The distracted participant? Experience sampling response behavior and participant disturbance in social situations.

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2026-03-23 DOI:10.1037/pas0001463

Gudrun Eisele,Robin Achterhof,Aleksandra M Lachowicz,Joana De Calheiros Velozo,Thomas Vaessen,Lisa Peeters,Inez Myin-Germeys

{"title":"The distracted participant? Experience sampling response behavior and participant disturbance in social situations.","authors":"Gudrun Eisele,Robin Achterhof,Aleksandra M Lachowicz,Joana De Calheiros Velozo,Thomas Vaessen,Lisa Peeters,Inez Myin-Germeys","doi":"10.1037/pas0001463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical assessment using self-reports hinges on the assumption that participants pay sufficient attention to questionnaires to provide valid data. This assumption is particularly tenuous in experience sampling method studies, where participants complete questionnaires in daily life across a range of potentially distracting situations. Previous research suggests that participants may be particularly distracted when responding to experience sampling method questionnaires in social situations, especially when engaging in social interactions. Yet, the effects of these environmental distractions on response behavior and, consequently, data quality remain poorly understood. We investigated the effects of distracting environments on disturbance and response behavior across various social and nonsocial situations. Experience sampling method data from three young adult samples (combined N = 293) and a general population youth sample (N = 1,903) were analyzed with multilevel (logistic) regressions. In line with previous research, adults were significantly more disturbed by assessments when in company compared to when alone, especially when also interacting with their company. In addition, we found significant differences in response behavior between social settings in adults, with changes pointing toward lower data quality when in company. Interestingly, patterns were different, in some cases even reversed, in school-going adolescents. While our findings suggest that the distraction of social settings affects participant burden and response behavior, the influence on data quality seemed minor. Differences across samples suggest that the setting of the social experience needs to be considered. Preparing participants for sampling in distracting (social) environments may help safeguard data quality and reduce participant burden in ambulatory clinical assessment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001463","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical assessment using self-reports hinges on the assumption that participants pay sufficient attention to questionnaires to provide valid data. This assumption is particularly tenuous in experience sampling method studies, where participants complete questionnaires in daily life across a range of potentially distracting situations. Previous research suggests that participants may be particularly distracted when responding to experience sampling method questionnaires in social situations, especially when engaging in social interactions. Yet, the effects of these environmental distractions on response behavior and, consequently, data quality remain poorly understood. We investigated the effects of distracting environments on disturbance and response behavior across various social and nonsocial situations. Experience sampling method data from three young adult samples (combined N = 293) and a general population youth sample (N = 1,903) were analyzed with multilevel (logistic) regressions. In line with previous research, adults were significantly more disturbed by assessments when in company compared to when alone, especially when also interacting with their company. In addition, we found significant differences in response behavior between social settings in adults, with changes pointing toward lower data quality when in company. Interestingly, patterns were different, in some cases even reversed, in school-going adolescents. While our findings suggest that the distraction of social settings affects participant burden and response behavior, the influence on data quality seemed minor. Differences across samples suggest that the setting of the social experience needs to be considered. Preparing participants for sampling in distracting (social) environments may help safeguard data quality and reduce participant burden in ambulatory clinical assessment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文本刊更多论文

分心的参与者？体验社会情境中的抽样反应行为和参与者干扰。

使用自我报告的临床评估取决于参与者对问卷给予足够关注以提供有效数据的假设。这种假设在经验抽样方法研究中尤其脆弱，在这些研究中，参与者在日常生活中完成一系列可能分散注意力的情况下的问卷调查。先前的研究表明，在社交场合，尤其是在参与社交互动时，参与者在回答经验抽样法问卷时可能会特别分心。然而，这些环境干扰对反应行为的影响，因此，数据质量仍然知之甚少。我们研究了不同社会和非社会情境下分散注意力的环境对干扰和反应行为的影响。采用经验抽样方法对3个青年样本（合计N = 293）和1个普通人群青年样本（N = 1903）的数据进行多水平（logistic）回归分析。与之前的研究一致，与独处时相比，成年人在一起时明显更容易受到评估的困扰，尤其是在与同伴互动时。此外，我们发现在不同的社会环境中，成年人的反应行为存在显著差异，这些变化指向在公司中较低的数据质量。有趣的是，在上学的青少年中，模式是不同的，在某些情况下甚至是相反的。虽然我们的研究结果表明，社会环境的分散会影响参与者的负担和反应行为，但对数据质量的影响似乎很小。样本之间的差异表明，需要考虑社会经验的设置。让参与者在分散注意力的（社会）环境中做好抽样准备，可能有助于保障数据质量，减轻参与者在门诊临床评估中的负担。（PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA，版权所有）。

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

Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

5.60%

发文量

167

期刊介绍： Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews