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.

Assessment of the Choice Behavior Under Cued Conditions (CBUCC) paradigm as a measure of motivation to smoke under laboratory conditions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Choice Behavior under Cued Conditions (CBUCC) task uses three indices of tobacco use (consumption, money spent to access a cigarette and latency to reach for a cigarette) to assess motivation to smoke under laboratory conditions. Initial research with this procedure has shown that it can evince cue-specific craving and differential responding for smoking versus a neutral cue. This study aimed to replicate these findings and assess the interaction of cue-specific craving and behavior with abstinence prior to testing. DESIGN: A mixed repeated-measures between-groups factorial design was used. Participants attended a morning laboratory session in which they were randomized to remain abstinent or smoke as usual (between-groups factor) and returned in the afternoon to complete CBUCC. In this, participants were exposed to 40 experimental trials. In each trial they were exposed to a cigarette or water cue behind a movable glass door (repeated-measures factor). SETTING: University at Buffalo, New York, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 106 daily non-treatment-seeking cigarette smokers, data from 102 were used. MEASUREMENTS: On each of 40 trials, participants rated cigarette craving, and behavioral measures from the CBUCC (money spent, latency to access the cue, puff duration) were recorded. FINDINGS: Craving and CBUCC behavioral measures showed high internal reliability across trials (Cronbach alphas ranged from 0.88 to 0.98). Craving and money spent were higher in trials with the cigarette cue than the water cue (F(1100)  = 45.49, P < 0.001 and F(1100)  = 116.26, P < 0.001). Other CBUCC measures did not show a significant effect of cue type. The difference in spending between cigarette and water cues was larger for abstinent participants than non-abstinent participants (F(1100)  = 5.0, P = 0.03). Other CBUCC measures did not show a significant interaction between abstinence and cue type. Craving on smoking trials was significantly correlated with cigarette spending (r = 0.54, P < 0.001) in the non-abstinence condition but not in the abstinence condition. CONCLUSIONS: Craving and 'money spent' in the Choice Behavior under Cued Conditions task (CBUCC) appears to be responsive to cigarette versus water cues, and money spent appears to show greater difference in responsiveness to cigarette than water cues after abstinence.