A qualitative approach to guide choices for designing a diary study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic diaries are increasingly used in diverse disciplines to collect momentary data on experienced feelings, cognitions, behavior and social context in real life situations. Choices to be made for an effective and feasible design are however a challenge. Careful and detailed documentation of argumentation of choosing a particular design, as well as general guidelines on how to design such studies are largely lacking in scientific papers. This qualitative study provides a systematic overview of arguments for choosing a specific diary study design (e.g. time frame) in order to optimize future design decisions. METHODS: During the first data assessment round, 47 researchers experienced in diary research from twelve different countries participated. They gave a description of and arguments for choosing their diary design (i.e., study duration, measurement frequency, random or fixed assessment, momentary or retrospective assessment, allowed delay to respond to the beep). During the second round, 38 participants (81%) rated the importance of the different themes identified during the first assessment round for the different diary design topics. RESULTS: The rationales for diary design choices reported during the first round were mostly strongly related to the research question. The rationales were categorized into four overarching themes: nature of the variables, reliability, feasibility, and statistics. During the second round, all overarching themes were considered important for all diary design topics. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that no golden standard for the optimal design of a diary study exists since the design depends heavily upon the research question of the study. The findings of the current study are helpful to explicate and guide the specific choices that have to be made when designing a diary study.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The adherence rates in this study might have been influenced by allowing participants to answer the questionnaires within 60 minutes after being prompted.
“Note, however, the adherence rates in our study might have been influenced by the fact that participants were allowed to answer the questionnaires within 60 minutes after being prompted. Other studies often only allow for a short period of time to complete the questionnaires (e.g., up till 30 minutes) [31].”
From Experienced burden of and adherence to smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment in persons with affective disorders (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 105
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [5]Delespaul PEAG Delespaul PEAG Technical note: devices and sampling procedures Assessing schizophrenia in daily life; vol. 4 first 1995 Maastricht IPSER Foundation 83 102
- Authors
- Janssens, K. A. M., Bos, E. H., Rosmalen, J. G. M., Wichers, M. C., & Riese, H.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Janssens, Karin A. M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2018-11-16
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 140-140
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6240196
- OpenAlex
- W2900494475
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 9.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- electronic diary, design decisions, measurement frequency, study duration, response latency, reliability statistics, feasibility, research questions
- MeSH terms
- Diaries as Topic, Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Self-Assessment, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Guidelines as Topic, Qualitative Research, Electronic Health Records, Self Report
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