Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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.

Original publication

DOI

10.1525/collabra.142735

Type

Journal article

Journal

Collabra: Psychology

Publisher

University of California Press

Publication Date

06/08/2025

Volume

11