You are here:

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)
ARTICLE

, , , ,

Psychological Methods Volume 11, Number 1, ISSN 1082-989X

Abstract

The authors review commentaries by J. E. Broderick and A. A. Stone (2006); H. Tennen, G. Affleck, J. C. Coyne, R. J. Larsen, and A. DeLongis (2006); and M. K. T. Takarangi, M. Garry, and E. F. Loftus (2006) on their original article (A. S. Green, E. Rafaeli, N. Bolger, P. Shrout, & H. T. Reis, 2006). 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.

Citation

Bolger, N., Shrout, P.E., Green, A.S., Rafaeli, E. & Reis, H.T. (2006). 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). Psychological Methods, 11(1), 123-125. Retrieved September 25, 2022 from .

This record was imported from ERIC on April 18, 2013. [Original Record]

ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.

Copyright for this record is held by the content creator. For more details see ERIC's copyright policy.

Keywords