Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Psychol Methods. 2006 Mar;11(1):106-11; discussion 123-5.

Paper and electronic diaries: Too early for conclusions on compliance rates and their effects--Comment on Green, Rafaeli, Bolger, Shrout, and Reis (2006).

Author information

  • 1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8790, USA. joan.broderick@stonybrook.edu

Abstract

This commentary discusses 4 issues relevant to interpretation of A. S. Green, E. Rafaeli, N. Bolger, P. E. Shrout, and H. T. Reis's (2006) article: (a) Self-reported compliance in medical settings has generally been substantially higher than verified compliance, suggesting that this is not a rare phenomenon; (b) none of the studies reported in Green et al. explicitly verified paper diary compliance; (c) the impact of participant motivation on diary compliance is unknown, and it may be difficult for researchers to accurately assess it in their own studies; and (d) without objective verification of diary compliance, analysis of the effects of noncompliance on data quality is difficult to interpret. The authors conclude that compliance in paper diaries and the effects of noncompliance on data quality are still unsettled issues.

((c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Comment on

PMID:
16594770
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for American Psychological Association
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk