Effects of including versus excluding nonparticipants as potential nominees in peer nomination measures
In peer nomination research, individuals who do not provide nominations (nonparticipants) are often included on rosters as potential nominees. This can present ethical questions regarding informed consent, but psychometric consequences of excluding nonparticipants from rosters are unknown. In this i...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of behavioral development 2019-05, Vol.43 (3), p.255-262 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 262 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 255 |
| container_title | International journal of behavioral development |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Marks, Peter E. L. Babcock, Ben van den Berg, Yvonne H. M. Cillessen, Antonius H. N. |
| description | In peer nomination research, individuals who do not provide nominations (nonparticipants) are often included on rosters as potential nominees. This can present ethical questions regarding informed consent, but psychometric consequences of excluding nonparticipants from rosters are unknown. In this investigation, Study 1 simulated both random and systematic missingness with a sample of 1,630 Dutch adolescents, comparing the reliability and correlation matrices of nomination measures when nonparticipants were included and excluded as nominees. Study 2 began with a two-school sample that already included systematic nonparticipation (≈19% missingness among 599 7th grade nominees) and examined how findings would differ if students who had not provided nominations were excluded as nominees. Results showed that the impact of including versus excluding nonparticipants as nominees may vary depending on the type of missingness (Study 1) or in different peer groups (Study 2). Both studies demonstrated that the choice of including versus excluding nonparticipants can affect reliability and intercorrelations in peer nomination data, and provide some evidence that excluding nonparticipants as nominees may compromise peer nomination data quality. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0165025418798504 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2213085179</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1213404</ericid><sage_id>10.1177_0165025418798504</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2213085179</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-17f6b8f1f0e88bb89bf062cd3e2c4fbfa98dd25a3d72664cfb46319291db27503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLxDAUhYMoOD72boSC62peTdKlDOOLATe6Lml6M2SYSWuSiv57M9YHCN7NhfOdcy5chM4IviREyitMRIVpxYmStaow30MzwgUvsajIPprtcLnjh-goxjXOwySeodXCWjApFr0tnDebsXN-VbxCiGMs4O1b8L0fdEjOuEH77NaxGPoEPjm9yXDrPEDMBcUAECZBJ9f7Ygs6jgHiCTqwehPh9Gsfo-ebxdP8rlw-3t7Pr5elYZKlkkgrWmWJxaBU26q6tVhQ0zGghtvW6lp1Ha006yQVghvbcsFITWvStVRWmB2ji6l3CP3LCDE1634MPp9sKCUMq4rIOrvw5DKhjzGAbYbgtjq8NwQ3u3c2f9-ZI-dTBIIzP_bFA8mt_JOXE496Bb9H_-37APspf-E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2213085179</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of including versus excluding nonparticipants as potential nominees in peer nomination measures</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Marks, Peter E. L. ; Babcock, Ben ; van den Berg, Yvonne H. M. ; Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Marks, Peter E. L. ; Babcock, Ben ; van den Berg, Yvonne H. M. ; Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creatorcontrib><description>In peer nomination research, individuals who do not provide nominations (nonparticipants) are often included on rosters as potential nominees. This can present ethical questions regarding informed consent, but psychometric consequences of excluding nonparticipants from rosters are unknown. In this investigation, Study 1 simulated both random and systematic missingness with a sample of 1,630 Dutch adolescents, comparing the reliability and correlation matrices of nomination measures when nonparticipants were included and excluded as nominees. Study 2 began with a two-school sample that already included systematic nonparticipation (≈19% missingness among 599 7th grade nominees) and examined how findings would differ if students who had not provided nominations were excluded as nominees. Results showed that the impact of including versus excluding nonparticipants as nominees may vary depending on the type of missingness (Study 1) or in different peer groups (Study 2). Both studies demonstrated that the choice of including versus excluding nonparticipants can affect reliability and intercorrelations in peer nomination data, and provide some evidence that excluding nonparticipants as nominees may compromise peer nomination data quality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-0254</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-0651</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0165025418798504</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adolescents ; Aggression ; Comparative Education ; Data Analysis ; Data quality ; Educational Research ; Foreign Countries ; Friendship ; Grade 7 ; Grade 8 ; Informed consent ; Matrices ; Middle School Students ; Missing data ; Nominations ; Peer Acceptance ; Peer Groups ; Peer Relationship ; Prosocial Behavior ; Reliability ; Simulation ; Sociometry</subject><ispartof>International journal of behavioral development, 2019-05, Vol.43 (3), p.255-262</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-17f6b8f1f0e88bb89bf062cd3e2c4fbfa98dd25a3d72664cfb46319291db27503</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-17f6b8f1f0e88bb89bf062cd3e2c4fbfa98dd25a3d72664cfb46319291db27503</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0165025418798504$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0165025418798504$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,30976,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1213404$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Marks, Peter E. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babcock, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Berg, Yvonne H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of including versus excluding nonparticipants as potential nominees in peer nomination measures</title><title>International journal of behavioral development</title><description>In peer nomination research, individuals who do not provide nominations (nonparticipants) are often included on rosters as potential nominees. This can present ethical questions regarding informed consent, but psychometric consequences of excluding nonparticipants from rosters are unknown. In this investigation, Study 1 simulated both random and systematic missingness with a sample of 1,630 Dutch adolescents, comparing the reliability and correlation matrices of nomination measures when nonparticipants were included and excluded as nominees. Study 2 began with a two-school sample that already included systematic nonparticipation (≈19% missingness among 599 7th grade nominees) and examined how findings would differ if students who had not provided nominations were excluded as nominees. Results showed that the impact of including versus excluding nonparticipants as nominees may vary depending on the type of missingness (Study 1) or in different peer groups (Study 2). Both studies demonstrated that the choice of including versus excluding nonparticipants can affect reliability and intercorrelations in peer nomination data, and provide some evidence that excluding nonparticipants as nominees may compromise peer nomination data quality.</description><subject>Adolescents</subject><subject>Aggression</subject><subject>Comparative Education</subject><subject>Data Analysis</subject><subject>Data quality</subject><subject>Educational Research</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Friendship</subject><subject>Grade 7</subject><subject>Grade 8</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Matrices</subject><subject>Middle School Students</subject><subject>Missing data</subject><subject>Nominations</subject><subject>Peer Acceptance</subject><subject>Peer Groups</subject><subject>Peer Relationship</subject><subject>Prosocial Behavior</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Sociometry</subject><issn>0165-0254</issn><issn>1464-0651</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLxDAUhYMoOD72boSC62peTdKlDOOLATe6Lml6M2SYSWuSiv57M9YHCN7NhfOdcy5chM4IviREyitMRIVpxYmStaow30MzwgUvsajIPprtcLnjh-goxjXOwySeodXCWjApFr0tnDebsXN-VbxCiGMs4O1b8L0fdEjOuEH77NaxGPoEPjm9yXDrPEDMBcUAECZBJ9f7Ygs6jgHiCTqwehPh9Gsfo-ebxdP8rlw-3t7Pr5elYZKlkkgrWmWJxaBU26q6tVhQ0zGghtvW6lp1Ha006yQVghvbcsFITWvStVRWmB2ji6l3CP3LCDE1634MPp9sKCUMq4rIOrvw5DKhjzGAbYbgtjq8NwQ3u3c2f9-ZI-dTBIIzP_bFA8mt_JOXE496Bb9H_-37APspf-E</recordid><startdate>201905</startdate><enddate>201905</enddate><creator>Marks, Peter E. L.</creator><creator>Babcock, Ben</creator><creator>van den Berg, Yvonne H. M.</creator><creator>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201905</creationdate><title>Effects of including versus excluding nonparticipants as potential nominees in peer nomination measures</title><author>Marks, Peter E. L. ; Babcock, Ben ; van den Berg, Yvonne H. M. ; Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-17f6b8f1f0e88bb89bf062cd3e2c4fbfa98dd25a3d72664cfb46319291db27503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adolescents</topic><topic>Aggression</topic><topic>Comparative Education</topic><topic>Data Analysis</topic><topic>Data quality</topic><topic>Educational Research</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Friendship</topic><topic>Grade 7</topic><topic>Grade 8</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Matrices</topic><topic>Middle School Students</topic><topic>Missing data</topic><topic>Nominations</topic><topic>Peer Acceptance</topic><topic>Peer Groups</topic><topic>Peer Relationship</topic><topic>Prosocial Behavior</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Sociometry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marks, Peter E. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babcock, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Berg, Yvonne H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>International journal of behavioral development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marks, Peter E. L.</au><au>Babcock, Ben</au><au>van den Berg, Yvonne H. M.</au><au>Cillessen, Antonius H. N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1213404</ericid><atitle>Effects of including versus excluding nonparticipants as potential nominees in peer nomination measures</atitle><jtitle>International journal of behavioral development</jtitle><date>2019-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>255</spage><epage>262</epage><pages>255-262</pages><issn>0165-0254</issn><eissn>1464-0651</eissn><abstract>In peer nomination research, individuals who do not provide nominations (nonparticipants) are often included on rosters as potential nominees. This can present ethical questions regarding informed consent, but psychometric consequences of excluding nonparticipants from rosters are unknown. In this investigation, Study 1 simulated both random and systematic missingness with a sample of 1,630 Dutch adolescents, comparing the reliability and correlation matrices of nomination measures when nonparticipants were included and excluded as nominees. Study 2 began with a two-school sample that already included systematic nonparticipation (≈19% missingness among 599 7th grade nominees) and examined how findings would differ if students who had not provided nominations were excluded as nominees. Results showed that the impact of including versus excluding nonparticipants as nominees may vary depending on the type of missingness (Study 1) or in different peer groups (Study 2). Both studies demonstrated that the choice of including versus excluding nonparticipants can affect reliability and intercorrelations in peer nomination data, and provide some evidence that excluding nonparticipants as nominees may compromise peer nomination data quality.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0165025418798504</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0165-0254 |
| ispartof | International journal of behavioral development, 2019-05, Vol.43 (3), p.255-262 |
| issn | 0165-0254 1464-0651 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2213085179 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List |
| subjects | Adolescents Aggression Comparative Education Data Analysis Data quality Educational Research Foreign Countries Friendship Grade 7 Grade 8 Informed consent Matrices Middle School Students Missing data Nominations Peer Acceptance Peer Groups Peer Relationship Prosocial Behavior Reliability Simulation Sociometry |
| title | Effects of including versus excluding nonparticipants as potential nominees in peer nomination measures |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T19%3A48%3A57IST&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=Effects%20of%20including%20versus%20excluding%20nonparticipants%20as%20potential%20nominees%20in%20peer%20nomination%20measures&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20behavioral%20development&rft.au=Marks,%20Peter%20E.%20L.&rft.date=2019-05&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=255&rft.epage=262&rft.pages=255-262&rft.issn=0165-0254&rft.eissn=1464-0651&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0165025418798504&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2213085179%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2213085179&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1213404&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0165025418798504&rfr_iscdi=true |