Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method of collecting real-time data based on repeated measures and observations that take place in participant’s daily environment. EMA has many advantages over more traditional, retrospective questionnaires. However, EMA faces some challenges to reach its full potential. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) investigate whether and how content validity of the items (i.e. the specific questions that are part of a larger EMA questionnaire) used in EMA studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour was assessed, and (2) provide an overview of important methodological considerations of EMA in measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Thirty papers (twenty unique studies) were systematically reviewed and variables were coded and analysed within the following 4 domains: (1) Content validity, (2) Sampling approach, (3) Data input modalities and (4) Degree of EMA completion. Only about half of the studies reported the specific items (n = 12) and the source of the items (n = 11). None of the studies specifically assessed the content validity of the items used. Only a minority (n = 5) of the studies reported any training, and one tested the comprehensibility of the EMA items. A wide variability was found in the design and methodology of the EMA. A minority of the studies (n = 7) reported a rationale for the used prompt frequency, time selection, and monitoring period. Retrospective assessment periods varied from ‘now’ to ‘in the last 3.5 hours’. In some studies there was a possibility to delay (n = 6) or deactivate (n = 10) the prompt, and some provided reminders after the first prompt (n = 9). Almost no EMA studies reported the content validation of the items used. We recommend using the COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) to report on the content validity of EMA items. Furthermore, as often no rationale was provided for several methodological decisions, the following three recommendations are made. First, provide a rationale for choosing the sampling modalities. Second, to ensure assessment ‘in the moment’, think carefully about the retrospective assessment period, reminders, and deactivation of the prompt. Third, as high completion rates are important for representativeness of the data and generalizability of the findings, report completion rates. This review is registered in PROSPERO, the International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD42017077996).

中文翻译：

---

身体活动和久坐行为的生态瞬时评估研究中的内容有效性和方法学考虑：系统综述。

生态瞬时评估（EMA）是一种基于参与者日常环境中发生的重复测量和观察来收集实时数据的方法。与更传统的回顾性调查表相比，EMA具有许多优势。但是，EMA要充分发挥其潜力还面临一些挑战。该系统评价的目的是（1）调查是否以及如何评估在EMA研究身体活动和久坐行为中使用的项目（即较大的EMA调查问卷中的特定问题）的内容效度，以及（2） ）概述了EMA在测量身体活动和久坐行为方面的重要方法论因素。系统地审阅了三十篇论文（二十项独特的研究），并对变量进行了编码和分析，涉及以下四个领域：（1）内容有效性，（2）抽样方法，（3）数据输入方式和（4）EMA完成程度。只有大约一半的研究报告了特定项目（n = 12）和项目来源（n = 11）。没有一项研究专门评估所用物品的内容有效性。只有少数研究（n = 5）报告了任何培训，并且其中一个测试了EMA项目的可理解性。在EMA的设计和方法中发现了很大的差异。少数研究（n = 7）报告了使用提示频率，时间选择和监测时间的基本原理。回顾性评估期从“现在”到“最近3.5小时”。在某些研究中，可能会延迟（n = 6）或停用（n = 10）提示，而有些提示会在第一个提示（n = 9）之后提供提醒。几乎没有EMA研究报告了所用物品的内容验证。我们建议使用COSMIN清单（基于COnsensus的健康测量仪器选择标准）来报告EMA项目的内容有效性。此外，由于通常没有为几种方法学决策提供依据，因此提出了以下三项建议。首先，提供选择抽样方式的理由。其次，为了确保“立即”进行评估，请仔细考虑回顾性评估期，提醒和停用提示。第三，由于高完成率对于数据的代表性和调查结果的普遍性很重要，因此请报告完成率。该评论已在PROSPERO中进行了注册，PROSPERO是系统评价的国际前瞻性注册（注册号：