The effects of time frames on self-report

Walentynowicz, Marta; Schneider, Stefan; Stone, Arthur A.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201655

Cited by 52 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recall bias related to differences in proximity of survey completion to the surgical admission is certainly a relevant limitation in this study. Perspectives of other patients and differences between perspectives in the acute phase of the complication versus more delayed recall remain to be explored ( 40 , 41 ). Finally, we did not collect extensive demographic information on patient respondents in this anonymous survey.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity of Postoperative Complications From the Perspective of the Patient

Rendell¹,

Siy²,

Stafford³

et al. 2019

Journal of Patient Experience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although provider-derived surgical complication severity grading systems exist, little is known about the patient perspective. Objective: To assess patient-rated complication severity and determine concordance with existing grading systems. Methods: A survey asked general surgery patients to rate the severity of 21 hypothetical postoperative events representing grades 1 to 5 complications from the Accordion Severity Grading System. Concordance with the Accordion scale was examined. Separately, descriptive ratings of 18 brief postoperative events were ranked. Results: One hundred sixty-eight patients returned a mailed survey following their discharge from a general surgery service. Patients rated grade 4 complications highest. Grade 1 complications were rated similarly to grade 5 and higher than grades 2 and 3 ( P ≤ .01). Patients rated one event not considered an Accordion scale complication higher than all but grade 4 complications ( P < .001). The brief events also did not follow the Accordion scale, other than the grade 6 complication ranking highest. Conclusion: Patient-rated complication severity is discordant with provider-derived grading systems, suggesting the need to explore important differences between patient and provider perspectives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity of Postoperative Complications From the Perspective of the Patient

Rendell¹,

Siy²,

Stafford³

et al. 2019

Journal of Patient Experience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is an excellent level of adherence to the instructions, assuming that a reporting time frame from within 5 minutes of the prompt is appropriate for one’s research goals and argues that researchers should ensure that participants are thoroughly trained in momentary data collection. This is especially important as self-reports for momentary EMA because longer-than-momentary reporting time frames (≥2 hours) have previously been shown to yield systematically higher rating levels compared with immediate ratings [ 25 ]. These level differences could bias the EMA reports if a sizable portion of a sample did not adhere to the intended reporting time frames.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Training on Participant Adherence With a Reporting Time Frame for Momentary Subjective Experiences in Ecological Momentary Assessment: Cognitive Interview Study

Wen¹,

Junghaenel²,

Newman³

et al. 2021

JMIR Form Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has the potential to minimize recall bias by having people report on their experiences in the moment (momentary model) or over short periods (coverage model). This potential hinges on the assumption that participants provide their ratings based on the reporting time frame instructions prescribed in the EMA items. However, it is unclear what time frames participants actually use when answering the EMA questions and whether participant training improves participants’ adherence to the reporting instructions. Objective This study aims to investigate the reporting time frames participants used when answering EMA questions and whether participant training improves participants’ adherence to the EMA reporting timeframe instructions. Methods Telephone-based cognitive interviews were used to investigate the research questions. In a 2×2 factorial design, participants (n=100) were assigned to receive either basic or enhanced EMA training and randomized to rate their experiences using a momentary (at the moment you were called) or a coverage (since the last phone call) model. Participants received five calls over the course of a day to provide ratings; after each rating, participants were immediately interviewed about the time frame they used to answer the EMA questions. A total of 2 raters independently coded the momentary interview responses into time frame categories (Cohen κ=0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.73). Results The results from the momentary conditions showed that most of the calls referred to the period during the call (57/199, 28.6%) or just before the call (98/199, 49.2%) to provide ratings; the remainder were from longer reporting periods. Multinomial logistic regression results indicated a significant training effect (χ21=16.6; P<.001) in which the enhanced training condition yielded more reports within the intended reporting time frames for momentary EMA reports. Cognitive interview data from the coverage model did not lend themselves to reliable coding and were not analyzed. Conclusions The results of this study provide the first evidence about adherence to EMA instructions to reporting periods and that enhanced participant training improves adherence to the time frame specified in momentary EMA studies.

show abstract

“…Second, the retrospection occurred directly after a period of 14 days in which individuals rated these aspects of their relationship on a momentary basis. This difference in time between retrospection and experience across the studies included in the meta-analysis might be relevant for the bias that is occurring (see Robinson & Clore, 2002b;Walentynowicz, Schneider, & Stone, 2018 for effects of short vs. long time periods).…”

Section: What Bias Occurs In Retrospection? (Rq2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recalling Experiences: Looking at Momentary, Retrospective and Global Assessments of Relationship Satisfaction

Zygar–Hoffmann

Schönbrodt

2020

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationship satisfaction can be assessed in retrospection, as a global evaluation, or as a momentary state. In two experience sampling studies (N = 130, N = 510) the specificities of these assessment modalities are examined. We show that 1) compared to other summary statistics like the median, the mean of relationship satisfaction states describes retrospective and global evaluations best (but the difference to some other summary statistics was negligible); 2) retrospection introduces an overestimation of the average annoyance in the relationship reported on a momentary basis, which results in an overall negative mean-level bias for retrospective relationship satisfaction; 3) this bias is most strongly moderated by global relationship satisfaction at the time of retrospection; 4) snapshots of momentary relationship satisfaction get representative of global evaluations after approximately two weeks of sampling. The findings extend the recall bias reported in the literature for retrospection of negative affect to the domain of relationship evaluations and assist researchers in designing efficient experience sampling studies.

show abstract

The effects of time frames on self-report

Cited by 52 publications

References 44 publications

Severity of Postoperative Complications From the Perspective of the Patient

Severity of Postoperative Complications From the Perspective of the Patient

The Effect of Training on Participant Adherence With a Reporting Time Frame for Momentary Subjective Experiences in Ecological Momentary Assessment: Cognitive Interview Study

Recalling Experiences: Looking at Momentary, Retrospective and Global Assessments of Relationship Satisfaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About