Background:Technological progress has enabled researchers to use new unobtrusive measures of relationships between actors in social network analysis. However, research on how these unobtrusive measures of peer connections relate to traditional sociometric nominations in adolescents is scarce. Therefore, the current study compared traditional peer nominated networks with more unobtrusive measures of peer connections: Communication networks that consist of instant messages in an online social platform and proximity networks based on smartphones’ Bluetooth signals that measure peer proximity. The three social network types were compared in their coverage, stability, overlap, and the extent to which the networks exhibit the often observed sex segregation in adolescent social networks.Method:Two samples were derived from theMyMovezproject: a longitudinal sample of 444 adolescents who participated in the first three waves of the first year of the project (Y1; 51% male;Mage= 11.29,SDage= 1.26) and a cross-sectional sample of 774 adolescents that participated in fifth wave in the third year (Y3; 48% male;Mage= 10.76,SDage= 1.23). In the project, all participants received a research smartphone and a wrist-worn accelerometer. On the research smartphone, participants received daily questionnaires such as peer nomination questions (i.e., nominated network). In addition, the smartphone automatically scanned for other smartphones via Bluetooth signal every 15 minutes of the day (i.e., proximity network). In the Y3 sample, the research smartphone also had a social platform in which participants could send messages to each other (i.e., communication network).Results:The results show that nominated networks provided data for the most participants compared to the other two networks, but in these networks, participants had the lowest number of connections with peers. Nominated networks showed to be more stable over time compared to proximity or communication networks. That is, more connections remained the same in nominated networks than in proximity networks over the three waves of Y1. The overlap between the three networks was rather small, indicating that the networks measured different types of connections. Nominated and communication networks were segregated by sex, whereas this was less the case in proximity networks.Conclusion:The communication and proximity networks seem to be promising unobtrusive measures of peer connections and are less of a burden to the participant compared to a nominated network. However, given the structural differences between the networks and the number of connections per wave, the communication and proximity networks should not be used as direct substitutes for sociometric nominations, and researchers should bear in mind what type of connections they wish to assess.

中文翻译：

---

比较不同社交网络的衡量标准：同行提名、在线交流和接近度数据

背景：技术进步使研究人员能够在社交网络分析中使用新的不显眼的措施来衡量参与者之间的关系。然而，关于这些不显眼的同伴联系测量如何与青少年的传统社会测量提名相关的研究很少。因此，目前的研究将传统的对等提名网络与更不显眼的对等连接测量进行了比较：通信网络由在线社交平台中的即时消息组成，以及基于智能手机蓝牙信号测量对等接近度的接近网络。对三种社交网络类型的覆盖范围、稳定性、重叠以及网络表现出青少年社交网络中经常观察到的性别隔离的程度进行了比较。方法：两个样本来自我的移动项目：参与项目第一年前三波的 444 名青少年的纵向样本（Y1；51% 男性；米年龄= 11.29,标清年龄= 1.26）和第三年参加第五波的 774 名青少年的横断面样本（Y3；48% 男性；米年龄= 10.76,标清年龄= 1.23)。在该项目中，所有参与者都收到了一部研究智能手机和一个腕戴式加速度计。在研究智能手机上，参与者每天收到问卷，例如同行提名问题（即提名网络）。此外，智能手机每天每 15 分钟（即近距离网络）通过蓝牙信号自动扫描其他智能手机。在 Y3 样本中，研究智能手机还具有一个社交平台，参与者可以在其中相互发送消息（即通信网络）。结果：结果表明，与其他两个网络相比，指定网络为大多数参与者提供数据，但在这些网络中，参与者与同伴的联系最少。与邻近或通信网络相比，指定网络随着时间的推移表现出更稳定。也就是说，在 Y1 的三波中，提名网络中的连接数比邻近网络中的连接数多。三个网络之间的重叠很小，表明网络测量了不同类型的连接。提名网络和通信网络按性别划分，而邻近网络的情况较少。结论：与提名网络相比，通信和邻近网络似乎是有希望的对等连接的不引人注目的措施，并且对参与者的负担更小。然而，鉴于网络之间的结构差异和每波连接的数量，通信和邻近网络不应直接替代社会测量提名，研究人员应牢记他们希望评估的连接类型。在 Y1 的三波中，提名网络中的连接数比邻近网络中的连接数多。三个网络之间的重叠很小，表明网络测量了不同类型的连接。提名网络和通信网络按性别划分，而邻近网络的情况较少。结论：与提名网络相比，通信和邻近网络似乎是有希望的对等连接的不引人注目的措施，并且对参与者的负担更小。然而，鉴于网络之间的结构差异和每波连接的数量，通信和邻近网络不应直接替代社会测量提名，研究人员应牢记他们希望评估的连接类型。在 Y1 的三波中，提名网络中的连接数比邻近网络中的连接数多。三个网络之间的重叠很小，表明网络测量了不同类型的连接。提名网络和通信网络按性别划分，而邻近网络的情况较少。结论：与提名网络相比，通信和邻近网络似乎是有希望的对等连接的不引人注目的措施，并且对参与者的负担更小。然而，鉴于网络之间的结构差异和每波连接的数量，通信和邻近网络不应直接替代社会测量提名，研究人员应牢记他们希望评估的连接类型。