↓ Skip to main content

Ecological Momentary Assessment Is a Feasible and Valid Methodological Tool to Measure Older Adults’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ecological Momentary Assessment Is a Feasible and Valid Methodological Tool to Measure Older Adults’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01485
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaclyn P. Maher, Amanda L. Rebar, Genevieve F. Dunton

Abstract

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has the potential to yield new insights into the prediction and modeling of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB). The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and validity of an EMA protocol to assess older adults' PA and SB. Feasibility was determined by examining factors associated with EMA survey compliance and if PA or SB were impacted by EMA survey compliance. Validity was determined by comparing EMA-reported PA and SB to objectively measured PA and SB at the EMA prompt. Over 10 days, older adults (n = 104; Agerange = 60-98 years) received 6 randomly prompted EMA questionnaires on a smartphone each day and wore an ActivPAL activity monitor to provide a device-based measure of PA and SB. Participants reported whether they were currently engaged in PA or SB. Older adults were compliant with the EMA and ActivPAL protocol on 92% of occasions. Differences in EMA compliance differed by weight status. Among overweight and obese older adults EMA compliance differed by sex (OR = 3.15, 95% CI: 1.43, 6.92) and day of week (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.33, 2.41). Among normal weight older adults, EMA compliance differed by time of day (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.30). EMA compliance did not differ for device-based PA or SB in the 15 min before versus the 15 min after the EMA prompt, suggesting that these behaviors did not influence likelihood of responding and responding did not influence these behaviors (ps > 0.05). When PA was reported through EMA, participants engaged in less device-based PA in the 15 min after compared to the 15 min before the EMA prompt (p = 0.01), suggesting possible reactance or a disruption of PA. EMA-reported PA and SB were positively associated with higher device-based PA and SB in the ±15 min, respectively, supporting criterion validity (ps < 0.05). The assessment of older adults' PA and SB through EMA is feasible and valid, although there may be PA reactance to EMA prompting. Therefore, EMA represents a significant methodological tool that can aid in our understanding of the environmental, social, and psychological processes regulating older adults' PA and SB in the context of everyday life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 16%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 17%
Sports and Recreations 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Computer Science 6 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 37 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,219,709
of 25,366,663 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,307
of 34,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,936
of 336,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#227
of 726 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,366,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 726 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.