4.5 Article

Never miss a beep: Using mobile sensing to investigate (non-)compliance in experience sampling studies

期刊

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-023-02252-9

关键词

Experience sampling; Ecological momentary assessment; ESM; Mobile sensing; Non-response; Compliance; Compliance bias

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines compliance biases in experience sampling studies and identifies predictors for response behavior. It highlights the importance of considering study-related past behavior and physical context variables in research design and addressing missing data in methodological research.
Given the increasing number of studies in various disciplines using experience sampling methods, it is important to examine compliance biases because related patterns of missing data could affect the validity of research findings. In the present study, a sample of 592 participants and more than 25,000 observations were used to examine whether participants responded to each specific questionnaire within an experience sampling framework. More than 400 variables from the three categories of person, behavior, and context, collected multi-methodologically via traditional surveys, experience sampling, and mobile sensing, served as predictors. When comparing different linear (logistic and elastic net regression) and non-linear (random forest) machine learning models, we found indication for compliance bias: response behavior was successfully predicted. Follow-up analyses revealed that study-related past behavior, such as previous average experience sampling questionnaire response rate, was most informative for predicting compliance, followed by physical context variables, such as being at home or at work. Based on our findings, we discuss implications for the design of experience sampling studies in applied research and future directions in methodological research addressing experience sampling methodology and missing data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据