IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v53y2024i3p1252-1289.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Sample Size Formula for Network Scale-up Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Nathaniel Josephs
  • Dennis M. Feehan
  • Forrest W. Crawford

Abstract

The network scale-up method (NSUM) is a survey-based method for estimating the number of individuals in a hidden or hard-to-reach subgroup of a general population. In NSUM surveys, sampled individuals report how many others they know in the subpopulation of interest (e.g. “How many sex workers do you know?†) and how many others they know in subpopulations of the general population (e.g. “How many bus drivers do you know?†). NSUM is widely used to estimate the size of important sociological and epidemiological risk groups, including men who have sex with men, sex workers, HIV+ individuals, and drug users. Unlike several other methods for population size estimation, NSUM requires only a single random sample and the estimator has a conveniently simple form. Despite its popularity, there are no published guidelines for the minimum sample size calculation to achieve a desired statistical precision. Here, we provide a sample size formula that can be employed in any NSUM survey. We show analytically and by simulation that the sample size controls error at the nominal rate and is robust to some forms of network model mis-specification. We apply this methodology to study the minimum sample size and relative error properties of several published NSUM surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathaniel Josephs & Dennis M. Feehan & Forrest W. Crawford, 2024. "A Sample Size Formula for Network Scale-up Studies," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(3), pages 1252-1289, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:1252-1289
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241221122576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241221122576
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241221122576?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zheng, Tian & Salganik, Matthew J. & Gelman, Andrew, 2006. "How Many People Do You Know in Prison?: Using Overdispersion in Count Data to Estimate Social Structure in Networks," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 409-423, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Áureo de Paula, 2015. "Econometrics of network models," CeMMAP working papers CWP52/15, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Palmer, J. & Sorda, G. & Madlener, R., 2015. "Modeling the diffusion of residential photovoltaic systems in Italy: An agent-based simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 106-131.
    3. Áureo de Paula, 2020. "Econometric Models of Network Formation," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 775-799, August.
    4. Elizabeth Sully & Margaret Giorgio & Selena Anjur-Dietrich, 2020. "Estimating abortion incidence using the network scale-up method," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(56), pages 1651-1684.
    5. Feehan, Dennis & Son, Vo Hai & Abdul-Quader, Abu, 2021. "Survey methods for estimating the size of weak-tie personal networks," SocArXiv z2t4p, Center for Open Science.
    6. Robert Smith, 2008. "A Globalized Conflict: European Anti-Jewish Violence during the Second Intifada," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 135-180, April.
    7. Elizabeth Tighe & David Livert & Melissa Barnett & Leonard Saxe, 2010. "Cross-Survey Analysis to Estimate Low-Incidence Religious Groups," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 39(1), pages 56-82, August.
    8. Silvia Snidero & Federica Zobec & Paola Berchialla & Roberto Corradetti & Dario Gregori, 2009. "Question Order and Interviewer Effects in CATI Scale-up Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 38(2), pages 287-305, November.
    9. Lee Sunghee & Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba & Wagner James & Valliant Richard, 2017. "Total Survey Error and Respondent Driven Sampling: Focus on Nonresponse and Measurement Errors in the Recruitment Process and the Network Size Reports and Implications for Inferences," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 335-366, June.
    10. DiPrete, Thomas A. & Gelman, Andrew & Teitler, Julien & Zheng, Tian & McCormick, Tyler, 2008. "Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2008-204, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    11. Antonio Cabrales & Antoni Calvó-Armengol & Yves Zenou, 2009. "Social Interactions and Spillovers: Incentives,Segregation and Topology," Working Papers 2009-06, FEDEA.
    12. Cabrales, Antonio & Calvó-Armengol, Antoni & Zenou, Yves, 2007. "Effort and synergies in network formation," UC3M Working papers. Economics we072515, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    13. John J. Donohue & Daniel E. Ho, 2007. "The Impact of Damage Caps on Malpractice Claims: Randomization Inference with Difference‐in‐Differences," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 69-102, March.
    14. Hong, Harrison & Xu, Jiangmin, 2019. "Inferring latent social networks from stock holdings," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 323-344.
    15. Schaeffer, Merlin & Koopmans, Ruud & Veit, Susanne & Wagner, Mareike & Wiedner, Jonas, 2011. "The Ethnic Diversity and Collective Action Survey (EDCAS): Technical report," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Migration, Integration, Transnationalization SP IV 2011-701, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:1252-1289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.