How valid are assessments of conception probability in ovulatory cycle research? Evaluations, recommendations, and theoretical implications

Over the past two decades, a large literature examining psychological changes across women's ovulatory cycles has accumulated, emphasizing comparisons between fertile and non-fertile phases of the cycle. While some studies have verified ovulation using luteinizing hormone (LH) tests, counting methods - assessments of conception probability based on counting forward from actual or retrospectively recalled onset of last menses, or backward from actual or anticipated onset of next menses - are more common. The validity of these methods remains largely unexplored. Based on published data on the distributions of the lengths of follicular and luteal phases, we created a sample of 58,000 + simulated cycles. We used the sample to assess the validity of counting methods. Aside from methods that count backward from a confirmed onset of next menses, validities are modest, generally ranging from about .40-.55. We offer power estimates and make recommendations for future work. We also discuss implications for interpreting past research.