↓ Skip to main content

An Adjusted Probability Method for the Identification of Sociometric Status in Classrooms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Adjusted Probability Method for the Identification of Sociometric Status in Classrooms
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01836
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francisco J. García Bacete, Antonius H. N. Cillessen

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to test the performance of an adjusted probability method for sociometric classification proposed by García Bacete (GB) in comparison with two previous methods. Specific goals were to examine the overall agreement between methods, the behavioral correlates of each sociometric group, the sources for discrepant classifications between methods, the behavioral profiles of discrepant and consistent cases between methods, and age differences. Method: We compared the GB adjusted probability method with the standard score model proposed by Coie and Dodge (CD) and the probability score model proposed by Newcomb and Bukowski (NB). The GB method is an adaptation of the NB method, cutoff scores are derived from the distribution of raw liked most and liked least scores in each classroom instead of using fixed and absolute scores as does NB method. The criteria for neglected status are also modified by the GB method. Participants were 569 children (45% girls) from 23 elementary school classrooms (13 Grades 1-2, 10 Grades 5-6). Results: We found agreement as well as differences between the three methods. The CD method yielded discrepancies in the classifications because of its dependence on z-scores and composite dimensions. The NB method was less optimal in the validation of the behavioral characteristics of the sociometric groups, because of its fixed cutoffs for identifying preferred, rejected, and controversial children, and not differentiating between positive and negative nominations for neglected children. The GB method addressed some of the limitations of the other two methods. It improved the classified of neglected students, as well as discrepant cases of the preferred, rejected, and controversial groups. Agreement between methods was higher with the oldest children. Conclusion: GB is a valid sociometric method as evidences by the behavior profiles of the sociometric status groups identified with this method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 35%
Sports and Recreations 2 12%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,475
of 30,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,654
of 327,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#513
of 610 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 610 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.