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
Consequence of One another Knowledge
Desk dos reveals the new detailed analytics for both knowledge. Correlations and you can a complete breakdown of your parameter quotes, depend on periods, and you may perception brands for everyone abilities come in the brand new Supplemental Information.
Table 3 reveals the fresh new standardized regression coefficients for several ESM summary statistics anticipating retrospection once two weeks (Analysis 1) and you can per month (Data 2) off ESM, on their own with the additional relationships fulfillment items. For training and all issues, the best anticipate was accomplished by new indicate of the whole investigation months, given that indicate of past time while the 90th quantile of distribution performed the terrible. Total, the highest associations was in fact receive to the imply of the level of the many about three ESM activities predicting the scale of the many around three retrospective examination (? = 0.75), and also for the mean of you want pleasure forecasting retrospection in the item (? = 0.74).
Items 1 = Dating vibe, Item dos = Irritation (opposite coded), Item step 3 = You prefer fulfillment
Note: N (Studies 1) = 115–130, Letter (Study dos) = 475–510. CSI = Lovers Pleasure List reviewed till the ESM period. Rows ordered by measurements of mediocre coefficient across the situations. The best effect are written 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 (?Level = 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.