ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Burden and Inattentive Responding in a 12-Month Intensive Longitudinal Study: Interview Study Among Young Adults.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of incentive type on data quality and quantity in an experience sampling study in a student population.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Intensive Longitudinal Data Collection Methods in Health Research: Tutorial for Selecting Measures and Designing a Sampling Protocol.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Intensive, Repeated Self-Report Measures: Should We Be Concerned About Changes in Data Quality Over Time?JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Understanding Longitudinal Ecological Momentary Assessment Completion: Results From 12 Months of Burst Sampling in the TIME Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Longitudinal User Engagement with Microinteraction Ecological Momentary Assessment (μEMA).Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntensive longitudinal data (ILD) collection methods have gained popularity in social and behavioral research as a tool to better understand behavior and experiences over time with reduced recall bias. Engaging participants in these studies over multiple months and ensuring high data quality are crucial but challenging due to the potential burden of repeated measurements. It is suspected that participants may engage in inattentive responding (IR) behavior to combat burden, but the processes underlying this behavior are unclear as previous studies have focused on the barriers to compliance rather than the barriers to providing high-quality data.
objectiveThis study aims to broaden researchers' knowledge about IR during ILD studies using qualitative analysis and uncover the underlying IR processes to aid future hypothesis generation.
methodsWe explored the process of IR by conducting semistructured qualitative exit interviews with 31 young adult participants (aged 18-29 years) who completed a 12-month ILD health behavior study with daily evening smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys and 4-day waves of hourly EMA surveys. The interviews assessed participants' motivations, the impact of time-varying contexts, changes in motivation and response patterns over time, and perceptions of attention check questions (ACQs) to understand participants' response patterns and potential factors leading to IR.
resultsThematic analysis revealed 5 overarching themes on factors that influence participant engagement: (1) friends and family also had to tolerate the frequent surveys, (2) participants tried to respond to surveys quickly, (3) the repetitive nature of surveys led to neutral responses, (4) ACQs within the surveys helped to combat overly consistent response patterns, and (5) different motivations for answering the surveys may have led to different levels of data quality.
conclusionsThis study aimed to examine participants' perceptions of the quality of data provided in an ILD study to contribute to the field's understanding of engagement. These findings provide insights into the complex process of IR and participant engagement in ILD studies with EMA. The study identified 5 factors influencing IR that could guide future research to improve EMA survey design. The identified themes offer practical implications for researchers and study designers, including the importance of considering social context, the consideration of dynamic motivations, and the potential benefit of including ACQs as a technique to reduce IR and leveraging the intrinsic motivators of participants. By incorporating these insights, researchers might maximize the scientific value of their multimonth ILD studies through better data collection protocols. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/36666.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.