Validation of within-person associations with coverage and momentary EMA self-reports using an objective standard (physical activity)
- 1Dornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California
- 2Ohio State University
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.
Related
- Associations Between Kratom (Mitragyna Speciosa) Use and Real-Time Anxiety and Sadness: A 15-Day Ecological Momentary Assessment Study
- Momentary associations of parent psychological factors, perceived child pain, and home opioid administration for postoperative pain management
- The momentary associations of negative affect, anxiety and stress with symptoms in individuals with anorexia nervosa: a scoping review.
- Associations of Objective Functional and Subjective Health Literacy with Reproductive Health Knowledge and Preconception Preparedness Among Pregnant Women in Hungary
- Development and validation of a fall risk prediction model integrating objective gait metrics for patients with cerebral small vessel disease: protocol for a two-phase study
BibTeX
@article{stone2026validation,
title = {{Validation of within-person associations with coverage and momentary EMA self-reports using an objective standard (physical activity)}},
author = {Arthur A. Stone and Meynard Toledo and Stefan Schneider and Joshua M. Smyth and Doerte U. Junghaenel and Sarah Goldstein and Olivia Pomeroy},
journal = {Scientific Reports},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1038/s41598-026-61581-9},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-61581-9},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Validation of within-person associations with coverage and momentary EMA self-reports using an objective standard (physical activity)
AU - Arthur A. Stone
AU - Meynard Toledo
AU - Stefan Schneider
AU - Joshua M. Smyth
AU - Doerte U. Junghaenel
AU - Sarah Goldstein
AU - Olivia Pomeroy
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - Scientific Reports
DO - 10.1038/s41598-026-61581-9
UR - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-61581-9
AB - 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.
SN - 2045-2322
ER -