In a real-life study using time-based ambulatory assessment, we investigated how to unobtrusively capture within-subject and between-subject variations in flow in everyday life. We compared two observation approaches, momentary states, and coverage, which differed in the reference of flow reports and sampling frequency. Depending on condition, participants (N = 38) answered either ten or five queries per day that referred to the current state or the last two hours (n = 1442 observations in total). We found no effect of either approach on compliance, flow intensity, or flow reports over time. However, the approaches differed with respect to flow probability reports, within-subject variability in flow reports, and perceived burden. In addition, we introduced a reduced three-item version of the Flow Short Scale. Our results indicate acceptable to good reliability as well as concurrent, convergent and discriminant validity of this scale. Based on our findings, we recommend that the choice of observation approach for capturing everyday flow depends on the outcome of interest, the targeted comparison within- or between-subjects, and the expected task variability of the participants. Limitations regarding our sampling procedure and the retrospective assessment of flow experiences are discussed.

在一项使用基于时间的动态评估的现实生活研究中，我们研究了如何不引人注目地捕捉日常生活中受试者内部和受试者之间的流动变化。我们比较了两种观测方法、瞬时状态和覆盖范围，它们在流量报告的参考和采样频率方面有所不同。根据具体情况，参与者 (N = 38) 每天回答 10 或 5 个涉及当前状态或过去两小时的查询（总共 n = 1442 个观察值）。我们发现，随着时间的推移，这两种方法对合规性、流量强度或流量报告都没有影响。然而，这些方法在流量概率报告、流量报告的受试者内变异性和感知负担方面有所不同。此外，我们还推出了 Flow Short Scale 的简化版，由三项组成。我们的结果表明该量表具有良好的可靠性以及并发、收敛和判别效度，是可以接受的。根据我们的研究结果，我们建议捕捉日常流程的观察方法的选择取决于感兴趣的结果、受试者内部或受试者之间的有针对性的比较以及参与者预期的任务变异性。讨论了我们的采样程序和流动经验的回顾性评估的局限性。