Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chiabuneg

Research article

Ecological momentary assessment of contextual variables,

T
satisfaction, and emotional and behavioral states of adolescents by
level of victimization
⁎
Magallón-Neri E.a,b,c, , Kirchner T.a,b,c, Forns M.a,b,c, Calderón C.a,b, Planellas I.a
a
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Spain
b
Research Group: GEIMAC (2014SGR1139 – 2017SGR1681), Spain
c
Institute of Neurosciences: IR3C, Faculty of Psychology, Spain

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: The harmful effects of victimization on mental health have been demonstrated in several age
Contextual variables groups, cultures, and populations, but there is wide variability in the resulting psychopathology.
Ecological momentary assessment Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) allows the expression of an emotional state to be re-
Adolescents corded at any given time and linked to a situation or context.
Victimization
This study aimed to analyze the contextual variables (where, with whom, and what), mo-
Emotional states
Behavioral problems
mentary satisfaction, and perception of momentary emotional and behavioral symptoms in a
cohort of adolescents by the level of victimization, using EMA. We explored the everyday
symptom profiles and the contexts in which events took place among 100 adolescents over a one-
week period. Sociodemographic data were collected and assessment was done using the EMA (as
a smartphone application) and the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (to assess childhood and
adolescent victimization). In this study, regarding contextual variables, the group with the
highest level of victimization (top 10%) showed a significant relationship with being away from
home and being with friends other than classmates, and not being with parents or relatives. There
was also an unexpectedly higher frequency of sporting engagement in this group. A relationship
existed between emotional and behavioral problems and higher levels of victimization. In con-
clusion, the different groups of victimized subjects present a relatively high level of satisfaction in
relation to the daily contexts and show low levels of emotional and behavioral symptomatology.

1. Introduction

The harmful effects of victimization on mental health have been demonstrated in all age groups, countries, and cultures (Cheng,
Cao, Liu, & Chen, 2010; Ellonen & Salmi, 2011; Fowler et al., 2009; Gustafsson, Nilsson, & Göran-Svedin, 2009; Norman et al., 2012;
Pereda, Guilera, & Abad, 2014; Radford, Corral, Bradley, & Fisher, 2013). However, there is marked variability in the resulting
psychopathologic states (Walz, Nauta, & Rot, 2014). When referring to anxiety symptoms, authors have indicated that they may occur
at both predictable and unpredictable times, and may be linked to specific situations, raising doubts about the suitability of mea-
suring symptoms in laboratory settings or by retrospective self-report measures. In this setting, ecological momentary assessment
(EMA) may be a better option by allowing the expression of the emotional state to be recorded at any given time, and in specific

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Barcelona, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Section Personality, Assessment and Psychological
Treatment, Institute of Neurosciences (IR3c), Pg. Vall d Hebron, 171, 08035, Barcelona, Spain.
E-mail address: emagallonneri@ub.edu (E. Magallón-Neri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.030
Received 12 October 2017; Received in revised form 20 March 2018; Accepted 27 March 2018
0145-2134/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

contexts (Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008). Thus, the EMA can give insights into symptom variability and the associations between
daily affect, behaviors, and situational cues (Walz et al., 2014). Ebner-Priemer, Eid, Kleindienst, Starnow, and Trull (2009) have
reported that the EMA is adequate when used to analyze moods, thoughts, symptoms, or behaviors that change over time.
In adolescents, the EMA has been used to assess and predict the following: health needs (Helgeson, Lopez, & Kamarck, 2009;
Schnall et al., 2013), mental status (Garcia et al., 2014), physical or sedentary activities and their psychosocial correlates (Rusby,
Westling, Crowley, & Light, 2013; Rusby, Westling, Crowley, & Light, 2014), overweight related to interpersonal problems
(Ranzenhofer et al., 2014), emotional instability (Aldinger et al., 2014), comorbid drug use and psychiatric disorders (Benarous et al.,
2016; Comulada, Lightfoot, Swendeman, Grella, & Wu, 2015), stress associated with traumatic events (Walsh, Basu, & Monk, 2015),
and anxiety (Walz et al., 2014) or depression related to use of social media (Bickham, Hswen, & Rich, 2015). Concerning the
contextual variables analyzed through the EMA, Comulada, Swendeman, and Wu (2016) reported that being with close friends, at
friend’s houses, or adopting “hanging out” as the primary activity, as well as being with other alcohol or drug users, were the most
frequent contextual factors linked to drug use. Also, when analyzing the adolescent behavior of escalating rule breaking and sub-
stance use, Rusby et al. (2013) found that being “out and about” increased over the school year, whereas adult supervision decreased,
showing an increase in exposure to potentially risky situations.
In the context of adolescent victimization, the EMA has been used to explore the associations between peer victimization and non-
suicidal self-injury (Brackman, 2015); peer victimization and negative affect in children with and without attention deficit and
hyperactivity (Fogelman, Walerius, Rosen, & Leaberry, 2016); peer victimization, rejection sensitivity, and negative affect (Waller,
2015); the role of providing support and cognitive therapy for dysfunctional beliefs in pregnant adolescents after sexual abuse (Walsh
et al., 2015); and the microcontextual factors that explain the association between daily peer victimization and well-being in teens
(Nishina, 2012). The literature on victimization emphasizes high psychopathology in adolescents who have experienced victimization
(Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007; Ford, Elhai, Connor, & Frueh, 2010; Ford, Wasser, & Connor, 2011). However, there is only
limited information about the related contextual variables, momentary satisfaction, and emotional and behavioral states.
In previous study of adolescents in community settings (Magallón-Neri, Kirchner, Forns, Calderón, & Planellas, 2016), we have
analyzed the feasibility of using the EMA as a measure of daily dynamics and contextual variables (i.e., what were teens doing when
the smartphone rang, where, with whom), momentary satisfaction, and emotional and behavioral states. The EMA method that we
designed provides a sufficiently accurate measure of the daily psychological symptoms experienced by community adolescents in
their natural context. The metric quality of the EMA design used here is described in Measures section. In the current paper, we seek
to expand on our previous research (Magallón-Neri et al., 2016), by analyzing the momentary responses of adolescents with different
degrees of interpersonal victimization in terms of contextual variables, the degree of satisfaction they experience in these contexts,
and the level of emotional and behavioral problems they report. Specifically, we had three objectives.
First, we aimed to analyze three contextual variables (where teens were, with whom, and what they were doing) according to
different levels of interpersonal victimization. According to Finkelhor (2007) interpersonal victimization refers to special negative life
experiences or harms that individuals undergo because of the actions of other humans that violate social norms. These negative life
experiences stand apart from other life events. The EMA literature provides little information about specific contextual data according
to interpersonal victimization levels. We hypothesized that contextual variables would show significant differences according to the
victimization level (organized into four classes: Non-victim group, Victims under mean, Victims above mean, and Poly-victim). This
was because each level of interpersonal victimization implies an increase in the frequency of offenses that can affect adolescents’
mood, their friendships or relationships, and the activities they undertake. Other authors have pointed out the relationship between
risk behaviors and contextual variables (Comulada et al., 2016; Rusby et al., 2013, 2014).
Second, we aimed to analyze the momentary satisfaction linked to spaces, people, and activities according to interpersonal
victimization level. Momentary satisfaction refers to the degree of reported satisfaction linked to a space, people and activities
assessed at a particular moment. These contextual variables are experienced as pleasant or very pleasant almost 70% of the time
(Magallón-Neri et al., 2016), but the relationship between momentary satisfaction and victimization level has not been analyzed in
depth. We hypothesized that momentary satisfaction would decrease as victimization increased, because of the marked emotional
discomfort experienced linked to interpersonal victimization (Ford et al., 2010, 2011; Forns et al., 2015; Fowler et al., 2009;
Kirchner, Forns, Soler, & Planellas, 2014).
Third, we analyzed the perception adolescents have of their momentary emotional and behavioral symptoms at random times in
daily life, by victimization level. We assumed that teens who experienced more victimization would express more emotional or
behavioral distress in their EMA responses, because prior experience of victimization would significantly imbalance their emotions
(Forns et al., 2015; Kirchner et al., 2014; Soler, Forns, Kirchner, & Segura, 2014).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

We enrolled a convenience sample of 100 students (61.0% girls) with 2256 momentary inputs from two state schools (secondary
compulsory education) in the area of Barcelona, Spain. Participants were aged 12–18 years (mean, 14.66; standard deviation [SD],
1.64). The social backgrounds were as follow: 77.6% of their fathers and 70.1% of their mothers were working, 18.8% of their fathers
and 26.4% of their mothers were unemployed, and 3.5% of their fathers and 3.4% of their mothers were pensioners.

269
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Sociodemographic data

A survey sheet was designed ad hoc to gather basic data on age, gender, school year, citizenship, family, and employment status.

2.2.2. Victimization
The self-report Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ) (Hamby, Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2004) was used to assess a
comprehensive range of childhood victimizations. It focused on 36 major offences (items) against children and youths, classified into
the following six general areas of concern: Conventional Crime, Child Maltreatment, Peer and Sibling Victimization, Sexual Victi-
mization, Witnessing, and Indirect Victimization and Internet offenses. The adolescents were asked to indicate how many times and
how often they had experienced the listed offenses during the preceding year (last 12 months). Clear instructions were given to help
teens identify the period of interest. Items were rated on a six-point scale according the number of episodes (0 = never; 1 = once;
2 = twice; 3 = three times; 4 = four times, 5 = five or more times). The content validity of the scale is based on the legal punishable
status of each of the items included in the questionnaire, and the Cronbach’s alpha (reliability) for a community adolescent sample
using the Spanish version for data in the last year was reported as good (0.82) (Forns, Kirchner, Soler, & Paretilla, 2013a).

2.2.3. Ecological momentary assessment

A smartphone (Acer Liquid Z-200, Android 4.0) was used to deliver the EMA via an application. This involved a questionnaire of
14 items, as follows: a) the situational context (Right now, where are you? Right now, with whom are you? Right now, what are you
doing?); b) the satisfaction linked to the situation, (Do you like where you are now? Do you like the person whom you are with right now?
Do you like the activity you are doing right now?), and c) the emotional and behavioral state related to eight broad areas of psycho-
pathological problems. For the psychopathology, the following were covered: affective problems (Right now, do you feel sad or
depressed?), anxiety problems (Right now, do you feel nervous or worried?), somatic problems (Right now, do you have a headache or feel
sick?), attention problems (Right now, do you feel scattered or inattentive?), oppositional–defiant problems (Right now, are you arguing,
disobeying, or being stubborn?), conduct problems (Right now, are you fighting, attacking, or breaking rules?), obsessive–compulsive
problems (Right now, are you having difficulty getting some thoughts out of your head, or do you have to repeat senseless acts) and
posttraumatic stress (Right now, do you feel that someone can hurt you, have you closed in on yourself, and do you feel guilty?). To ensure
the content validity of previous items related to emotional or behavioral discomfort, items were chosen from among those with a
higher loading factor (> 0.74) within the respective YSR-DSM scales (Abad, Forns, & Gomez, 2002; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
Moreover, convergent validity between internalizing states assessed by EMA and by YSR was established in Kirchner et al. (2017b).
Momentary satisfaction and emotional and behavioral items were scored on five-point Likert scales from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very
much). The momentary satisfaction level associated with the context had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75, and the eight items related to
general discomfort obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76 (Magallón-Neri et al., 2016).
The smartphone was programmed to give five semi-random alarms between 9 am and 9 pm every day over a full week (a
maximum of 35 alarms). When the alarm sounded, the adolescent was required to answer the items within three minutes of hearing
the alarm. The application stopped the smartphone alarm and blocked the unit if the user did not answer within this time. Once the
evaluation period finished, the research team downloaded the data. More detailed information can be obtained elsewhere (Magallón-
Neri et al., 2016).

3. Procedure

All the procedure and assessment protocols had been previously authorized by the research ethical committee of the University of
Barcelona, and complied with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and legislation regarding confidential data protection.
After receiving approval from the ethics committee of the University, the research project was presented to principals of six secondary
state schools in two districts of the Barcelona metropolitan area. The school director and responsible educational psychologists were
informed of the nature of the project. In the two schools that agreed to participate, a briefing was held to encourage teenagers to
participate in the research, providing a consent-form to be signed by their parents or legal guardians. After obtaining permission,
pencil and paper tests were administered for approximately 90 min to collect sociodemographic information and baseline JVQ
ratings, and the role and use of the smartphones and EMA application were explained to participants at the end.
When delivering the devices to each participant, they were assigned an individual alphanumeric code to protect their identity in
case of loss of theft of the device. We explained to each participant that they would have the smartphone for a whole week and that
the smartphone would ring five times a day at random times, and that they would have to answer as many times as they could. An
authorization form was signed in which they agreed to take care of the device and use it appropriately, and they were given contact
details in case of technical problems during the experiment. Only 5.6% of participants required technical help for the use of the
smartphone, which was mainly due to a device malfunction.
The use of Smartphones in the classroom was a key barrier to getting schools to agree to participate. Teachers and principals felt
that random-time alarms could disrupt classes, distract other students, and generate disciplinary problems and struggles among
students. Some principals, teachers, and parents did not want to take responsibility for children having a smartphone for a week,
which prevented participation.

270
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

4. Data analysis

The victimization levels were calculated using the JVQ. The sum of frequencies reported per offense (36 items) over the last 12
months was calculated, and four groups were created following the rationale of Kirchner et al. (2014). The overall score range was
between 0 (least victimization) and 70 (most victimization). Group 1 comprised those not experiencing offenses (non-victim group).
Group 2 comprised those experiencing several offenses, but less than the overall mean level (below-average victims group). Group 3
comprised those experiencing offenses more often than the overall mean (above-average victims group), but excluding participants in
the 90th centile of experiencing offenses, who were instead labelled Group 4 (poly-victim group). Differences between groups in
gender, repeating course condition, and language were calculated using the χ2 test (applying the Monte Carlo exact test when
needed), and differences in age and school level between groups were calculated using ANOVA.
The analysis of EMA data was done as follows. The independence of contextual variables (i.e., space, people, and activities) by
victim group was assessed by χ2 tests, using a corrected residual of > 2.58 as a significant criterion. The relationship or linear trends
between victimization levels and psychological states (satisfaction and malaise) were analyzed by polynomial, weighted-means, one-
way ANOVA, using Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc contrasts (at p < .001) and previous analysis with Welch tests for equality. Linear and
cubic trends were tested. Levels of satisfaction related to location (where), person (with), and activity (carried out) were assessed on a
Likert scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“very much”) and the momentary emotional and behavioral symptoms were assessed on a Likert
scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“very much”).

5. Results

5.1. Characteristics of the victim groups

Table 1 shows the mean number of offenses overall and for the four JVQ groups. The groups did not differ by gender (χ2 [3,
N = 100] = 4.42, p = .231), age (F(92, 3) = 0.194, p = .90), school level (F(92, 3) = 0.206, p = .89), whether repeating course (χ2 [3,
N = 100] = 1.86, p = .594), or mother language (Spanish, Catalan, or other [χ2 (6, N = 100) = 12.84, p = .05]).

5.2. EMA contextual variables by victim groups

We conducted χ2 analyses for the independence of contextual variables (i.e., where, with whom, and activity) by victim group.
Regarding the locations of teens when the smartphones beeped, they mainly answered being at home (n = 1198; 53%), followed by
in the classroom (n = 549; 24.3%) and away from home (n = 376; 16.6%) – the latter comprised 15.5% who were away from the
house and 1.1% who were in a store. The options “in the playground” and “doing sports or after-school activity” accounted for a 3.4%
and 2.6% of answers, respectively. The association between location and victim groups was significant (χ2 (12, N = 2261) = 33.60,
p = .001). Differences between empirical and theoretical frequencies (a corrected residual > 2.58 being significant; Fig. 1) were
only significant for Group 4, which showed a significant corrected residual for at home (−4.1) and away from home (+3.7),
indicating that this group are at home less and away from home more than expected.
The teens were mainly with their parents (n = 573; 25.4%) or classmates (n = 455; 20.2%), but many were also alone (n = 436;
19.3%) or with other friends (n = 415; 18.4%). Fewer were with a sibling, a relative, or another person, at rates of 6.9%, 5.1%, and
4.8%, respectively. The association was significant between who the teens were with and the victim group (χ2 (18,
N = 2257) = 111.02, p < .001). Corrected residuals (> 2.58) indicated that Group 1 more often stayed with parents (+5.8) and less
often stayed with other friends (−2.9). Whereas those in Group 2 stayed with relatives less (−3.0), those in Group 3 stayed with
relatives (+6.0) or alone (+2.7) more frequently. Finally, Group 4 ha d significantly higher frequencies of staying with other friends
(+4.0), but not classmates, and lower frequencies of staying with parents (−2.6) or relatives (−3.2).
Regarding the activities at the time of the smartphone beep, most teens were engaged in school activities (e.g., studying or
writing) (n = 601; 26.7%), followed by speaking with somebody (n = 446; 19.8%) and watching a TV or using a tablet or computer
(n = 377; 16.7%). Fewer indicated that they were relaxing or doing nothing (n = 262; 11.6%) or doing sport (n = 67; 3.0%).
However, 22.3% (n = 502) reported doing other things, and this covers a range of activities, such as eating, walking, sleep, helping
others, or listening. The association between activities and victim group was significant (χ2 (15, N = 2255) = 40.68, p < .001). The
corrected residuals (> 2.58) indicated that victims spoke with others less frequently in Group 2 (−2.8) and more frequently in Group
3 (+3.0). In Group 4, there was a significantly higher frequency of doing sport (+3.2).

Table 1
Extent of victimizations in the previous year by victim group.
Total group Group 1: Group 2: Victims under Group 3: Victims above Group 4: Poly-victim
Non-victim mean mean

Participants N 100 12 57 21 10
Total number of offenses M (SD) 9.13 (12.17) 0 (0) 4.22 (2.58) 13.33 (2.69) 39.20 (16.23)
Range 0–70 0–0 1– 9 10–20 21–70

Note: Victim group was determined by result on the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. The maximum theoretical range for the offences was 180
(36 items × 5 points).

271
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

(caption on next page)

272
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

Fig. 1. Corrected χ2 residuals for context variables at the time of the smartphone beep by victim group are shown on the axes in each figure. Shaded
critical areas (equivalent to 2 standard deviations).

5.3. EMA momentary satisfaction by victim groups

The first part of Table 2 shows the mean raw scores and SD for self-reported momentary satisfaction and the contextual variables.
The mean raw scores ranged from 3.83 to 4.23 points (on a 1–5 scale), suggesting a medium–high level of satisfaction with everyday
life situations. No significant differences were found among the victim groups regarding the locations and activities at the time of the
beep. However, there was a significant decreasing linear trend for satisfaction with the people they were with at the time of the beep.
Group 3 had the lowest level of satisfaction and Group 1 had the highest.

5.4. Self-reported perception of momentary emotional and behavioral problems by victim groups

The second part of Table 2 shows the mean raw scores and SDs for self-reported perception of momentary emotional and be-
havioral problems at random moments in daily life by victim group (range, 1–5). The total mean raw scores ranged from 1.11 for
conduct problems to 1.39 for anxiety problems, suggesting a weak level of self-perceived emotional and behavioral problems linked
to everyday life situations. Analysis by victim group shows a significant linear increasing trend for opposition, conduct, and obsessive
problems (Table 2). Concerning somatic problems, a cubic trend was found, with the highest level of discomfort in Group 3 and the
lowest level in Group 4. For affective, anxiety, attention deficit, and posttraumatic stress problems, a linear trend compatible with a
cubic tendency was found, with the highest mean level of discomfort in Group 3.

6. Discussion

Our main objective was to explore the contextual variables, momentary satisfaction, and emotional and behavioral problems by
level of victimization in Spanish adolescents from an EMA perspective. Specifically, we analyzed whether different groups of vic-
timized adolescents (non-victims, below-average victims, above-average victims, and poly-victims) reported differences in the lo-
cations where they were, the people whom they were with, and the activities they were carrying out when the smartphone beeped.

Table 2
Momentary satisfaction and perception of momentary emotional and behavioral symptoms at random times.
Total group Group 1: Group 2: Victims Group 3: Victims Group 4: Polynomial Contrasts
Non-victim below-average above- average Poly-victim analysis Lc; Cd Tamhane’s T2

N/na 2256 250 1336 455 215

Momentary satisfaction reported (Range from 1 “not at all” to 5 “very much”)
Spaces where teens were Mb (SD) 3.98 (1.20) 4.04 (1.16) 3.96 (1.20) 3.95 (1.30) 4.07 (1.05) L: F = .095 –
C: F = .111
People being with Mb (SD) 4.20 (1.06) 4.36 (.56) 4.23 (.99) 4.05 (1.27) 4.20 (1.05) L: F = 14.078* 1>3
C: F = 2.299
b
Activities carried out M (SD) 3.89 (1.22) 3.83 (1.19) 3.87 (1.23) 3.84 (1.31) 4.17 (1.01) L: F = 6.596
C: F = 3.119

Perception of momentary emotional and behavioral symptoms (Range from 1 “not at all” to 5 “very much”)
Affective Mb (SD) 1.38 (0.84) 1.23 (0.65) 1.34 (0.79) 1.56 (1.03) 1.39 (0.84) L: F = 16.112* 3 > 1, 2
C: F = 10.862*
Anxiety Mb (SD) 1.39 (0.84) 1.14 (0.56) 1.34 (0.81) 1.66 (1.05) 1.38 (0.72) L: F = 33.613* 3 > 1, 2, 4
C: F = 20.135* 2,4 > 1
b
Somatic M (SD) 1.29 (0.77) 1.27 (0.63) 1.22 (0.63) 1.58 (1.14) 1.13 (0.45) L: F = 5.827* 3 > 1,
C: F = 73.542* 23 > 4
b
Attention Deficit M (SD) 1.36 (0.85) 1.16 (0.55) 1.29 (0.79) 1.67 (1.11) 1.37 (0.73) L: F = 39.678* 3 > 1,2
C: F = 34.396* 3>4
Opposition Mb (SD) 1.13 (0.58) 1.04 (0.32) 1.10 (0.51) 1.22 (0.72) 1.29 (0.80) L: F = 37.504* 3,4 > 1
C: F = 1.025
Conduct problems Mb (SD) 1.11 (0.54) 1.03 (0.32) 1.07 (0.44) 1.17 (0.64) 1.32 (0.87) L: F = 44.139* 4 > 1,2
C: F = 0.013
b
Obsessive-Compulsive M (SD) 1.34 (0.86) 1.07 (0.40) 1.32 (0.84) 1.49 (1.04) 1.37 (0.84) L: F = 24.018* 2,3,4 > 1
C: F = 1.855
Posttraumatic stress Mb (SD) 1.12 (0.55) 1.02 (0.27) 1.07 (0.42) 1.30 (0.83) 1.21 (0.68) L: F = 48.629* 3,4 > 1
C: F = 22.208* 3>2

Results are shown overall (total) and for the victimization groups.
a
N or n = number of responses on random moments assessed, for total group and for the victims’ groups.
b
raw scores.
c
L = Lineal trend.
d
C = Cubic trend.
* p < .001.

273
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

We also wanted to explore the satisfaction and self-perception of emotional and behavioral problems at the time of evaluation.
Overall, there was a mean frequency of 9.13 (SD = 12.17) offenses per person during the previous year. These data appear to be
higher than those reported in another study that also used the JVQ (Hamby et al., 2004), because we used frequency of the exposure
to victimization experiences as main measure, rather than presence/absence, which is used in the majority of other research. When
offenses were rated on scales from 0 to 5 and for the lifetime (the sum of last year plus years before) the average was about 17.55
(SD = 18.5) for adolescents with the same sociodemographic characteristics as those in the current study (Kirchner et al., 2017a;
Kirchner et al., 2014).
The victim’s groups do not show differences in sociodemographic variables analyzed (i.e., gender, age, school level, whether
repeating a course, and language), but groups did differ in some contextual variables in their daily lives. When answering on the
smartphone, the non-victims more frequently reported being at home, close to their parents, and studying or doing homework
compared with the other groups. In contrast, poly-victims were more often far from home, parents, and relatives, and were more
likely to engage in sports or spend time with friends other than classmates, effectively choosing friends outside the formal circle. The
closeness to parents and family members among the non-victims and, especially, among the below-average victims group appears as a
positive behavior since many studies highlight the role of the family and friends as protective factors. Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch (1994)
and Schunk and Mullen (2012) emphasized that students who have better relationships with their parents obtain better academic
results. Similarly, Kirchner et al. (2017a,b) found that resilient victimized teens employed more coping strategies related to seeking
family support than non-resilient victimized teens. This pattern of relative distancing from the family, a lack of formal friendships and
a preponderance of informal ones has previously been found in at-risk groups (Comulada et al., 2016) and suggests weak family care
or supervision by adults.
Likewise, students who have friends at school have been shown to have better academic engagement (Vaquera, 2009) and a
higher self-efficacy (Schunk & Mullen, 2012). Further, it may be interpreted that staying away from home indicates that teens are
adopting a sort of maladaptive escaping coping behavior that does not protect against health problems (Forns et al., 2013b). The
adoption of this distancing or escaping coping behavior reported by poly-victims teens should be analyzed in the future, taking into
account the type of victimization reported in this group, given that parents, relatives, and classmates may be among the main
stressors. Van Roekel et al. (2015) also reported that social stress increases with classmates in early teenage life. Thus, negligence,
harassment, or victimization in the family or peer group should be explored when community teens report high levels of victimi-
zation. The poly-victims also engaged in more sport compared with the other groups. Given the protective value usually associated
with sport, and in view of the low level of psychopathological symptoms among the poly-victims in our sample (high level of
satisfaction, and low level of emotional and behavioral symptoms), it is possible that engaging in sports acts as a protective factor for
poly-victims. In any case, the low overall percentage of engagement in sports or activities outside school prevents us from making
solid conclusions.
Concerning the momentary satisfaction in daily life, teens in this study reported high levels of pleasure in relation to where they
were and the activities they were doing at the time (approximately 4 on a 1–5 scale), independent of their experience of victimization.
Regarding satisfaction with others, Helgeson et al. (2009) reported that adolescents’ interactions with friends were usually rated as
enjoyable and not upsetting, based on the EMA methodology. These findings support our results, where the level of satisfaction
reported by teens was high. Nevertheless, the above-average victimization group had a lower level of satisfaction compared with the
non-victim group. If high levels of life satisfaction are associated with mental health benefits (Gilman & Huebner, 2006), psychol-
ogists should enhance this resource and increase the awareness of victims to the situations that generate well-being, as this is a core
component of psychological treatment. The positive experiences of many daily moments can form a basis for the development and
empowerment of resources for positive emotionality.
Our study also underlines the fact that, in general, teens report favorable emotional and behavioral states in specific moments of
daily life, suggesting low levels of psychological symptoms. This statement is controversial when related to the victim groups, because
traditional literature indicates that there is a marked psychopathological aftermath following victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007).
Previous statements that are based on traditional assessment with retrospective data should be revised when using EMA data, where
the influences of victimization on everyday life appear to be less extensive. Ebner-Priemer et al. (2006), for example, found higher
levels of psychopathology when using retrospective techniques than when using the EMA. Solhan, Trull, Jahng, and Wood (2009)
also indicated that the simple cognitive operation required in the immediate response to EMA questions would be less biased than the
cognitive operations needed for retrospective answers. Additional studies could use EMA together with conventional retrospective
techniques to explore the relation between these two methodologies in greater depth.
According to current data from an EMA perspective, victimized teens can live some moments of their daily lives with relative
satisfaction and with little emotional or behavioral affectation. Nevertheless, there were differences between victim groups. For
example, those experiencing more than the average number of offenses presented discomfort that was mainly expressed by inter-
nalized (i.e., affective, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress) problems. Moreover, poly-victim and above- average groups experienced
daily events with more externalized (i.e., opposition or conduct) and obsessive problems than the non-victimized or below-average
groups. However, in all cases, the reported level of discomfort was low.
Certain limitations of the study should be noted. Subjects were chosen by convenience sampling, the number of participants was
small, and the distribution of participants in groups was even smaller. Nevertheless, the overall numbers were comparable to those in
studies employing an EMA methodology, where a high number of authorizations are requested (i.e., from principals, teachers,
parents, and adolescents), and where subjects have no economic remuneration. Another limitation is the short time frame used for
data collection – one week – although this is the standard period using EMA methodology (Liao, Skelton, Dunton, & Bruening, 2016).
The particular week selected might have influenced the results, but all the victim and non-victim groups were assessed in the same

274
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

conditions.
Another issue was that the EMA design was developed ad hoc for this study (Magallón-Neri et al., 2016), and in order to optimize
the duration of the application, only one item each was chosen for the satisfaction and emotional variables. Therefore, future studies
with EMA methodology should increase the number of questions in order to measure each of the emotional states and thus improve
the validity of the data.
These limitations could be overcome by replicating the study in a larger non-convenience sample, using more items per variable.
Also, the low participation rate may have resulted in a biased sample, with better adjusted teens or families who have greater
commitment to school consenting to participate compared with poorly adjusted teens or families who have fewer links to school.
These factors limit the generalizability of the study data. Another limitation concerns the victim group categorization, because the
cut-off points may be controversial (Forns et al., 2015). Replication of the results with poly-victim groups defined based on different
criteria could help to establish consistency. Specifically, this replication should be carried out with clinical groups that have different
degrees or types of victimization.
Despite the limitations, this study has several strengths worthy of highlighting. The real-time analysis of contextual variables
linked to different victimization profiles is quite novel. Indeed, to our knowledge, there are no studies that have directly addressed
this issue in Spanish community populations. Another strength lies in the use of the EMA method for the analysis of emotional and
behavioral states as well as contextual variables related to the level of victimization. This method has been shown to reduce bias in
the evaluation of individual experiences that occur when classic retrospective methods are used. In the context of escalating be-
havioral problems, Rusby et al. (2013) reported that such a study can provide more detailed information about the emotional states of
teens, their perceptions, and the environments in which they are exposed to those states as interrelated contextual factors. Given that
these may precede the escalation of problems, targeting them in people who suffer greater victimization can be a major step in
limiting risk and intervention. The data in this study may be relevant to the therapeutic perspective, indicating that victimized
adolescents could be encouraged to view their high levels of satisfaction and emotional well-being as forms of resilience.

7. Conclusions

The EMA methodology demonstrated that the different groups of victimized subjects may present a relatively high level of
satisfaction in relation to the daily contexts and that their emotional and behavioral state reflects low levels of psychological
symptomatology. The EMA methodology also highlighted differences in the contexts in which the adolescents find themselves with
regard to the different degrees of victimization; however, the degree of satisfaction linked to the contexts is high in all the groups.
This suggests that adolescents have selected the contexts in which they find the most satisfaction, and that in these contexts the
expression of psychological symptomatology is low.

Acknowledgments

This study received funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economía y Competitividad inside the National Program for Promoting
Excellence in Scientific and Technical Research (Project: PSI2013-46392-P) and from the Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de
Recerca, Generalitat de Catalunya (2014SGR1139– 2017SGR1681).

References

Abad, J., Forns, M., & Gomez, J. (2002). Emotional and behavioral problems as measured by the YSR: Gender and age differences in Spanish adolescents. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 149–157.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, &
Families.
Aldinger, M., Stopsack, M., Ulrich, I., Appel, K., Reinelt, E., Wolff, S., ... Barnow, S. (2014). Neuroticism developmental courses, implications for depression, anxiety
and everyday emotional experience; A prospective study from adolescence to young adulthood. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-
0210-2 PMID: 25207861.
Benarous, X., Edel, Y., Consoli, A., Brunelle, J., Etter, J.-F., Cohen, D., ... Khazaal, Y. (2016). Ecological momentary assessment and smartphone application inter-
vention in adolescents with substance use and comorbid severe psychiatric disorders: Study protocol. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 157. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyt.2016.00157.
Bickham, D. S., Hswen, Y., & Rich, M. (2015). Media use and depression: Exposure, household rules, and symptoms among young adolescents in the United States.
International Journal of Public Health, 60(2), 147–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-014-0647-6.
Brackman, E. H. (2015). Peer victimization and non-suicidal self-injury: A pilot ecological momentary assessment study. Fordham University1603302 ProQuest Dissertations
(116 pages).
Cheng, P., Cao, F.-L., Liu, J., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reliability and validity of Chinese self-report version of juvenile victimization questionnaire in middle school students.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18(4), 460–462.
Comulada, W. S., Lightfoot, M., Swendeman, D., Grella, C., & Wu, N. (2015). Compliance to cell phone-based EMA among Latino youth in outpatient treatment. Journal
of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 14, 232–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2014.986354] PMID: 26114764.
Comulada, W. S., Swendeman, D., & Wu, N. (2016). Cell phone-based ecological momentary assessment of substance use context for Latino youth in outpatient
treatment: Who, what, when and where. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 167, 207–213.
Ebner-Priemer, U. W., Eid, M., Kleindienst, N., Starnow, S., & Trull, T. J. (2009). Analytic strategies for understanding affective (in)stability and others dynamic
processes in psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118(1), 195–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014868.
Ebner-Priemer, U. W., Kuo, J., Welch, S. S., Thielgen, T., Witte, S., Bohus, M., ... Linehan, M. M. (2006). A valence-dependent group-specific recall bias of retrospective
self-reports a study of borderline personality disorder in everyday life. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(10), 774–194779.
Ellonen, N., & Salmi, V. (2011). Poly-victimization as a life condition: Correlates of poly-victimization among Finnish children. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in
Criminology and Crime Prevention, 12, 20–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14043858.2011.561621.
Finkelhor, D. (2007). Developmental victimology. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Luirigio, & S. Herman (Eds.). Victims of crime(3rd ed.). Trousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

275
E. Magallón-Neri et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 268–276

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007). Poly-victimization and trauma in a national longitudinal cohort. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 149–166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407070083.
Fogelman, N. D., Walerius, D., Rosen, P. J., & Leaberry, K. (2016). Peer victimization linked to negative affect in children with and without ADHD. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 46, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.05.003.
Ford, J. D., Wasser, T., & Connor, D. F. (2011). Identifying and determining the symptom severity associated with poly-victimization among psychiatrically impaired
children in the outpatient setting. Child Maltreatment, 16(3), 216–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559511406109.
Ford, J. D., Elhai, J. D., Connor, D. F., & Frueh, B. C. (2010). Poly-victimization and risk of posttraumatic, depressive, and substance use disorders and involvement in
delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(6), 545–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.11.212.
Forns, M., Kirchner, T., Lucio-Gómez-Maqueo, E., Landgrave, P., Soler, L., ... Magallon-Neri, E. (2015). The ability of multi-type maltreatment and poly-victimization
approaches to reflect psychopathological impairment of victimization in Spanish community adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior, 3, 187. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4172/2375-4494.1000187.
Forns, M., Kirchner, T., Soler, L., & Paretilla, C. (2013a). Spanish/Catalan version of the juvenile victimization questionnaire (JVQ): Psychometric properties. Anuario
de Psicología/The UB Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 171–187.
Forns, M., Kirchner, T., Peró, M., Pont, E., Abad, J., Soler, L., ... Paretilla, C. (2013b). Factor structure of the adolescent coping orientation for problem experiences in
Spanish adolescents. Psychological Reports, 112, 845–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/03.20.PR0.112.3.845-871.
Fowler, P. J., Tompsett, C. J., Braciszewski, J. M., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of exposure and
mental health outcomes of children and adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 227–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000145.
Garcia, C., Hardeman, R. R., Kwon, G., Lando-King, E., Zhang, L., Genis, T., ... Kinder, E. (2014). Teenagers and texting: Use of a youth ecological momentary
assessment system in trajectory health research with Latino adolescents. JMIR mHealth uHealth, 2(1), e3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.2576 PMID:
25098355.
Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 293–301. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9036-7.
Gustafsson, P. E., Nilsson, D., & Göran-Svedin, C. G. (2009). Polytraumatization and psychological symptoms in children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescence
Psychiatry, 8(5), 274–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-008-0728-2.
Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2004). The juvenile victimization questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and scoring manual. Durham: University
of New Hampshire, Crimes against Children Research Center.
Helgeson, V. S., Lopez, L. C., & Kamarck, T. (2009). Peer relationship and diabetes: Retrospective and ecological momentary assessment approaches. Health Psychology,
28(3), 273–28282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013784.
Kirchner, T., Forns, M., Soler, L., & Planellas, I. (2014). Post-traumatic stress problems among poly-victimized Spanish youth: Time effect of past vs. recent inter-
personal victimizations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38, 1303–1312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.014.
Kirchner, T., Magallón-Neri, E., Forns, M., Muñoz, D., Segura, A., Soler, L., ... Planellas, I. (2017a). Facing interpersonal violence: Identifying the coping profile of poly-
victimized resilient adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260517700617.
Kirchner, T., Magallón-Neri, E., Ortiz, M. S., Planellas, I., Forns, M., & Calderón, C. (2017b). Adolescents’ daily perception of internalizing emotional states by means of
smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 4(20), E71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.70.
Liao, Y., Skelton, K., Dunton, G., & Bruening, M. (2016). A systematic review of methods and procedures used in ecological momentary assessments of diet and physical
activity research in youth: An adapted STROBE checklist for reporting EMA studies (CREMAS). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(6), e151. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2196/jmir.4954.
Magallón-Neri, E., Kirchner, T., Forns, M., Calderón, C., & Planellas, I. (2016). Ecological momentary assessment with smartphones for measuring mental health
problems in adolescents. World Journal of Psychiatry, 6(3), 303–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v6.i3.303.
Nishina, A. (2012). Microcontextual characteristics of peer victimization experiences and adolescents’ daily well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(2),
191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9669-z.
Norman, R. E., Byambaa, M., De, R., Butchart, A., Scott, J., & Vos, T. (2012). The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine, 9(11), e1001349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001349.
Pereda, N., Guilera, G., & Abad, J. (2014). Victimization and poly-victimization of Spanish children and youth: Results from a community sample. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 38(4), 640–649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.chiabu.2014.01.019.
Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., & Fisher, H. L. (2013). The prevalence and impact of child maltreatment and other types of victimization in the UK: Findings from a
population survey of caregivers, children and young people and young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(10), 801–813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.
02.004.
Ranzenhofer, L. M., Engel, S. G., Crosby, R. D., Anderson, M., Vannucci, A., Cohen, L. A., ... Tanofsky-Kraff, M. (2014). Using ecological momentary assessment to
examine interpersonal and affective predictors of loss of control eating in adolescent girls. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47(7), 748–757. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/eat.22333.
Rusby, J. C., Westling, E., Crowley, R., & Light, J. M. (2013). Concurrent and predictive associations between early adolescent perceptions of peer affiliates and mood
states collected in real time via ecological momentary assessment methodology. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 47–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030393.
Rusby, J. C., Westling, E., Crowley, R., & Light, J. M. (2014). Psychosocial correlates of physical and sedentary activities of early adolescent youth. Health Education &
Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 41(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198113485753.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 226–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027243169401400207.
Schnall, R., Okoniewski, A., Tiase, V., Low, A., Rodriguez, M., & Kaplan, S. (2013). Using text messaging to assess adolescents’ health information needs: An ecological
momentary assessment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, e54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2395 PMID: 23467200.
Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-Efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 219–236). New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10.
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415.
Soler, L., Forns, M., Kirchner, T., & Segura, A. (2014). Relationship between particular areas of victimization and mental health in the context of multiple victimi-
zations. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(4), 417–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0591-2.
Solhan, M. B., Trull, T. J., Jahng, S., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Clinical assessment of affective instability: Comparing EMA indices, questionnaire reports, and retrospective
recall. Psychological Assessment, 21, 425–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016869.
Van Roekel, E., Ha, T., Verhagen, M., Kuntsche, E., Scholte, R. H. J., ... Engels, R. C. M. E. (2015). Social stress in early adolescents' daily lives: Associations with affect
and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 274–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.
Vaquera, E. (2009). Friendship, educational engagement, and school belonging: Comparing hispanic and white adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
31(4), 492–31514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739986309346023.
Waller, J. (2015). Peer victimization and rejection sensitivity in adolescents with major depressive disorder: The role of daily emotional functioning with peers. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
Walsh, K., Basu, A., & Monk, C. (2015). The role of sexual abuse and dysfunctional attitudes in perceived stress and negative mood in pregnant adolescents: An
ecological momentary assessment study. Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 28(5), 327–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2014.09.012.
Walz, L. C., Nauta, M. H., & Rot, A. H. (2014). Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment for studying the daily lives of patients with anxiety
disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(8), 925–937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.09.022.

276