56 STRESS AND HEALTH
measured ‘uncontaminated by perceptions, appraisals or reactions’. While self-report
measures are arguably always likely to be influenced by the individual’s appraisal, the
implication of this argument is that researchers should use items that ask about the
existence of stressors (e.g. whether or not a particular event happened) rather than items
that ask people to rate stress or hassles associated with the event. This more objective
approach to stressors is commonly found in the work-stress literature (see Chapter 4),
where researchers (and employers) are primarily concerned with identifying the
negative effects of work irrespective of individuals’ idiosyncratic appraisal.
Within the current literature you may spot both relatively objective measures of
stressors and measures that include elements of appraisal of distress. In your reading of
research it is important to look out for instances where there is overlap between
stressors and strains. It is likely to be a particular problem where, for example,
individuals’ ratings of hassles are correlated with a rating of anxiety or depression. The
findings may not be very meaningful if both measures are essentially measuring
anxiety! However, subjective ratings may not be a problem if ratings of hassles are
correlated with a more objective outcome such as a physiological measure or a rating
of health behaviour (see Research methods 3.3)
There are important procedural differences in the way daily diary studies are
conducted. If we were designing a study, we would have to consider how
frequently our participants completed their diaries. Three main methods exist:1 Interval-contingent: the participant completes diary at regular intervals (e.g.
before going to bed).
2 Event-contingent: the participant completes diary each time a specific event
happens (e.g. every time they experience a daily hassle).
3 Signal-contingent: the patient completes diary in response to random ‘alarms’ or
‘beeps’ from a palmtop computer or similar device.Researchers also have to consider how participants actually record their
responses. Typically researchers use either paper and pencil diaries or handheld
computers. In fact, the issue of which method is best has recently sparked a lively
debate within the research methods literature (see Stone et al., 2002; Green et al.,
2006; Tennen et al., 2006; Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013). Both methods have their
pros and cons. For example, using paper and pencil methods, the researcher cannot
be certain that the participant has completed their diary when they claimed to have
done so (this is known as ‘compliance’), whereas a computer will date and time
stamp all diary entries. However, handheld computers are relatively expensive and
they can malfunction resulting in loss of important data. Nevertheless, a study that
compared paper and pencil with electronic techniques showed that both methods
found a similar pattern of findings and yielded equivalent data (Green et al., 2006). In
either case it is critical that the researcher designs the entry system so participants
can easily and efficiently record the particular events under investigation.