Comparing two methods for estimating network size

Christopher McCarty, Peter D. Killworth, Harvey Bernard, Eugene C. Johnsen, Gene A. Shelley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

170 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper we compare two methods for estimating the size of personal networks using a nationally representative sample of the United States. Both methods rely on the ability of respondents to estimate the number of people they know in specific subpopulations of the U.S. (e.g., diabetics, Native Americans) and people in particular relation categories (e.g., immediate family, coworkers). The results demonstrate a remarkable similarity between the average network size generated by both methods (approximately 291). Similar results were obtained with a separate national sample. An attempt to corroborate our estimates by replication among a population we suspect has large networks (clergy), yielded a larger average network size. Extensive investigation into the existence of response effects showed some preference for using certain numbers when making estimates, but nothing that would significantly affect the estimate of network size beyond about 6 percent. We conclude that both methods for estimating personal network size yield valid and reliable proxies for actual network size, but questions about accuracy remain.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)28-39
Number of pages12
JournalHuman Organization
Volume60
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

co-worker
clergy
ability
Native Americans
Replication
Native People
Clergy

Keywords

  • Hard-to-count populations
  • Network size
  • Telephone survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anthropology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

McCarty, C., Killworth, P. D., Bernard, H., Johnsen, E. C., & Shelley, G. A. (2001). Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization, 60(1), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y

Comparing two methods for estimating network size. / McCarty, Christopher; Killworth, Peter D.; Bernard, Harvey; Johnsen, Eugene C.; Shelley, Gene A.

In: Human Organization, Vol. 60, No. 1, 01.01.2001, p. 28-39.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McCarty, C, Killworth, PD, Bernard, H, Johnsen, EC & Shelley, GA 2001, 'Comparing two methods for estimating network size', Human Organization, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 28-39. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y
McCarty, Christopher ; Killworth, Peter D. ; Bernard, Harvey ; Johnsen, Eugene C. ; Shelley, Gene A. / Comparing two methods for estimating network size. In: Human Organization. 2001 ; Vol. 60, No. 1. pp. 28-39.
@article{ace1427aab4e4bf2a10943f95dbf2834,
title = "Comparing two methods for estimating network size",
abstract = "In this paper we compare two methods for estimating the size of personal networks using a nationally representative sample of the United States. Both methods rely on the ability of respondents to estimate the number of people they know in specific subpopulations of the U.S. (e.g., diabetics, Native Americans) and people in particular relation categories (e.g., immediate family, coworkers). The results demonstrate a remarkable similarity between the average network size generated by both methods (approximately 291). Similar results were obtained with a separate national sample. An attempt to corroborate our estimates by replication among a population we suspect has large networks (clergy), yielded a larger average network size. Extensive investigation into the existence of response effects showed some preference for using certain numbers when making estimates, but nothing that would significantly affect the estimate of network size beyond about 6 percent. We conclude that both methods for estimating personal network size yield valid and reliable proxies for actual network size, but questions about accuracy remain.",
keywords = "Hard-to-count populations, Network size, Telephone survey",
author = "Christopher McCarty and Killworth, {Peter D.} and Harvey Bernard and Johnsen, {Eugene C.} and Shelley, {Gene A.}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "28--39",
journal = "Human Organization",
issn = "0018-7259",
publisher = "Society for Applied Anthropology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing two methods for estimating network size

AU - McCarty, Christopher

AU - Killworth, Peter D.

AU - Bernard, Harvey

AU - Johnsen, Eugene C.

AU - Shelley, Gene A.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - In this paper we compare two methods for estimating the size of personal networks using a nationally representative sample of the United States. Both methods rely on the ability of respondents to estimate the number of people they know in specific subpopulations of the U.S. (e.g., diabetics, Native Americans) and people in particular relation categories (e.g., immediate family, coworkers). The results demonstrate a remarkable similarity between the average network size generated by both methods (approximately 291). Similar results were obtained with a separate national sample. An attempt to corroborate our estimates by replication among a population we suspect has large networks (clergy), yielded a larger average network size. Extensive investigation into the existence of response effects showed some preference for using certain numbers when making estimates, but nothing that would significantly affect the estimate of network size beyond about 6 percent. We conclude that both methods for estimating personal network size yield valid and reliable proxies for actual network size, but questions about accuracy remain.

AB - In this paper we compare two methods for estimating the size of personal networks using a nationally representative sample of the United States. Both methods rely on the ability of respondents to estimate the number of people they know in specific subpopulations of the U.S. (e.g., diabetics, Native Americans) and people in particular relation categories (e.g., immediate family, coworkers). The results demonstrate a remarkable similarity between the average network size generated by both methods (approximately 291). Similar results were obtained with a separate national sample. An attempt to corroborate our estimates by replication among a population we suspect has large networks (clergy), yielded a larger average network size. Extensive investigation into the existence of response effects showed some preference for using certain numbers when making estimates, but nothing that would significantly affect the estimate of network size beyond about 6 percent. We conclude that both methods for estimating personal network size yield valid and reliable proxies for actual network size, but questions about accuracy remain.

KW - Hard-to-count populations

KW - Network size

KW - Telephone survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035018860&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035018860&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y

DO - 10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 28

EP - 39

JO - Human Organization

JF - Human Organization

SN - 0018-7259

IS - 1

ER -