So my intuition is that (the strength of) the relationship between the compliance and the payment matters! But curious to hear other ideas as well :)

E.g., payment structures with only one/few critical compliance threshold(s) would be in the same category as payment per beep). In the SHARE study, we chose to compare a fixed payment (not conditional on compliance) to an extreme form of incremental payment, i.e., payment per beep (all beeps count).

Glad you were able to access the poster!

I think that the lack of effect in previous meta-analyses could be partially explained by the fact that they typically group together all incremental payment structures regardless of how ”strongly” the payment is tied to the compliance rate.

Stay tuned for the preprint!

Had a great time at the ESM Expert Network Meeting in Rotterdam! I presented the first SHARE study results: we found that paying participants per beep boosts compliance as compared to bulk payment (with or without personalised feedback)—and without harming data quality.

Poster: tinyurl.com/47asuaxj

👀Blogpost on measurement👀

I would have rather concluded that we don't really need factor analysis and can just rely on vibes (or previous literature). But here we are: "Factor analysis: Overrated, Misused, But Still Useful." 1/4

5/ Want to dive deeper? Read the full preprint here: osf.io/preprints/ps... 🔍

With @gudruneisele.bsky.social @lisapeeters.bsky.social @oliviajkirtley.bsky.social @ginettelafit.bsky.social Inez Myin-Germeys

@ccp-kuleuven.bsky.social

4/ Our findings emphasize that careless responding in ESM isn’t just noise—it follows systematic patterns over time. To improve data quality, researchers should account for these temporal trends.

3/ Interestingly, these indicators were only weakly related—meaning they capture different types of carelessness. This highlights why relying on a single measure might not be enough—using multiple indicators (or other methods) provides a more complete picture.

2/ BUT: Not all indicators performed equally well. Response time, within-beep standard deviation, and the inconsistency index captured carelessness, but occasion-person correlation was not well-suited for an ESM context.

1/ Our results indicate that careless responding in ESM is not stable over time but increases across days and fluctuates within days.

The first preprint from my PhD is out: osf.io/preprints/ps...! 🥳

We explored the temporal dynamics of four careless responding indicators (response time, within-beep standard deviation, an inconsistency index, occasion-person correlation) in ESM data across different samples.

Thread below🧵

We applied mixture modeling of response times to existing experimental ESM data & found that higher sampling frequencies led to more careless responding, while longer questionnaires did not. Co-led by Esther Ulitzsch. Accepted at Psychol Assess, preprint: doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2s38a_v1

New PhD position at the Center for Contextual Psychiatry! With @oliviajkirtley.bsky.social & Ginette Lafit on developing personalised real-time models of suicide risk and protective factors www.kuleuven.be/personeel/jo...