Cited by 362Mental Health Research TopicsPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Clinical assessment of affective instability: Comparing EMA indices, questionnaire reports, and retrospective recall.

Open access
Solhan, Marika B., Trull, Timothy J., Jahng, Seungmin, Wood, Phillip K.·2009·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

Traditional self-report measures of psychopathology may be influenced by a variety of recall biases. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) reduces these biases by assessing individuals' experiences as they occur in their natural environments. This study examines the discrepancy between trait questionnaire, retrospective report, and EMA measures of affective instability in psychiatric outpatients either with a borderline personality diagnosis (n = 58) or with a current episode of major depressive disorder or dysthymia (n = 42). The authors examined the agreement of 3 trait measures of affective instability-the Affective Instability subscale of the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features scale (L. C. Morey, 1991), the Affect Intensity Measure (R. J. Larsen, E. Diener, & R. Emmons, 1986), and the Affect Lability Scales (P. D. Harvey, B. R. Greenberg, & M. R. Serper, 1989)-and 1 retrospective mood recall task with EMA indices of mood and mood instability. Results indicate only modest to moderate agreement between momentary and questionnaire assessments of trait affective instability; agreement between recalled mood changes and EMA indices was poor. Implications for clinical research and practice and possible applications of EMA methodology are discussed.

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 · 10.1037/a0016869

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Desktop- or laptop-based monitoring of panic disorder symptoms via daily or weekly electronic diaries is likely biased by memory effects because clients complete these diaries retrospectively rather than in real-time.

    “when desktop PCs or laptops are used to monitor symptoms of PD to identify factors that cue panic attacks and avoidance, clients typically use daily or weekly electronic diary entries, which are likely biased by memory effects because clients must complete these diaries retrospectively and not in real-time [22–28].”

    From Efficacy of a hybrid online training for panic symptoms and agoraphobia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. (2014) · cites this paper as [23]

    The paper’s Sources of Retrospective Bias section explains that reports made from memory can be biased, and the Discussion says momentary assessment avoids relying on potentially incomplete recall (page numbers unavailable). It does not establish that people monitoring panic disorder on desktop or laptop computers typically make daily or weekly entries retrospectively; its own study used a prompted handheld diary six times a day. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Solhan, M. B., Trull, T. J., Jahng, S., & Wood, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2009-09
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
425-436
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2019004439
Cited by
362
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 17
FWCI
13.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH069472)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
neuroticism, ecological momentary assessment, recall bias, borderline personality disorder, major depressive disorder, dysthymia, psychiatric outpatients, mood instability
MeSH terms
Adult, Borderline Personality Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Self Disclosure, Social Environment, Reproducibility of Results, Dysthymic Disorder, Mood 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