Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39310852›Full record

ArticleField methods2014

Measuring Agreement between Egos and Alters: Understanding Informant Accuracy in Personal Network Studies.

Harold D Green, Matthew A Hoover, Glenn J Wagner, Gery W Ryan, Eric Ssegujja

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Field methods, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Correlates of Medical Mistrust Among Minority Women at Risk for HIV and Their Networks.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Harold D GreenRAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407.
Matthew A HooverRAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407.
Glenn J WagnerRAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407.
Gery W RyanRAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407.
Eric SsegujjaMakarere University School of Public Health New Mulago Hospital Complex, IPH Building, PO Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

SOCIAL NETWORK DYNAMICS & HIV CARE RETENTION AND ADHERENCE IN UGANDAR21MH087249 · NIMH · RAND CORPORATION · PI RYAN, GERY W · 2010 to 2011
$439k
NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH087249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In personal network studies, respondents (egos) are asked to report information about members of their personal network (alters); egos respond based on their perceptions. Previous studies of informant accuracy present a varied picture: Some find egos' reporting on their relationships with alters to be accurate; others do not. In our study of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA) in Uganda, egos were asked to invite up to four alters named during their interview to answer questions about their relationship with ego. Using Gower's general coefficient of similarity, we calculated a measure of accuracy both by variable and by alter. Our analysis by variable tends to confirm informant accuracy research, while our analysis by alter adds to the literature by identifying how accurate a particular ego is when discussing an alter and what characteristics might be associated with accuracy or inaccuracy.

Indexed as

Gower general coefficient of similarityHIV/AIDSinformant accuracypersonal networks

Identifiers

PMID39310852
PMCPMC11415257

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.