生态瞬时评价:效度研究的系统回顾。

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Perspectives on Behavior Science Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s40614-022-00339-w
Lesleigh Stinson, Yunchao Liu, Jesse Dallery
{"title":"生态瞬时评价:效度研究的系统回顾。","authors":"Lesleigh Stinson,&nbsp;Yunchao Liu,&nbsp;Jesse Dallery","doi":"10.1007/s40614-022-00339-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a self-report method that involves intensive longitudinal assessment of behavior and environmental conditions during everyday activities. EMA has been used extensively in health and clinical psychology to investigate a variety of health behaviors, including substance use, eating, medication adherence, sleep, and physical activity. However, it has not been widely implemented in behavior analytic research. This is likely an example of the empirically based skepticism with which behavioral scientists view self-report measures. We reviewed studies comparing electronic, mobile EMA (mEMA) to more objective measures of health behavior to explore the validity of mEMA as a measurement tool, and to identify procedures and factors that may promote the accuracy of mEMA. We identified 32 studies that compared mEMA to more objective measures of health behavior or environmental events (e.g., biochemical measures or automated devices such as accelerometers). Results showed that the correspondence rates varied considerably across individuals, behavior, and studies (agreement rates ranged from 1.8%-100%), and no unifying variables could be identified across the studies that found high correspondence. The findings suggest that mEMA can be an accurate measurement tool, but further research should be conducted to identify procedures and variables that promote accurate responding.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9163273/pdf/40614_2022_Article_339.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecological Momentary Assessment: A Systematic Review of Validity Research.\",\"authors\":\"Lesleigh Stinson,&nbsp;Yunchao Liu,&nbsp;Jesse Dallery\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40614-022-00339-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a self-report method that involves intensive longitudinal assessment of behavior and environmental conditions during everyday activities. EMA has been used extensively in health and clinical psychology to investigate a variety of health behaviors, including substance use, eating, medication adherence, sleep, and physical activity. However, it has not been widely implemented in behavior analytic research. This is likely an example of the empirically based skepticism with which behavioral scientists view self-report measures. We reviewed studies comparing electronic, mobile EMA (mEMA) to more objective measures of health behavior to explore the validity of mEMA as a measurement tool, and to identify procedures and factors that may promote the accuracy of mEMA. We identified 32 studies that compared mEMA to more objective measures of health behavior or environmental events (e.g., biochemical measures or automated devices such as accelerometers). Results showed that the correspondence rates varied considerably across individuals, behavior, and studies (agreement rates ranged from 1.8%-100%), and no unifying variables could be identified across the studies that found high correspondence. The findings suggest that mEMA can be an accurate measurement tool, but further research should be conducted to identify procedures and variables that promote accurate responding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9163273/pdf/40614_2022_Article_339.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00339-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00339-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

生态瞬时评估(EMA)是一种自我报告方法,涉及日常活动中行为和环境条件的密集纵向评估。EMA在健康和临床心理学中被广泛用于调查各种健康行为,包括物质使用、饮食、药物依从性、睡眠和身体活动。然而,它在行为分析研究中并没有得到广泛的应用。这可能是行为科学家以经验为基础的怀疑态度看待自我报告测量的一个例子。我们回顾了将电子、移动电子健康评估(mEMA)与更客观的健康行为测量方法进行比较的研究,以探索mEMA作为测量工具的有效性,并确定可能提高mEMA准确性的程序和因素。我们确定了32项研究,将mEMA与更客观的健康行为或环境事件测量(例如,生化测量或加速计等自动化设备)进行了比较。结果表明,在个体、行为和研究中,一致性率差异很大(一致性率从1.8%到100%不等),并且在发现高一致性的研究中没有统一的变量。研究结果表明,mEMA可以作为一种精确的测量工具,但需要进一步研究以确定促进准确响应的程序和变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ecological Momentary Assessment: A Systematic Review of Validity Research.

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a self-report method that involves intensive longitudinal assessment of behavior and environmental conditions during everyday activities. EMA has been used extensively in health and clinical psychology to investigate a variety of health behaviors, including substance use, eating, medication adherence, sleep, and physical activity. However, it has not been widely implemented in behavior analytic research. This is likely an example of the empirically based skepticism with which behavioral scientists view self-report measures. We reviewed studies comparing electronic, mobile EMA (mEMA) to more objective measures of health behavior to explore the validity of mEMA as a measurement tool, and to identify procedures and factors that may promote the accuracy of mEMA. We identified 32 studies that compared mEMA to more objective measures of health behavior or environmental events (e.g., biochemical measures or automated devices such as accelerometers). Results showed that the correspondence rates varied considerably across individuals, behavior, and studies (agreement rates ranged from 1.8%-100%), and no unifying variables could be identified across the studies that found high correspondence. The findings suggest that mEMA can be an accurate measurement tool, but further research should be conducted to identify procedures and variables that promote accurate responding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Perspectives on Behavior Science PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? Behavior Science Contributions to Public Policy: an Introduction to the Special Section. The Dismal State of Federal Funding for Experimental Evaluations of Interventions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Rethinking the Place of Qualitative Methods in Behavior Analysis. Time Cost and Demand: Implications for Public Policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1