Cited by 164Mental Health Research TopicsAging and Gerontology ResearchAging, Health, and Disability

Ecological momentary assessment in aging research: A critical review

Open access
Cain, Ashley E., Depp, Colin A., Jeste, Dilip V.·2009·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) gathers respondent data on affective, behavioral, and contextual experiences as close in time to those experiences as possible. Potential advantages of EMA in aging research include reducing memory biases and gathering intra-individual data, yet there is little understanding about implementation. The goal of this critical review was to assess the feasibility and applications of EMA in psychological and behavioral research on aging. Through a comprehensive search of the online electronic databases, Psycinfo and Pubmed, for English-language peer-reviewed journals published between 1990 and 2007, we identified 40 articles using EMA methods in older adults. Studies sampled participants between five times per day over one day to once a week for 210 days. Samples were generally not cognitively impaired, evenly split between healthy and clinical populations, and only 6 of 40 studies focused on psychiatric diagnoses. The most common assessment content solicited ratings on affect (n=15), activities of daily living (n=12), physical activities (n=10), and social exchanges (n=8). A total of 90% of the studies that reported compliance reported rates over 80%. Uses of EMA varied widely, with research goals including validation of global measures, detection of subtle treatment effects, and for testing hypotheses about causal intra-individual relationships. Although these measures appear feasible and useful in aging research, recommendations for future studies include adapting measures to enable data collection among older participants with cognitive impairments and/or psychopathology, along with greater use of electronic data capture to improve compliance and increase ease of implementation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.014

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • EMA has advantages over one-time in-clinic measures, including generating more stable estimates of neurobehavioural symptoms for outcomes research, assessing dynamic changes among theoretically linked constructs, reducing recall bias for patients with neurobehavioural disorders, and enabling modeling of causal intra-individual relationships.

    “This approach has many advantages87 over “one-time, in-clinic” measures, including the generation of more stable estimates of neurobehavioural symptoms for outcomes research;88 the assessment of dynamic changes among theoretically linked constructs;89 the reduction of recall bias for patients with neurobehavioural disorders;90,91 and the ability to model causal intra-individual relationships.92”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cain, A. E., Depp, C. A., & Jeste, D. V.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Depp, Colin A.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-07
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
987-996
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124881052
Cited by
164
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH091260, K23MH077225, P30MH066248)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
ecological momentary assessment, aging research, older adults, memory bias, within-person variability, affect, activities of daily living, physical activity, social exchange, cognitive impairment, psychopathology, electronic data capture, treatment effect detection
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Compliance, Ecology, Humans, Research, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment, Databases, Bibliographic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review