ArticleSocial networks2023
Random sampling of alters from networks: A promising direction in egocentric network research.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Item Response Models for Rating Relational Data.Psychometrika · 2025Article
- Modularity of Online Social Networks and COVID-19 Misinformation Spreading in Russia: Combining Social Network Analysis and National Representative Survey.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Considerations for Social Networks and Health Data Sharing: An Overview.Annals of epidemiology · 2025Review
- Advancing the Measurement of Social Functioning in Schizophrenia: Applications of Egocentric Social Network Analysis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2024Article
- Informal Support Networks of Tanzanians With Chronic Diseases: Predictors of Support Provision and Treatment Adherence.International journal of public health · 2022Article
- Social Connections Over the Life Course: Appreciating Distinct Dimensions of Social Connections.Research on agingArticle
- Communication in Primary Care Teams and Diabetes Outcomes: A Social Network Analysis.Diabetes, obesity, and cardiometabolic CAREArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.