Does Assessment Alter Responses? An Examination of Measurement Reactivity in an Ecological Momentary Assessment of Body Comparisons

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Rachel I. MacIntyre, Kristin E. Heron, Charlotte A. Dawson, Kelly B. Filipkowski, D. Arigo
{"title":"Does Assessment Alter Responses? An Examination of Measurement Reactivity in an Ecological Momentary Assessment of Body Comparisons","authors":"Rachel I. MacIntyre, Kristin E. Heron, Charlotte A. Dawson, Kelly B. Filipkowski, D. Arigo","doi":"10.1521/jscp.2021.40.4.304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Body comparisons have been implicated in body dissatisfaction and eating disorder development. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been used to capture body comparisons in everyday life; however, the potential for measurement reactivity this approach has on EMA responses has yet to be examined. The present study systematically evaluated measurement reactivity in EMA of body comparisons. Methods: Undergraduate women (N = 75) completed four surveys daily for 11 days; Days 1–4 did not include comparison assessments and Days 5–11 did. Changes were examined in related EMA measures between these time periods and individual difference measures pre- and post-EMA. Results: A within-person MANOVA showed no significant change in the individual difference measures. Multilevel analyses revealed that participants reported fewer comparisons as day of study increased. When they completed EMA with versus without comparison items, they reported fewer occasions of loss of control while eating and less pleasant social company at time of assessment. Discussion: Findings suggest limited concern for reactivity in this approach, though researchers examining body comparisons, loss of control eating, and perceptions of social company should be cautious when interpreting their findings and consider examining reactivity directly. Future research on body comparisons should also consider using run-in periods to improve data quality.","PeriodicalId":48202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2021.40.4.304","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: Body comparisons have been implicated in body dissatisfaction and eating disorder development. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been used to capture body comparisons in everyday life; however, the potential for measurement reactivity this approach has on EMA responses has yet to be examined. The present study systematically evaluated measurement reactivity in EMA of body comparisons. Methods: Undergraduate women (N = 75) completed four surveys daily for 11 days; Days 1–4 did not include comparison assessments and Days 5–11 did. Changes were examined in related EMA measures between these time periods and individual difference measures pre- and post-EMA. Results: A within-person MANOVA showed no significant change in the individual difference measures. Multilevel analyses revealed that participants reported fewer comparisons as day of study increased. When they completed EMA with versus without comparison items, they reported fewer occasions of loss of control while eating and less pleasant social company at time of assessment. Discussion: Findings suggest limited concern for reactivity in this approach, though researchers examining body comparisons, loss of control eating, and perceptions of social company should be cautious when interpreting their findings and consider examining reactivity directly. Future research on body comparisons should also consider using run-in periods to improve data quality.
评估会改变反应吗?身体比较的生态瞬时评估中测量反应性的检验
引言:身体比较与身体不满和饮食失调的发展有关。生态瞬时评估(EMA)已被用于捕捉日常生活中的身体比较;然而,这种方法对EMA反应的测量反应性的潜力还有待检验。本研究系统地评估了身体EMA比较中的测量反应性。方法:女大学生(N=75)每天完成4项调查,为期11天;第1-4天不包括比较评估,第5-11天包括。研究了这些时间段之间相关EMA指标的变化以及EMA前后的个体差异指标。结果:人内MANOVA在个体差异测量中没有显示出显著变化。多层次分析显示,随着研究天数的增加,参与者报告的比较次数减少。当他们完成有比较项目和没有比较项目的EMA时,他们报告说,在评估时,在吃饭时失去控制的情况更少,社交陪伴也不那么愉快。讨论:研究结果表明,在这种方法中,对反应性的关注有限,尽管研究人员在解释他们的研究结果时应该谨慎,并考虑直接检查反应性。未来的身体比较研究还应考虑使用磨合期来提高数据质量。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: This journal is devoted to the application of theory and research from social psychology toward the better understanding of human adaptation and adjustment, including both the alleviation of psychological problems and distress (e.g., psychopathology) and the enhancement of psychological well-being among the psychologically healthy. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to) traditionally defined psychopathology (e.g., depression), common emotional and behavioral problems in living (e.g., conflicts in close relationships), the enhancement of subjective well-being, and the processes of psychological change in everyday life (e.g., self-regulation) and professional settings (e.g., psychotherapy and counseling). Articles reporting the results of theory-driven empirical research are given priority, but theoretical articles, review articles, clinical case studies, and essays on professional issues are also welcome. Articles describing the development of new scales (personality or otherwise) or the revision of existing scales are not appropriate for this journal.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信