Cited by 64Mental Health Research TopicsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

Experience Sampling Methodology studies of depression: the state of the art

Telford, C., McCarthy-Jones, S., Corcoran, R., Rowse, G.·2012·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) is ideally suited to test the predictions, and inform the development of contemporary cognitive models of depression. Yet there has been no systematic examination of ESM in depression research. Method A search of databases (PsychARTICLES, PsycINFO, AMED, Ovid Medline and CINAHL) was conducted to identify studies published within the last 25 years investigating major depressive disorder (MDD) using ESM. Results Altogether, 19 studies using ESM, or comparable methodologies, with clinically depressed individuals were identified and critically reviewed. The identified studies examined six aspects of MDD: methodological issues; positive and negative affect; cortisol secretion; antidepressant treatment; work performance; genetic risk factors. Conclusions Despite some methodological limitations of existing studies, ESM has made a significant contribution to our current understanding of depression by consolidating existing theories, uncovering new and clinically relevant findings and identifying questions for future research. This review concludes by introducing the possibility of using ESM as an intervention tool in clinical practice and proposing that ESM could be useful for furthering knowledge of the causes of MDD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291711002200

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Telford, C., McCarthy-Jones, S., Corcoran, R., & Rowse, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2011-10-19
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
1119-1129
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2147180028
Cited by
64
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
ecological momentary assessment, major depressive disorder, cognitive models of depression, positive and negative affect, cortisol secretion, antidepressant treatment, employee performance, genetic risk factors
MeSH terms
Affect, Antidepressive Agents, Circadian Rhythm, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Employment, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Models, Psychological, Quality of Life, Research Design, Stress, Psychological, Databases, Bibliographic, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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