Advertisement

The Use of Different Multiple Devices for an Ecological Assessment in Psychological Research: An Experience with a Daily Affect Assessment

  • Margherita PasiniEmail author
  • Margherita Brondino
  • Roberto Burro
  • Daniela Raccanello
  • Sara Gallo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 478)

Abstract

Data gathering in psychological research is changing given the technological evolution and the availability of many different devices. However, very little research has been done to verify the validity of this kind of psychological measurements, even if a valid measure is the starting point for a valid research. Our study presents the results of a daily measurement of affect connected with the amount of time a person spends in a natural setting, considering the paradigm of restorative environments. High level of compliance was found from respondents, and also a good quality of the used measurements, in term of construct validity (using a Confirmatory Factor Analysis), invariance of the measure across days, and criterion related validity.

Keywords

Innovative online and mobile assessment Restorative environments Positive affect Multi-level confirmatory factor analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Axinn, W., Gatny, H., Wagner, J.: Maximizing data quality using mode switching in mixed-device survey design: Nonresponse bias and models of demographic behaviour. Methods, Data, Analyses 9(2), 163–184 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beauducel, A., Wittmann, W.W.: Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling 12, 41–75 (2005). doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berto, R.: The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature review on restorativeness. Behavioural Sciences 4(4), 394–409 (2014). doi: 10.3390/bs4040394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowling, A.: Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health 27(3), 281–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Courvoisier, D.S., Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Schreiber, W.H.: Psychometric properties of a computerized mobile phone method for assessing mood in daily life. Emotion 10(1), 115–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S.: The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49, 71–75 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., Frumkin, H.: Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35, 207–228 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman, D.: Objective happiness. In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E., Schwarz, N. (eds.) Well-being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, pp. 3–25. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan, S.: The restorative benefits of nature: Toward and integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 169–182 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, Y., Briley, D.A., Ocepek, M.G.: Differential innovation of smartphone and application use by sociodemographics and personality. Computers in Human Behavior 44, 141–147 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreuter, F., Presser, S., Tourangeau, R.: Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly 72, 847–865 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O.: Mplus user’s guide, 5th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles (1998–2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pasini, M., Berto, R., Brondino, M., Hall, R., Ortner, C.: How to measure the restorative quality of environments: The PRS-11. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 159, 293–297 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shiffman, S., Stone, A.A., Hufford, M.R.: Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review in Clinical Psychology 4, 1–32 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terracciano, A., McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T.: Factorial and construct validity of the Italian Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 19(2), 131–141 (2003). doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.19.2.131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toepoel, V., Lugtig, P.: Online surveys are mixed-device surveys. Issues associated with the use of different (mobile) devices in web surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses 9(2), 155–162 (2015). doi: 10.12758/mda.2015.009 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kagawa, T.: The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 38, 1–9 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ulrich, R.S.: Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Altman, I., Wohlwill, J.F. (eds.) Behavior and the Natural Environment, pp. 85–125. Plenum, New York (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Watson, D., Clark, L.A.: On traits and temperament - General and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the 5-factor model. Journal of Personality 60, 441–476 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A.: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., Tellegen, A.: The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 820–838 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wong, C.K.H., Lam, C.L.K., Mulhern, B., Law, W.-L., Poon, J.T.C., Kwong, D.L.W., Tsang, J.: Measurement invariance of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Colorectal quality-of-life instrument among modes of administration. Quality of Life Research 22, 1415–1426 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0272-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margherita Pasini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Margherita Brondino
    • 1
  • Roberto Burro
    • 1
  • Daniela Raccanello
    • 1
  • Sara Gallo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Education and PsychologyUniversity of Verona (Italy)VeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations