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),

N. Bolger, P.E. Shrout, A.S. Green, E. Rafaeli, H.T. Reis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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. Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association.,
Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)123-125
JournalPsychological Methods,
Volume11
Issue number1,
StatePublished - 2006

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