Selecting an Ecological Momentary Assessment Platform: Tutorial for Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Although ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been applied in psychological research for decades, delivery methods have evolved with the proliferation of digital technology. Technological advances have engendered opportunities for enhanced accessibility, convenience, measurement precision, and integration with wearable sensors. Notwithstanding, researchers must navigate novel complexities in EMA research design and implementation. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to provide guidance on platform selection for clinical scientists launching EMA studies. METHODS: Our team includes diverse specialties in child and adolescent behavioral and mental health with varying expertise on EMA platforms (eg, users and developers). We (2 research sites) evaluated EMA platforms with the goal of identifying the platform or platforms with the best fit for our research. We created a list of extant EMA platforms; conducted a web-based review; considered institutional security, privacy, and data management requirements; met with developers; and evaluated each of the candidate EMA platforms for 1 week. RESULTS: We selected 2 different EMA platforms, rather than a single platform, for use at our 2 research sites. Our results underscore the importance of platform selection driven by individualized and prioritized laboratory needs; there is no single, ideal platform for EMA researchers. In addition, our project generated 11 considerations for researchers in selecting an EMA platform: (1) location; (2) developer involvement; (3) sample characteristics; (4) onboarding; (5) survey design features; (6) sampling scheme and scheduling; (7) viewing results; (8) dashboards; (9) security, privacy, and data management; (10) pricing and cost structure; and (11) future directions. Furthermore, our project yielded a suggested timeline for the EMA platform selection process. CONCLUSIONS: This study will guide scientists initiating studies using EMA, an in vivo, real-time research tool with tremendous promise for facilitating advances in psychological assessment and intervention.

Interpersonal early adversity demonstrates dissimilarity from early socioeconomic disadvantage in the course of human brain development: A meta-analysis.

It has been established that early-life adversity impacts brain development, but the role of development itself has largely been ignored. We take a developmentally-sensitive approach to examine the neurodevelopmental sequelae of early adversity in a preregistered meta-analysis of 27,234 youth (birth to 18-years-old), providing the largest group of adversity-exposed youth to date. Findings demonstrate that early-life adversity does not have an ontogenetically uniform impact on brain volumes, but instead exhibits age-, experience-, and region-specific associations. Relative to non-exposed comparisons, interpersonal early adversity (e.g., family-based maltreatment) was associated with initially larger volumes in frontolimbic regions until ~10-years-old, after which these exposures were linked to increasingly smaller volumes. By contrast, socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g., poverty) was associated with smaller volumes in temporal-limbic regions in childhood, which were attenuated at older ages. These findings advance ongoing debates regarding why, when, and how early-life adversity shapes later neural outcomes.

Interpersonal early adversity demonstrates dissimilarity from early socioeconomic disadvantage in the course of human brain development: A meta-analysis.

It has been established that early-life adversity impacts brain development, but the role of development itself has largely been ignored. We take a developmentally-sensitive approach to examine the neurodevelopmental sequelae of early adversity in a preregistered meta-analysis of 27,234 youth (birth to 18-years-old), providing the largest group of adversity-exposed youth to date. Findings demonstrate that early-life adversity does not have an ontogenetically uniform impact on brain volumes, but instead exhibits age-, experience-, and region-specific associations. Relative to non-exposed comparisons, interpersonal early adversity (e.g., family-based maltreatment) was associated with initially larger volumes in frontolimbic regions until ∼10-years-old, after which these exposures were linked to increasingly smaller volumes. By contrast, socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g., poverty) was associated with smaller volumes in temporal-limbic regions in childhood, which were attenuated at older ages. These findings advance ongoing debates regarding why, when, and how early-life adversity shapes later neural outcomes.