The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper and electronic diaries.
Abstract
Concern has been raised about the lack of participant compliance in diary studies that use paper-and-pencil as opposed to electronic formats. Three studies explored the magnitude of compliance problems and their effects on data quality. Study 1 used random signals to elicit diary reports and found close matches to self-reported completion times, matches that could not plausibly have been fabricated. Studies 2 and 3 examined the psychometric and statistical equivalence of data obtained with paper versus electronic formats. With minor exceptions, both methods yielded data that were equivalent psychometrically and in patterns of findings. These results serve to at least partially mollify concern about the validity of paper diary methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.3 · Cited by 1,481 · cited 4×
“Next, we examined correlations that were expected to be of moderate magnitude (e.g., happy and sad; see Rafaeli & Revelle, in press; Russell & Carroll, 1999 ) and ones that were expected to be close to null (e.g., energetic and nervous, as well the scales of PA and NA).”
MethodResultInfluentialPatient non-compliance with paper diaries
Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Hufford, M. R. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1193 · Cited by 810
Cited by
Ecological momentary assessment
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415 · Cited by 6,454
The relation between short-term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis.
Houben, M., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038822 · Cited by 1,043
Experience sampling research in psychopathology: opening the black box of daily life
Myin-Germeys, I., Oorschot, M., Collip, D., Lataster, J., Delespaul, P., & van Os, J. (2009) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291708004947 · Cited by 817
Stress-reactivity in psychosis: Evidence for an affective pathway to psychosis
Myin-Germeys, I., & van Os, J. (2007) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.005 · Cited by 719
Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards
Smith, J. D. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029312 · Cited by 630
Metadata
- Authors
- Green, A. S., Rafaeli, E., Bolger, N., Shrout, P. E., & Reis, H. T.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-105
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2101804876
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 100.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper and electronic diaries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/1082-989x.11.1.87
- The paper
- Green, A. S., Rafaeli, E., Bolger, N., Shrout, P. E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper and electronic diaries. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.1.87
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
