Burden and Inattentive Responding in a 12-Month Intensive Longitudinal Study: Interview Study Among Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensive longitudinal data (ILD) collection methods have gained popularity in social and behavioral research as a tool to better understand behavior and experiences over time with reduced recall bias. Engaging participants in these studies over multiple months and ensuring high data quality are crucial but challenging due to the potential burden of repeated measurements. It is suspected that participants may engage in inattentive responding (IR) behavior to combat burden, but the processes underlying this behavior are unclear as previous studies have focused on the barriers to compliance rather than the barriers to providing high-quality data. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to broaden researchers' knowledge about IR during ILD studies using qualitative analysis and uncover the underlying IR processes to aid future hypothesis generation. METHODS: We explored the process of IR by conducting semistructured qualitative exit interviews with 31 young adult participants (aged 18-29 years) who completed a 12-month ILD health behavior study with daily evening smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys and 4-day waves of hourly EMA surveys. The interviews assessed participants' motivations, the impact of time-varying contexts, changes in motivation and response patterns over time, and perceptions of attention check questions (ACQs) to understand participants' response patterns and potential factors leading to IR. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed 5 overarching themes on factors that influence participant engagement: (1) friends and family also had to tolerate the frequent surveys, (2) participants tried to respond to surveys quickly, (3) the repetitive nature of surveys led to neutral responses, (4) ACQs within the surveys helped to combat overly consistent response patterns, and (5) different motivations for answering the surveys may have led to different levels of data quality. CONCLUSIONS: This study aimed to examine participants' perceptions of the quality of data provided in an ILD study to contribute to the field's understanding of engagement. These findings provide insights into the complex process of IR and participant engagement in ILD studies with EMA. The study identified 5 factors influencing IR that could guide future research to improve EMA survey design. The identified themes offer practical implications for researchers and study designers, including the importance of considering social context, the consideration of dynamic motivations, and the potential benefit of including ACQs as a technique to reduce IR and leveraging the intrinsic motivators of participants. By incorporating these insights, researchers might maximize the scientific value of their multimonth ILD studies through better data collection protocols. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/36666.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".