Abstract
When assessing personality disorder traits, not all judges make equally valid judgments of all targets. The present study uses social network analysis to investigate factors associated with reliability and validity in peer assessment. Participants were groups of military recruits (N=809) who acted as both targets and judges in a round-robin design. Participants completed self- and informant versions of the Multisource Assessment of Personality Pathology. Social network matrices were constructed based on reported acquaintance, and cohesive subgroups were identified. Judges who shared a mutual subgroup were more reliable and had higher self-peer agreement than those who did not. Partitioning networks into two subgroups achieved more consistent improvements than multiple subgroups. We discuss implications for multiple informant assessments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
