Paper and plastic in daily diary research: Comment on Green, Rafaeli, Bolger, Shrout, and Reis (2006).
The authors applaud A. S. Green, E. Rafaeli, N. Bolger, P. E. Shrout, and H. T. Reis's (2006) response to one-sided comparisons of paper versus electronic (plastic) diary methods and hope that it will stimulate more balanced considerations of the issues involved. The authors begin by highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement with Green et al. The authors review briefly the broader literature that has compared paper and plastic diaries, noting how recent comparisons have relied on study designs and methods that favor investigators' allegiances. The authors note some sorely needed data for the evaluation of the implications of paper versus plastic for the internal and external validity of research. To facilitate evaluation of the existing literature and assist in the design of future studies, the authors offer a balanced comparison of paper and electronic diary methods across a range of applications. Finally, the authors propose 2 study designs that offer fair comparisons of paper and plastic diary methods.
Tennen
Howard
H
Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT 06030-6325, USA. Tennen@nso1.uchc.edu
Affleck
Glenn
G
Coyne
James C
JC
Larsen
Randy J
RJ
Delongis
Anita
A
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D015982:Bias; D034201:Computers, Handheld / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D008192:Deception; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008432:Mathematical Computing; D008499:Medical Records / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010209:Paper; D010349:Patient Compliance / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012650:Self Disclosure; D014956:Writing