90 Chapter 4 in this specific target group. Follow-up interviews showed that the vast majority of participants deemed the 60-day daily diary protocol to be acceptable. It should be noted that not having access to one's own mobile phone device to complete diaries seriously hampered compliance. That is, participants who completed diaries on their own mobile phone (as opposed to a group-owned device) were significantly more compliant. Those in the juvenile justice system had to use group-owned devices and all dropped out. Compliance was not associated with age, gender, IQ, the number of diary items included and the frequency of diary entry integration in treatment. We therefore conclude that daily diary sampling is feasible for individuals receiving ambulatory or residential care and who can complete the diaries on their own mobile phone. Our compliance rates are comparable to those found in other daily diary studies in the same (Gosens et al., 2023) and different clinical populations (Czyz et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2019; Schreuder et al., 2023; Vachon et al., 2016; Welch et al., 2022), and are in line with general recommendations for EMA research (Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2020). Moreover, a considerably higher compliance was observed than that of the EMA study with adults with a moderate to mild intellectual disability (Wilson et al., 2020). This might be explained by the chosen sampling frequency. Compared to this study's 60-day diary protocol, the study by Wilson et al. (2020) had a considerably shorter but more intense protocol with surveys that were prompted at seven random time-points per day during 7 days. It is likely that participants perceive multiple prompts per day as too burdensome. This would echo our finding that the majority of participants found the 60-day diary protocol to have an appropriate sampling length and sampling frequency. Furthermore, prompting EMA surveys at random time-points increases the chance that the prompts reach the participant at an inconvenient moment. Nevertheless, such a short spanned EMA protocol with multiple assessments per day may be preferable over a daily diary protocol when the phenomena of interest are fasterchanging constructs. We therefore recommend that future research focusses on if and under what circumstances a protocol with multiple assessments per day is feasible for people with limited intellectual abilities. 4.1 Limitations and strengths This study has two notable limitations. First, whereas a follow-up interview assessed acceptability among the participants, information is still lacking on how the care professionals experienced the method. Implementing this method in specialized care and therapy settings will largely depend on the gains and drawbacks that care professionals experience when using the daily diary method. Bos et
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw