Cargando…

Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND: Various populations with chronic conditions are at risk for decreased cognitive performance, making assessment of their cognition important. Formal mobile cognitive assessments measure cognitive performance with greater ecological validity than traditional laboratory-based testing but ad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hernandez, Raymond, Hoogendoorn, Claire, Gonzalez, Jeffrey S, Jin, Haomiao, Pyatak, Elizabeth A, Spruijt-Metz, Donna, Junghaenel, Doerte U, Lee, Pey-Jiuan, Schneider, Stefan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37252787
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/45203
_version_ 1785058530195144704
author Hernandez, Raymond
Hoogendoorn, Claire
Gonzalez, Jeffrey S
Jin, Haomiao
Pyatak, Elizabeth A
Spruijt-Metz, Donna
Junghaenel, Doerte U
Lee, Pey-Jiuan
Schneider, Stefan
author_facet Hernandez, Raymond
Hoogendoorn, Claire
Gonzalez, Jeffrey S
Jin, Haomiao
Pyatak, Elizabeth A
Spruijt-Metz, Donna
Junghaenel, Doerte U
Lee, Pey-Jiuan
Schneider, Stefan
author_sort Hernandez, Raymond
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Various populations with chronic conditions are at risk for decreased cognitive performance, making assessment of their cognition important. Formal mobile cognitive assessments measure cognitive performance with greater ecological validity than traditional laboratory-based testing but add to participant task demands. Given that responding to a survey is considered a cognitively demanding task itself, information that is passively collected as a by-product of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may be a means through which people’s cognitive performance in their natural environment can be estimated when formal ambulatory cognitive assessment is not feasible. We specifically examined whether the item response times (RTs) to EMA questions (eg, mood) can serve as approximations of cognitive processing speed. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate whether the RTs from noncognitive EMA surveys can serve as approximate indicators of between-person (BP) differences and momentary within-person (WP) variability in cognitive processing speed. METHODS: Data from a 2-week EMA study investigating the relationships among glucose, emotion, and functioning in adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed. Validated mobile cognitive tests assessing processing speed (Symbol Search task) and sustained attention (Go-No Go task) were administered together with noncognitive EMA surveys 5 to 6 times per day via smartphones. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the reliability of EMA RTs, their convergent validity with the Symbol Search task, and their divergent validity with the Go-No Go task. Other tests of the validity of EMA RTs included the examination of their associations with age, depression, fatigue, and the time of day. RESULTS: Overall, in BP analyses, evidence was found supporting the reliability and convergent validity of EMA question RTs from even a single repeatedly administered EMA item as a measure of average processing speed. BP correlations between the Symbol Search task and EMA RTs ranged from 0.43 to 0.58 (P<.001). EMA RTs had significant BP associations with age (P<.001), as expected, but not with depression (P=.20) or average fatigue (P=.18). In WP analyses, the RTs to 16 slider items and all 22 EMA items (including the 16 slider items) had acceptable (>0.70) WP reliability. After correcting for unreliability in multilevel models, EMA RTs from most combinations of items showed moderate WP correlations with the Symbol Search task (ranged from 0.29 to 0.58; P<.001) and demonstrated theoretically expected relationships with momentary fatigue and the time of day. The associations between EMA RTs and the Symbol Search task were greater than those between EMA RTs and the Go-No Go task at both the BP and WP levels, providing evidence of divergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the RTs to EMA items (eg, mood) may be a method of approximating people’s average levels of and momentary fluctuations in processing speed without adding tasks beyond the survey questions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10265432
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102654322023-06-15 Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study Hernandez, Raymond Hoogendoorn, Claire Gonzalez, Jeffrey S Jin, Haomiao Pyatak, Elizabeth A Spruijt-Metz, Donna Junghaenel, Doerte U Lee, Pey-Jiuan Schneider, Stefan JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Original Paper BACKGROUND: Various populations with chronic conditions are at risk for decreased cognitive performance, making assessment of their cognition important. Formal mobile cognitive assessments measure cognitive performance with greater ecological validity than traditional laboratory-based testing but add to participant task demands. Given that responding to a survey is considered a cognitively demanding task itself, information that is passively collected as a by-product of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may be a means through which people’s cognitive performance in their natural environment can be estimated when formal ambulatory cognitive assessment is not feasible. We specifically examined whether the item response times (RTs) to EMA questions (eg, mood) can serve as approximations of cognitive processing speed. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate whether the RTs from noncognitive EMA surveys can serve as approximate indicators of between-person (BP) differences and momentary within-person (WP) variability in cognitive processing speed. METHODS: Data from a 2-week EMA study investigating the relationships among glucose, emotion, and functioning in adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed. Validated mobile cognitive tests assessing processing speed (Symbol Search task) and sustained attention (Go-No Go task) were administered together with noncognitive EMA surveys 5 to 6 times per day via smartphones. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the reliability of EMA RTs, their convergent validity with the Symbol Search task, and their divergent validity with the Go-No Go task. Other tests of the validity of EMA RTs included the examination of their associations with age, depression, fatigue, and the time of day. RESULTS: Overall, in BP analyses, evidence was found supporting the reliability and convergent validity of EMA question RTs from even a single repeatedly administered EMA item as a measure of average processing speed. BP correlations between the Symbol Search task and EMA RTs ranged from 0.43 to 0.58 (P<.001). EMA RTs had significant BP associations with age (P<.001), as expected, but not with depression (P=.20) or average fatigue (P=.18). In WP analyses, the RTs to 16 slider items and all 22 EMA items (including the 16 slider items) had acceptable (>0.70) WP reliability. After correcting for unreliability in multilevel models, EMA RTs from most combinations of items showed moderate WP correlations with the Symbol Search task (ranged from 0.29 to 0.58; P<.001) and demonstrated theoretically expected relationships with momentary fatigue and the time of day. The associations between EMA RTs and the Symbol Search task were greater than those between EMA RTs and the Go-No Go task at both the BP and WP levels, providing evidence of divergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the RTs to EMA items (eg, mood) may be a method of approximating people’s average levels of and momentary fluctuations in processing speed without adding tasks beyond the survey questions. JMIR Publications 2023-05-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10265432/ /pubmed/37252787 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/45203 Text en ©Raymond Hernandez, Claire Hoogendoorn, Jeffrey S Gonzalez, Haomiao Jin, Elizabeth A Pyatak, Donna Spruijt-Metz, Doerte U Junghaenel, Pey-Jiuan Lee, Stefan Schneider. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 30.05.2023. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Hernandez, Raymond
Hoogendoorn, Claire
Gonzalez, Jeffrey S
Jin, Haomiao
Pyatak, Elizabeth A
Spruijt-Metz, Donna
Junghaenel, Doerte U
Lee, Pey-Jiuan
Schneider, Stefan
Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study
title Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study
title_full Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study
title_fullStr Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study
title_full_unstemmed Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study
title_short Reliability and Validity of Noncognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Survey Response Times as an Indicator of Cognitive Processing Speed in People’s Natural Environment: Intensive Longitudinal Study
title_sort reliability and validity of noncognitive ecological momentary assessment survey response times as an indicator of cognitive processing speed in people’s natural environment: intensive longitudinal study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37252787
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/45203
work_keys_str_mv AT hernandezraymond reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT hoogendoornclaire reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT gonzalezjeffreys reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT jinhaomiao reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT pyatakelizabetha reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT spruijtmetzdonna reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT junghaeneldoerteu reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT leepeyjiuan reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy
AT schneiderstefan reliabilityandvalidityofnoncognitiveecologicalmomentaryassessmentsurveyresponsetimesasanindicatorofcognitiveprocessingspeedinpeoplesnaturalenvironmentintensivelongitudinalstudy