Paper or plastic revisited: Let's keep them both - Reply to Broderick and Stone (2006); Tennen, Affleck, Coyne, Larsen, and DeLongis (2006); And Takarangi, Garry, and Loftus (2006)

Niall Bolger, Patrick E. Shrout, Amie S. Green, Eshkol Rafaeli, Harry T. Reis

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

The authors review commentaries by J. E. Broderick and A. A. Stone (2006)(see record 2006-03820-007); H. Tennen, G. Affleck, J. C. Coyne, R. J. Larsen, and A. DeLongis (2006)(see record 2006-03820-008); and M. K. T. Takarangi, M. Garry, and E. F. Loftus (2006)(see record 2006-03820-009) on their original article (A. S. Green, E. Rafaeli, N. Bolger, P. Shrout, & H. T. Reis, 2006)(see record 2006-03820-006). The authors were pleased to find more agreement than disagreement regarding the choice of methods for conducting diary studies. It is clear that continued critical evaluation of all diary methods, both paper and plastic, is warranted. However, on the basis of their initial findings, the authors conclude that paper diaries are still likely to have a valuable place in researchers' toolboxes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-125
Number of pages3
JournalPsychological Methods
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2006

Keywords

  • Diary studies
  • Ecological momentary assessment
  • Experience sampling method

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Paper or plastic revisited: Let's keep them both - Reply to Broderick and Stone (2006); Tennen, Affleck, Coyne, Larsen, and DeLongis (2006); And Takarangi, Garry, and Loftus (2006)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this