Intensive, Repeated Self-Report Measures: Should We Be Concerned About Changes in Data Quality Over Time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive, repeated self-report measures are an important tool for behavioral and medical researchers and practitioners who are concerned with the dynamic interplay among variables at a granular level. Many mobile health applications rely on accurate measurement of immediate states and environments for both assessment and intervention delivery. Techniques for capturing repeated momentary assessments yield data with several salutary qualities: recall bias is minimized relative to assessments that rely on much longer recall periods; measurements are taken in individuals' everyday environments; and dense, repeated measures allow a new window into the processes transpiring between individuals and their environments. In this paper, we highlight several features of repeatedly completing momentary assessments that may change the nature or quality of the data collected over time. Several lines of inquiry are discussed that call into question the presumption that there is invariance in how people complete repeated assessments over time. A result of this possibility could be a reduction in data quality. We present 4 phenomena, with selected results, that may induce noninvariance in repeated measures: the amount of time required to complete assessments, the rate of missing data, the degree of careless responding, and the presence of several components of reactivity. In each of these areas, we found evidence that changes could occur over time, and we consider how data might be affected by such changes. Our conclusion is that researchers should be aware that changes can occur over time and that these changes may affect data quality.
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 | 0.557 | 0.821 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".