Suchergebnisse

AbstractPeer nominations, a central method for measuring peer relationships in developmental research, typically involve asking children or adolescents to choose peers who fit various criteria from an alphabetized roster of classmates or grade‐mates. Although such measures have been used for decades, very little research has investigated the effects of alphabetical name order on the number of nominations received by peers. This study collected peer nominations for 20 items among 607 eighth grade participants in two schools. Regression analyses showed that earlier name order significantly predicted higher nomination counts for eight of the items, and explained over 5 percent of the variance in four affective variables (friendship, acceptance, acquaintanceship, and received liking). Across variables, name order effects were negatively correlated with internal reliability of nominations, implying that order effects may be related to the consensus of the peer group. Name order also had a minimal effect on inter‐correlations among a subset of variables. Implications and concrete recommendations for controlling and reducing name order effects in future research are discussed.

AbstractThis article examines a variety of reliability issues as related to limited nomination sociometric measures. Peer nomination data were collected from 77 sixth grade classrooms. Results showed that, although some single‐item peer nomination measures were relatively reliable, many single‐item peer nomination measures using limited nominations were quite unreliable. Overt aggression nomination items were the only set of single‐item measures where mean classroom reliability estimates were .75 or greater. Combining multiple items led to substantially better reliability, as combining the two least reliable items for a category into a single measure made the composite more reliable than the most reliable single measure. Having more nominators in the sample also increased reliability. The limited nomination items overall tended to be less reliable than similar unlimited nomination items from other studies. The authors end with recommendations for obtaining the most reliable peer nomination data possible from a study.

AbstractAlthough low participation rates have historically been considered problematic in peer nomination research, some researchers have recently argued that small proportions of participants can, in fact, provide adequate sociometric data. The current study used a classical measurement perspective to investigate the internal reliability (Cronbach's α) of peer nomination measures of acceptance, popularity, friendship, prosocial behavior, and overt aggression. Data from 642 participants attending 10 schools were resampled at different participation rates ranging from 5 percent to 100 percent of the original samples. Results indicated that (1) the association between participation rate and Cronbach's α was curvilinear across schools and variables; (2) collecting more data for a given variable (by using unlimited vs. limited nominations, or two vs. one items) was significantly related to higher internal reliability; and (3) certain variables (overt aggression, popularity) were more reliable than others (acceptance, friendship). Implications for future research were discussed.