No abstract

No abstract

Background Individuals with type 1 diabetes represent a population with important vulnerabilities to dynamic physiological, behavioral, and psychological interactions, as well as cognitive processes. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), a methodological approach used to study intraindividual variation over time, has only recently been used to deliver cognitive assessments in daily life, and many methodological questions remain. The Glycemic Variability and Fluctuations in Cognitive Status in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes (GluCog) study uses EMA to deliver cognitive and self-report measures while simultaneously collecting passive interstitial glucose in adults with type 1 diabetes. Objective We aimed to report the results of an EMA optimization pilot and how these data were used to refine the study design of the GluCog study. An optimization pilot was designed to determine whether low-frequency EMA (3 EMAs per day) over more days or high-frequency EMA (6 EMAs per day) for fewer days would result in a better EMA completion rate and capture more hypoglycemia episodes. The secondary aim was to reduce the number of cognitive EMA tasks from 6 to 3. Methods Baseline cognitive tasks and psychological questionnaires were completed by all the participants (N=20), followed by EMA delivery of brief cognitive and self-report measures for 15 days while wearing a blinded continuous glucose monitor. These data were coded for the presence of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) within 60 minutes of each EMA. The participants were randomized into group A (n=10 for group A and B; starting with 3 EMAs per day for 10 days and then switching to 6 EMAs per day for an additional 5 days) or group B (N=10; starting with 6 EMAs per day for 5 days and then switching to 3 EMAs per day for an additional 10 days). Results A paired samples 2-tailed t test found no significant difference in the completion rate between the 2 schedules (t17=1.16; P=.26; Cohen dz=0.27), with both schedules producing >80% EMA completion. However, more hypoglycemia episodes were captured during the schedule with the 3 EMAs per day than during the schedule with 6 EMAs per day. Conclusions The results from this EMA optimization pilot guided key design decisions regarding the EMA frequency and study duration for the main GluCog study. The present report responds to the urgent need for systematic and detailed information on EMA study designs, particularly those using cognitive assessments coupled with physiological measures. Given the complexity of EMA studies, choosing the right instruments and assessment schedules is an important aspect of study design and subsequent data interpretation.

Background The current methods of evaluating cognitive functioning typically rely on a single time point to assess and characterize an individual’s performance. However, cognitive functioning fluctuates within individuals over time in relation to environmental, psychological, and physiological contexts. This limits the generalizability and diagnostic utility of single time point assessments, particularly among individuals who may exhibit large variations in cognition depending on physiological or psychological context (eg, those with type 1 diabetes [T1D], who may have fluctuating glucose concentrations throughout the day). Objective We aimed to report the reliability and validity of cognitive ecological momentary assessment (EMA) as a method for understanding between-person differences and capturing within-person variation in cognition over time in a community sample and sample of adults with T1D. Methods Cognitive performance was measured 3 times a day for 15 days in the sample of adults with T1D (n=198, recruited through endocrinology clinics) and for 10 days in the community sample (n=128, recruited from TestMyBrain, a web-based citizen science platform) using ultrabrief cognitive tests developed for cognitive EMA. Our cognitive EMA platform allowed for remote, automated assessment in participants’ natural environments, enabling the measurement of within-person cognitive variation without the burden of repeated laboratory or clinic visits. This allowed us to evaluate reliability and validity in samples that differed in their expected degree of cognitive variability as well as the method of recruitment. Results The results demonstrate excellent between-person reliability (ranging from 0.95 to 0.99) and construct validity of cognitive EMA in both the sample of adults with T1D and community sample. Within-person reliability in both samples (ranging from 0.20 to 0.80) was comparable with that observed in previous studies in healthy older adults. As expected, the full-length baseline and EMA versions of TestMyBrain tests correlated highly with one another and loaded together on the expected cognitive domains when using exploratory factor analysis. Interruptions had higher negative impacts on accuracy-based outcomes (β=−.34 to −.26; all P values <.001) than on reaction time–based outcomes (β=−.07 to −.02; P<.001 to P=.40). Conclusions We demonstrated that ultrabrief mobile assessments are both reliable and valid across 2 very different clinic versus community samples, despite the conditions in which cognitive EMAs are administered, which are often associated with more noise and variability. The psychometric characteristics described here should be leveraged appropriately depending on the goals of the cognitive assessment (eg, diagnostic vs everyday functioning) and the population being studied.