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

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 non-compliance 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.