Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36936369›Full record

ArticleSocial networks2023

Random sampling of alters from networks: A promising direction in egocentric network research.

Siyun Peng, Adam R Roth, Brea L Perry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social networks, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Siyun PengDepartment of Sociology & Network Science Institute, Indiana University, USA.
Adam R RothDepartment of Sociology & Network Science Institute, Indiana University, USA.
Brea L PerryDepartment of Sociology & Network Science Institute, Indiana University, USA.

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG010133 · NIA · INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS · PI FOROUD, TATIANA M. · 1991 to 2020
$37.3M
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Project Management: Improving Submissions and Study Conduct in the Human Subjects Research Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002529 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOE, SHARON M, WIEHE, SARAH ELIZABETH · 2018 to 2022
$27.2M
Research Education ComponentP30AG072976 · NIA · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI ANDREW J SAYKIN · 2021 to 2026
$24.1M
Understanding how social connectedness protects older adults' cognitive health: the role of social cognitionR01AG070931 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI KRENDL, ANNE CATHERINE, PERRY, BREA LOUISE · 2020 to 2024
$3.6M
Leveraging Neuroimaging Biomarkers to Understand the Role of Social Networks in Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG057739 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI APOSTOLOVA, LIANA G, PERRY, BREA LOUISE · 2018 to 2022
$3.5M
Social Networks in Alzheimer Disease 2.0.R37AG057739 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI PERRY, BREA LOUISE · 2024 to 2025
$1.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002529NIA NIH HHS P30 AG010133NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072976NIA NIH HHS R01 AG057739NIA NIH HHS R01 AG070931NIA NIH HHS R37 AG057739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The social network perspective has great potential for advancing knowledge of social mechanisms in many fields. However, collecting egocentric (i.e., personal) network data is costly and places a heavy burden on respondents. This is especially true of the task used to elicit information on ties between network members (i.e., alter-alter ties or density matrix), which grows exponentially in length as network size increases. While most existing national surveys circumvent this problem by capping the number of network members that can be named, this strategy has major limitations. Here, we apply random sampling of network members to reduce cost, respondent burden, and error in network studies. We examine the effectiveness and reliability of random sampling in simulated and real-world egocentric network data. We find that in estimating sample/population means of network measures, randomly selecting a small number of network members produces only minor errors, regardless of true network size. For studies that use network measures in regressions, randomly selecting the mean number of network members (e.g., randomly selecting 10 alters when mean network size is 10) is enough to recover estimates of network measures that correlate close to 1 with those of the full sample. We conclude with recommendations for best practices that will make this versatile but resource intensive methodology accessible to a wider group of researchers without sacrificing data quality.

Indexed as

Respondent burdenSimulationSocial networkSurvey methodUS

Identifiers

PMID36936369
PMCPMC10022747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.