Dysphoria and well-being in daily life: Development and validation of ecological momentary assessment scales.

Abstract

Assessment of internalizing symptoms has generally relied on cross-sectional and retrospective self-reports, but ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is increasingly used to capture quick fluctuations in symptoms, enhance ecological validity, and improve recall accuracy. However, there are very few measures of internalizing symptoms that have been validated for use in EMA designs. In Study 1, we chose candidate items for EMA short forms of the Dysphoria and Well-Being scales from the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS), based on principal factor analyses and internal consistency analyses conducted on aggregated cross-sectional datasets (total N = 8,876). In Study 2, we tested the items using an EMA design in a sample of college students (N = 279) oversampled for elevated neuroticism. Scale structure, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity (regarding baseline IDAS scales, baseline affect, and EMA affect) were evaluated at the within-and between-person levels using multilevel structural equation modeling. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in separate subsamples revealed the expected two-factor structure, yielding a four-item Well-Being scale and a five-item Dysphoria scale. Both scales showed acceptable to good internal consistency, strong convergent validity, and generally adequate discriminant validity. However, some associations of the new scales with EMA affect (i.e., Dysphoria with negative affect; Well-Being with positive affect) were very strong at the between-person level, such that they were not empirically distinct. Overall, this study provides an initial validation of brief EMA-IDAS Dysphoria and Well-Being scales that can be used in research or clinical settings, with particular utility for capturing within-person, dynamic effects. Public Significance StatementThe present study performed the first stages of creating a brief measure of depression and anxiety symptoms. Our results provide initial evidence that this measure is appropriate for use in repeated momentary assessments (e.g., research conducted via smartphone surveys that occur multiple times a day). Additionally, it highlights important considerations for measures used in repeated momentary assessments of psychological symptoms.

Measuring affect in daily life: A multilevel psychometric evaluation of the PANAS-X across four ecological momentary assessment samples.

“…Although PANAS-X items are very frequently used in EMA/AA research, there are alternative measures of affect and mood that are widely used in EMA studies (e.g., items from the Profile of Mood States or the Inventory of Anxiety and Depression Symptoms; Jimenez et al, 2022). Our findings do not provide information about other measures of affect (or other combinations of PANAS-X items), and the multilevel reliability of these measures needs to be evaluated in each study (see Jimenez et al, 2022). Indeed, the PANAS-X may not capture the full range of discrete affect states that a researcher may be interested in examining.…”

Capturing mood dynamics through adolescent smartphone social communication.

“…The IDAS-II is a self-report measure that assesses symptoms over the past 2 weeks, with each item rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ( not at all ) to 5 ( extremely ). We focused on the General Depression subscale (20 items; α = .94); additionally, Dysphoria (10 items; α = .92) and Well-Being subscales (eight items; reverse-coded to reflect anhedonia; α = .89) were included to index affective symptoms of high negative affect and low positive affect, respectively (Jimenez et al, 2022).…”

Psychometric evaluation of an adapted version of the perceived stress scale for ecological momentary assessment research

“…They also found that a large proportion of the variance (50%) in emotional awareness was accounted for by state scores, whereas trait scores were found to explain only 2%. Another study by Jimenez et al (2022) addressed the need for psychometrically robust EMA measures which capture both distress and anhedonia. The brief Dysphoria and Well-Being EMA measures were adapted from the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms and validated by conducting principal factor analyses and internal consistency analyses on aggregated cross-sectional datasets (N = 8876).…”

“…The brief Dysphoria and Well-Being EMA measures were adapted from the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms and validated by conducting principal factor analyses and internal consistency analyses on aggregated cross-sectional datasets (N = 8876). The two EMA scales were further evaluated in an EMA design among 279 college students at the within-and betweenperson levels, with results indicating that both scales showed acceptable to good internal consistency, strong criterion validity, and generally adequate discriminant validity (Jimenez et al, 2022). Besides this, Forkmann et al (2018) evaluated the psychometric properties of an item set for the assessment of suicidal ideation (i.e., passive and active suicidal ideation) and relevant proximal risk factors (e.g., anxiety, depression).…”

“…Noting the importance of reliable and valid EMA measure scores, a small number of studies have begun to specifically develop and/or validate, EMA measures and discuss their psychometric properties (Borah et al, 2018;Forkmann et al, 2018;Jimenez et al, 2022;Mejía et al, 2014;Murray et al, 2020;Versluis et al, 2021;Wieland et al, 2018). For example, Murray et al (2020) developed and validated a measure of aggression for use in EMA research.…”