All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Multilevel Study of Interpersonal Influence in Academic ‘Influence Networks’
Unformatted Document Text:  Influence Networks 32 Table 5 Information on Department Size, Response Rate, Network Density, and Means and Standard Deviation for Average Scores of Centrality 1 and Centrality 2 Department Size Response % Density Raw Indegree Centrality 1 Centrality 2 M SD M SD M SD 1 36 37% .13 4.52 2.12 12.94 6.19 .02 .05 2 58 31% .08 4.36 2.20 7.65 3.85 .04 .05 3 42 31% .11 4.36 2.09 10.63 5.10 .08 .06 4 42 40% .12 5.05 2.54 12.31 6.21 .06 .12 5 22 65% .26 5.55 1.97 26.41 9.39 .02 .04 6 18 44% .21 2.89 1.24 16.99 7.31 .06 .05 7 30 47% .23 6.80 2.34 23.45 8.08 .00 .00 8 60 31% .07 4.33 2.54 7.35 4.31 .08 .12 9 38 50% .13 4.79 2.73 12.95 7.37 .11 .20 10 28 54% .27 7.39 3.66 27.38 13.55 .01 .02 11 21 50% .10 2.10 1.44 10.48 7.22 .12 .15 12 33 56% .16 5.06 1.98 15.81 6.20 .03 .05 13 27 37% .19 4.82 2.18 18.52 8.34 .04 .06 Note. Density and Centrality 1 were both calculated with UCINET 5 for Windows (Borgatti et al., 1999). Density was calculated based on the number of ties divided by the total possible ties, times 100. Centrality 1 was based on the normalized indegree score that was calculated by dividing indegree by the maximum possible indegree, expressed as a percentage. Centrality 2 was calculated with the formula introduced by Friedkin (1998): Centrality 2 = 1 / 1+e – (d i - 2  d), where d represents indegree scores within each network.

Authors: Wolski, Stacy.
first   previous   Page 32 of 39   next   last



background image
Influence Networks 32
Table 5

Information on Department Size, Response Rate, Network Density, and Means and Standard
Deviation for Average Scores of Centrality
1
and Centrality
2
Department Size
Response %
Density Raw
Indegree
Centrality
1
Centrality
2
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
1
36
37%
.13
4.52
2.12
12.94
6.19 .02 .05
2
58
31%
.08
4.36
2.20
7.65
3.85
.04
.05
3
42
31%
.11
4.36
2.09
10.63
5.10 .08 .06
4
42
40%
.12
5.05
2.54
12.31
6.21 .06 .12
5
22
65%
.26
5.55
1.97
26.41
9.39 .02 .04
6
18
44%
.21
2.89
1.24
16.99
7.31 .06 .05
7
30
47%
.23
6.80
2.34
23.45
8.08 .00 .00
8
60
31%
.07
4.33
2.54
7.35
4.31
.08
.12
9
38
50%
.13
4.79
2.73
12.95
7.37 .11 .20
10 28 54%
.27 7.39
3.66
27.38
13.55
.01 .02
11 21 50%
.10 2.10
1.44
10.48
7.22 .12 .15
12 33 56%
.16 5.06
1.98
15.81
6.20 .03 .05
13 27 37%
.19 4.82
2.18
18.52
8.34 .04 .06
Note. Density and Centrality
1
were both calculated with UCINET 5 for Windows (Borgatti et al., 1999).
Density was calculated based on the number of ties divided by the total possible ties, times 100.
Centrality
1
was based on the normalized indegree score that was calculated by dividing indegree by the
maximum possible indegree, expressed as a percentage. Centrality
2
was calculated with the formula
introduced by Friedkin (1998): Centrality
2
= 1 / 1+e – (d
i
- 2

d), where d represents indegree scores
within each network.


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 32 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.