Hackathons

 

1. The idiographic approach to ESM in clinical practice

Statements/ question to start the session
How to capture the individual, subjective experience and exploring it collaboratively with a clinician (with less focus is not on capturing nomothetic psychological constructs as validly as possible and delivering insights on the basis of statistical analysis)?

Method
In this hackathon, we will i) give a short presentation on idiographic ESM methods, ii) practice, using role-playing by the organizers, to construct a clinically relevant ESM diary, iii) start a discussion on how we can use the nomothetic and idiographic approach, and an integration between the two, to transfer ESM as a research tool to clinical practice. 

Relevance for attendees
This hackathon is relevant for you when you are interested in using ESM during psychological treatment in clinical practice.
Attendees can bring their laptop for an online, living document.

Organizers
M.N. Servaas, L. von Klipstein, B. Doornbos, UMCG/RUG and Lentis.

 

 

2. Project: Validation of Wearables for use in ESM

Background
The use of wearables in ESM research is increasing but so far no validation studies have been done on the most use wearable devices. Because of that the question remains; can these devices provide data accurate enough to provide useful insights?

Aim
In this hackathon, we would like to set up a structured project to validate the different types of wearables that are used in ESM research in our network. We want to discuss the design and setup of the first stage of this project. Based on the input from the hackathon participants, we will decide which wearables are relevant to include. For example, we could start the validation of fitbits against more expensive motion-trackers.  

Statements/ questions to start the session
1. Who will be the leads of this project?
2. What types of output will we validate? 
3. What devices will we validate (against)?
4. What should be the study design of the project?

Method
Organized group discussion using a Miro board.

Intended end products
The end product will be a study design and concrete plan on how to collaborate and collect data on this project.

Relevance for attendees
Wearables are increasingly used in ESM research, but many devices are not validated for use in real life. In this hackathon, we will set up a project/collaboration to validate different wearables/devices.

Organizer
Y. Jongerling, Tilburg University.

 

 

3. Mini Many Labs: Creating shared infrastructure for collaboration within the ESM Network

Background
The increasing popularity of ESM has allowed researchers to investigate the dynamics of daily life processes. However, methodological challenges related to study design, measurement, and data analysis abound. Many of these challenges are often too great to be tackled by individual researchers and make fertile ground for collaboration, as evidenced by the success of similar initiatives, e.g., Many Labs, Many Moments and the Psychological Science Accelerator.

Aim
In this hackathon, we propose the first steps for establishing infrastructures to advance collaboration within the ESM Network. We also aim to identify specific areas of expertise within the network to maximize the possibilities of collaborations and resources.

Statements/ questions to start the session
What are the common overarching topics that could be studied in multi-lab projects? What are the necessary steps to put these multi-lab projects into practice? 

Method
Brainstorm and organized group discussion.

Intended end products
1) A list of potential projects, categorised according to time and resource intensiveness (e.g., the inclusion of similar items in studies that will be conducted in the near future) and long-term multi-lab projects that require new data collection and perhaps even funding; 
2) A proposal for the sustainable infrastructure needed to bring these projects to fruition within the ESM Network.

Relevance for attendees
We share the same methodological struggles. Rather than attempting to solve these issues alone, we can leverage the power of the ESM Network to collaboratively solve these problems, spreading the workload, maximising resources and sharing the scientific benefits.
Participants should bring a laptop.

Organizers
Ginette Lafit and Olivia Kirtley, KU Leuven.

 

 

4. How can we best measure people’s social lives using ESM?

Background
Much of our research aims to assess people’s social worlds: who they are surrounded with, how they interact and how those interactions are experienced. Throughout the ESM literature, people’s daily social context has been assessed in different ways, but a major issue is that we lack consensus on the best way to assess social information in daily life using ESM.

Aim
In this hackathon, we aim to take stock of the different ways of measuring the social context with ESM. 

Statements/ questions to start the session
What social ESM items (and accompanying sampling designs) are out there?  How can these items be used? What is the theoretical rationale (if any) behind them?

Method
In this hackathon, we will first search the literature (drawing on existing resources, e.g., the ESM Item Repository) together with group members. We aim to get to a comprehensive list of social ESM items, accompanying sampling designs, and underlying theories in the shared online document that we will be working in. Then, in collaboration, we will build a taxonomy of social ESM items.

Intended end products
The end product is a comprehensive overview of social ESM items - and what they can be used for.

Relevance for attendees
If you’re using ESM to measure anything social, and you want to think about the best ways of doing this, come sit with us.
We want to ask participants to bring their laptop so that we can search for ESM items together in the session.

Organizers
Anna Langener, Marie Stadel, Julie Janssens & Robin Achterhof (UMCG/RUG and KU Leuven).

 

 

5. A navigation map for designing and analyzing n-of-1 studies

Background
Researchers or clinicians who want to design an n-of-1 (or single-subject) study are confronted with a wealth of information which is currently scattered and hard to navigate. A methodological ‘navigation map’ could help find the necessary resources. At this point, it is unclear how such a map should be structured or organized. 

Aim
1) To develop a framework of a navigation map that helps finding information to design or analyze a single-subject study. 
2) To set up a workgroup that will work on the navigation map during the months/year after the hackathon.

Statements/Questions to start the session
We will look into questions like: how should the navigation map look like? Which topics should be in there? How should they be organized? What information should be included for each topic?

Method
During the session, we will brainstorm about possible ideas for the framework of the navigation map, including its lay-out, its topics and structure. During the months/year after the hackathon, workgroup members write their assigned part while Klaas and Marij coordinate the process.

Intended end products
The end-product will be an easy-to-use navigation map that helps clinicians, researchers and any other to find all relevant information that is necessary for designing and analyzing n-of-1 studies.

Relevance for attendees
You will get the opportunity to become part of a very enthusiastic team working together on an important tool and learn about single-subject studies. The navigation map will become a backbone for researchers and clinicians to perform n-of-1 studies.
Participants should bring a laptop.

Organizers
Marij Zuidersma and Klaas Wardenaar, UMCG/RUG/iLab

 

 

6. Scientific integrity in ESM research

Background
We all aim for scientific integrity. Strong offences as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, known as violation of scientific integrity, do not occur in our research group (hopefully). However, other aspects are not that clear-cut and sometimes there are the wrong incentives. Scientific researchers should be aware of scientific integrity issues. A debate can create awareness.

Aim
Create awareness of scientific integrity issues through debate. 

Statements/ questions to start the session
What if …
- an unknown superior insists to be the last author of your paper? 
- you finished your ESM data analyses according to protocol, resulting in null-findings. Knowing it will be difficult to publish your paper, do you proceed to write as intended?
- ESM data collection can be burdensome for participants. Do you address this issue during the informed consent process? 
- you encounter an adverse event in your study, but your study has no data and safety monitoring / ethics board (see Torous 2021)?

Method
Discussion based on statements/questions.

Intended end products
Mindmap of the important integrity issues, and consensus statement of participants acknowledging importance of attention to scientific integrity in ESM research.

Relevance for attendees
We all come across scientific integrity issues. The hackathon aims to help you to realise when this is and to realise that you are not the only researcher who struggles with those issues every now and then.

Organizers
Marjan Drukker, Viviane Thewissen and Mira Duif, Maastricht University and Open University

 

 

7. Development and examination of reliability and validity of experience sampling items

Background
Psychological characteristics can express themselves on a trait- as well as on a state-level, the first often assessed with questionnaires, the later often with ESM. For a lot of constructs, questionnaires are available with good psychometric properties. Establishing reliability and validity for ESM items, however, appears more challenging. For some constructs, such as PA, NA, stress, there is some agreement, but for other constructs, this agreement is lacking or even more, items are missing.

Aim
To discuss: 
1) the development of ESM items;
2) the examination of the reliability and validity of ESM items.

Statements/ questions to start the session
1) Where do we start when developing new items (from an existing questionnaire?)? Who do we need to consult? 
2) What are criteria for reliable, valid ESM scales: intraclass correlation, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity? How do we take the between and within-person level into account? What kind of data and analysis are needed?

Method
Discussion split in 2 sessions, applied to 1) the development of ESM items measuring resilience/psychological flexibility and 2) the validation of self-compassion ESM items (data are presented, if relevant).

Intended end products
Notes as starting point for the development of guidelines.

Relevance for attendees
Relevant for attendees interested in designing and testing new   ESM items/scales.

Organizers
Nele Jacobs, Simone Verhagen, Johan Lataster and Sara Bartels, Maastricht University and Open University