Methodological Choices in Peer Nomination Research

Abstract

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.

You've got a friend(ly school): Can school prosocial norms and friends similarly protect victims from distress?

“…In addition to relying on self‐reports of students’ distress outcomes, the study incorporates peer‐reports of victimization and friendship. Peer nomination methods can offer an advantage over self‐report by (a) reducing potential bias in self‐perceptions and shared method variance with self‐reported outcomes; (b) more directly capturing youth's social experiences in their school contexts (Cillessen & Marks, ). Finally, we rely on a large, ethnically diverse sample to increase generalizability across demographic groups.…”

Effects of including versus excluding nonparticipants as potential nominees in peer nomination measures

“…Our study used two large samples and investigated relatively low levels of missingness; however, because previous studies have shown that higher levels of nonparticipation are associated with greater reductions in reliability (Marks et al, 2013) and internal validity (Babcock et al, 2018) of nomination measures, we expect that higher nonparticipation rates will result in even larger differences between including and excluding nonparticipants on rosters. Although the literature on practical solutions is sparse, Mayeux and Kraft (2017) recently suggested several strategies to deal with logistical hurdles (like low consent/participation rates) in peer nomination research.…”

“…Previous research has indicated that the risks of being involved in sociometric research are no greater than risks faced by children and adolescents in everyday life (Mayeux et al, 2007), and the benefits of peer nomination research are substantial. Peer measurements provide a unique perspective on social behaviors among adolescents (particularly behaviors hidden from teachers or observers, such as relational aggression) and are irreplaceable to assess affective and status variables like friendship, social preference, and popularity (Cillessen & Marks, 2017). Moreover, sociometric data can play an important role in solving school problems (bullying prevention, identifying at-risk students, etc.…”

Direct Aggression and the Balance between Status and Affection Goals in Adolescence

“…The use of peer nominations offers several advantages over other informant reports, such as self-, parent-, or teacher-reports, and may produce a more valid assessment (Cillessen and Marks 2017). Peer nominations constitute observations from (almost) all group members and thus are not limited to one viewpoint.…”