Search

Ambulatory assessment (e.g., ecological momentary assessment) is now widely used in psychological research, yet key design decisions remain largely informed by methodological lore as opposed to systematic inquiry. The present study experimentally tested whether signal- (e.g., random prompt) and event- (e.g., complete a survey every time a target event occurs) contingent recording procedures of interpersonal behavior and affect in social situations yield equivalent quality and quantity of data. Participants (N = 286) completed baseline questionnaires, underwent cluster randomization to either a signal- or event-contingent condition, and then completed 1 week of ambulatory assessment, during which they answered questions about their social behavior and affect tied to their social interactions. Conditions were compared on response frequency, means and variances of interpersonal behavior and affect, correlations between interpersonal behavior and affect within-subject, and associations between momentary behavior and affect and baseline variables (e.g., Big Five traits). Results indicated that signal- and event-contingent recording techniques provided equivalent data quality, suggesting that researchers can use the 2 methodologies interchangeably to draw conclusions about means, variances, and associations when examining social interactions. However, results also showed that event-contingent recording returned, on average, a higher number of reported social interactions per individual, and this was true for most time periods of the day. Thus, event-contingent recording may hold advantages for studying frequency and timing of social interactions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Investigating between-meal snack intake and its associated determinants such as emotions and stress presents challenges because both vary from moment to moment throughout the day. A smartphone application (app), was developed to map momentary between-meal snack intake and its associated determinants in the context of daily life. The aim of this study was to compare energy intake reported with the signal-contingent app and reported with an event-contingent paper and pencil diet diary. Methods: In a counterbalanced, cross-sectional design, adults (N = 46) from the general population reported between-meal snack intake during four consecutive days with the app and four consecutive days with a paper and pencil diet diary. A 10-day interval was applied between the two reporting periods. Multilevel regression analyses were conducted to compare both instruments on reported momentary and daily energy intake from snacks. Results: Results showed no significant difference (B = 11.84, p = .14) in momentary energy intake from snacks between the two instruments. However, a significant difference (B = –105.89, p < .01) was found on energy intake from total daily snack consumption. Conclusions: As at momentary level both instruments were comparable in assessing energy intake, research purposes will largely determine the sampling procedure of choice. When momentary associations across time are the interest of study, a signal-contingent sampling procedure may be a suitable method. Since the compared instruments differed on two main features (i.e. the sampling procedure and the device used) it is difficult to disentangle which instrument was the most accurate in assessing daily energy intake.

Objectives: Investigating between-meal snack intake and its associated determinants such as emotions and stress presents challenges because both vary from moment to moment throughout the day. A smartphone application (app), was developed to map momentary between-meal snack intake and its associated determinants in the context of daily life. The aim of this study was to compare energy intake reported with the signal-contingent app and reported with an event-contingent paper and pencil diet diary. Methods: In a counterbalanced, cross-sectional design, adults (N = 46) from the general population reported between-meal snack intake during four consecutive days with the app and four consecutive days with a paper and pencil diet diary. A 10-day interval was applied between the two reporting periods. Multilevel regression analyses were conducted to compare both instruments on reported momentary and daily energy intake from snacks. Results: Results showed no significant difference (B = 11.84, p = .14) in momentary energy intake from snacks between the two instruments. However, a significant difference (B = -105.89, p < .01) was found on energy intake from total daily snack consumption. Conclusions: As at momentary level both instruments were comparable in assessing energy intake, research purposes will largely determine the sampling procedure of choice. When momentary associations across time are the interest of study, a signal-contingent sampling procedure may be a suitable method. Since the compared instruments differed on two main features (i.e. the sampling procedure and the device used) it is difficult to disentangle which instrument was the most accurate in assessing daily energy intake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]