Sociometric status is derivedfrom a concatenation ofjudgments at the individual leveL In previous articles, the authors argued that score attribution at this level (where one group member assesses another) is one-dimensional along the sympathy+-antipathy continuum. Two-dimensionality of sociometric status arises at the group level. It was shown that at this level, too, sympathy and antipathy are not two distinct dimensions but the poles ofjust one, the other being visibility (or impact). If one accepts the model of one-dimensional score attribution at the individual level, it would seem logical to base sociometric status determination on rating scales. In this article, a procedure for this is developed and a covering computer program (SSRAT) is introduced. Finally, the results of the current nomination methods and the proposed rating method applied in the same classroom groups are compared The results of the rating method appear to be more valid and more refined
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akkermans, W. , Maassen, G. H., & Van der Linden, J. L. (1990). De dimensies van sociometrische status [The dimensions of socionmetic status). Mens en Maatschappij, 65,289-301.
2.
Asher, S. R. , & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449.
3.
Asher, S. R. , &Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence inpeerrelations: Sociometnc and behavorial assessment. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 125-157). New York: Guilford.
4.
Bales, R. F. , Strodtbeck, F. L, Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of comunication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461-468.
5.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1944). A constant frame of reference for sociometric research. Part II: Experiment and inference. Sociometry, 7,40-75.
6.
Bukowski, W.M , & Newcomb, A. F. (1984). Stability and determinants of sociometric status and friendship choice: A longitudinal perspective. Developmental Psychology, 20, 941-952.
7.
Burt, R. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Coie, J. D. , & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children's social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-282.
9.
Coie, J. D. , Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
10.
Dunnington, M. J. (1957). Investigation of areas of disagreement in sociometric measurement of presciool children. Child Development, 218, 93-102
11.
Fisek, M. H. , Berger, J., & Norman, R. Z. (1991). Participation in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups: A theoretical integration. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 114-142.
12.
Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40,35-41.
13.
Freeman, L C. , Borgatti, S. P., &White, D. R. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: Ameasure of betweenness based on networkflow. Social Networks, 13, 141-154.
14.
Freeman, L. C. , White, D. R., & Romney, A. K (Eds.). (1989). Research methods in social network analysis. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
15.
Hymel, S. (1983). Preschool children's peer relations: Issues in sociometric assessment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 237-260.
16.
Katz, L. (1953). A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika, 18, 39-43.
17.
Kumbasar, E. , Romney, A. K, & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). Systematic biases in social perception. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 477-505.
18.
Maassen, G. H. (1991). Manual for SSRAT; a program for two-dimensional sociometric status determiation with rating scales. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University, ISOR Publications, MS 91-8.
19.
Maassen, G. H. , Akkermans, W., & Van der Linden, J. L. (1994). The dimensions of sociometric status. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Biennial Meetings of ISSBD, Amsterdaim, the Netherlands.
20.
Moreno, J. L (1934). Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama. New York: Beacon.
21.
Newcomb, A F. , & Bukowski, W. M. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856-867.
22.
Newcomb, A. F. , Bukowski, W. M, & Pattee, L. (1993). Childen's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletbi, 113, 99-128.
23.
Peery, J. C. (1979). Popular, aniiable, isolated, rejected: Areconceptualization of sociometric status in peschool children. Child Development, 50, 1231-1234.
24.
Ten Brink, P.W.M. (1985). De gegeneraliseerde binomiale verdeling als alternatief voorde sociometrische statws berekenig volgens het probabiliteitsmodel [Ihe generalized binonial distribution as an alternative for sociometric status determination according to the probability model]. Unpublished master's thesis, Nijmegen University, Psychologisch Laboratorium, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
25.
Terry, R. , & Coie, J. D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 867-880.
26.
Thonpson, G. G. , & Powell, M. (1951). An investigation of the rating-scale approach to the measurement of social status. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 11, 440-455.
27.
Van Boxtel, H. W. (1993). Sociometrische status in de adolescentie [Sociometric status in adolescence]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
