Cited by 34Eating Disorders and BehaviorsMental Health Research TopicsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Moving beyond self-report data collection in the natural environment: a review of the past and future directions for ambulatory assessment in eating disorders

Smith, Kathryn E., Mason, Tyler B., Juarascio, Adrienne, Schaefer, Lauren M., Crosby, Ross D., Engel, Scott G., Wonderlich, Stephen A.·2019·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been used to repeatedly assess eating disorder (ED) symptoms in naturalistic settings, which has allowed for increased understanding of temporal processes that potentiate ED behaviors. However, there remain notable limitations of self-report EMA, and with the rapid proliferation of technology there are ever-increasing possibilities to improve ambulatory assessment methods to further the understanding and treatment of EDs. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to (a) systematically review the studies in EDs that have utilized ambulatory assessment methods other than self-report, and (b) provide directions for future research and clinical applications. METHOD: A systematic literature search of electronic databases was conducted, and data regarding study characteristics and methodological quality were extracted. RESULTS: The search identified 17 studies that used ambulatory assessment methods to gather objective data, and focused primarily on autonomic functioning, physical activity, and cognitive processes in ED and control groups. DISCUSSION: Together the literature demonstrates the promise of using a range of ecologically valid ambulatory assessment approaches in EDs, though there remains limited research that has utilized methods other than self-report (e.g., wearable sensors), particularly in recent years. Going forward, there are several technology-enhanced momentary assessment methods that have potential to improve the understanding and treatment of EDs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eat.23124

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 118 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, K. E., Mason, T. B., Juarascio, A., Schaefer, L. M., Crosby, R. D., Engel, S. G., & Wonderlich, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Dakota (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
  • Sanford Research (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Kathryn E.
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-16
Volume
52
Issue
10
Pages
1157-1175
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W2958013504
Cited by
34
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Eating Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH082761)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
eating disorders, ambulatory assessment, ecological momentary assessment, self-report limitations, objective measurement, wearable sensors, physical activity, cognitive processes, technology-enhanced assessment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Child, Data Collection, Environment, Humans, Middle Aged, Young Adult, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review