Social Networks Inventory – SNI

This is an instrument designed to measure the test-takers perception of both how they feel about their relationship with significant others in their life and how they think those others feel about that relationship. By measuring both sides of the test-takers perceptions an assessment of their security in the relationships and the range of those relationships is obtained. Comparison with Cohen et al’s Social Network Index (unfortunately also abbreviated to SNI) shows that whilst the Inventory asks the test-taker to list those they consider most significant in their lives the Index asks for comments on specified groups. Both use likert-type scales.

• Instrument Name: Social Networks Inventory (SNI).

• Devised By: Treadwell, Leach and Stein (1993)

The inventory was developed from the social atom construct and theory put forward by Moreno (1932, 1936). It was devised as a standardized, quantifiable and easily scored method of separately assessing four "quadrants" of the test-taker’s social network. Those quadrants are psychological, collective, individual and ideal/dream. Collectively the developers believe that the instrument can be used to assess patterns of influence within an organization, to identify sources of conflict, and to examine information flow.

• Type of Instrument: Self Report Inventory. The test-taker is asked to list, for each quadrant, the smallest number of persons, pets or objects that significantly affect their life and then to assess the significance of each relationship to both the test-taker and the other party to the relationship. The assessment is made using a seven point likert scale.

• Split-half / Cronbach's Alpha: Data not available.
• Test-Retest Reliability: Based on a retest after 14 weeks of a group of 245 U.S university freshmen an overall stability estimate of .92 (p<. 01) is claimed by the developers.
• Alternate Form Reliability: No alternate form, but the developers support their assertion of reliability by stating consistency with the work of Moulton, Blake and Frucker(1960) and there own work (1989) on the test retest of the social atom test.
• Inter-rater Reliability: Not available. The Standardized Procedure for Administration should reduce inconsistencies resulting from inter-rater differences.

• Face Validity: The expressed uses of the Inventory match well the type of information requested. As a self-report its validity must vary according to the willingness of the test-taker to be open and honest.
• Criterion (or Predictive) Validity: Research is claimed to have enabled clear identification of clinical and non-clinical populations (average number of relationships listed in each quadrant for the known clinical group was 3.58 and for the non-clinical group 6.5). The inventory has been used to assess relationships and measure their significance in a wide range of situations. The developers list geriatric psychology. (identification and measurement of relationship gaps caused by the death of a partner), health psychology (changed relationships due to illness or changed body image) developmental psychology (changes in gender perception and intimacy with age changes) and counseling psychology (family therapy and friendship development).
• Content Validity: By inventorying relationships with significant persons (psychological quadrant), group participation (collective quadrant), friendships (individual quadrant) and fantasy relationships (ideal/dream quadrant) all relationships or wished for relationships can be included but restricting the inventory to a ‘smallest number’ of ‘significant relationships’ introduces some limitation due to definitional matters.
• Construct Validity: No subscales are given within quadrants. High test retest validity of each quadrant is reported by the developers (i.e. psychological .95, collective .79, individual .78 all at p<.01 and ideal .73 p<.05 which they combine to give an overall SNI index of .92 p<.01).
• Convergent Validity: The developers rely on comparison with the social atom test but it is noted that the report they give is consistent with the ability to predict a cardiac patient’s quality of life (Schroder, Schwarzer and Endler) from their relationship with their spouse and Cohen et al’s work with the effect of social integration and health.
• Discriminant Validity: The potential for the quadrants to overlap (i.e. the same person appearing in two or more quadrant inventories may result in the closeness for one quadrant being carried over, by the test-taker, into other quadrants). That effect may damage the validity of the power to discriminate between the individual quadrants.

• Scoring Method: Ratings from each quadrant are plotted on a "Quadratic Grid of Interpersonal Relationships" (QGIR). All raw scores allocated by the test-taker are accepted and plotted on the QGIR, which is supplied with the "test packet". The packet also contains procedures to calculate quadrant scores and to convert them to composite scores. It is, however, possible to plot the raw data and assess the grid based on the testers experience.

• Norms: Norms are not freely available. Data, that has been published, and is readily available, indicates that the lower the score in each quadrant the greater the chance of the test-taker suffering some form of disorder. Test-retest reliability was measured using an n=245 sample of university students and validity was tested by comparing the responses given by approximately equal numbers (n = 70 for each group) in clinical and non-clinical groups. Accordingly although there is some data relating to students and clinical/non clinical groups and that data is based on very small samples. No data is yet available giving norms for special groups such as by gender, age or ethnicity although the developers acknowledged that that was needed and stated that research was underway. Unfortunately this writer has not been able to locate reports on that work.

• Key References:

Above written by: Mr. Ron Rose

Article not yet approved by: Dr. Grant J. Devilly