Reliability of nominations and two-dimensional rating scale methods for sociometric status determination

Abstract

Sociometric status classifications of 205 youths (average age 11.3 years) were assessed on three occasions with 1-year intervals, using the current nomination methods and a two-dimensional rating-based procedure (SSrat). The goal of the study was to compare the stability of the methods involved. Preliminarily, it is shown that (a) the data allowed the stabilities of the different systems to be interpreted as test-retest reliabilities, and (b) usual practice of implementing a uniform cutoff limit for all sociometric categories without further justification was inadvisable. Consequently, the reliability of the various methods was established with varying cutoff limits. The rating-based systems were shown to yield classifications with test–retest reliability over 0.50, considerably higher than the nomination methods. We also demonstrated that the rating scale system provides the opportunity to monitor the choice of more appropriate cutoff criteria. As for theoretical implications, the present study provides support for Coie's theory [Coie, J.D., 1990. Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S.R. Asher, J.D. Coie. Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365–401] of acquiring peer status as a stabilizing process. It also shows that the relatively low test–retest reliability of the nomination procedures employed may, in part, be responsible for the lack of empirical support for Coie's view in previous studies.