Comments on Downey's note: Discussion and further analysis of the differential validities of peer nomination scales

Abstract

Replies to R. G. Downey's (see PA, Vol 53:Issue 6) critique of the appropriateness of 2 of the peer nomination scaling techniques employed by G. G. Kaufman and J. C. Johnson (1974) and points out potential problems resulting from the distributional properties of these scales and the performance criteria. The scaling technique questions, which involve the scale consisting of the number of peer nominations and the computational procedures for producing a scale of average weighted nominations, are addressed. An examination of the distributions of the scales and criteria and the calculation of Spearman rho coefficients indicated that the distributional problems in no case significantly affected the pattern of correlations. It is concluded that the methodological issues raised by Downey have virtually no impact upon the results of the Kaufman and Johnson studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)