李克特量表与视觉模拟量表在生态瞬时评价中的比较。

IF 4.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Jonas M B Haslbeck, Alberto Jover Martínez, Anne J Roefs, Eiko I Fried, Lotte H J M Lemmens, Esmee Groot, Peter A Edelsbrunner
{"title":"李克特量表与视觉模拟量表在生态瞬时评价中的比较。","authors":"Jonas M B Haslbeck, Alberto Jover Martínez, Anne J Roefs, Eiko I Fried, Lotte H J M Lemmens, Esmee Groot, Peter A Edelsbrunner","doi":"10.3758/s13428-025-02706-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>63</mn></mrow> </math> ) with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>56</mn></mrow> </math> ) 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":"57 8","pages":"217"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12222338/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Likert and visual analogue scales in ecological momentary assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Jonas M B Haslbeck, Alberto Jover Martínez, Anne J Roefs, Eiko I Fried, Lotte H J M Lemmens, Esmee Groot, Peter A Edelsbrunner\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13428-025-02706-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>63</mn></mrow> </math> ) with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>56</mn></mrow> </math> ) 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"57 8\",\"pages\":\"217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12222338/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02706-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02706-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在生态瞬间评价(EMA)研究中测量主观体验已成为心理科学研究的普遍内容。在所有这些研究中必须做出的设计选择是使用哪种反应量表。然而,迄今为止,在EMA的背景下,很少有关于这种选择的指导。作为理解不同反应量表影响的第一步,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有系统的不同。我们进行了一项人与人之间的实验,比较了7分李克特量表(n = 63)和视觉模拟量表(VAS;n = 56)在一项测量14天内情感状态的EMA研究中。使用贝叶斯多层模型,我们发现VAS导致适度较高的人内项目均值,lag-0相关性,lag-1自相关性,以及较低的人内偏度和精确为零的响应频率。我们发现最大的差异是与精神病理学相关的外部标准的相关性,其中VAS的相关性要高得多。我们没有观察到在个人项目方差、均方根连续差异、缺失数据、测量持续时间和对EMA调查体验的评级方面的可靠差异。除了VAS组较高的人内平均值和与外部标准较高的相关性外,差异相对较小。虽然需要对EMA的反应量表进行更多的研究,但根据我们的结果,我们得出结论,在旨在捕捉与一般精神病理相关的情感状态的研究中,以及在变化接近量表限制的项目中,VAS应该是首选。最后,我们讨论了我们的发现如何有助于更大的研究议程,以解决不同研究目标的不同反应量表的适合性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Likert and visual analogue scales in ecological momentary assessment.

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 ( n = 63 ) with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; n = 56 ) 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.

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
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信