Adaptive Ecological Momentary Assessment with a Hybrid Language Model: Formative Expert Review and Retrospective Evaluation
TL;DR
EMA-E4B, a hybrid framework for question selection and prompt timing, is presented and retrospectively evaluated to establish a concrete, inspectable framework and clarify the distinct roles of action scoring and response review.
Abstract
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) measures experience in daily life, but fixed questionnaires and schedules collect information of uneven value and can interrupt participants. We present and retrospectively evaluate EMA-E4B, a hybrid framework for question selection and prompt timing. Separate ridge models propose an item set and delay; a supervised Gemma 4 E4B language layer produces the final structured response and explanation. Evaluation distinguishes proxy action performance, output conformity, and formative judgments of response quality. The data contain 4,372 records from 79 participants and yield 3,516 sequential cases under a participant separated split. One involved domain expert preferred the complete hybrid response in 15 of 20 decisive comparisons, with two ties among 22 reviews. On 75 reused development cases, hybrid question utility and timing similarity were 0.832 and 0.818; the head alone reached 0.852 and 0.818. A separate 60 case comparison with untouched E4B under the same head gave action differences of -0.0031 and -0.0105. Thus, the language layer produced structured responses with action scores comparable to or slightly below the reference configurations, while the expert feedback favored the complete hybrid response. These observations establish a concrete, inspectable framework and clarify the distinct roles of action scoring and response review. Repeated adaptive administration and practical effects on measurement and participant burden remain future research.
