Thanks to Kilian Stenzel for leading this project. Also a big shoutout to Lukas Kirchner, Marcel Wilhelm and @rief01.bsky.social for the collaborative effort.

A big thanks to the editors of the special issue where this paper will become a part of: @saskiascholten.bsky.social @leaschumacher.bsky.social @jpkhl.bsky.social Thanks to @julianburger.bsky.social and another anonymous reviewer for the constructive reviewing process.

Since our paper demonstrates considerable challenges we also provide a "lessons learned" table for future research. It can be found here for those who are interested. link.springer.com/article/10.1...

one needs individualized nodes for case conceptualization. What is possible however, is to use Bayesian Estimation and to combine prior information with data in PREMISE networks in order to increase model validity.

Taken together these results show how difficult it is to make fully ideographic and fully data driven networks work, especially under conditions of short measurement periods and without monetary compensation. Switching to multilevel networks would also be not feasible in our case because...

4. non-maleficence. Good news: The EMA period did not significantly affect mood (depression, anxiety, or stress) from pre- to post-assessment, indicating the protocol was non-maleficent in our non-clinical student sample.

3. subjective validity. Different network models did not show significantly different validity ratings in blinded ratings. However, the temporal networks were rated as significantly less valid. Interestingly the case conceptualization network (without EMA data!) had good validity ratings.

2. Subjective utility. We found that the process of developing a subjective network in the case conceptualization phase was perceived as significantly more useful than the EMA data collection period and the network feedback. This suggests that a collaborative problem conceptualization is important!

Those numbers might be higher in patient samples but our results can serve as a warning sign that when no compensation for EMA can be given (e.g. outside of clinical trials) response rates have to be carefully monitored and good incentive structures should be implemented.

Results. 1. Feasability. Our EMA protocol (7x/day for 15 days) resulted in a low average response rate of 53%. This was significantly lower than comparable studies, likely due to the high assessment density and lack of financial compensation for our student sample.

Mainly we aimed to answer the following questions:
Feasibility: Is the trial procedure feasible for clients?
Subjective utility: Which trial phase is experienced most useful?
Subjective validity: Which network feedback is most valid?
Non-maleficence: Does the trial procedure affect mood?

... student problems individually on different axes (e.g. emotional, cognitive and behavioral aspects). These descriptions were then used to construct perceived causal networks, different data driven networks and to integrate data and perceived causal data into PREMISE networks.

Our study is a feasibility trial with 63 clinical psychology students to test the subjective validity, utility, feasibility, and non-maleficence of an EMA protocol for network-informed treatment. Therefore, we used ideas from cognitive behavioral analysis to describe...

Fully agree, Julia. Geneticist views only constitute a part of the IQ hype. You are right. My point remains nevertheless.

Cold take: The hype about IQ scores tells us a lot about (not so) hidden eugenics in a society. People believe this bullshit because they a) have a lot of „genetic supremacy“ ideas and b) think smth like „only the smartest folk fare well in this society and I want my child to outcompete others“