Children’s peer relationships are frequently assessed with peer nominations. An important methodological issue is whether to collect unlimited or limited nominations. Some researchers have argued that the psychometric differences between both methods are negligible, while others have claimed that one is superior over the other. The current study compared both methods directly in a counterbalanced design among 112 8–12-year-old elementary school children. Overall, both methods revealed comparable results, although some significant and noteworthy differences were found. The use of unlimited nominations was recommended for questions related to social status (preference, popularity). Some method differences varied by gender. Implications for future peer relations research were discussed.
BabadE. (2001). On the conception and measurement of popularity: More facts and some straight conclusions. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 3–29.
2.
BellmoreA. D.JiangX. L.JuvonenJ. (2010). Utilizing peer nominations in middle school: A longitudinal comparison between complete classroom-based and random list methods. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 538–550.
3.
BukowskiW. M.CillessenA. H. N. (Eds.) (1998). Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of measuring children’s experiences with the peer group. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
CaravitaS. C. S.Di BlasioP.SalmivalliC. (2008). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163.
6.
CillessenA. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.LaursenB. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 63–61). New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
CillessenA. H. N.MayeuxL. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163.
8.
CoieJ. D.DodgeK. A.CoppotelliH. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.
9.
HallinanM. T. (1981). Recent advances in sociometry. In AsherS. R.GottmanJ. M. (Eds.), The development of children’s friendships (pp. 91–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
HollandP. W.LeinhardtS. (1973). The structural implications of measurement error in sociometry. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3, 85–111.
11.
HymelS.AsherS. R. (1977, March). Assessment and training of isolated children’s social skills. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, Louisiana. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED136930).
12.
HymelS.VaillancourtT.McDougallP.RenshawP. D. (2002). Peer acceptance and rejection in childhood. In SmithP. K.HartC. H. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of child social development (pp. 265–284). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
13.
JiangX. L.CillessenA. H. N. (2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 25, 1–25.
14.
MaassenG. H.van BoxtelH. W.GoossensF. A. (2005). Reliability of nominations and two-dimensional rating scale methods for sociometric status determination. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 51–68.
15.
MorenoJ. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.
16.
MorenoJ. L. (1951). Sociometry, experimental method and the science of society. Beacon, NY: Beacon House.
17.
NewcombA. F.BukowskiW. M. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determinants of children’s peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856–867.
18.
ParkhurstJ. T.AsherS. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 231–241.
19.
PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP.PiqueroA. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.
20.
PoulinF.DishionT. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social Development, 17, 908–921.
21.
RoseA. J.RudolphK. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
22.
RoseA. J.SwensonL. P.WallerE. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378–387.
23.
SandstromM. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 305–314.
24.
SantoJ. B.MaymanS. B.LopezL. S.BukowskiW. M. (2012, March). An analysis of the differences between using limited versus unlimited peer nominations of victimization among Colombian early adolescents. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
TerryR. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use of sociometric techniques. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 88, 27–53.
