77 The feasibility of daily monitoring 4 during their inpatient time) ranged between 67 and 142, with 16 participants below the 85 cut-off that is considered an indicator of borderline intellectual disability (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Wieland & Zitman, 2016). Although IQ in itself is not a sure sign of mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (i.e., information about adaptive skills and a formal diagnosis was missing), it does suggest that limited intellectual abilities may not be a reason to expect method infeasibility. To the best of our knowledge, only two studies explicitly applied EMA in people for whom low intellectual functioning is a focus of clinical attention. Wilson et al. (2020) studied 18 adults with a moderate to mild intellectual disability. Their EMA protocol included seven randomly scheduled prompts per day during 7 days, which resulted in a 34% compliance rate. Interviews revealed that technical problems with the application and inconvenient timing of randomly prompted surveys were the main reasons for not completing surveys. Because prompting momentary surveys at random time-points increases the chance that the prompts reach the participant at an inconvenient moment, the frequency and timing of administering surveys may be of importance for keeping compliance rates high and drop-out low. Gosens et al. (2020) were then the first to use daily diary sampling through mobile phones in 12 young people with a mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning who followed a treatment for problematic substance use. On average, they adhered to 71% of their diaries during a period ranging from 2 to 12 months depending on treatment duration (Gosens et al., 2023). 1.3 Clinical application of daily diaries Two aspects of daily diary method by Gosens et al. (2020) were relatively innovative. First, participants' daily entries were channeled back to the clinician during the sampling period, so that recent self-reported behavioral patterns could be discussed in therapy sessions (cf. Fartacek et al., 2016; Schiepek et al., 2016). Second, the content of daily diary items were not all standardized across individuals. Instead, some items were self-selected by each individual participant. Although fully personalized monitoring would hamper comparisons between individuals, the use of both pre-selected standardized items and personalized items ensures maximal relevance for both science and treatment (Riese et al., 2021; Rodgers et al., 2018). For treatment, it meant that at the start, the participant, clinician and researcher collaboratively construed a set of diary items that matched the unique clinical condition and circumstances of the person (cf. Elliott et al., 2016; Haynes et al., 2009). The choice of items should not only be personally relevant, but also appropriate to monitor in a diary. That is, they should
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw