Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2024 Dec;85:101981. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101981. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
Ecological momentary assessment is a popular method for monitoring symptoms in real-time. Especially for fleeting experiences, such as intrusions, real-time assessments may be more accurate than retrospective estimates. However, there are concerns regarding reactivity effects associated with real-time assessments and, conversely, the reliance on bias-prone retrospective assessments in clinical science and practice. In this study we used a between-groups design to examine whether real-time intrusion assessments influence retrospective reports (aim 1). Then, we investigated whether real-time and retrospective assessments systematically differed within individuals (aim 2).
Over two weeks, 150 non-clinical individuals provided weekly retrospective intrusion assessments, while the majority (n = 102) additionally reported their intrusions in real-time, via smartphones. We examined both naturally occurring intrusions, which individuals experience in their everyday lives, and intrusions related to a standardized stressor (i.e., Trier Social Stress Test), taking place halfway.
Using Bayesian statistics, we found that assessing intrusions in real-time did not convincingly affect retrospective reports, and there was no strong evidence that real-time and retrospective intrusion assessments differed. However, the evidence of absence was inconclusive for some measures. Real-time and retrospectively reported intrusion frequencies and distress were strongly associated with one another.
Future research is advised to replicate these findings with larger samples, for other types of stressors, in clinical populations, and over extended assessment periods.
The general agreement between real-time and retrospective assessments of intrusions is encouraging, tentatively suggesting that researchers and clinicians can flexibly select the assessment method that best suits their objectives.
生态瞬时评估是一种实时监测症状的流行方法。特别是对于短暂的体验，如侵入，实时评估可能比回顾性估计更准确。然而，人们对与实时评估相关的反应性效应以及在临床科学和实践中对易产生偏差的回顾性评估的依赖存在担忧。在这项研究中，我们使用组间设计来检验实时侵入评估是否会影响回顾性报告（目标 1）。然后，我们调查了个体内部实时评估和回顾性评估是否系统地存在差异（目标 2）。
在两周的时间里，150 名非临床个体每周提供回顾性侵入评估，而大多数（n=102）人还通过智能手机实时报告他们的侵入。我们既检查了个体日常生活中自然发生的侵入，也检查了与标准化应激源（即特里尔社会应激测试）相关的侵入，该应激源发生在中间阶段。
使用贝叶斯统计，我们发现实时评估侵入并没有令人信服地影响回顾性报告，也没有强有力的证据表明实时和回顾性侵入评估存在差异。然而，对于某些措施，缺乏证据的结论并不确定。实时和回顾性报告的侵入频率和困扰程度强烈相关。
建议未来的研究使用更大的样本、其他类型的应激源、临床人群，并在更长的评估期间重复这些发现。
实时和回顾性侵入评估的总体一致性令人鼓舞，这初步表明研究人员和临床医生可以灵活选择最适合其目标的评估方法。
