Finally, Luke LaFreniere found that undergrads who painted reported more pleasure, mastery, meaning, flow, intrinsic motivation, vitality, self-confidence, & less fatigue than undergrads who looked at a set of expert watercolors 🎨 #ActiveVsPassiveBehavioralActivation

Małgorzata Gambin found that female sexual problems did not load with other internalizing symptoms in a @hitop-system.bsky.social -informed model in a sample of 224 Polish women 🇵🇱

I just heard! Thanks for the connection 🙏🏻🤝 All the clinical prediction at APS!

And we’ve got some (very basic) cognitive therapy for anxiety data that could fit too!

😫

Schrödinger’s LLL!

And shoutouts to @shannonsauerzavala.bsky.social and the TIPS Lab crew for being patient with this paper-in-a-year-and-a-half! 🥳

It was just accepted at Psych Assessment today so the published version should be available soon.

So if you want to capture between-person differences, use any instructions but if you might want to capture within-person differences, matching the instructions to your timeframe is probably the way to go.

Feedback, comments, and questions very much welcome!

We think focusing people on a consistent timeframe improves their within-person reliabilities but keeping other aspects of the measures consistent ensures we're still assessing the same personality construct. 👯

Within-person relations with anxiety, depression, quality of life, & functioning:

✅ Generally stronger for weekly instructions (as expected)

osf.io/gznav/files/...

Within-person means & standard deviations:

Weekly instructions condition:
⬇️ Somewhat lower means (as expected)
⬆️ Higher standard deviations (as expected)

Are they measuring the same underlying personality construct?

✅ Generally, yes!

Although model fit significantly improved for some measures when we let the 2 instruction conditions differ, these improvements were fairly modest & mostly with the NEO (general personality).