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)

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.