No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a set of research methods that capture events, feelings, and behaviors as they unfold in their real-world setting. Capturing data in the moment reduces important sources of measurement error but also generates challenges for noncompliance (ie, missing data). To date, EMA research has only examined the overall rates of noncompliance. Objective In this study, we identify four types of noncompliance among people who use drugs and aim to examine the factors associated with the most common types. Methods Data were obtained from a recent pilot study of 28 Nebraskan people who use drugs who answered EMA questions for 2 weeks. We examined questions that were not answered because they were skipped, they expired, the phone was switched off, or the phone died after receiving them. Results We found that the phone being switched off and questions expiring comprised 93.34% (1739/1863 missing question-instances) of our missing data. Generalized structural equation model results show that participant-level factors, including age (relative risk ratio [RRR]=0.93; P=.005), gender (RRR=0.08; P=.006), homelessness (RRR=3.80; P=.04), personal device ownership (RRR=0.14; P=.008), and network size (RRR=0.57; P=.001), are important for predicting off missingness, whereas only question-level factors, including time of day (ie, morning compared with afternoon, RRR=0.55; P<.001) and day of week (ie, Tuesday-Saturday compared with Sunday, RRR=0.70, P=.02; RRR=0.64, P=.005; RRR=0.58, P=.001; RRR=0.55, P<.001; and RRR=0.66, P=.008, respectively) are important for predicting expired missingness. The week of study is important for both (ie, week 2 compared with week 1, RRR=1.21, P=.03, for off missingness and RRR=1.98, P<.001, for expired missingness). Conclusions We suggest a three-pronged strategy to preempt missing EMA data with high-risk populations: first, provide additional resources for participants likely to experience phone charging problems (eg, people experiencing homelessness); second, ask questions when participants are not likely to experience competing demands (eg, morning); and third, incentivize continued compliance as the study progresses. Attending to these issues can help researchers ensure maximal data quality.

Identity theory research shows that prominence, or identity importance, positively predicts salience or likely identity enactment. Sometimes the association is strong, indicating close matches in magnitude, whereas other times, it is weak, indicating mismatches in magnitude. We build on this work by exploring prominence–salience combinations, paying attention to how congruity and magnitude relate to role-specific self-esteem. We test two competing arguments: cognitive consistency—matches are good, mismatches are bad—and uncertainty reduction—high and low scores are clearly defined and good, medium scores are ambiguous and bad. Using data from 1,899 participants with parent (or no children) and spousal (or single) identities, results favor uncertainty reduction: matching medium prominence–salience scores are worse for self-esteem than other matching scores and often even mismatching scores. This work is important because it considers the felt and lived components of identity, advancing understanding of how identity experiences relate to well-being.