Cargando…

Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study

Although the potential for participant selection bias is readily acknowledged in the momentary data collection literature, very little is known about uptake rates in these studies or about differences in the people that participate versus those who do not. This study analyzed data from an existing I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stone, Arthur A., Schneider, Stefan, Smyth, Joshua M., Junghaenel, Doerte U., Wen, Cheng, Couper, Mick P., Goldstein, Sarah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36893179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282591
_version_ 1784903375877308416
author Stone, Arthur A.
Schneider, Stefan
Smyth, Joshua M.
Junghaenel, Doerte U.
Wen, Cheng
Couper, Mick P.
Goldstein, Sarah
author_facet Stone, Arthur A.
Schneider, Stefan
Smyth, Joshua M.
Junghaenel, Doerte U.
Wen, Cheng
Couper, Mick P.
Goldstein, Sarah
author_sort Stone, Arthur A.
collection PubMed
description Although the potential for participant selection bias is readily acknowledged in the momentary data collection literature, very little is known about uptake rates in these studies or about differences in the people that participate versus those who do not. This study analyzed data from an existing Internet panel of older people (age 50 and greater) who were offered participation into a momentary study (n = 3,169), which made it possible to compute uptake and to compare many characteristics of participation status. Momentary studies present participants with brief surveys multiple times a day over several days; these surveys ask about immediate or recent experiences. A 29.1% uptake rate was observed when all respondents were considered, whereas a 39.2% uptake rate was found when individuals who did not have eligible smartphones (necessary for ambulatory data collection) were eliminated from the analyses. Taking into account the participation rate for being in this Internet panel, we estimate uptake rates for the general population to be about 5%. A consistent pattern of differences emerged between those who accepted the invitation to participate versus those who did not (in univariate analyses): participants were more likely to be female, younger, have higher income, have higher levels of education, rate their health as better, be employed, not be retired, not be disabled, have better self-rated computer skills, and to have participated in more prior Internet surveys (all p < .0026). Many variables were not associated with uptake including race, big five personality scores, and subjective well-being. For several of the predictors, the magnitude of the effects on uptake was substantial. These results indicate the possibility that, depending upon the associations being investigated, person selection bias could be present in momentary data collection studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9997985
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99979852023-03-10 Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study Stone, Arthur A. Schneider, Stefan Smyth, Joshua M. Junghaenel, Doerte U. Wen, Cheng Couper, Mick P. Goldstein, Sarah PLoS One Research Article Although the potential for participant selection bias is readily acknowledged in the momentary data collection literature, very little is known about uptake rates in these studies or about differences in the people that participate versus those who do not. This study analyzed data from an existing Internet panel of older people (age 50 and greater) who were offered participation into a momentary study (n = 3,169), which made it possible to compute uptake and to compare many characteristics of participation status. Momentary studies present participants with brief surveys multiple times a day over several days; these surveys ask about immediate or recent experiences. A 29.1% uptake rate was observed when all respondents were considered, whereas a 39.2% uptake rate was found when individuals who did not have eligible smartphones (necessary for ambulatory data collection) were eliminated from the analyses. Taking into account the participation rate for being in this Internet panel, we estimate uptake rates for the general population to be about 5%. A consistent pattern of differences emerged between those who accepted the invitation to participate versus those who did not (in univariate analyses): participants were more likely to be female, younger, have higher income, have higher levels of education, rate their health as better, be employed, not be retired, not be disabled, have better self-rated computer skills, and to have participated in more prior Internet surveys (all p < .0026). Many variables were not associated with uptake including race, big five personality scores, and subjective well-being. For several of the predictors, the magnitude of the effects on uptake was substantial. These results indicate the possibility that, depending upon the associations being investigated, person selection bias could be present in momentary data collection studies. Public Library of Science 2023-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9997985/ /pubmed/36893179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282591 Text en © 2023 Stone et al 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 author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Stone, Arthur A.
Schneider, Stefan
Smyth, Joshua M.
Junghaenel, Doerte U.
Wen, Cheng
Couper, Mick P.
Goldstein, Sarah
Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study
title Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study
title_full Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study
title_fullStr Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study
title_full_unstemmed Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study
title_short Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study
title_sort shedding light on participant selection bias in ecological momentary assessment (ema) studies: findings from an internet panel study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36893179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282591
work_keys_str_mv AT stonearthura sheddinglightonparticipantselectionbiasinecologicalmomentaryassessmentemastudiesfindingsfromaninternetpanelstudy
AT schneiderstefan sheddinglightonparticipantselectionbiasinecologicalmomentaryassessmentemastudiesfindingsfromaninternetpanelstudy
AT smythjoshuam sheddinglightonparticipantselectionbiasinecologicalmomentaryassessmentemastudiesfindingsfromaninternetpanelstudy
AT junghaeneldoerteu sheddinglightonparticipantselectionbiasinecologicalmomentaryassessmentemastudiesfindingsfromaninternetpanelstudy
AT wencheng sheddinglightonparticipantselectionbiasinecologicalmomentaryassessmentemastudiesfindingsfromaninternetpanelstudy
AT coupermickp sheddinglightonparticipantselectionbiasinecologicalmomentaryassessmentemastudiesfindingsfromaninternetpanelstudy
AT goldsteinsarah sheddinglightonparticipantselectionbiasinecologicalmomentaryassessmentemastudiesfindingsfromaninternetpanelstudy