Although 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 a) 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 a 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.

Although peer nomination measures have been used by researchers for nearly a century, common methodological practices and rules of thumb (e.g., which variables to measure; use of limited vs. unlimited nomination methods) have continued to develop in recent decades. At the same time, other key aspects of the basic nomination procedure (e.g., whether nonparticipants should be included as nominees, the consequences of pairing code numbers with names on rosters) are underdiscussed and understudied. Beyond providing a general introduction to peer nomination methods and their utility, the current article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various methodological choices facing researchers who wish to use peer nomination methods, in addition to other considerations that researchers must make in collecting peer nomination data (e.g., establishing reliability and validity, maximizing participation rates, computerized assessments). This article provides recommendations for researchers based on empirical findings (where possible) and the typical practices used in the recent published literature.

This study aimed to support the theory of popularity contagion, which posits that popularity spreads among friends spontaneously and regardless of behavioral changes. Peer nominations of status and behavior were collected annually between 6th and 12th grades from a total of 1062 adolescents. Longitudinal hypotheses were mostly supported using path analyses, showing (1) that individual popularity could be predicted by friends' popularity levels over time, even when controlling for stability of individual popularity; (2) that this prediction was not accounted for by behavioral contagion of aggressive or prosocial behaviors; and (3) that individual social preference generally could not be predicted by friends' preference levels over time. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.

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.

No abstract