Abstract
The recent decade has brought an exciting proliferation of behavioral, psychological and neuroscientific research involving the menstrual cycle. However, the reliability and validity of many popular methodologies for determining menstrual cycle phase lack empirical examination. These under-investigated methods include: (1) predicting menstrual cycle phase using self-report information only (e.g., "count" methods), (2) utilizing ovarian hormone ranges to determine menstrual cycle phase, and (3) using ovarian hormone changes from limited measurements (e.g., two time points) to determine menstrual cycle phase. In the current study, we examine the accuracy of these methods for menstrual cycle phase determination using 35-day within-person assessments of circulating ovarian hormones from 96 females across the menstrual cycle. Findings indicate that all three common methods are error-prone, resulting in phases being incorrectly determined for many participants, with Cohen's kappa estimates ranging from -0.13 to 0.53 indicating disagreement to only moderate agreement depending on the comparison. Such methodological challenges are surmountable through careful study design, more frequent hormone assays (when possible), and utilization of sophisticated statistical methods. With increased methodological rigor in behavioral, psychological and neuroscientific research, the field will be poised to detect biobehavioral correlates of ovarian hormone fluctuations for the betterment of the mental health and wellbeing of millions of females.