生态瞬间评估的抽样方法和观察数据模式:高风险年轻人非自杀式自伤的研究。

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-20 DOI:10.1037/pas0001491
Sarah E Victor, Kirsten Christensen, Terry H Trieu
{"title":"生态瞬间评估的抽样方法和观察数据模式:高风险年轻人非自杀式自伤的研究。","authors":"Sarah E Victor, Kirsten Christensen, Terry H Trieu","doi":"10.1037/pas0001491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior research using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been mixed in comparing signal- and event-contingent protocols' influence on research findings. No work has compared these approaches for high-severity, low-frequency behaviors for which event-contingent EMA is recommended, such as nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI). We examined EMA data from 36 community-recruited, high-risk young adults; participants completed 1 week each of signal- and event-contingent EMA in randomized order. Event-contingent methods evinced higher NSSI urge mean and variability, but fewer total NSSI behaviors, compared to signal-contingent methods. NSSI correlates, such as suicidal ideation and negative affect, were more highly endorsed, but no more variable, across event- versus signal-contingent surveys. Associations between constructs at the same survey varied in strength by protocol type but inconsistently across examined predictors. Given the small sample size, and risk of Type 2 error, replication is needed in larger, more diverse samples. Results highlight the substantive impact of EMA sampling approach on observed data characteristics and associations, with implications for future EMA research examining high-severity, low-frequency behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"758-764"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13390772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sampling methodology and observed data patterns in ecological momentary assessment: A study of nonsuicidal self-injury among high-risk young adults.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah E Victor, Kirsten Christensen, Terry H Trieu\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Prior research using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been mixed in comparing signal- and event-contingent protocols' influence on research findings. No work has compared these approaches for high-severity, low-frequency behaviors for which event-contingent EMA is recommended, such as nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI). We examined EMA data from 36 community-recruited, high-risk young adults; participants completed 1 week each of signal- and event-contingent EMA in randomized order. Event-contingent methods evinced higher NSSI urge mean and variability, but fewer total NSSI behaviors, compared to signal-contingent methods. NSSI correlates, such as suicidal ideation and negative affect, were more highly endorsed, but no more variable, across event- versus signal-contingent surveys. Associations between constructs at the same survey varied in strength by protocol type but inconsistently across examined predictors. Given the small sample size, and risk of Type 2 error, replication is needed in larger, more diverse samples. Results highlight the substantive impact of EMA sampling approach on observed data characteristics and associations, with implications for future EMA research examining high-severity, low-frequency behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"758-764\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13390772/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001491\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/7/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001491","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前使用生态瞬时评估(EMA)的研究在比较信号和事件条件协议对研究结果的影响方面存在分歧。目前还没有研究比较这两种方法对高严重性、低频率的行为的影响,这些行为建议采用事件偶发EMA,如非自杀式自伤(NSSI)。我们检查了36名社区招募的高危年轻人的EMA数据;参与者按随机顺序完成信号和事件偶发EMA各1周。与信号偶然方法相比,事件偶然方法表现出更高的自伤冲动平均值和可变性,但总自伤行为较少。自伤相关因素,如自杀意念和负面情绪,在事件偶发调查和信号偶发调查中得到了更高的认可,但没有更多的变量。在同一调查中,构念之间的关联因方案类型的不同而强度不同,但在检查的预测因子之间不一致。由于样本量小,并且存在2型错误的风险,因此需要在更大、更多样化的样本中进行复制。结果强调了EMA抽样方法对观察到的数据特征和关联的实质性影响,对未来EMA研究高严重性、低频率行为的影响。(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。
Sampling methodology and observed data patterns in ecological momentary assessment: A study of nonsuicidal self-injury among high-risk young adults.

Prior research using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been mixed in comparing signal- and event-contingent protocols' influence on research findings. No work has compared these approaches for high-severity, low-frequency behaviors for which event-contingent EMA is recommended, such as nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI). We examined EMA data from 36 community-recruited, high-risk young adults; participants completed 1 week each of signal- and event-contingent EMA in randomized order. Event-contingent methods evinced higher NSSI urge mean and variability, but fewer total NSSI behaviors, compared to signal-contingent methods. NSSI correlates, such as suicidal ideation and negative affect, were more highly endorsed, but no more variable, across event- versus signal-contingent surveys. Associations between constructs at the same survey varied in strength by protocol type but inconsistently across examined predictors. Given the small sample size, and risk of Type 2 error, replication is needed in larger, more diverse samples. Results highlight the substantive impact of EMA sampling approach on observed data characteristics and associations, with implications for future EMA research examining high-severity, low-frequency behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Psychological Assessment
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
×
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
小红书