Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026
Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
Participant Compliance With Ecological Momentary Assessment in Movement Behavior Research Among Adolescents and
Shirlene Wang1,2, Chih-Hsiang Yang3, Denver Brown4
1Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Background:
Adolescence through emerging adulthood represents a critical period associated with changes in lifestyle behaviors. Understanding the dynamic relationships between cognitive, social, and environmental contexts is informative for the development of interventions aiming to help youth sustain physical activity and limit sedentary time during this life stage. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is an innovative method involving real-time assessment of individuals' experiences and behaviors in their naturalistic or everyday environments; however, EMA compliance can be problematic due to high participant burdens.
Objective:
This systematic review synthesized existing evidence pertaining to compliance in EMA studies that investigated wake-time movement behaviors among adolescent and emerging adult populations. Differences in EMA delivery scheme or protocol, EMA platforms, prompting schedules, and compensation methods-all of which can affect participant compliance and overall study quality-were examined.
Methods:
An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases to select relevant papers that assessed movement behaviors among the population using EMA and reported compliance information for inclusion (n=52) in October 2022. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Checklist for Reporting of EMA Studies (CREMAS).
Results:
Synthesizing the existing evidence revealed several factors that influence compliance. The platform used for EMA studies could affect compliance and data quality in that studies using smartphones or apps might lessen additional burdens associated with delivering EMAs, yet most studies used web-based formats (n=18, 35%). Study length was not found to affect EMA compliance rates, but the timing and frequency of prompts may be critical factors associated with missingness. For example, studies that only prompted participants once per day had higher compliance (91% vs 77%), but more frequent prompts provided more comprehensive data for researchers at the expense of increased participant burden. Similarly, studies with frequent prompting within the day may provide more representative data but may also be perceived as more burdensome and result in lower compliance. Compensation type did not significantly affect compliance, but additional motivational strategies could be applied to encourage participant response.
Conclusions:
Ultimately, researchers should consider the best strategies to limit burdens, balanced against requirements to answer the research question or phenomena being studied. Findings also highlight the need for greater consistency in reporting and more specificity when explaining procedures to understand how EMA compliance could be optimized in studies examining physical activity and sedentary time among youth.
Trial Registration:
PROSPERO CRD42021282093; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282093.
