This study assessed the reliability and validity of a palm-top-based electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in relation to the traditional paper and pen method. Twenty healthy subjects [10 male (M) and 10 female (F)] - mean age M=31 years (S.D.=8), F=27 years (S.D.=5); mean BMI M=24 (S.D.=2), F=21 (S.D.=5) - participated in a 4-day protocol. Measurements were made on days 1 and 4. Subjects were given paper and an EARS to log hourly subjective motivation to eat during waking hours. Food intake and meal times were fixed. Subjects were given a maintenance diet (comprising 40% fat, 47% carbohydrate and 13% protein by energy) calculated at 1.6xResting Metabolic Rate (RMR), as three isoenergetic meals. Bland and Altman's test for bias between two measurement techniques found significant differences between EARS and paper and pen for two of eight responses (hunger and fullness). Regression analysis confirmed that there were no day, sex or order effects between ratings obtained using either technique. For 15 subjects, there was no significant difference between results, with a linear relationship between the two methods that explained most of the variance (r(2) ranged from 62.6 to 98.6). The slope for all subjects was less than 1, which was partly explained by a tendency for bias at the extreme end of results on the EARS technique. These data suggest that the EARS is a useful and reliable technique for real-time data collection in appetite research but that it should not be used interchangeably with paper and pen techniques.