ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Fabla: A voice-based ecological assessment method for securely collecting spoken responses to researcher questions.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brief speech samples reveal emotional states in daily life.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- The Effectiveness and Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness of Regular Meditation for Improving Quality of Life: Protocol for a Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Experience sampling methods require more than numbers.Communications psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article reports on the validation of Fabla, a researcher-developed and university-hosted smartphone app that facilitates naturalistic and secure collection of participants' spoken responses to researcher questions. Fabla was developed to meet the need for tools that (a) collect longitudinal qualitative data and (b) capture speech biomarkers from participants' natural environments. This study put Fabla to its first empirical test using a repeated-measures experimental design in which participants (n = 87) completed a 1-week voice daily diary via the Fabla app, and an identical 1-week text-entry daily diary administered via Qualtrics, with diary method order counterbalanced and randomized. A preregistered analysis plan investigated (1) adherence, usability, and acceptability of Fabla, (2) concurrent validity of voice diaries (vs. text-entry diaries) by comparing linguistic features obtained via each diary method, and (3) differences in the strength of the association between linguistic features and their known psychological correlates when assessed by voice versus text-entry diary. Voice diaries yielded more than double the mean daily language volume (word count) compared to text-entry diaries and received high usability and acceptability ratings. Linguistic markers consistently associated with depression in prior research were significantly associated with depression symptoms when assessed via voice but not text-entry diaries, and the difference in correlation magnitude was significant. Word-count-adjusted linguistic patterns were highly correlated between diary methods, with statistically significant mean differences observed for some linguistic dimensions in the presence of these associations. Fabla is a promising tool for collecting high-quality speech data from participants' naturalistic environments, overcoming multiple limitations of text-entry responding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.