MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365143486 · doi:10.26685/urncst.401

Ecological Momentary Assessment in Research Methodology: A Literature Review

2023· review· en· W4365143486 on OpenAlexaff
Raika Bourmand

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceEcological validityWearable computerWearable technologyHuman–computer interactionCognitionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is a real-time data capture longitudinal methodology which is conducted through smartphones or wearable sensors. This methodology uses prompts to gather information on the current state, behavior and experience of a person in their natural environment. The purpose of this study is to explore the feasibility of using EMA as a methodology in measuring behavioural contexts around physical activity. Utility: EMA is advantageous in reducing recall errors, enhancing the validity of self-reports by actively recording a participant’s dynamic interaction with their environment, while accounting for intra- and inter-personal variation. EMA can provide researchers with more accurate information that is generalizable to real-life routines, and provides insight on processes that can undermine behavior change. Additionally, EMA is convenient due to the omnipresent accessibility of smartphones or related technologies, which are easy to use and can quickly collect data from large populations remotely. The use of EMA can answer researchers’ questions regarding participant current context, affective states, and psychological processes. This can ultimately help create innovative and feasible solutions which can be implemented into participant’s natural environments and daily lives to benefit their physical, mental and emotional well-being. Challenges: EMA requires smart technology equipment which can be expensive to supply, repair, or replace. Real-time prompts pose the challenge of subjects’ full compliance to prompts, struggling to respond in the case of competing activities, not carrying the device or device malfunctions such as battery drainage or software problems. Moreover, EMA raises concerns in its practicality with low-socioeconomic populations that cannot afford such technology, elderly populations who cannot operate these devices, or clinical populations whose psychopathology may interfere with their responses. Limitations: The use of EMA is associated with biases concerning ecological validity. For example, consistent prompts on a certain activity may cause an individual to think about the activity more or alter their behavior. In the absence of researchers, it is difficult to verify data reported by participants. It is possible to mitigate such biases by seeking confirmation through reliable sources who are in contact with the participants, to approve a subset of the data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.147
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1470.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.682
GPT teacher head0.701
Teacher spread0.019 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207