Validation of within-person associations with coverage and momentary EMA self-reports using an objective standard (physical activity)

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a useful tool for assessing peoples' experiences, behaviors, and environments in everyday life. EMA is considered a standard for self-reporting, because its short reporting periods and multiple assessments in everyday life offers reduced recall bias and increased ecological validity. In this study we tested how well within-person EMA measurements of levels of physical activity (prompt-level data) match objective reports of activity from accelerometry. We looked at two kinds of validity: duration of EMA recall (5 m; 120 m) and type of physical activity response scale (verbal response scales [VRS]; numerical duration scales). Concurrent criterion validity was tested by examining level differences and with correlations of EMA with accelerometry. Construct validity was assessed by examining whether the correlations between EMA and non-physical activity variables aligned with correlations between accelerometry and those same variables. Participants (N = 315) wore a thigh accelerometer and completed EMA five times per day for 7-days. We observed that EMA estimates of activity levels were very different compared with accelerometry levels, especially for active behavior, where EMA yielded much higher levels of active behavior than accelerometry (the first type of concurrent criterion validity). We found moderate within-person correlations between EMA and accelerometry (second type of concurrent criterion validity). However, some study factors moderated the concordance: coverage EMA had slightly stronger associations than near-momentary EMA and sedentary behavior was more accurately reported than high physical activity levels. Construct validity analyses showed that EMA self-reports could be used in place of accelerometry data. With the caveat that physical activity was greatly overestimated by EMA, findings largely support the utility of EMA for analyzing within-person associations with other coverage and near-momentary variables, although they suggest some forms of EMA may be somewhat less optimal.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-61581-9
Primary Topic
Physical Activity and Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

Validation of within-person associations with coverage and momentary EMA self-reports using an objective standard (physical activity)

Doerte U. Junghaenel, Arthur A. Stone, Joshua M. Smyth, Stefan Schneider et al.
Scientific Reports
Physical Activity and Health
article

Validation of within-person associations with coverage and momentary EMA self-reports using an objective standard (physical activity)

Doerte U. Junghaenel, Arthur A. Stone, Joshua M. Smyth, Stefan Schneider, Olivia Pomeroy, Sarah Goldstein, Meynard Toledo
article en

Abstract

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a useful tool for assessing peoples' experiences, behaviors, and environments in everyday life. EMA is considered a standard for self-reporting, because its short reporting periods and multiple assessments in everyday life offers reduced recall bias and increased ecological validity. In this study we tested how well within-person EMA measurements of levels of physical activity (prompt-level data) match objective reports of activity from accelerometry. We looked at two kinds of validity: duration of EMA recall (5 m; 120 m) and type of physical activity response scale (verbal response scales [VRS]; numerical duration scales). Concurrent criterion validity was tested by examining level differences and with correlations of EMA with accelerometry. Construct validity was assessed by examining whether the correlations between EMA and non-physical activity variables aligned with correlations between accelerometry and those same variables. Participants (N = 315) wore a thigh accelerometer and completed EMA five times per day for 7-days. We observed that EMA estimates of activity levels were very different compared with accelerometry levels, especially for active behavior, where EMA yielded much higher levels of active behavior than accelerometry (the first type of concurrent criterion validity). We found moderate within-person correlations between EMA and accelerometry (second type of concurrent criterion validity). However, some study factors moderated the concordance: coverage EMA had slightly stronger associations than near-momentary EMA and sedentary behavior was more accurately reported than high physical activity levels. Construct validity analyses showed that EMA self-reports could be used in place of accelerometry data. With the caveat that physical activity was greatly overestimated by EMA, findings largely support the utility of EMA for analyzing within-person associations with other coverage and near-momentary variables, although they suggest some forms of EMA may be somewhat less optimal.

Scientific Reports
University of Southern California (US), The Ohio State University (US)
National Institute on Aging
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Physical Activity and Health
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.