Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Assess Family Functioning in Spanish-Speaking Parent and Adolescent Dyads: Daily Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Family functioning is associated with several adolescent health outcomes, and many family-based interventions (FBIs) exist to improve family functioning. However, most FBIs assess family functioning retrospectively at baseline and post intervention, thereby overlooking the daily fluctuations in family functioning throughout the intervention. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method involving a high frequency of assessments and has been underused to assess family functioning across parent and adolescent dyads. Further, limited research exists on the use of EMA in bilingual populations. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess an EMA protocol's feasibility and acceptability and to analyze within-person and between-person variance in family functioning reports in a sample of primarily Spanish-speaking parent and adolescent dyads. Methods: Participants completed a baseline assessment (including demographics and family functioning assessment), a 7-day protocol with a once-daily family assessment questionnaire using an EMA app, and an acceptability questionnaire at the conclusion of the study. Results: We recruited 7 mothers (mean age 37.29, SD 3.82 years) and 8 adolescents (n=7, 88% females; mean age 11.86, SD 1.07 years) who identified themselves as Hispanic/Latinx. The participants showed overall satisfaction with the EMA protocol. The daily assessments were completed relatively quickly (mean 3 minutes and 16 seconds, SD 11 minutes and 5 seconds) after the prompt notification was received, and the response rate across the daily assessments was 90% (87/97). The reported family functioning was relatively high across both adolescents (mean 4.57) and parents (mean 4.59). The variance across adolescents (SD 0.459) was larger than that within their individual reports of family functioning (SD 0.122). Alternatively, the variance across parents was smaller (SD 0.132) than that reported among parents' individual reports of family functioning (SD 0.286). Our findings highlight the heterogeneity between adolescent and parent responses. Finally, the visual inspection of data underscored the individualized patterns and reported differences in the family functioning reports across parents and adolescents. Conclusions: Our findings emphasize the value of EMA in studying family (eg, adolescent-caregiver) behaviors. EMA's ability to capture immediate experiences presents a nuanced picture of daily interactions and offers suggestions for practice when using the EMA methodology in populations such as the one included in this study (ie, primarily Spanish-speaking parent-adolescent dyads).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".