Methodological considerations in the use of name generators and interpreters

Abstract With data from the Clergy Health Initiative Longitudinal Survey, we look for interviewer effects, differences between web and telephone delivery, and panel conditioning bias in an “important matters” name generator and interpreter, replicated from the U.S. General Social Survey. We find evidence of phone interviewers systematically influencing the number of confidants named, we observe that respondents assigned to the web survey reported a larger number of confidants, and we uncover strong support for panel conditioning. We discuss the possible mechanisms behind these observations and conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of our findings for similar studies.

[1]  Geert Loosveldt,et al.  IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF RESPONSES TO FACTUAL SURVEY QUESTIONS BY INTERVIEWER TRAINING , 1988 .

[2]  M. Traugott,et al.  LITTLE WHITE LIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE MODELS CORRELATED RESPONSE ERRORS IN A PANEL STUDY OF VOTING , 1992 .

[3]  Anuska Ferligoj,et al.  Evaluation of social network measurement instruments , 1999, Soc. Networks.

[4]  D. Leeuw,et al.  Data Quality in Mail, Telephone and Face to Face Surveys. , 1992 .

[5]  Uwe Matzat,et al.  Does the online collection of ego-centered network data reduce data quality? An experimental comparison , 2010, Soc. Networks.

[6]  S. Presser,et al.  Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance : Church attendance in the United States , 1998 .

[7]  Valentina Hlebec,et al.  Reliability of Social Network Measurement Instruments , 2002 .

[8]  Theo Van Tilburg,et al.  Reactivity in panel studies and its consequences for testing causal hypotheses , 2001 .

[9]  Urban Planning at Los , 1989 .

[10]  Peter V. Marsden,et al.  The reliability of network density and composition measures , 1993 .

[11]  J. R. Warren,et al.  Panel Conditioning in a Longitudinal Study of Adolescents' Substance Use: Evidence from an Experiment , 2012 .

[12]  V. Hlebec,et al.  Stability of typologies produced on the basis of repeated measurement with the role relationship and the name generator approach , 2009, Advances in Methodology and Statistics.

[13]  Ronald S. Burt,et al.  Network items and the general social survey , 1984 .

[14]  Matthew E. Brashears,et al.  Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades , 2006 .

[15]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  Measuring and Explaining Interviewer Effects in Centralized Telephone Surveys , 1986 .

[16]  jimi adams,et al.  To tell the truth: Measuring concordance in multiply reported network data , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[17]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Longitudinal analysis of personal networks. The case of Argentinean migrants in Spain , 2010, Soc. Networks.

[18]  W. C. Carter,et al.  Detecting measurement bias in respondent reports of personal networks , 2002, Soc. Networks.

[19]  P. Bearman,et al.  Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important Matters: Conversation Topics and Network Structure , 2004 .

[20]  David L. Morgan,et al.  The stability of core and peripheral networks over time , 1997 .

[21]  J. Krosnick.  Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys , 1991 .

[22]  Claire Bidart,et al.  Evolutions of personal networks and life events , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[23]  J. R. Warren,et al.  Panel Conditioning in Longitudinal Social Science Surveys , 2012 .

[24]  T. Tilburg,et al.  Interviewer Effects in the Measurement of Personal Network Size A Nonexperimental Study , 1998 .

[25]  Mario Callegaro,et al.  Panel Conditioning and Attrition in the AP-Yahoo! News Election Panel Study , 2009 .

[26]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Core Discussion Networks of Americans , 1987 .

[27]  Stanley Presser,et al.  How social processes distort measurement: the impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of volunteer work in the United States. , 2008, AJS; American journal of sociology.

[28]  Vasja Vehovar,et al.  Collecting ego-centred network data via the web , 2004, Advances in Methodology and Statistics.

[29]  E. Leeuw,et al.  Mode Effects in Survey Research: a Comparison of Mail, Telephone, and Face To Face Surveys: , 1993 .

[30]  J. J. Hox,et al.  Hierarchical Regression Models for Interviewer and Respondent Effects , 1994 .

[31]  Anthony Paik,et al.  Social Isolation in America: An Artifact , 2013 .

[32]  M. Hammer,et al.  Explorations into the meaning of social network interview data , 1984 .

[33]  Vera Toepoel,et al.  Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys , 2011 .

[34]  Tina Kogovöek,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Measuring Social Support Networks by Web and Telephone , 2006 .

[35]  Anuska Ferligoj,et al.  Estimating the reliability and validity of personal support measures: full information ML estimation with planned incomplete data , 2002, Soc. Networks.

[36]  Anuska Ferligoj,et al.  Effects on reliability and validity of egocentered network measurements , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[37]  C. Fischer.  To Dwell Among Friends , 1982 .

[38]  Claude S. Fischer,et al.  The 2004 GSS Finding of Shrunken Social Networks: An Artifact? , 2009 .

[39]  Ali Haider,et al.  Partner naming and forgetting: Recall of network members , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[40]  Peter V. Marsden,et al.  Interviewer effects in measuring network size using a single name generator , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[41]  Geert Loosveldt,et al.  The Effects of Interviewer and Respondent Characteristics on Response Behavior in Panel Surveys , 2001 .

[42]  K. Campbell,et al.  Name generators in surveys of personal networks , 1991 .

[43]  Valentina Hlebec,et al.  Reliability of measures of centrality and prominence , 2005, Soc. Networks.