Limited Nomination Reliability Using Single- and Multiple-item Measures

This 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 nom...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social development (Oxford, England) England), 2014-08, Vol.23 (3), p.518-536
Main Authors: Babcock, Ben, Marks, Peter E. L., Crick, Nicki R., Cillessen, Antonius H. N.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aggression
Child psychology
Classrooms
Nominations
peer nominations
Peer relationships
prosocial behavior
Reliability
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4056-d2d7b320ee59446dcadc3cf11ffb75cf5fa5f10697d1c4bfefb108efe73b76ed3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4056-d2d7b320ee59446dcadc3cf11ffb75cf5fa5f10697d1c4bfefb108efe73b76ed3
container_end_page 536
container_issue 3
container_start_page 518
container_title Social development (Oxford, England)
container_volume 23
creator Babcock, Ben
Marks, Peter E. L.
Crick, Nicki R.
Cillessen, Antonius H. N.
description This 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/sode.12056
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1558990858</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1558990858</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4056-d2d7b320ee59446dcadc3cf11ffb75cf5fa5f10697d1c4bfefb108efe73b76ed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1PwzAMhiMEEmNw4RdU4oKQOpK2Sdoj2sZA2gfamOAWpY2DMvoxmlawf09GgQMHfLBl63kt6zVC5wQPiItrWykYkABTdoB6JGLcTyjmh6iHE0Z8N38-RifWbjDGEQ95D02mpjANKG9eFaaUjalKbwm5kanJTbPz1taUL97KpRx8T5bKm7V5Y7auc7LCm4G0bQ32FB1pmVs4-659tL4dPw7v_Olicj-8mfpZ5I7yVaB4GgYYgCZRxFQmVRZmmhCtU04zTbWkmmCWcEWyKNWgU4Jj0MDDlDNQYR9ddnu3dfXWgm1EYWwGeS5LqForCKVxkuCYxg69-INuqrYu3XWOimhI4oBhR111VFZX1tagxbY2hax3gmCx91TsPRVfnjqYdPC7yWH3DylWi9H4R-N3GmMb-PjVyPpVMPcCKp7mEzEjQcznDyOxDD8Bt9aI1A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1545318260</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Limited Nomination Reliability Using Single- and Multiple-item Measures</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Babcock, Ben ; Marks, Peter E. L. ; Crick, Nicki R. ; Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Babcock, Ben ; Marks, Peter E. L. ; Crick, Nicki R. ; Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creatorcontrib><description>This 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0961-205X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9507</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/sode.12056</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aggression ; Child psychology ; Classrooms ; Nominations ; peer nominations ; Peer relationships ; prosocial behavior ; Reliability</subject><ispartof>Social development (Oxford, England), 2014-08, Vol.23 (3), p.518-536</ispartof><rights>2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4056-d2d7b320ee59446dcadc3cf11ffb75cf5fa5f10697d1c4bfefb108efe73b76ed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4056-d2d7b320ee59446dcadc3cf11ffb75cf5fa5f10697d1c4bfefb108efe73b76ed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fsode.12056$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fsode.12056$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958,31034,31035,33809,50923,51032</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Babcock, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Peter E. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crick, Nicki R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creatorcontrib><title>Limited Nomination Reliability Using Single- and Multiple-item Measures</title><title>Social development (Oxford, England)</title><addtitle>Social Development</addtitle><description>This 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.</description><subject>Aggression</subject><subject>Child psychology</subject><subject>Classrooms</subject><subject>Nominations</subject><subject>peer nominations</subject><subject>Peer relationships</subject><subject>prosocial behavior</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><issn>0961-205X</issn><issn>1467-9507</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1PwzAMhiMEEmNw4RdU4oKQOpK2Sdoj2sZA2gfamOAWpY2DMvoxmlawf09GgQMHfLBl63kt6zVC5wQPiItrWykYkABTdoB6JGLcTyjmh6iHE0Z8N38-RifWbjDGEQ95D02mpjANKG9eFaaUjalKbwm5kanJTbPz1taUL97KpRx8T5bKm7V5Y7auc7LCm4G0bQ32FB1pmVs4-659tL4dPw7v_Olicj-8mfpZ5I7yVaB4GgYYgCZRxFQmVRZmmhCtU04zTbWkmmCWcEWyKNWgU4Jj0MDDlDNQYR9ddnu3dfXWgm1EYWwGeS5LqForCKVxkuCYxg69-INuqrYu3XWOimhI4oBhR111VFZX1tagxbY2hax3gmCx91TsPRVfnjqYdPC7yWH3DylWi9H4R-N3GmMb-PjVyPpVMPcCKp7mEzEjQcznDyOxDD8Bt9aI1A</recordid><startdate>201408</startdate><enddate>201408</enddate><creator>Babcock, Ben</creator><creator>Marks, Peter E. L.</creator><creator>Crick, Nicki R.</creator><creator>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201408</creationdate><title>Limited Nomination Reliability Using Single- and Multiple-item Measures</title><author>Babcock, Ben ; Marks, Peter E. L. ; Crick, Nicki R. ; Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4056-d2d7b320ee59446dcadc3cf11ffb75cf5fa5f10697d1c4bfefb108efe73b76ed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aggression</topic><topic>Child psychology</topic><topic>Classrooms</topic><topic>Nominations</topic><topic>peer nominations</topic><topic>Peer relationships</topic><topic>prosocial behavior</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Babcock, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Peter E. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crick, Nicki R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Social development (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Babcock, Ben</au><au>Marks, Peter E. L.</au><au>Crick, Nicki R.</au><au>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Limited Nomination Reliability Using Single- and Multiple-item Measures</atitle><jtitle>Social development (Oxford, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Social Development</addtitle><date>2014-08</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>518</spage><epage>536</epage><pages>518-536</pages><issn>0961-205X</issn><eissn>1467-9507</eissn><notes>ArticleID:SODE12056</notes><notes>istex:0CE1524D583C2FAC341B0589FCC0BA624B773C1A</notes><notes>ark:/67375/WNG-M1287NPD-R</notes><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>This 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.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/sode.12056</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0961-205X
ispartof Social development (Oxford, England), 2014-08, Vol.23 (3), p.518-536
issn 0961-205X
1467-9507
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1558990858
source Wiley-Blackwell Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Sociological Abstracts
subjects Aggression
Child psychology
Classrooms
Nominations
peer nominations
Peer relationships
prosocial behavior
Reliability
title Limited Nomination Reliability Using Single- and Multiple-item Measures
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T08%3A25%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Limited%20Nomination%20Reliability%20Using%20Single-%20and%20Multiple-item%20Measures&rft.jtitle=Social%20development%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Babcock,%20Ben&rft.date=2014-08&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=518&rft.epage=536&rft.pages=518-536&rft.issn=0961-205X&rft.eissn=1467-9507&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/sode.12056&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1558990858%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4056-d2d7b320ee59446dcadc3cf11ffb75cf5fa5f10697d1c4bfefb108efe73b76ed3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1545318260&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true