Assessing daily life activities with experience sampling methodology (ESM): Scoring predefined categories or qualitative analysis of open-ended responses?

Q2 Psychology
Marie Stadel , Anna M. Langener , Katie Hoemann , Laura F. Bringmann
{"title":"Assessing daily life activities with experience sampling methodology (ESM): Scoring predefined categories or qualitative analysis of open-ended responses?","authors":"Marie Stadel ,&nbsp;Anna M. Langener ,&nbsp;Katie Hoemann ,&nbsp;Laura F. Bringmann","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2025.100177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>One domain frequently assessed in Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) studies is that of daily activities. This is often done with predefined (and unvalidated) categorical items, but can also be done using open-ended items. ESM researchers, however, lack tools and guidance in analyzing the obtained open-ended data. In the first part of this paper, we use data from a 28-day ESM study in which students reported their activities both categorically and open-endedly to compare these two assessment approaches. We additionally present participant preferences and reflections captured in exit interviews. In the second part, we illustrate the qualitative analysis process for open-ended ESM responses. All code and tools we used (including a newly developed Shiny App facilitating the coding of responses to open-ended ESM items) are shared for use in future research. Our results highlight the advantages and limitations of both assessment approaches: while categorical items offer simplicity, they often lack specificity. Conversely, open-ended responses provide richer, more personalized data, making them particularly valuable in idiographic clinical applications and exploratory research. A combination of both formats may enable the most effective assessment. We hope the tools we provide encourage the further use and exploration of open-ended ESM assessments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260125000037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One domain frequently assessed in Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) studies is that of daily activities. This is often done with predefined (and unvalidated) categorical items, but can also be done using open-ended items. ESM researchers, however, lack tools and guidance in analyzing the obtained open-ended data. In the first part of this paper, we use data from a 28-day ESM study in which students reported their activities both categorically and open-endedly to compare these two assessment approaches. We additionally present participant preferences and reflections captured in exit interviews. In the second part, we illustrate the qualitative analysis process for open-ended ESM responses. All code and tools we used (including a newly developed Shiny App facilitating the coding of responses to open-ended ESM items) are shared for use in future research. Our results highlight the advantages and limitations of both assessment approaches: while categorical items offer simplicity, they often lack specificity. Conversely, open-ended responses provide richer, more personalized data, making them particularly valuable in idiographic clinical applications and exploratory research. A combination of both formats may enable the most effective assessment. We hope the tools we provide encourage the further use and exploration of open-ended ESM assessments.
用经验抽样方法(ESM)评估日常生活活动:对预定义的类别进行评分还是对开放式回答进行定性分析?
经验抽样方法(ESM)研究中经常评估的一个领域是日常活动。这通常是通过预定义的(和未经验证的)分类项来完成的,但也可以使用开放式项来完成。然而,ESM研究人员在分析获得的开放式数据时缺乏工具和指导。在本文的第一部分,我们使用了一项为期28天的ESM研究的数据,在该研究中,学生们报告了他们的活动分类和开放式,以比较这两种评估方法。我们还提供了参与者的偏好和在离职访谈中捕捉到的想法。在第二部分中,我们阐述了开放式ESM响应的定性分析过程。我们使用的所有代码和工具(包括新开发的Shiny应用程序,用于对开放式ESM项目的响应进行编码)都是共享的,以便在未来的研究中使用。我们的结果突出了两种评估方法的优点和局限性:虽然分类项目提供了简单性,但它们往往缺乏特异性。相反,开放式回答提供了更丰富、更个性化的数据,使它们在具体的临床应用和探索性研究中特别有价值。两种形式的结合可以实现最有效的评估。我们希望我们提供的工具鼓励进一步使用和探索开放式的欧洲稳定机制评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methods in Psychology (Online)
Methods in Psychology (Online) Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信