Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, 355 Meliora Hall, Box 270266, Rochester, NY, 14627, USA.
Department of Psychology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol. 2022 Aug;50(8):1095-1105. doi: 10.1007/s10802-022-00907-3. Epub 2022 Mar 7.
The purpose of this study was to compare adolescents' reports of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITBs) between ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and a traditional, retrospective interview. Adolescents were recruited following recent discharge from acute psychiatric care for a suicidal crisis (as part of a larger study). Participants completed: (1) EMA surveys assessing SITBs multiple times daily over a 28-day follow-up period, and (2) a follow-up phone interview to evaluate SITBs retrospectively at the end of the same 28-day follow-up period. Forty-one adolescents completed the final follow-up interview (M = 14.9 years; 78.0% White; 61.0% female). Adolescents' reports of SITB presence (vs. absence) and frequency, collected via EMA and retrospective interview over follow-up, were compared. Preliminary differences in SITB endorsement (presence/absence) were observed between reporting methods with more adolescents endorsing suicide ideation (SI; n = 30) and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI; n = 15) in EMA compared to retrospective interview (SI: n = 17; NSSI: n = 10). Reasons for withholding SITBs from EMA reports (gathered during a final qualitative interview) included not wanting to answer additional EMA questions and concerns about EMA-reporting consequences. There were no statistically significant differences in SITB frequency by report method. Further investigation is warranted in a larger sample to elucidate frequency patterns. Given the growing research using this method, these findings are important to help clarify the utility of EMA methods for studying SITBs in youth.
本研究旨在比较青少年在生态瞬时评估(EMA)和传统回顾性访谈中自我伤害思想和行为(SITBs)的报告。研究招募了最近因自杀危机从急性精神病院出院的青少年(作为更大研究的一部分)。参与者完成了:(1)EMA 调查,在 28 天的随访期间,每天多次评估 SITBs;(2)在同一 28 天随访结束时进行后续电话访谈,以回顾性评估 SITBs。41 名青少年完成了最终随访访谈(M=14.9 岁;78.0%为白人;61.0%为女性)。比较了通过 EMA 和回顾性访谈在随访期间收集的 SITB 存在(与不存在)和频率的报告。观察到报告方法之间 SITB 确认(存在/不存在)的初步差异,与回顾性访谈相比,更多的青少年在 EMA 中报告自杀意念(SI;n=30)和非自杀性自我伤害(NSSI;n=15)(SI:n=17;NSSI:n=10)。在 EMA 报告中隐瞒 SITBs 的原因(在最后一次定性访谈中收集)包括不想回答额外的 EMA 问题和对 EMA 报告后果的担忧。两种报告方法的 SITB 频率均无统计学差异。需要在更大的样本中进一步调查以阐明频率模式。鉴于使用这种方法的研究越来越多,这些发现对于阐明 EMA 方法在研究青少年 SITBs 中的效用非常重要。