Momentary assessment of parent and child emotion regulation to inform the design of a new emotion-focused parenting app

The study addresses the low reach and high attrition of effective emotion-focused parenting programs by exploring whether ecological momentary assessment (EMA) can inform the design and timing of a just-in-time, smartphone-delivered parenting intervention. Building on evidence that poor emotion regulation in childhood predicts adverse outcomes and that parents’ own emotion regulation influences children’s regulation, the authors aim to develop a brief, valid, and timely EMA to capture in-the-moment parent and child negative affect and emotion dysregulation. The research seeks to identify optimal items, engagement times, common challenging parenting situations, and contexts associated with heightened dysregulation to guide tailoring of an emotion-focused parenting app for families with children aged 2–4 years.

Prior research shows emotion-focused parenting programs (e.g., Tuning in to Kids; Parent-Child Interaction Therapy–Emotion Development) improve parent emotion socialization and child outcomes but face barriers related to in-person delivery, scheduling, and burden, leading to low uptake and high attrition. Online delivery has grown but has not consistently improved engagement, often due to adaptations not optimized for digital contexts and lack of tailoring. Ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) effectively increase reach and outcomes in adult mental and public health (e.g., smoking cessation) by delivering brief, contextually timed support. EMAs demonstrate high compliance and can inform EMIs by identifying in-the-moment symptoms. Limited parenting EMA studies show promising engagement (~80% compliance), though most involved parents of older children. Evidence suggests tailoring content and timing increases engagement, and that parents prefer timely, context-specific resources. It remains unclear whether dysregulated moments are optimal for parenting intervention delivery, underscoring the need to map engagement and dysregulation across times and situations for parents of young children.

Design: A one-week ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study with longitudinal online data collection. Parents reported on their oldest child aged 2–4 years. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire (~25 minutes) and then a 1-minute EMA survey five times daily for 7 days via the SEMA3 smartphone app. Participants were allocated to one of two prompt schedules spanning different times of day; due to attrition, most received schedule 1. Incentives were supermarket vouchers ($20–$50) contingent on survey completion. Ethics approval: Deakin University HEAG-H 221_2021. Recruitment and sample: Australian parents were recruited via paid/unpaid social media (Mar–May 2022). Of 635 baseline responses, after exclusions and attrition, the final EMA-engaged sample was N=89 (mean parent age 35.6 years; 85% female; 75% bachelor’s degree or higher). Children: mean age 2.8 years; 48% female; 81% in early childhood programs. Measures: Baseline captured demographics and validated constructs spanning child outcomes (negative affect, depression, anxiety, oppositional-defiant behavior, temperament, health), parent outcomes (reflective functioning, beliefs about children’s emotions, emotional expressiveness, emotion regulation, distress, positive/negative affect, stress), family environment (reading, books, social support, inter-parental conflict), and life event stress, using established scales (e.g., EC(B)Q, SMFQ, Brief Spence, SNAP-IV, PRFQ, DERS-16, K6, DASS-21, PANAS). EMA (1-minute surveys): 19 items total: Parent negative affect (5 PANAS items), parent emotion dysregulation (5 S-DERS state items), child negative affect (5 adapted PANAS-C items), child emotion dysregulation (4 adapted S-DERS items). One item captured most recent difficult parenting situation (choice from 27 pre-populated options, or “Other”). Data analysis: Stata 16. Aim 1 (item selection): Each of the 19 EMA items was evaluated on five criteria: (1) Sensitivity—association with its composite measure via multilevel mixed-effects linear regression (higher unstandardized coefficient preferred); (2) Relevance—number of significant associations (p<.05) with 26 baseline constructs (count score); (3) Alignment—mean coefficient from regressions with EMA items from other measures; (4) Frequency—number of parents who never endorsed (>0) the item across the week (higher count indicates lower observed frequency); (5) Face validity—team appraisal of appropriateness for a 2–4-year-old emotion-focused parenting app. Items were then ranked to select a brief set. Aim 2 (engagement): Computed response rates by time of day and proportion of prompts when parents were with their child. Engagement inferred where parents responded and were with their child. Aim 3 (situations): Frequency of each difficult parenting situation overall and by time of day. Aim 4 (contexts of heightened dysregulation): Compared mean scores (of selected items) for parent/child negative affect and emotion dysregulation across the 20 most common situations and across times of day.

- Item selection (Aim 1): Six EMA items best measured in-the-moment affect/dysregulation: Parent negative affect—“Upset”; Parent emotion dysregulation—“My emotions feel overwhelming” and “I am having difficulty controlling my behaviours”; Child negative affect—“Angry” and “Sad”; Child emotion dysregulation—“My child has difficulty controlling their behaviours.” Selection balanced statistical performance and face validity. - Engagement (Aim 2): Overall EMA response rate was ~81%. Highest prompt response occurred at 7:30 pm (85.11%) and 7:30 am (83.21%); lower at 6:30 am (75.32%), 9:00 am (77.56%), and 9:00 pm (77.41%). Parents were most often with their child at 6:00 pm (81.31%) and 7:30 am (73.61%), least at 9:00 pm (39.13%) and during work hours (e.g., 2:30 pm: 47.78%). - Common situations and timing (Aim 3): Most frequent situations included: being fussy about food (n=173), resisting going to bed/sleep (n=166), sibling fighting (n=130), refusing to stop an activity (n=114), resisting getting dressed (n=110). Some were time-dependent (e.g., resisting going to bed reported ~68% from 7:30 pm onward; morning peaks for dressing routines), while others were spread across the day (e.g., whining for more screen time). - Heightened dysregulation by situation (Aim 4): Parents’ highest negative affect occurred when the child did not hold hands while crossing the road (M=1.53). Parent emotion dysregulation was highest when the child resisted going to bed (M=1.21). Children’s highest negative affect and dysregulation were observed when not wanting to leave the parent’s side (NA M=1.13; ED M=1.63) and when refusing to put shoes on (ED M=1.63). Some infrequent situations elicited high dysregulation, while frequent ones did not necessarily do so. - Heightened dysregulation by time of day (Aim 4): Parent negative affect peaked at 7:30 pm (M=1.00) and parent emotion dysregulation at 6:00 pm (M=0.99). Child negative affect peaked late afternoon at 4:30 pm (M=0.85) and child emotion dysregulation peaked at 7:30 pm (M=1.71). Dysregulation generally increased from late afternoon into evening, with a drop by 9:00 pm.

The study demonstrates that a brief, face-valid EMA can capture in-the-moment parent and child affect and dysregulation, informing when and where a just-in-time parenting intervention might be most impactful. Engagement was high overall and tended to be strongest when parents were more likely with their children (mornings and early evenings). Dysregulation patterns suggested evenings, especially around bedtime routines, as critical periods for support. Parenting situations varied in frequency and emotional impact; infrequent but high-stakes events (e.g., child not holding hands near traffic) elevated parent negative affect, whereas separation-related moments elevated child dysregulation. Parent and child dysregulation did not always align for the same situations, indicating the value of tailoring support to both parties’ needs within context. These insights support using EMA to time and tailor ecological momentary interventions in parenting, potentially improving engagement and effectiveness compared to one-size-fits-all online programs.

This study identified a brief set of EMA items that validly track in-the-moment parent and child negative affect and emotion dysregulation, mapped optimal engagement times, and characterized common challenging situations and their timing for parents of 2–4-year-olds. Findings indicate that evenings, particularly around bedtime, are periods of heightened dysregulation and engagement, and that specific situations differentially affect parents and children. These results provide concrete guidance for designing a smartphone-delivered, contextually tailored, just-in-time parenting program. Future research should test EMA-informed ecological momentary interventions in larger and more diverse samples, evaluate causal impacts on parent and child outcomes, optimize timing/personalization (e.g., weekday vs weekend tailoring), and assess long-term engagement and effectiveness.

- Small, self-selected final sample (N=89) after substantial attrition; likely biased toward cooperative, highly educated parents (75% bachelor’s degree or higher). - Underrepresentation of fathers (<15%), limiting generalizability across parent genders. - Requirement to enroll in the SEMA3 platform and complete the entire baseline survey may have discouraged participation and introduced selection bias. - One-week duration and participant incentives may overestimate typical engagement; self-report measures subject to bias. - No intervention content was provided (beyond vouchers), which may affect ecological validity compared to a deployed EMI offering real-time support. - Findings primarily reflect Australian parents of young children with high smartphone penetration; generalizability to other contexts may vary.