Accuracy and Consistency of Visual Analog Scales in Ecological Momentary Assessment and Digital Studies

The ubiquity of digital technologies has increased assessments of thoughts, behaviors, and experiences via electronic devices. Surveys on smartphones or laptops often implement Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), recording responses on a continuous slider (0-100). This is particularly relevant for data collection in daily life, such as ecological momentary assessments (EMA), which repeatedly present items on mobile devices. However, the accuracy of digital VAS has been questioned, particularly regarding tactile precision (e.g., ability to accurately select values) and the consistency of scale interpretation both between- and within-persons over time (e.g., change in scale interpretation or reactivity to repeated measures). Participants (N = 3,761, 67.03% female; Mage = 47.09; SD = 14.41) from the Critical Incidents and Psychological Adaptation (CIPA) Study completed a 30-day EMA assessment. We investigated the accuracy of VAS in terms of (1) tactile precision, (2) respondents’ perception of the neutral point post-EMA, and (3) test-retest consistency of affect ratings pre- and post-EMA. (1) Tactile precision was assessed by asking participants to enter exactly 31 on a 0-100 slider. Results showed high precision (M = 31.01; SD = 3.28; 87.0% scored between 30-32). (2) Between-person agreement on scale perception was assessed by asking participants to determine the neutral score on two affect items (unipolar and bipolar). 82.19% and 88.89% indicated the expected scale midpoint (50 and 0, ± 5) as neutral, respectively. Neutral points deviating from the expected midpoint were correlated (r = .71-.73) with the person-specific means across the EMA period on the respective item. (3) Test-retest consistency was evaluated by asking participants to rate how happy/sad they/others would rate affective events (e.g., a serious argument) pre- and post-EMA. Consistency across time was high (median change = 0-5). Findings support the accuracy and consistency of digital VAS, within the scope of the current methods.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Collabra Psychology
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.142735
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Environmental Education and Sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.42

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accuracy and Consistency of Visual Analog Scales in Ecological Momentary Assessment and Digital Studies

Omid V. Ebrahimi, Marilyn L. Piccirillo, Marieke A. Helmich, Björn S. Siepe et al.
1 citations
Collabra Psychology
Environmental Education and Sustainability
2.42
article

Accuracy and Consistency of Visual Analog Scales in Ecological Momentary Assessment and Digital Studies

Omid V. Ebrahimi, Marilyn L. Piccirillo, Marieke A. Helmich, Björn S. Siepe, Sverre Urnes Johnson, Asle Hoffart, Leonie Cloos, Shirley B. Wang, Eiko I. Fried
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The ubiquity of digital technologies has increased assessments of thoughts, behaviors, and experiences via electronic devices. Surveys on smartphones or laptops often implement Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), recording responses on a continuous slider (0-100). This is particularly relevant for data collection in daily life, such as ecological momentary assessments (EMA), which repeatedly present items on mobile devices. However, the accuracy of digital VAS has been questioned, particularly regarding tactile precision (e.g., ability to accurately select values) and the consistency of scale interpretation both between- and within-persons over time (e.g., change in scale interpretation or reactivity to repeated measures). Participants (N = 3,761, 67.03% female; Mage = 47.09; SD = 14.41) from the Critical Incidents and Psychological Adaptation (CIPA) Study completed a 30-day EMA assessment. We investigated the accuracy of VAS in terms of (1) tactile precision, (2) respondents’ perception of the neutral point post-EMA, and (3) test-retest consistency of affect ratings pre- and post-EMA. (1) Tactile precision was assessed by asking participants to enter exactly 31 on a 0-100 slider. Results showed high precision (M = 31.01; SD = 3.28; 87.0% scored between 30-32). (2) Between-person agreement on scale perception was assessed by asking participants to determine the neutral score on two affect items (unipolar and bipolar). 82.19% and 88.89% indicated the expected scale midpoint (50 and 0, ± 5) as neutral, respectively. Neutral points deviating from the expected midpoint were correlated (r = .71-.73) with the person-specific means across the EMA period on the respective item. (3) Test-retest consistency was evaluated by asking participants to rate how happy/sad they/others would rate affective events (e.g., a serious argument) pre- and post-EMA. Consistency across time was high (median change = 0-5). Findings support the accuracy and consistency of digital VAS, within the scope of the current methods.

Collabra PsychologyVol. 11(1)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), Leiden University (NL), Philipps University of Marburg (DE), University of Oslo (NO), University of Applied Sciences Leiden (NL), Yale University (US), University of Oxford (GB), 657 Oslo (NO), Modum Bad – Gordon Johnsens stiftelse (NO), Science Oxford (GB), KU Leuven (BE)
Onderzoeksraad, KU Leuven, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Environmental Education and Sustainability
2.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.