Assessing Mood in Daily Life Structural Validity, Sensitivity to Change, and Reliability of a Short-Scale to Measure Three Basic Dimensions of Mood

414 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Self-compassion, Body Image, and Self-reported Disordered Eating (2014, background): “The abbreviation of scales is common in diary studies, as it reduces the burden on participants and the redundancy of similar items (e.g., Wilhelm & Schoebi, 2007).”
Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. (2014, methodology): “3 See also Wilhelm and Schoebi (2007), who presented a similar method of level-specific reliability estimation in an multilevel modeling framework.”
A matter of time? Challenging and hindering effects of time pressure on work engagement (2018, methodology): “We used the subscale hedonic tone of the instrument developed by Wilhelm and Schoebi (2007) to measure strain on a daily and weekly basis.”
Emotional and psychophysiological responses to tempo, mode, and percussiveness (2011, background): “Support for this third dimension comes from Wilhelm & Schoebi (2007), who note that although the valence, arousal, and tension dimensions show correlations (i.e., a positive mood mostly coincides with higher levels of positive valence as well as higher energetic arousal) they cannot be reduced to…”
Differences in the Between–Person and Within–Person Structures of Affect Are A Matter of Degree (2015, background): “This raises the question on how to assess affect in daily life more generally, and some solutions were already provided (Cranford et al., 2006; Wilhelm & Schoebi, 2007).”