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

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

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

Journal paper

PLoS ONE

2023

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.