Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Effect of estimation method, definition of ratio, and the plausible range in estimating social network size

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Social Network Analysis and Mining Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A prime for network scale-up studies is the calculation of network size (C). To estimate C, respondents are asked about the number of their acquaintances belonging to specific reference groups with known sizes. The aim of this manuscript is to address influence of method of estimation and exclusion of unreliable reference groups on C. Recruiting 1275 women and using 25 reference groups, C was calculated applying traditional and Means of Sums (MoS) estimators. This C is applied to back-calculate the size of reference groups. To assess the closeness of back-calculated and real size, two types of ratio were calculated: back-calculated over real size, and its reverse. The tolerable range for ratio was defined as (0.5, 1.5), (0.5, 2), and < 1 based on the absolute logarithmic scale. The reference group corresponding to the poorest ratio was omitted. New C was estimated based on the remainder of the reference groups. The whole process continued in an iterative fashion until all ratios fall within the plausible range. In the traditional approach, C was robust with respect to definition of ratio and its tolerable range. Minimum and maximum C were 174 and 186. In the MoS analysis, C values hugely diverse ranged 185–557. This might partially be due to small number of eligible reference groups contributing in the estimation of C. As C is used to estimate size of hidden groups, its calculation needs careful plan. We recommend authors to provide a range of values for C.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bernard HR, Hallett T, Iovita A, Johnsen EC, Lyerla R, McCarty C, Mahy M, Salganik MJ, Saliuk T, Scutelniciuc O (2010) Counting hard-to-count populations: the network scale-up method for public health. Sex Transm Infect 86, ii11-ii15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer DD (2000) Forgetting in the recall-based elicitation of personal and social networks. Soc Netw 22:29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feehan DM, Umubyeyi A, Mahy M, Hladik W, Salganik MJ (2016) Quantity versus quality: a survey experiment to improve the network scale-up method. Am J Epidemiol 183:747–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld SL, Carter WC (2002) Detecting measurement bias in respondent reports of personal networks. Soc Netw 24:365–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo W, Bao S, Lin W, Wu G, Zhang W, Hladik W, Abdul-Quader A, Bulterys M, Fuller S, Wang L (2013) Estimating the size of HIV key affected populations in Chongqing, China, using the Network Scale-Up Method. PLoS One 8:e71796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habecker P, Dombrowski K, Khan B, 2015. Improving the network scale-up estimator: incorporating means of sums, recursive back estimation, and sampling weights. PLoS One 10, e0143406

  • Haghdoost AA, Baneshi MR, Eybpoosh S, Khajehkazemi R (2013) Comparison of three interview methods on response pattern to sensitive and non-sensitive questions. Iran Red Crescent Med J 15:500–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin C, Killworth PD, Bernard HR, Beveridge AA (2006) Scale-up methods as applied to estimates of heroin use. J Drug Issues 36:417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazemzadeh Y, Shokoohi M, Baneshi MR, Haghdoost AA (2016) The frequency of high-risk behaviors among Iranian college students using indirect methods: network scale-up and crosswise model. Int J High Risk Behav Addict 5(3):e25130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killworth PD, Johnsen EC, Bernard HR, Ann Shelley G, McCarty C (1990) Estimating the size of personal networks. Soc Netw 12:289–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killworth PD, Johnsen EC, McCarty C, Shelley GA, Bernard HR (1998a) A social network approach to estimating seroprevalence in the United States. Soc Netw 20:23–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killworth PD, McCarty C, Bernard HR, Shelley GA, Johnsen EC (1998b) Estimation of seroprevalence, rape, and homelessness in the United States using a social network approach. Eval Rev 22:289–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killworth PD, McCarty C, Bernard HR, Johnsen EC, Domini J, Shelley GA (2003) Two interpretations of reports of knowledge of subpopulation sizes. Social Netw 25:141–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty C, Killworth PD, Bernard HR, Johnsen EC, Shelley GA (2001) Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organ 60:28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick TH, Salganik MJ, Zheng T (2010) How many people do you know?: Efficiently estimating personal network size. J Am Stat Assoc 105:59–70

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Paniotto V, Petrenko T, Kupriyanov O, Pakhok O (2009) Estimating the size of populations with high risk for HIV using the network scale-up method. Kiev International Institute of Sociology, Ukraine

    Google Scholar 

  • Rastegari A, Haji-Maghsoudi S, Haghdoost AA, Shatti M, Tarjoman T, Baneshi MR (2013b) The estimation of active social network size of the Iranian Population. Global J Health Sci 5:217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rwanda Biomedical Center, I.o.H.A., Disease Prevention Control Department (2012) Estimating the size of populations through a household survey

  • Shokoohi M, Baneshi MR, Haghdoost A-a (2012) Size estimation of groups at high risk of HIV/AIDS using network scale up in Kerman, Iran. Int J Prev Med 3:471

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamanian M, Baneshi MR, Haghdoost AA, Mokhtari-Sorkhani T, Amiri F, Zolala F (2016) Estimating the Size and Age-gender Distribution of Women’s Active Social Networks. Addict Health 8:170

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Health, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran

    Maryam Zamanian

  2. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

    Farzaneh Zolala

  3. HIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

    Ali Akbar Haghdoost

  4. Modeling in Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

    Mohammad Reza Baneshi

Authors
  1. Maryam Zamanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farzaneh Zolala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Akbar Haghdoost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammad Reza Baneshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Reza Baneshi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zamanian, M., Zolala, F., Haghdoost, A.A. et al. Effect of estimation method, definition of ratio, and the plausible range in estimating social network size. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 8, 35 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0513-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0513-2

Keywords