Carp F M, Carp A
Exp Aging Res. 1981 Fall;7(3):281-96. doi: 10.1080/03610738108259811.
There is need for reliable and valid behavioral measures for field research. Five sets of data were analyzed, in which diary as well as interview approaches were taken. Results suggest that scores derived from one-week diaries have satisfactory construct validity (convergent, predictive and nomological); that, for salient activities, they are less subjective to retrospective bias than are interview data and that, for this reason, interview-diary discrepancies may be useful for hypothesis testing. For items of neutral value, interview and diary provided remarkably similar values. A one-day diary was not an adequate substitute for a one-week diary. Attrition related to diary-keeping resulted in under-representation of certain groups (e.g., low income, little education, minority ethnicity, poor health), and conclusions would be different if based on diarists' responses or those of the intact sample.
实地研究需要可靠且有效的行为测量方法。我们分析了五组数据，采用了日记法和访谈法。结果表明，从一周日记中得出的分数具有令人满意的结构效度（收敛效度、预测效度和法则效度）；对于显著活动，与访谈数据相比，日记数据受回顾性偏差的影响较小，因此，访谈 - 日记差异可能有助于假设检验。对于中性价值的项目，访谈和日记提供了非常相似的值。一日日记不足以替代一周日记。与记日记相关的损耗导致某些群体（例如低收入、低教育程度、少数族裔、健康状况差）的代表性不足，如果基于记日记者的回答或完整样本的回答，结论会有所不同。
