Nominating under constraints: A systematic comparison of unlimited and limited peer nomination methodologies in elementary school

Abstract

Children’s peer relationships are frequently assessed with peer nominations. An important methodological issue is whether to collect unlimited or limited nominations. Some researchers have argued that the psychometric differences between both methods are negligible, while others have claimed that one is superior over the other. The current study compared both methods directly in a counterbalanced design among 112 8–12-year-old elementary school children. Overall, both methods revealed comparable results, although some significant and noteworthy differences were found. The use of unlimited nominations was recommended for questions related to social status (preference, popularity). Some method differences varied by gender. Implications for future peer relations research were discussed.