A preliminary randomized trial of reinforcement contingencies to improve compliance with ecological momentary assessment.

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) methods are increasingly used by translational scientists to study real-world behavior and experience. The ability to draw meaningful conclusions from EMA research depends upon participant compliance with assessment completion. Most EMA studies provide financial compensation for compliance, but little empirical evidence addresses the impact of reinforcement parameters on the level of compliance. The purpose of this study-within-a-trial was to determine the effects of varying the amount and frequency of reinforcement on EMA compliance in a clinical sample of individuals seeking treatment for cigarette smoking. In the parent clinical trial, participants were asked to complete 9 weeks of EMA (1 daily Morning Assessment and 4 daily Random Assessments). Following a 5-week Standard Payment phase for EMA compliance, 61 individuals seeking treatment for cigarette smoking enrolled in the larger clinical trial were randomized to receive Standard ($1 per assessment, paid biweekly), Frequent ($1 per assessment, paid 3 times per week), or Large ($2 per assessment, paid biweekly) payments for EMA compliance during a 4-week Payment Manipulation Phase. Overall, receiving Frequent or Large payments did not improve EMA compliance compared to Standard payments, Ps > .30. Varying frequency and amount of remuneration for EMA compliance did not generally improve compliance in an ongoing clinical trial, raising further questions about the importance of reinforcement parameters in promoting EMA compliance.

Previous studies have addressed the idea that monetary compensation for participation in research is an effective way to encourage individuals to complete the studies. However, there has been limited exploration as whether the amount and frequency of compensation has an influence on participant adherence. We recruited adults who were seeking cigarette smoking treatment and asked them to complete multiple assessments each day on a smartphone app for 9 weeks. Following completion of the assessments, participants were given monetary compensation. A change after 5 weeks led to some persons receiving $1 per assessment paid three times a week (Frequent Payment Group), while others received $2 per assessment paid biweekly (Large Payment Group), and some continued to receive $1 per assessment paid biweekly (Standard Payment Group) for the next 4 weeks. We found that the experimental payment variations did not significantly change compliance with the assessments. These preliminary findings serve as a benchmark for further research.

Evaluating Declines in Compliance With Ecological Momentary Assessment in Longitudinal Health Behavior Research: Analyses From a Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is increasingly used to evaluate behavioral health processes over extended time periods. The validity of EMA for providing representative, real-world data with high temporal precision is threatened to the extent that EMA compliance drops over time. OBJECTIVE: This research builds on prior short-term studies by evaluating the time course of EMA compliance over 9 weeks and examines predictors of weekly compliance rates among cigarette-using adults. METHODS: A total of 257 daily cigarette-using adults participating in a randomized controlled trial for smoking cessation completed daily smartphone EMA assessments, including 1 scheduled morning assessment and 4 random assessments per day. Weekly EMA compliance was calculated and multilevel modeling assessed the rate of change in compliance over the 9-week assessment period. Participant and study characteristics were examined as predictors of overall compliance and changes in compliance rates over time. RESULTS: Compliance was higher for scheduled morning assessments (86%) than for random assessments (58%) at the beginning of the EMA period (P<.001). EMA compliance declined linearly across weeks, and the rate of decline was greater for morning assessments (2% per week) than for random assessments (1% per week; P<.001). Declines in compliance were stronger for younger participants (P<.001), participants who were employed full-time (P=.03), and participants who subsequently dropped out of the study (P<.001). Overall compliance was higher among White participants compared to Black or African American participants (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that EMA compliance declines linearly but modestly across lengthy EMA protocols. In general, these data support the validity of EMA for tracking health behavior and hypothesized treatment mechanisms over the course of several months. Future work should target improving compliance among subgroups of participants and investigate the extent to which rapid declines in EMA compliance might prove useful for triggering interventions to prevent study dropout. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03262662; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03262662.

A Psychometric Evaluation of the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS) in the Context of a Smoking Cessation Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although treatment outcome expectancies (TOEs) may influence clinical outcomes, TOEs are rarely reported in the smoking cessation literature, in part because of the lack of validated measures. Therefore, we conducted a psychometric evaluation of TOEs scores with the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS) in the context of a smoking cessation clinical trial. METHODS: Participants were 320 adults enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of extended versus standard pre-quit varenicline treatment for smoking cessation (clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03262662). Across an 8-week treatment period, we examined the nature and stability of the factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), evaluated discriminant validity by examining correlations with abstinence self-efficacy and positive/negative affect (PA/NA), and assessed internal consistency and test-retest reliability of SETS scores. RESULTS: CFAs supported a 2-factor structure that was stable (ie, invariant) across weeks. Positive and negative TOEs were each reflected in three-item subscales that exhibited acceptable to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas ≥ .77). Positive and negative TOEs were modestly correlated with PA and NA (all |rs| <.27, p < .05). Positive TOEs, but not negative TOEs, were moderately correlated with abstinence self-efficacy (rs = .45 to .61, p < .01). Both positive and negative TOEs scores demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability between assessments (rs = .54 to .72). CONCLUSIONS: SETS scores generally reflect a valid and reliable assessment of positive and negative TOEs in a sample of adults enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. The SETS appears to be a reasonable option for assessing TOEs in future smoking treatment studies. IMPLICATIONS: Assessments of treatment outcome expectancies are rarely reported in the smoking cessation literature. The present results support the validity and reliability of the SETS scores among adults seeking treatment for their smoking behavior.