Cited by 507Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health Research TopicsBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Affective instability: measuring a core feature of borderline personality disorder with ecological momentary assessment.

Trull, Timothy J., Solhan, Marika B., Tragesser, Sarah L., Jahng, Seungmin, Wood, Phillip K., Piasecki, Thomas M., Watson, David·2008·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA; Stone & Shiffman, 1994) was used to characterize and quantify a dynamic process--affective instability in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Sixty outpatients (34 with BPD and affective instability; 26 with current depressive disorder but not with BPD or affective instability) carried electronic diaries for approximately 1 month and were randomly prompted to rate their mood state up to 6 times a day. Results indicated that BPD patients (a) did not report significantly different mean levels of positive or negative affect; (b) displayed significantly more variability over time in their positive and negative affect scores; (c) demonstrated significantly more instability on successive scores (i.e., large changes) for hostility, fear, and sadness than did patients with depressive disorders; and (d) were more likely to report extreme changes across successive occasions (>or=90th percentile of change scores across participants) for hostility scores. Results illustrate different analytic approaches to quantifying variability and instability of affect based on intensive longitudinal data. Further, results suggest the promise of electronic diaries for collecting data from individuals in their natural environment for purposes of clinical research and assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0012532

Cites

29 of 29 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trull, T. J., Solhan, M. B., Tragesser, S. L., Jahng, S., Wood, P. K., Piasecki, T. M., & Watson, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2008-08
Volume
117
Issue
3
Pages
647-661
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2072364128
Cited by
503
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 35
FWCI
21.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-69472)
  • Borderline Personality Disorder Research Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
neuroticism, borderline personality disorder, ecological momentary assessment, electronic diary, affective variability, mood states, hostility, fear, sadness, depressive disorders, intensive longitudinal data, naturalistic assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Borderline Personality Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Social Environment, Mood Disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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