Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40994465›Full record

ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2024

A population-based investigation of participation rate and self-selection bias in momentary data capture and survey studies.

Arthur A Stone, Stefan Schneider, Joshua M Smyth, Doerte U Junghaenel, Mick P Couper, Cheng Wen, Marilyn Mendez, Sarah Velasco, Sarah Goldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Perspectives of Australian healthcare professionals towards gamification in practice.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Modifiable dementia risk factors associated with objective and subjective cognition.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Arthur A StoneDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California.
Stefan SchneiderDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California.
Joshua M SmythDepartment of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University.
Doerte U JunghaenelDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California.
Mick P CouperInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Cheng WenDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California.
Marilyn MendezDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California.
Sarah VelascoDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California.
Sarah GoldsteinDornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California.

Funding

Advancing the Science and Practice of Ecological Momentary AssessmentR37AG057685 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Arthur A Stone · 2018 to 2026
$9.4M
NIA NIH HHS R37 AG057685
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Participant selection bias is of concern to researchers conducting surveys of all types. For momentary data capture studies, such as Ecological Momentary Assessment, the level of burden associated with these techniques and the possibility of low uptake rates makes the concerns especially salient. This study invited 3,000 individuals to participate in a study of health and mood and recorded the uptake rates at various points in the process. Respondents expressing interest in participating in general were randomized into a one-time survey, a low-burden momentary study, or a high-burden momentary study. Overall, 85.9% of the sample did not respond to the study invitation (including confirming non-interest); 6.9% of the sample expressed interest in the study by completing a brief survey; 2.1% agreed to participate in the study when the protocol specifics were described (none of the study protocols were actually run). Whites were more likely to complete the survey. Of those completing the survey, individuals who reported higher income, a more "open" personality, better typing skills, better computer skills, who viewed the research topic as important, and who expressed interest in research on daily feelings more likely consented to being enrolled in the experiment. The number of prior surveys taken had an inverted-U shaped association with participation in this study. Finally, all individuals randomized to the one-time survey group agreed to participate compared to two-thirds of individuals in the momentary groups. These results suggest that participant selection bias may affect both one-time survey and momentary data capture studies, with the caveat that the degree of such bias will be related to a study's hypotheses.

Identifiers

PMID40994465
PMCPMC12456455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.