with GMCESM = grand-mean centered on the ESM-mean,i = person-specific index, j = couple-specific index, ? = fixed effect, (z) =z-standardized, u = random intercept,r = error term. This translates into the following between-person interpretation of the estimates:
For all models, we report the marginal R 2 as an effect size, representing the explained variance by the fixed effects (R 2 GLMM(m) from the MuMIn package, Johnson, 2014; Barton, 2018; Nakagawa Schielzeth, 2013). When making multiple tests for a single analysis question (i.e., due to multiple items, summary statistics, moderators), we controlled the false discovery rate (FDR) at? = 5% (two-tailed) with the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) correction of the p-values (Benjamini Hochberg, 1995) implemented in thestats package (R Core Team, 2018). 10
Results of Both Knowledge
Dining table dos reveals the fresh descriptive analytics both for degree. Correlations and a complete dysfunction of factor rates, depend on intervals, and you will effect products for everyone performance are in the newest Supplemental Material.
Desk step three shows this new standard regression coefficients for several ESM conclusion statistics predicting retrospection immediately following 2 weeks (Data step 1) and you can 30 days (Research dos) of ESM, individually for the different relationship satisfaction issues. For training and all sorts of things, an educated prediction are accomplished by the fresh new suggest of the entire study months, because the indicate of the past go out therefore the 90th quantile of your own shipping did the fresh new worst. Total, the best associations was indeed discover on the mean of one’s measure of all of the around three ESM situations predicting the dimensions of all about three retrospective examination (? = 0.75), and for the indicate of you want satisfaction predicting retrospection associated with the item (? = 0.74).
Goods 1 = Matchmaking state of mind, Goods dos = Annoyance (contrary coded), Item step three = You desire fulfillment
Note: N (Research step one) = 115–130 
, N (Investigation 2) = 475–510. CSI = People Fulfillment List assessed up until the ESM several months. Rows bought of the sized average coefficient round the the circumstances. The strongest effect are printed in challenging.
The same analysis for the prediction of a global relationship satisfaction measure (the CSI) instead of the retrospective assessment is also shown in Table3 (for the prediction of PRQ and NRQ see Supplemental Materials). The mean of the last week, of the last day and of the first week were not entered as predictors, as they provide no special meaning to the global evaluation, which was assessed before the ESM part. Again, the mean was the best predictor in all cases. Other summary statistics performed equally well in some cases, but without a systematic pattern. The associations were highest when the mean of the scale, or the mean of need satisfaction (item 3) across four weeks predicted the CSI (?Size = 0.59, ?NeedSatisfaction = 0.58).
We additionally checked whether other summary statistics next to the mean provided an incremental contribution to the prediction of retrospection (see Table 4). This was not the case in Study 1 (we controlled the FDR for all incremental effects across studies, all BH-corrected ps of the model comparisons >0.16). In Study 2, all summary statistics except the 90th quantile and the mean of the first week made incremental contributions for the prediction of retrospection of relationship mood and the scale. For the annoyance item both the 10th and the 90th quantile – but no other summary statistic – had incremental effects. As annoyance was reverse coded, the 10th quantile represents a high level of annoyance, whereas the 90th quantile represents a low level of annoyance. For need satisfaction only the summaries of the end of the study (i.e., mean of the last week and mean of the last day) had additional relevance. Overall the incremental contributions were small (additional explained variance <3%, compared to baseline explained variance of the mean as single predictor between 30% and 57%). Whereas the coefficients of the 10th quantile and the means of the last day/week were positive, the median and the 90th quantile had negative coefficients.