CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 477Mental Health Research TopicsJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorWorkplace Health and Well-being

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 129 of the 129 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ESM 2.0: State of the Art and Future Potential of Experience Sampling Methods in Organizational Research

Open access
Beal, Daniel J.·2015·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The use of experience sampling methods (ESM) and related techniques has exploded in organizational research. The goals of this review are to provide a focused perspective on the state of the art in using ESM and set the stage for what ESM will look like in the years to come. First, I provide a conceptually based discussion of exactly what is and what is not ESM. Next, I discuss the more advantageous elements of ESM that have surfaced from the range of disciplines that enjoy its use (e.g., reduced memory and methods biases), followed by the inevitable challenges that have sometimes limited its utility (e.g., issues with repeated assessment, missing data, and internal validity). Finally, I discuss three innovations of ESM (e.g., trait assessment, expansion to higher levels of analysis, and connection to big data) that seem likely to ensure its continued and expanded influence as a common tool for examining not only within-person psychological processes at work, but higher levels of analysis as well.

Overview

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 · 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Utilizing ESM allows researchers to protect against common method bias usually associated with cross-sectional survey designs and memory bias where followers have to recall specific behaviors.

    “Utilizing ESM allows researchers to protect against common method bias usually associated with crosssectional survey designs and memory bias where followers have to recall specific behaviors (Beal, 2015).”

    From Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research (2019) · cites this paper as Beal, 2015

  • Researchers typically employ ESM to survey participants regularly (i.e. every few hours up to daily) across 1 to 2 weeks.

    “Researchers typically employee ESM to survey participants regularly (i.e.every few hours up to daily) across 1 to 2 weeks (Beal, 2015).”

    From Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research (2019) · cites this paper as Beal, 2015

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Beal DJ, 2013, A Day in the Life of a Happy Worker, 8
  2. Bobko P, 1998, Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag., 16, 359
  3. Card NA. 2012. Multilevel mediational analysis in the study of daily lives. See Mehl & Conner 2012, pp. 479–98
  4. Damasio A, 1994, Descartes’ Error
  5. Hersey RB, 1932, Pers. J., 10, 355
  6. Laurila JK, Gatica-Perez D, Aad I, Blom J, Bornet O, et al. 2012. The Mobile Data Challenge: big data for mobile computing research. Presented at Mob. Data Chall. Workshop, June 18–19, Newcastle, UK
  7. Ployhart RE, 2010, J. Manag., 36, 94
  8. Taylor SG, 2015, J. Manag
  9. Weiss HM, 1996, Res. Organ. Behav., 19, 1
  10. Zyphur MJ, 2015, J. Manag, 41, 390

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Beal, D. J.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Beal, Daniel J.
ORCID
Beal, Daniel J.
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2015-04-10
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
383-407
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
DOI
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335
OpenAlex
W2106887764
Cited by
436
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
ecological momentary assessment, within-person processes, memory bias, methodological bias, repeated assessment, missing data, internal validity, trait assessment, big data, work psychology

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