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 Shrout, Amie S. Green, Eshkol Rafaeli, Harry T. Reis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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

Fingerprint

Plastics
Research Personnel
Green S

Keywords

  • Diary studies
  • Ecological momentary assessment
  • Experience sampling method

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

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). / Bolger, Niall; Shrout, Patrick; Green, Amie S.; Rafaeli, Eshkol; Reis, Harry T.

In: Psychological Methods, Vol. 11, No. 1, 03.2006, p. 123-125.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0d1c07c58d12449a998b6a0251b26fc3,
title = "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)",
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.",
keywords = "Diary studies, Ecological momentary assessment, Experience sampling method",
author = "Niall Bolger and Patrick Shrout and Green, {Amie S.} and Eshkol Rafaeli and Reis, {Harry T.}",
year = "2006",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.123",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "123--125",
journal = "Psychological Methods",
issn = "1082-989X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Paper or plastic revisited

T2 - Let's keep them both - Reply to Broderick and Stone (2006); Tennen, Affleck, Coyne, Larsen, and DeLongis (2006); And Takarangi, Garry, and Loftus (2006)

AU - Bolger, Niall

AU - Shrout, Patrick

AU - Green, Amie S.

AU - Rafaeli, Eshkol

AU - Reis, Harry T.

PY - 2006/3

Y1 - 2006/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Diary studies

KW - Ecological momentary assessment

KW - Experience sampling method

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746118654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746118654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.123

DO - 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.123

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33746118654

VL - 11

SP - 123

EP - 125

JO - Psychological Methods

JF - Psychological Methods

SN - 1082-989X

IS - 1

ER -