{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03742384682332463, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012184508268059183, 'mean_word_length': 5.534090909090909, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ecological Momentary Assessment: A Meta-Analysis on Designs, Samples, and Compliance across Research Fields

Ecological Momentary Assessments (i.e., EMA, repeated assessments in daily life) are widespread in many fields of psychology and related disciplines. Yet, little knowledge exists on how differences in study designs and samples predict study compliance and dropout—two central parameters of data quality in (micro-)longitudinal research. The current meta-analysis included k = 477 articles (496 samples, total N = 677,536). For each article, we coded the design, sample characteristics, compliance, and dropout rate. The results showed that on average EMA studies scheduled six assessments per day, lasted for seven days, and obtained a compliance of 79%. Studies with more assessments per day scheduled fewer assessment days, yet, the number of assessments did not predict compliance or dropout rates. Compliance was significantly higher in studies providing financial incentives. Otherwise, design or sample characteristics had little effects. We discuss the implications of the findings for planning, reporting, and reviewing EMA studies.