- Smartphone-based self-assessment of perceived stress is widespread, with publication frequency increasing and most studies using observational designs.
- Most studies use very brief, typically single-item EMA measures with Likert or visual analogue scales and intensive prompting schedules.
- Only a minority report validity or reliability evidence, indicating urgent need for systematic psychometric validation of smartphone-based stress measures.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2026 Nov 5;14:e94204. doi: 10.2196/94204.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based self-assessment methods, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA), are increasingly used to measure perceived stress in research and emerging clinical applications. However, the proliferation of studies and methods has made it difficult for researchers and practitioners to maintain an overview and make informed methodological choices. An updated synthesis of smartphone-based self-report methods is therefore needed.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to systematically map smartphone-based methods for assessing self-reported perceived stress in healthy adults during daily life, to describe measurement characteristics and methodological choices, and to narratively examine the extent to which validity and reliability evidence are reported.
METHODS: Following PRISMA‑ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we searched a total of 7 databases: Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM, and PsycInfo. Eligible studies assessed general perceived stress in healthy adults using smartphone-based self-report measures in daily life. Screening was conducted independently by at least 2 reviewers at the abstract and full‑text levels. Methodological characteristics of stress measurement were extracted and summarized descriptively.
RESULTS: From 8777 deduplicated records, 108 studies met all eligibility criteria. Publication frequency increased notably over the review period. Most studies used observational designs, with EMA-style prompting schedules. Stress was typically assessed using very brief measures: most instruments (84/114, 74%) consisted of a single item, most commonly answered using a Likert-type scale or a visual analog scale. Measurement frequency ranged from once per week to multiple prompts per day, with intensive approaches (≥3 prompts per day) being most common. Despite the prevalence of these instruments, only a minority of studies reported validity or reliability measures. When provided, evidence typically consisted of correlations with established stress questionnaires or affective measures. A small subset conducted elaborate psychometric analyses or validation of instruments.
CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone-based stress assessment is widespread but methodologically heterogeneous. This review provides an updated methodological overview to support researchers in selecting or developing robust smartphone-based measures of perceived stress. Only a small minority of studies reported formal psychometric evaluations, highlighting the need for more systematic validation of smartphone-based stress assessment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 7UM6B; https://osf.io/7um6b.
PMID:42987302 | DOI:10.2196/94204
Share Evidence Blueprint
Save to Google Notes
Search Google Scholar
Save as PDF
⭐ My Revision List
