实时和回顾性评估的融合:对自然发生和实验诱发的入侵进行系统调查

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Jacqueline Peters, Inga Marie Freund, Merel Kindt, Renée M. Visser , Arnold A.P. van Emmerik
{"title":"实时和回顾性评估的融合:对自然发生和实验诱发的入侵进行系统调查","authors":"Jacqueline Peters,&nbsp;Inga Marie Freund,&nbsp;Merel Kindt,&nbsp;Renée M. Visser ,&nbsp;Arnold A.P. van Emmerik","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Ecological momentary assessment is a popular method for monitoring symptoms in real-time. Especially for fleeting experiences, such as intrusions, real-time assessments may be more accurate than retrospective estimates. However, there are concerns regarding reactivity effects associated with real-time assessments and, conversely, the reliance on bias-prone retrospective assessments in clinical science and practice. In this study we used a between-groups design to examine whether real-time intrusion assessments influence retrospective reports (aim 1). Then, we investigated whether real-time and retrospective assessments systematically differed within individuals (aim 2).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Over two weeks, 150 non-clinical individuals provided weekly retrospective intrusion assessments, while the majority (n = 102) additionally reported their intrusions in real-time, via smartphones. We examined both naturally occurring intrusions, which individuals experience in their everyday lives, and intrusions related to a standardized stressor (i.e., Trier Social Stress Test), taking place halfway.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Using Bayesian statistics, we found that assessing intrusions in real-time did not convincingly affect retrospective reports, and there was no strong evidence that real-time and retrospective intrusion assessments differed. However, the evidence of absence was inconclusive for some measures. Real-time and retrospectively reported intrusion frequencies and distress were strongly associated with one another.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>Future research is advised to replicate these findings with larger samples, for other types of stressors, in clinical populations, and over extended assessment periods.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The general agreement between real-time and retrospective assessments of intrusions is encouraging, tentatively suggesting that researchers and clinicians can flexibly select the assessment method that best suits their objectives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"85 ","pages":"Article 101981"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000405/pdfft?md5=dbc2ff87e1e21cf4c746b1ab533ce1c0&pid=1-s2.0-S0005791624000405-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Convergence of real-time and retrospective assessments: A systematic investigation of naturally occurring and experimentally induced intrusions\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline Peters,&nbsp;Inga Marie Freund,&nbsp;Merel Kindt,&nbsp;Renée M. Visser ,&nbsp;Arnold A.P. van Emmerik\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Ecological momentary assessment is a popular method for monitoring symptoms in real-time. Especially for fleeting experiences, such as intrusions, real-time assessments may be more accurate than retrospective estimates. However, there are concerns regarding reactivity effects associated with real-time assessments and, conversely, the reliance on bias-prone retrospective assessments in clinical science and practice. In this study we used a between-groups design to examine whether real-time intrusion assessments influence retrospective reports (aim 1). Then, we investigated whether real-time and retrospective assessments systematically differed within individuals (aim 2).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Over two weeks, 150 non-clinical individuals provided weekly retrospective intrusion assessments, while the majority (n = 102) additionally reported their intrusions in real-time, via smartphones. We examined both naturally occurring intrusions, which individuals experience in their everyday lives, and intrusions related to a standardized stressor (i.e., Trier Social Stress Test), taking place halfway.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Using Bayesian statistics, we found that assessing intrusions in real-time did not convincingly affect retrospective reports, and there was no strong evidence that real-time and retrospective intrusion assessments differed. However, the evidence of absence was inconclusive for some measures. Real-time and retrospectively reported intrusion frequencies and distress were strongly associated with one another.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>Future research is advised to replicate these findings with larger samples, for other types of stressors, in clinical populations, and over extended assessment periods.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The general agreement between real-time and retrospective assessments of intrusions is encouraging, tentatively suggesting that researchers and clinicians can flexibly select the assessment method that best suits their objectives.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48198,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"85 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101981\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000405/pdfft?md5=dbc2ff87e1e21cf4c746b1ab533ce1c0&pid=1-s2.0-S0005791624000405-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000405\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000405","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的 生态学瞬间评估是一种流行的实时监测症状的方法。特别是对于转瞬即逝的经历,如入侵,实时评估可能比回顾性估计更准确。然而,人们对与实时评估相关的反应性效应表示担忧,反之,在临床科学和实践中对容易产生偏差的回顾性评估的依赖也令人担忧。在本研究中,我们采用了组间设计来考察实时入侵评估是否会影响回顾性报告(目的 1)。方法在两周内,150 名非临床人员每周提供一次入侵回溯评估,而大多数人(n = 102)还通过智能手机实时报告了他们的入侵情况。我们既研究了个人在日常生活中自然发生的入侵,也研究了中途发生的与标准化压力源(即特里尔社会压力测试)相关的入侵。结果通过贝叶斯统计,我们发现实时评估入侵并不会对回顾性报告产生令人信服的影响,而且没有有力的证据表明实时和回顾性入侵评估存在差异。但是,在某些指标上,没有证据表明存在差异。结论对入侵的实时评估和回顾性评估之间的普遍一致令人鼓舞,这初步表明研究人员和临床医生可以灵活选择最适合其目标的评估方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Convergence of real-time and retrospective assessments: A systematic investigation of naturally occurring and experimentally induced intrusions

Background and objectives

Ecological momentary assessment is a popular method for monitoring symptoms in real-time. Especially for fleeting experiences, such as intrusions, real-time assessments may be more accurate than retrospective estimates. However, there are concerns regarding reactivity effects associated with real-time assessments and, conversely, the reliance on bias-prone retrospective assessments in clinical science and practice. In this study we used a between-groups design to examine whether real-time intrusion assessments influence retrospective reports (aim 1). Then, we investigated whether real-time and retrospective assessments systematically differed within individuals (aim 2).

Methods

Over two weeks, 150 non-clinical individuals provided weekly retrospective intrusion assessments, while the majority (n = 102) additionally reported their intrusions in real-time, via smartphones. We examined both naturally occurring intrusions, which individuals experience in their everyday lives, and intrusions related to a standardized stressor (i.e., Trier Social Stress Test), taking place halfway.

Results

Using Bayesian statistics, we found that assessing intrusions in real-time did not convincingly affect retrospective reports, and there was no strong evidence that real-time and retrospective intrusion assessments differed. However, the evidence of absence was inconclusive for some measures. Real-time and retrospectively reported intrusion frequencies and distress were strongly associated with one another.

Limitations

Future research is advised to replicate these findings with larger samples, for other types of stressors, in clinical populations, and over extended assessment periods.

Conclusions

The general agreement between real-time and retrospective assessments of intrusions is encouraging, tentatively suggesting that researchers and clinicians can flexibly select the assessment method that best suits their objectives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
×
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