經驗取樣分析方法(ESM)用來收集即時數據並廣泛被應用於各個領域中。然而，限制在於必須依賴參與者在被觸發問卷時有接收能力才有機會作出回覆。在我們的研究中，我們藉由熟識關係連結對象(Peer)以提供參與者在指定時刻中位置、活動、情緒的資訊，並透過聊天機器人的方式回覆。在為期兩週的實驗中，共27個參與者和82個連結對象，我們證明了藉由Peers的幫助可以有效地增加收集資料量達52.3%的成長幅度，甚至只考慮Peers高信心的回答下依然成長了23%。更令人驚喜的是，加入Peers一同進入實驗將對參與者的服從度帶來正面的影響。此外，對於Peers而言，情緒類型的問題將比其他兩者類型更容易作答。我們更進一步分析如何選擇Peers，其中包括關鍵的特徵和數量的建議，以帶來更大的效益達到資料量的提升並維持其品質。結果顯示此方法用來改善收集ESM的資料量是非常有前景的。

Experience sampling method (ESM) is widely adopted for collecting in-situ experiences in various domains. One known limitation, however, is its reliance of participants’ receptivity to questionnaires at the sampled moments. In this research, we explored leveraging participants’ peers to answer participants’ current location, activity, and emotion via a chatbot-based ESM. Results from a two-week experiment with 27 participants and 82 peers showed that including peers’ responses increases data quantity significantly by 52.3%, and 23% if considering only responses self-reported by peers with high confidence. Surprisingly, inviting peers might have a positive impact on the participant’s compliance to respond. Moreover, emotion was easier for peers to answer than activity and location were. To further guide peer selection, we show key characteristic and numbers of peers’ that led to improvement of data quantity while maintains data quality. The results show that using peer-ESM to obtain more ESM data is promising.

Chapter 1. Introduction--------------------------------------1
Chapter 2. Related Work-------------------------------------5
2.1 Missing Data in Experience Sampling---------------------5
2.2 Increasing Data Quantity in Experience Sampling---------6
2.3 Collected Data with Contextual Bias----------------------7
2.4 ESM Study Parameters-----------------------------------8
2.5 Peer Assessment in Human State-------------------------8
Chapter 3. Methodology-------------------------------------10
3.1 The ESM Design and Implementation---------------------10
3.2 The Questionnaire Items of ESM and DRM----------------11
3.3 Recruitment and Procedure------------------------------14
3.4 Measures------------------------------------------------15
3.5 Statistical Model Construction for Good Peer--------------17
Chapter 4. Results--------------------------------------------19
4.1 Research Question 1---------------------------------------19
4.2 Research Question 2--------------------------------------24
4.3 Research Question 3--------------------------------------25
4.4 Descriptive Analysis---------------------------------------31
Chapter 5. Discussions----------------------------------------35
5.1 Implication for Study Design--------------------------------38
5.2 Limitations-------------------------------------------------38
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future Work-----------------------40
Reference------------------------------------------------------41

[1] Silvia, P. J., Kwapil, T. R., Eddington, K. M., & Brown, L. H. (2013). Missed Beeps and Missing Data: Dispositional and Situational Predictors of Nonresponse in Experience Sampling Research. Social Science Computer Review, 31(4), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313479902
[2] McLean, D. C., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2017). Explaining System Missing: Missing Data and Experience Sampling Method. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617708015
[3] Ahtinen A., Isomursu M., Huhtala Y., Kaasinen J., Salminen J., Häkkilä J. (2008) Tracking Outdoor Sports – User Experience Perspective. In: Aarts E. et al. (eds) Ambient Intelligence. AmI 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5355. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
[4] Abhinav Mehrotra, Veljko Pejovic, Jo Vermeulen, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. My Phone and Me: Understanding People's Receptivity to Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1021-1032. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858566
[5] Niels van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Peter Koval, Simo Hosio, Tilman Dingler, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2019. Context-Informed Scheduling and Analysis: Improving Accuracy of Mobile Self-Reports. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 51, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300281
[6] Niels van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Simo Hosio, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. Gamification of Mobile Experience Sampling Improves Data Quality and Quantity. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.1,3,Article107(2017),21pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130972 

[7] Gary Hsieh, Ian Li, Anind Dey, Jodi Forlizzi, and Scott E. Hudson. 2008. Using Visualizations to Increase Compliance in Experience Sampling. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ‘08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409657
[8] Khai N. Truong, Thariq Shihipar, and Daniel J. Wigdor. 2014. Slide to X: Unlocking the Potential of Smartphone Unlocking. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3635–3644. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557044
[9] Aku Visuri, Niels van Berkel, Chu Luo, Jorge Goncalves, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. Challenges of quantified-self: encouraging self-reported data logging during recurrent smartphone usage. In Proceedings of the 31st British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Conference.
[10] Aku Visuri, Niels van Berkel, Chu Luo, Jorge Goncalves, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. Predicting Interruptibility for Manual Data Collection: A Cluster-based User Model. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 12, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098532
[11] Niels van Berkel, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. The Experience Sampling Method on Mobile Devices. ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 6, Article 93 (December 2017), 40 pages https://doi.org/10.1145/3123988
[12] Daniel Buschek, Sarah Völkel, Clemens Stachl, Lukas Mecke, Sarah Prange, and Ken Pfeuffer. 2018. Experience Sampling as Information Transmission: Perspective and Implications. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers (UbiComp '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 606-611. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3267543
[13] Abhinav Mehrotra, Jo Vermeulen, Veljko Pejovic, and Mirco Musolesi. 2015. Ask, but don't interrupt: the case for interruptibility-aware mobile experience sampling. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (UbiComp/ISWC'15 Adjunct). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 723-732. https://doi.org/10.1145/2800835.2804397
[14] Niels van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Lauri Lovén, Denzil Ferreira, Simo Hosio, Vassilis Kostakos, Effect of experience sampling schedules on response rate and recall accuracy of objective self-reports, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Volume 125, 2019, Pages 118-128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.12.002.
[15] Anja Bachmann, Robert Zetzsche, Till Riedel, Michael Beigl, Markus Reichert, Philip Santangelo, and Ulrich Ebner-Priemer. 2015. Identification of relevant sensor sources for context-aware ESM apps in ambulatory assessment. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers(UbiComp/ISWC'15 Adjunct). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1145/2800835.2800944
[16] Veljko Pejovic and Mirco Musolesi. 2014. InterruptMe: designing intelligent prompting mechanisms for pervasive applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 897-908. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632062
[17] Fengpeng Yuan, Xianyi Gao, and Janne Lindqvist. 2017. How Busy Are You?: Predicting the Interruptibility Intensity of Mobile Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5346-5360. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025946
[18] Neal Lathia, Kiran K. Rachuri, Cecilia Mascolo, and Peter J. Rentfrow. 2013. Contextual dissonance: design bias in sensor-based experience sampling methods. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing (UbiComp '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493432.2493452
[19] Napa Scollon C., Prieto CK., Diener E. (2009) Experience Sampling: Promises and Pitfalls, Strength and Weaknesses. In: Diener E. (eds) Assessing Well-Being. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht
[20] Hormuth, S. E. (1986), The sampling of experiences in situ. Journal of Personality, 54: 262-293. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00395.x
[21] Verhagen SJW, Hasmi L, Drukker M, et al. Use of the experience sampling method in the context of clinical trials Evidence-Based Mental Health 2016;19:86-89.
[22] Berrocal, Allan & Wac, Katarzyna. (2018). Peer-ceived Well-Being: Exploring the Value of Peers for Human Stress Assessment in-Situ. 492-497. 10.1145/3267305.3267319.
[23] Allan Berrocal and Katarzyna Wac. 2018. Peer-vasive Computing: Leveraging Peers to Enhance the Accuracy of Self-Reports in Mobile Human Studies. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers (UbiComp '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 600-605. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3267542
[24] A. Berrocal, A. De Masi, M. Gustarini, and K.B Wac. 2018. mQoL-Peer: Assessing the Individual’s State via the Just-in-Context Individual’s Peers’. ACM Digital Health Conference (2018).
[25] Duncan, Sue Min Lai, Denise Tyler, Subashan Perera, Dean M. Reker, Stephanie Studenski, Pamela W. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002 Nov; 33(11): 2593–2599.
[26] Jette AM, Ni P, Rasch EK, et al. Evaluation of patient and proxy responses on the activity measure for postacute care. Stroke. 2012;43(3):824–829. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.619643
[27] Neumann, P. J., Araki, S. S. and Gutterman, E. M. (2000), The Use of Proxy Respondents in Studies of Older Adults: Lessons, Challenges, and Opportunities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48: 1646-1654. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03877.x
[28] Kromm, W. , Gadinger, M. C. and Schneider, S. (2010), Peer ratings of chronic stress: can spouses and friends provide reliable and valid assessments of a target person's level of chronic stress?. Stress and Health, 26: 292-303. doi:10.1002/smi.1297
[29] Marjo J.M. Maas, Philip J. van der Wees, Carla Braam, Jan Koetsenruijter, Yvonne F. Heerkens, Cees P.M. van der Vleuten, Maria W.G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden, An Innovative Peer Assessment Approach to Enhance Guideline Adherence in Physical Therapy: Single-Masked, Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial, Physical Therapy, Volume 95, Issue 4, 1 April 2015, Pages 600 -612. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130469
[30] Mayo, N. E., Figueiredo, S., Ahmed, S., & Bartlett, S. J. (2017). Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series – Paper 2: terminology proposed to measure what matters in health. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 119–124. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.013 
[31] Yonatan Vaizman, Katherine Ellis, Gert Lanckriet, and Nadir Weibel. 2018. ExtraSensory App: Data Collection In-the-Wild with Rich User Interface to Self-Report Behavior. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 554, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174128
[32] Sunny Consolvo, Ian E. Smith, Tara Matthews, Anthony LaMarca, Jason Tabert, and Pauline Powledge. 2005. Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1054985
[33] Clayton Epp, Michael Lippold, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2011. Identifying emotional states using keystroke dynamics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 715-724. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979046
[34] Evangelos Karapanos (2019) Technology-assisted reconstruction: a new alternative to the experience sampling method, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1608303
[35] Predrag Klasnja, Beverly L. Harrison, Louis LeGrand, Anthony LaMarca, Jon Froehlich, and Scott E. Hudson. 2008. Using wearable sensors and real time inference to understand human recall of routine activities. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing(UbiComp '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409656
[36] Courvoisier, D. S., Eid, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2012). Compliance to a cell phone-based ecological momentary assessment study: The effect of time and personality characteristics. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 713-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026733
[37] Rintala, A., Wampers, M., Myin-Germeys, I., & Viechtbauer, W. (2019). Response compliance and predictors thereof in studies using the experience sampling method. Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 226-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000662
[38] Javier Hernandez, Daniel McDuff, Christian Infante, Pattie Maes, Karen Quigley, and Rosalind Picard. 2016. Wearable ESM: differences in the experience sampling method across wearable devices. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1145/2935334.2935340
[39] Wheeler, L. and Reis, H. T. (1991), Self-Recording of Everyday Life Events: Origins, Types, and Uses. Journal of Personality, 59: 339-354. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00252.x
[40] Soomin Kim, Joonhwan Lee, and Gahgene Gweon. 2019. Comparing Data from Chat-bot and Web Surveys: Effects of Platform and Conversational Style on Survey Response Quality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 86, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300316
[41] Eric Horvitz and Johnson Apacible. 2003. Learning and reasoning about interruption. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Multimodal interfaces (ICMI '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 20-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/958432.958440
[42] S. Ghosh, N. Ganguly, B. Mitra and P. De, "Designing An Experience Sampling Method for Smartphone based Emotion Detection," in IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. doi: 10.1109/TAFFC.2019.2905561
[43] Wang, Mengcheng & Dai, X.Y. & Yao, S.Q.. (2011). Development of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory (CBF-PI) III: Psychometric properties of CBF-PI brief version. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 19. 454-457.
[44]  Niels van Berkel, Matthias Budde, Senuri Wijenayake, and Jorge Goncalves. 2018. Improving Accuracy in Mobile Human Contributions: An Overview. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers (UbiComp ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 594–599. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3267541 

[45] De Fruyt, F., De Wiele, L. V., & Van Heeringen, C. (2000). Cloninger's psychobiological model of temperament and character and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(3), 441-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00204-4
[46] Nakagawa, S. and Schielzeth, H. (2013), A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods Ecol Evol, 4: 133-142. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
[47] Kose, S. (2003). A Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character: TCI. Yeni Symposium: psikiyatri, nöroloji ve davraniş bilimleri dergisi, 41(2), 86-97.
[48] Mehl, Matthias & Conner, Tamlin. (2012). Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life.
[49] Multilevel Modeling, Douglas A. Luke (2004). Handbook of Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences
[50] Gerasimos Spanakis, Gerhard Weiss, Bastiaan Boh, Lotte Lemmens, and Anne Roefs. 2017. Machine learning techniques in eating behavior e-coaching. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 21, 4 (August 2017), 645-659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1022-4
[51] Kuppens, P., Allen, N. B., & Sheeber, L. B. (2010). Emotional inertia and psychological maladjustment. Psychological Science, 21(7), 984-991.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610372634