Beyond interviewer effects in the standardized measurement of ego-centric networks

Herz, Andreas; Petermann, Sören

doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2017.01.003

Cited by 67 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have found substantial interviewer effects on the number of elicited names. Paik and Sanchagrin (2013:354) conclude that every study that has looked for them, including their own, has found interviewer effects accounting for 10–25% of the variance (e.g., Cornwell and Laumann 2015; Herz and Petermann 2017; van der Zouwen and van Tilburg 2001; van Tilburg 1998). Marsden (2003) reported interviewer effects of 15% in answers to the “important matters” question, “despite the extensive training of NORC interviewers and [our] high quality standards.” (p.13) Moreover, Paik and Sanchagrin (2013) find that such effects explain away the controversial McPherson et al’s (2006) finding of a historical loss in confidants.…”

Section: Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mode and Interviewer Effects in Egocentric Network Research

Fischer

Bayham

2019

Field Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surveys of egocentric networks are especially vulnerable to methods effects. This study combines a true experiment--random assignment of respondents to receive essentially identical questions from either an in-person interviewer or an online survey--with audio recordings of the in-person interviews. We asked over 850 respondents from a general population several different name-eliciting questions. Face-to-face interviews yielded more cooperation and higher quality data but fewer names than did the web surveys. Exploring several explanations, we determine that interviewer differences account for the mode difference: Interviewers who consistently prompted respondents elicited as many alters as did the web survey and substantially more than did less active interviewers. Although both methods effects substantially influenced the volume of alters listed, they did not substantially modify associations of other variables with volume.

show abstract

Section: Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mode and Interviewer Effects in Egocentric Network Research

Fischer

Bayham

2019

Field Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Herz and Petermann (2017) ego-centric social network analysis, network size is 2.570, the network density is 0.718 and the network average is 1.764. In Matook's (2013) study, the in-degree variance for 13 target items ranged from 3.7 to 6.6.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Social Network Analysis on the Culture of Helping in Health Institutions

Aydin¹,

Bekaroğlu²

2017

JGSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this research, it is aimed to determine the network of helping and to compare the differences of helping relations of employees of three public health institutions in Istanbul. Participants were asked to give the names of the five people they requested the most for help through the questionnaire prepared by the researchers. Data was evaluated by social network analysis. Among health institutions, number of observations and number of helping ties were the highest in the health directorate. Network density was the highest in the hospitals union. The mean of ego networks data of the employees was higher in the health directorate. Between those who asked for help and those who were asked for help were homophily in terms of gender, age groups, educational level, hierarchical level, work experience and seniority at the health directorate and the hospital.

show abstract

“…3. Additionally, referring to studies on interviewer effects and intrusiveness (e.g., Herz & Petermann, 2017), as well as memory organization (e.g., Brewer, 2000), we want to test the impact of cues on the activation of alters. Does the implementation of the tools (i.e., whether there are follow-up questions to the original prompt) affect the resulting network data-and if so, in what respect?…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As previous studies have shown, several factors can affect the accuracy of selfreports; the work in the wake of the Bernard et al (1981) studies and the studies by Brewer (1995Brewer ( , 2000, Brewer et al (2005) are especially noteworthy in this respect. 1 The detailed collection of network data can be exhaustive and fatiguing for respondents and interviewers (e.g., Herz & Petermann, 2017), possibly resulting in methodological artifacts and affecting data quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collecting egocentric network data with visual tools: A comparative study

Hollstein

Töpfer

2020

Net Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When collecting egocentric network data, visual representations of networks can function as a cognitive aid for depicting relationships, helping to maintain an overview of the relationships, and keeping the attention of the interviewees. Additionally, network maps can serve as a narration generator in qualitative and in mixed-methods studies. While varying visual instruments are used for collecting egocentric network data, little is known about differences among visual tools concerning the influence on the resulting network data, the usability for interviewees, and data validity. The article provides an overview of existing visually oriented tools that are used to collect egocentric networks and discusses their functions, advantages, and limitations. Then, we present results of an experimental study where we compare four different visual tools with regard to networks elicited, manageability, and the impact of follow-up questions. In order to assess the manageability of the four tools, we used the thinking aloud method. The results provide evidence that the decision in favor of a specific visual tool (structured vs. unstructured) can affect the size and composition of the elicited networks. Follow-up questions greatly affect the elicited networks and follow-up cues can level out differences among tools. Respondents tend to prefer the concentric circles tool, with some differences in preferences and manageability of tools between participants with low and those with high socioeconomic status. Finally, assets and drawbacks of the four instruments are discussed with regard to data quality and crucial aspects of the data collection process when using visual tools.

show abstract

Beyond interviewer effects in the standardized measurement of ego-centric networks

Cited by 67 publications

References 22 publications

Mode and Interviewer Effects in Egocentric Network Research

Mode and Interviewer Effects in Egocentric Network Research

A Social Network Analysis on the Culture of Helping in Health Institutions

Collecting egocentric network data with visual tools: A comparative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About