Aim. This scoping review of daily momentary stress measurement studies synthesizes a booming but fragmented field of stress research and introduces the stress MEasurement StrategieS (StressMess) database.Methods. Systematic searches in Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO identified studies of (a) stress and psychopathology (e.g., anxiety/depression) using (b) time series or ambulatory assessment designs where (c) stress was measured at least daily on two consecutive days. Results. We identified 12,846 articles and included 721 studies into the StressMess database, of which half in the past five years, typically with larger samples and more frequent measurements than older studies. Most participants were young adults (aged 18-24, M=67% women), from general populations in the US (55%), Germany (7%), and the Netherlands (5%). Stress was often operationalized as a stressor (27%) or stress response to adverse events (33%), and measured as characteristics of events (e.g., type, frequency, predictability, stressfulness, unpleasantness), or general momentaneous or daily stress score (27%), or as stress response via emotions (5%), or physiology (1%). Some studies (13%) used multiple stress operationalizations. Conclusion. Stress is currently not a useful scientific concept because of the large heterogeneity in definitions, terminology, measurement strategies (instruments), and study design. We provide directions to improve conceptualizations and design for future studies focusing on measuring stress. The StressMess database is open source (www.stressmess.nl) to improve the understanding, prevention, and treatment of adverse (mental) health effects of stress. Stress measurement influences what stress research can identify and thereby clinical practice.
Myroniuk et al. (2026) studied this question.