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.
Keywords: EMA; ambulatory assessment; compliance; ecological momentary assessment; research methods.
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.
© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.