Measuring Criterion Validity of Microinteraction Ecological Momentary Assessment (Micro-EMA): Exploratory Pilot Study With Physical Activity Measurement (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is an in situ method of gathering self-report on behaviors using mobile devices. In typical phone-based EMAs, participants are prompted repeatedly with multiple-choice questions, often causing participation burden. Alternatively, microinteraction EMA (micro-EMA or μEMA) is a type of EMA where all the self-report prompts are single-question surveys that can be answered using a 1-tap glanceable microinteraction conveniently on a smartwatch. Prior work suggests that μEMA may permit a substantially higher prompting rate than EMA, yielding higher response rates and lower participation burden. This is achieved by ensuring μEMA prompt questions are quick and cognitively simple to answer. However, the validity of participant responses from μEMA self-report has not yet been formally assessed. OBJECTIVE In this pilot study, we explored the criterion validity of μEMA self-report on a smartwatch, using physical activity (PA) assessment as an example behavior of interest. METHODS A total of 17 participants answered 72 μEMA prompts each day for 1 week using a custom-built μEMA smartwatch app. At each prompt, they self-reported whether they were doing sedentary, light/standing, moderate/walking, or vigorous activities by tapping on the smartwatch screen. Responses were compared with a research-grade activity monitor worn on the dominant ankle simultaneously (and continuously) measuring PA. RESULTS Participants had an 87.01% (5226/6006) μEMA completion rate and a 74.00% (5226/7062) compliance rate taking an average of only 5.4 (SD 1.5) seconds to answer a prompt. When comparing μEMA responses with the activity monitor, we observed significantly higher (<i>P</i>&lt;.001) momentary PA levels on the activity monitor when participants self-reported engaging in moderate+vigorous activities compared with sedentary or light/standing activities. The same comparison did not yield any significant differences in momentary PA levels as recorded by the activity monitor when the μEMA responses were randomly generated (ie, simulating careless taps on the smartwatch). CONCLUSIONS For PA measurement, high-frequency μEMA self-report could be used to capture information that appears consistent with that of a research-grade continuous sensor for sedentary, light, and moderate+vigorous activity, suggesting criterion validity. The preliminary results show that participants were not carelessly answering μEMA prompts by randomly tapping on the smartwatch but were reporting their true behavior at that moment. However, more research is needed to examine the criterion validity of μEMA when measuring vigorous activities.