n = 46,消极情感n = 56),我们没有拒绝原假设,即他们的RA分数代表他们的EMA分数所捕获的经历的平均值。我们的结论是,在目前的非特异性形式下,RA可能会促进偏见,尽管不是对每个人都适用。在承认个体间差异的同时,未来的研究可能会确定使用更具体的RA形式是否可以减轻RA和EMA之间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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

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

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, leaving room for personal interpretation. As a result, participants may use various strategies to summarize their experiences. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (N = 92) using a repeated N = 1 approach. We 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 scores. 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 = 56 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 scores. We conclude that in its current unspecific form RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether differences between RA and EMA are mitigated using more specific forms of RA, while acknowledging interindividual differences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal for Person-Oriented Research
Journal for Person-Oriented Research Psychology-Psychology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信