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}
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).
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