Assessing social support networks in cross-national comparative surveys: Measurement issues

The Social Exclusion of the Elderly: A Mixed-Methods Study in Slovenia

“…Lastly, we would also like to address some methodological issues. While there are clearly many advantages to using secondary quantitative data, such as saving time and money on developing indicators, designing a quantitative study, and collecting, storing and cleaning the data, there are also several disadvantages to secondary data analysis, such as the content validity of indicators and small sample size [Hlebec and Kogovšek 2005;Hlebec, Šircelj and Mrzel 2010;Hlebec, Mrzel and Kogovšek 2011] in general, and some shortcomings specifi cally arising from the selected mixed-methods model [Hlebec 2009]. One of these is the time gap (the EQLS data were collected in 2007, whereas the interviews were conducted in 2009).…”

Measurement quality of social support survey measurement instruments

“…The acceptable measurement quality of the two-provider simplified role relation method indicates that perhaps, if only the overall network composition (across several items) is required in an analysis, the simplified role relation method can be used in survey instruments without much loss of the measurement quality of indices of network composition. It is nevertheless too soon to accept the simplified role relation method as a universally satisfactory substitute for the name generator method, especially since previous research on network composition indices (Hlebec et al, 2012a) suggested that the response format (the number and specificity of given roles in the role relation method) has a stronger effect on measurement quality than the distinction between the name generator and the simplified role relation method.…”

“…The majority of studies employing social support constructs rely on data from surveys. Many methodological studies explore various aspects of the measurement quality of survey network instruments (such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of MTMM designs) (e.g., Bernard et al, 1987;Bernard et al, 1990;Campbell and Lee, 1991;Coenders et al, 2011;Coromina and Coenders, 2006;Hlebec et al, 2009Hlebec et al, , 2012aHlebec et al, , 2012bKogovšek et al, 2002;Kogovšek and Ferligoj, 2003Kogovšek, 2006;Kogovšek and Hlebec, 2008;Kogovšek et al, 2010;Lozar-Manfreda et al, 2004;Marin and Hampton, 2007;Marsden, 1993;Neyer et al, 1991;Van Groenou et al, 1990;Vehovar et al, 2008). However, relatively few studies employ advanced models of the measurement quality of network data which make it possible to estimate reliability and validity of each measurement method separately (such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of MTMM designs) (Coenders et al, 2011;Coromina and Coenders, 2006;Kogovšek et al, 2002;Kogovšek andFerligoj, 2004, 2005;Kogovšek, 2006;Kogovšek and Hlebec, 2008).…”

“…We lack information about the network size and various indices about the network composition and structure. We can obtain a simplified indicator of network compositi on which can only be calculated if we have questions on more than one social support type (Hlebec and Kogovšek, 2005;Kogovšek and Hlebec, 2008;Hlebec et al, 2009Hlebec et al, , 2012aHlebec et al, , 2012bKogovšek et al, 2010).…”

“…Comparisons of the name generator, simplified role relation and event-related methods for measuring social support networks have so far only involved a comparison of two methods at once and with elementary statistical procedures which do not make it possible to estimate method reliability and validity Kogovšek, 2005, 2010;Hlebec et al, 2009Hlebec et al, , 2012aHlebec et al, , 2012bKogovšek and Hlebec, 2008;Kogovšek et al, 2010). For instance, Kogovšek and Hlebec (2008) found that the differences between the name generator and simplified role relation methods were relatively small when both methods used the same number of support provider choices.…”