The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychol.
Sec. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement
Volume 15 - 2024 |
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1503411
Do delayed responses introduce bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment? Evidence from comparisons between self-reported and objective physical activity
Provisionally accepted- 1 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
- 2 The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
Delayed responses are a common yet often overlooked aspect of participant compliance in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) research. This study investigated whether response delays introduce selection bias in the moments captured by EMA. Participants (n = 339) selfreported their physical activity behaviors using EMA 5 times a day over 7 days while wearing a continuous physical activity monitor. The continuous activity monitor data provided an objective reference value to evaluate potential biases in delayed EMA self-reports. Results showed that participants were significantly more likely to delay EMA responses when they were prompted during higher levels of physical activity, and they subsequently reduced their activity levels, postponing their response until they were in a significantly less active state. There was no significant evidence that response delays systematically biased the levels of EMA reported activities, although delayed responses were associated with significantly more random errors in EMA reports (with small effect sizes). The results suggest that respondents self-select the moments for answering EMA surveys based on their current activity levels, but brief response delays do not translate into marked reductions in the quality of EMA data.
Keywords: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), ambulatory assessment (AA), physical activity, Response delay, Compliance, Experience Sampling Method (ESM)
Received: 28 Sep 2024; Accepted: 06 Dec 2024.
Copyright: © 2024 Schneider, Toledo, Junghaenel, Smyth, Lee, Goldstein, Pomeroy and Stone. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Stefan Schneider, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.