Contemporary technostress research is mainly based on studies in laboratory settings and online surveys. To foster technostress research in the field, we compared four data collection methods, a blend of self-reports and physiological measurements, in the context of a case study in one organization. Over three non-consecutive workweeks, 16 participants filled out online surveys, wrote an online diary, wore a chest strap to measure their heart rate, and measured their blood pressure using a wrist-worn device. All four methods were assumed to imply a low level of intrusiveness as it enabled self-measurement by the participants without the need for continuous researcher intervention. The four data collection methods are compared based on six major criteria to determine measurement quality (i.e., reliability, validity, sensitivity, diagnosticity, objectivity, and intrusiveness). We find that each data collection method has its strengths and weaknesses. What follows is the need for mixed methods designs in technostress field studies.