The emoji current mood and experience scale: the development and initial validation of an ultra-brief, literacy independent measure of psychological health

Figures & data

Table 1. Mean (SD) scores for study samples and published comparisons for BRS, ICS, SWEBWBS and PHQ-4 scales.

	Measure M (SD)
Source	BRS	ICS	(S)WEMWBS	PHQ-4 Anxiety	PHD-4 Depression
Study 1	3.20 (.86)	2.06 (1.13)	21.26 (3.94)	2.19 (1.88)	1.80 (1.83)
Study 2^^				2.01 (2.07)	1.69 (1.78)
Published data	3.58 (.76)^a	2.40 (1.10)^b	23.63 (3.96)^c	0.82 (1.10)^d	0.94 (1.20)^d

Adapted from ^aChmitorz et al. (2018), ^bMashek et al. (2007), ^cNg Fat et al. (2017), ^dLöwe et al. (2010). ^{^}PHQ-4 Anxiety (n = 293); PHQ-4 Depression (n = 294).

Table 2. Mean scores and standard deviations by study for each item in the new Emoji Scale of Mood, arranged by positive and negative orientation.

Emoji	Study 1 M (SD)	Study 2 M (SD)
Positive
Happy	3.18 (1.02)	3.66 (1.2)
Relaxed	2.93 (1.07)	3.47 (1.19)
Valued	2.89 (1.08)	3.37 (1.25)
Good about myself	2.96 (1.09)	3.58 (1.20)
Connected to others	2.91 (1.14)	3.59 (1.16)
Negative
Sad	2.20 (1.16)	1.93 (1.18)
Anxious	2.80 (1.35)	2.45 (1.35)
Bored	2.72 (1.29)	2.31 (1.31)
A failure	2.22 (1.25)	2.02 (1.3)
Lonely	2.47 (1.30)	2.13 (1.25)

Figure 1. Smallest space common space plot (PROXSCAL) showing relationships between the ECMES items in study 1 (a) and in study 2 (b).

Table 3. Relationship between individual emojis and existing psychometric measures.

Emoji	ICS	BRS	SWEMBS	PHQ-A	PHD-D
Positive
Happy	.355	.483	.650	−.454	−.639
Relaxed	.158	.426	.540	−.492	−.409
Valued	.267	.408	.607	−.397	−.468
Good about myself	.287	.499	.688	−.505	−.605
Connected to others	.436	.312	.561	−.298	−.462
Negative
Sad	−.230	−.508	−.585	.515	.625
Anxious	−.217	−.506	−.544	.743	.501
Bored	−.165	−.211	−.334	.223	.401
A failure	−.256	−.527	−.637	.584	.644
Lonely	−.296	−.435	−.488	.412	.534

All correlations significant at p < .001.

Table 4. Sensitivity to change and stability over time.

Pairwise comparisons of each emoji over time based on the entire study 2 sample	Time 1		Time 2
	Mean	s.d.	Mean	s.d.
Connected* (n = 248)	3.64	1.15	3.83	1.03
Good about self (n = 246)	3.68	1.17	3.79	1.07
Happy (n = 249)	3.73	1.18	3.85	1.05
Lonely (n = 243)	2.09	1.26	1.94	1.13
Relaxed* (n = 247)	3.45	1.21	3.64	1.16
Valued* (n = 243)	3.41	1.24	3.62	1.10
Sad (n= 242)	1.87	1.17	1.80	1.08
Failure** (n = 242)	1.98	1.32	1.73	1.11
Anxious** (n = 240)	2.44	1.38	2.14	1.24
Bored*** (n = 236)	2.30	1.31	1.92	1.1
Pairwise comparisons of emoji items over time: study 2 participants with baseline PHQ total scores in normal - mild range.	Time 1		Time 2
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Connected (n = 142)	3.82	1.02	3.92	.99
Good about self (n = 141)	3.84	1.03	3.95	.94
Happy (n = 142)	3.99	.92	4.01	.98
Lonely (n = 139)	1.72	.97	1.74	1.09
Relaxed (n = 139)	3.71	1.05	3.81	1.10
Valued (n = 138)	3.62	1.01	3.75	1.03
Sad (n = 139)	1.53	.88	1.60	1.00
Failure (n = 139)	1.52	.93	1.50	.90
Anxious (n = 136)	2.01	1.12	1.85	1.03
Bored* (n = 140)	2.22	1.27	1.81	1.07

*p < .05; **p < .005; ***p < .001.

Chmitorz A., Wenzel M., Stieglitz R.D., Kunzler A., Bagusat C., et al. (2018) Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale. PLoS One 13(2), e0192761. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192761

 Google Scholar

Mashek, D., Cannaday, L. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). Inclusion of community in self scale: A single-item pictorial measure of community connectedness. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20146

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ng Fat, L., Scholes, S., Boniface, S., Mindell, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2017). Evaluating and establishing national norms for mental wellbeing using the short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): Findings from the Health Survey for England. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care & Rehabilitation, 26(5), 1129–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1454-8

 Google Scholar