The Reliability and Reciprocity of a Social Network Measure

Abstract

There have been few efforts to systematically develop reliable and valid measures of social networks, particularly in studies dealing with individuals having substance use disorders. In the current study, individuals living in recovery homes called Oxford Houses completed a 6-item measure of social networks. The Cronbach’s alpha was .85 and a confirmatory factor analysis found excellent fit statistics with all items having substantial (> .70) load factors. In addition, the measure was independent of age, sex, and ethnicity and significantly related to length of stay in the recovery homes and quality of life. The authors have found that this instrument works well as an ego network with adequate psychometric properties and empirical relations to other recovery variables.

Full text

The Reliability and Reciprocity of a Social Network Measure
Leonard A. Jason, PhD and Ed Stevens, PhD
Center for Community Research, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Abstract
There have been few efforts to systematically develop reliable and valid measures of social
networks, particularly in studies dealing with individuals having substance use disorders. In the
current study, individuals living in recovery homes called Oxford Houses completed a 6-item
measure of social networks. The Cronbach’s alpha was .85 and a confirmatory factor analysis
found excellent fit statistics with all items having substantial (> .70) load factors. In addition, the
measure was independent of age, sex, and ethnicity and significantly related to length of stay in
the recovery homes and quality of life. The authors have found that this instrument works well as
an ego network with adequate psychometric properties and empirical relations to other recovery
variables.
Keywords
Oxford House; recovery homes; social network; substance use disorders
Recovering people with substance use disorders (SUDs) face many obstacles to maintaining
abstinence (Jason, Olson, & Foli, 2008). As an example, dropout is common from
detoxification and acute treatment programs, and many people who finish treatment relapse
over time. This cycle is often repeated frequently, with high personal and social costs. So it
has become increasingly clear that detoxification and treatment programs are insufficient to
ensure abstinence from drugs and alcohol; for most people with SUDs, continued longer
term support following treatment is necessary. Environmental factors are key contributors to
maintaining abstinence after treatment (Vaillant, 2003). These factors include the amount
and type of support one receives for abstinence.
Within the substance use literature, there have been a number of studies of social support
and their relationship to abstinence (e.g., Majer, Jason, Aase, Droege, & Ferrari, 2013).
Supportive, cohesive posttreatment settings are known to reduce relapse rates (Laudet
Becker, & White, 2009). For example, Schaefer, Cronkite, and Hu (2011) found that each
additional month spent in aftercare led to a 20% increase in the odds of continued
abstinence. We also know that a minimum stay of about 6 months in such settings seems
necessary to materially improve the likelihood of sustained recovery (Jason, Olson, et al.,
2007). Such studies demonstrate the value of recovery support during this critical period.
CONTACT Leonard A. Jason, ljason@depaul.edu, Center for Community Research, DePaul University, 990 W. Fullerton Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60614.
ORCID
Leonard A. Jason, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9972-4425
HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Published in final edited form as:
Alcohol Treat Q
. 2017 ; 35(4): 317–327. doi:10.1080/07347324.2017.1355220.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

But in these studies, networks are often treated as a single entity representing a characteristic
of an individual respondent. Such approaches do not account for the heterogeneity of an
individual’s social network (Stone, Jason, Light, & Stevens, 2016). In contrast, network
studies have typically been based on personal network data (also called “ego networks”).
Personal networks are assessed by asking an individual (“ego”) to identify his or her
relationships (“alters”), which can be close friends, family members, and work associates.
Researchers might use inventories or name generators in interviews to map respondents’ ego
networks. The respondent then provides information on each person in his or her ego
network. The result is a data set containing multiple ties (alters) for the same respondent
(ego), with each item for each alter as a separate variable. Personal ego network
methodology offers greater detail in measuring social context compared to simple summary
ratings. For example, one can see the ties or connections with the friends (alters) of the
person (or ego) that support drinking or abstinence.
Ego networks have been studied as treatment outcomes and how an individual’s ego network
might be used to predict what specific treatment is most likely to succeed. In a recent
literature review, Stone et al. (2016) found that completing treatment was related to increases
of the number of abstinent and treatment-related alters in one’s network (Litt, Kadden,
Kabela-Cormier, & Petry, 2009; Min et al., 2013; Mohr, Averna, Kenny, & Del Boca, 2001;
Tracy et al., 2012). Nearly all treatment-related changes in social networks found in these
studies were positive, (i.e., increases in abstinent alters and decreases in substance/alcohol
use of alters; Litt et al., 2009; Min et al., 2013; Mohr et al., 2001; Zywiak et al., 2009),
suggesting that treatment interventions often support positive restructuring of one’s social
network.
Many of these studies used a measure called the Important People and Activiteis Inventory
(IPA; Longabaugh, Wirtz, Zywiak, & O’malley, 2010), but there is inconsistency in the way
investigators have used this instrument. Many analyze individual items (e.g., number of
drinking network members; Zywiak, Longabaugh, & Wirtz, 2002) and others calculate
composite or summary variables for analysis (e.g., support for drinking from network
members; Groh, Jason, Ferrari, & Halpert, 2011). Unfortunately, there is also disagreement
among researchers as to how many and which composite factors of the IPA create the best
model. The psychometric properties of this instrument are also unclear.
Recently, a new measure of social networks was used in a study by Jason, Light, Stevens,
and Beers (2014) of individuals in recovery houses, and they found that involvement in
recovery-related activities (Alcoholics Anonymous [AA] meeting attendance, having an AA
sponsor, etc.) led to increased trust of other residents and increased the likelihood of having
a “confidant” within the house, that is, a trusted friend with whom to discuss recovery-
related problems and issues. These results are consistent with a mutually reinforcing
feedback loop between an individual’s recovery-supporting activities and the quality of his
or her social relationships with other house residents. The present study examined the
psychometric properties of this new social network instrument with a relatively large sample
of individuals living in recovery homes. It was hypothesized that the instrument would have
high internal consistency and would be related to both length of stay in the recovery homes
and quality of life.
Jason and Stevens Page 2
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Method
Procedure
This study involved a complete longitudinal design in which consented individuals
underwent an initial baseline assessment (Wave 1), which is the focus of the current study.
After participants enter the study, we assess them every 4 months over a 2-year period (this
study is currently in progress and at the present time, only Wave 1 data has been collected
and analyzed). Each wave of assessment will be conducted by phone or in-person interview,
or by written surveys sent to, completed, and returned by each individual participant. The
method of assessment (interview or written survey) will be selected by the participant during
the consent process and subsequently when contacted for follow-up. Any individuals
entering the participating recovery home during this period will be enrolled in the study after
they provide informed consent, so we can assess the complete networks of the residents of
the houses for the remaining subsequent waves. We selected only Oxford House (OH)
recovery homes as they are comparable across different regions, requiring residents to abide
by three rules: not consume any alcohol or drugs, pay their share of rent, and maintain good
behavior in their houses. There are about 2,000 OHs in the United States, making them the
largest networks of self-run recovery homes, as there are no professional staff within these
settings.
To recruit 42 participating Oxford House (OH) recovery homes, a national recruiting
strategy was implemented through an outreach to OH stakeholders at national and state
levels, and samples were collected in North Carolina, Texas, and Oregon. Research staff first
called the presidents of OHs to inform them of the study and request their participation in
the study. House presidents were informed at this time that they would be requested to
participate in the study (answering the same surveys as other house member participants
along with one additional survey specific to the house president), and to participate in the
recruitment of fellow members of their OH. If the house president agreed, our staff emailed
him or her a verbal script to be used in presenting the information about the study to the
house members. The house president then presented the study and asked the members of
each house whether they would be willing to participate. This occurred verbally between the
president and house members during a regularly scheduled weekly house business meeting.
After outlining the study, the house president held a secret ballot to measure member
interest. The research staff contacted the house presidents after the scheduled house business
meetings to learn whether the house would participate. Once house presidents indicated that
all or all but one of their members would like to participate, the participants were contacted
by telephone on an individual basis to obtain verbal consent and to collect the information
requested on a Contact Information Sheet. Verbal consent and contact information were
obtained from each participant prior to the baseline wave of interviews. After obtaining
verbal consent, an information package including all of the survey measures were directly
sent to the name and address or email of the consenting individual. Residents were told that
they have the right to decline participation without penalty. We did not observe any coercion
that might occur for recruitment by inspecting the consent form to see if any discomfort was
mentioned when that form was filled out. Further, to avoid a situation where the house as a
whole reached a supposed consensus even when some individuals have reservations,
Jason and Stevens Page 3
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

individual consent was obtained online from each house member, preserving anonymity of
consent among members. Participants were informed that they may still request to receive a
copy of the final report of the study regardless of their houses’ nonparticipation in future
waves.
If assessment occurred via phone calls, then we assured confidentiality by reminding
participants that their survey responses are confidential and encouraged them to be in a
private area throughout the duration of the interview. Likewise, participants who elected to
fill written surveys received written instructions and a reminder phone call to complete the
survey in private and enclose and seal their confidential responses in the provided return
envelope. Because this study included references to house members by other house
members, confidentiality was an important consideration in the handling of completed
surveys. For written surveys received by mail, a process was set up to maintain care, control,
and custody of the data from survey completion through deidentification at the time of data
entry (in REDCap) to original document safekeeping.
Measures
As part of the baseline (Wave 1), assessment for each participating individual, the
interviewer began with a Demographic Survey that measures sex, age, race, and length of
residency in their recovery home. The current study focused on the two measures described
below.
The Social Network Instrument was developed from our previously mentioned house
network pilot study (Jason et al., 2014) and was administered. It measured residents’
theoretically-significant relationships within the house, comprising the house social
structure. Types of relationships include friendship (how friendly, how strong, personal
conversation, helping), trust (how much money you would lend), and mentoring (going to
the person for advice on recovery and other important life issues; see Appendix). Each of 6
items was rated on a 5-point (0–4) scale appropriate to the relationship type (e.g., friendship
goes from “close friend” to “adversary”). These measures were used to create a matrix of
relationships for each participant, relationship type (i.e., with all potential ties measured).
All such matrices together comprise the “multiplex social network.”
The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Brief Version (The WHOQOL
Group, 1998) is a 26-item instrument measuring quality of life across four domains
(physical, psychological, social relationships, and environment) using 5 point Likert-type
scoring. The individual subscales have demonstrated marginal to excellent reliability (α’s = .
66 for the 3-item social relationship subscale, .75 for psychological, .80 for environment,
and .82 for physical). The instrument exhibits strong discriminant and convergent validity
(Skevington, Lotfy, & O’Connell, 2004) and has been used across a broad constellation of
cultures and populations including alcoholics (da Silva Lima, Fleck, Pechansky, de Boni, &
Sukop, 2005) and homeless, substance dependent individuals (Garcia-Rea & LePage, 2010).
The latter study also demonstrated within-individual change on monthly to yearly time
scales.
Jason and Stevens Page 4
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Results
There were a total of 229 participants, with an average of 5.62 network members each. Of
these participants, 55% (
n
= 126) were male and 44.5% (
n
= 102) were female and .4 (
n
= 1)
were other. The average age of participants was 38 (
SD
= 10.82). Neither age (
r
= .06,
p
> .
05) nor sex (
r
= .14,
p
> .05) were significantly corrected with the social network measure.
Regarding race, 82.1% were Caucasian, 9.2% were African American, 1.3% were American
Indian, 6.5% were Latino, and Alaskan Native, and Pacific Islander were .4% (
n
= 1). The
social network instrument score was not significantly related to race or ethnicity,
F
(3,225) =
1.46,
p
= .23, using the four classifications of African American, Hispanic, White non-
Hispanic, and other. Figure 1 shows the distribution of mean social network scores (
n
=
1,297,
M
= 2.54,
SD
= .81). Cronbach’s alpha was .85 and all items contributed positively.
These items were used to create an indicator of social network for each participant.
We next performed a two-level confirmatory factor analysis, which had excellent fit statistics
(Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .967, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = .949, root mean square
error of approximation [RMSEA] = .062, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]
= .030) with all items having substantial (> .70) load factors (see Figure 2).
Finally, we created two measures of social network, one based on an individual ego network,
where SN1 indicated a person’s ratings of all other members, and SN2 representing a house
measure of the whole network. As is evident from Figure 3, length of stay (LOS) in the
recovery home and quality of life (QOL) was significantly related to each measure,
suggesting that the ego network measure might serve as good proxy for a whole network
measure.
Discussion
Networks are becoming more pervasive, including within physical and information (e.g.,
databases) and biological (e.g., neural) domains, with minimal ingredients for social
networks involving people (egos and alters) and relations (ties, relations, and connections).
Unfortunately, at least within the substance use area, few measures have had adequate
psychometric properties, and the current study suggested that the social network measure
had adequate internal reliability and was related to a number of important recovery oriented
variables.
The findings that those who scored higher on the social network measure had longer stays in
the recovery homes and higher quality of life have important implications. Because 50% of
individuals leave recovery homes before the 6-month period of time that is predictive of
good recovery outcomes (Jason, Davis, et al., 2007), we need to understand the parameters
that predict premature departure. Helping residents deal with social relationships might lead
to greater recovery-related learning that could lead to a greater length of stay in the recovery
homes. By identifying mechanisms through social network analysis through which social
environments affect health outcomes, this approach could contribute to reducing health care
costs by improving the effectiveness of the residential recovery home system in the United
States and also restructuring and improving other community-based recovery settings.
Jason and Stevens Page 5
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Network approaches have remained limited largely to studies of “personal” networks, that is,
the personal friendships or other significant relationships reported by study participants. In
contrast, “whole” networks do include the relationships of named individuals with each
other. A personal network involves a person in a group just rating all others in the group,
whereas a whole network involves a person in the group rating not only all other group
members but also being rated by others. Ego networks are regularly used to study substance
use disorders (Stone et al., 2016), in part because the study population normally does not
share the same context. The current study does suggest that the ego network measure used
was comparable to a whole network approach.
There are several limitations in the current study. Only Wave 1 data was employed, and
certainly over time, it will be important to investigate the longitudinal changes that occur
among the social network variables in these recovery homes, and to evaluate the stability of
this social network measure over time. In addition, Item 2 probably suffers from a small
amount of reverse scoring bias and switching the order of the scoring key might eliminate
the minor relationships in errors, but it’s really not a large problem for this measure.
In summary, this study provides preliminary data our relatively newly developed measure
had adequate internal reliability and excellent fit statistics using a confirmatory factor
analysis. In addition, the measure was significantly related to length of stay in the recovery
homes and quality of life. Most importantly, this instrument works well as an ego network
and thus allows investigators the option of using this approach when whole network data is
not possible to collect.
Acknowledgments
Funding
The authors appreciate the financial support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grant
number AA022763).
References
da Silva Lima AFB, Fleck M, Pechansky F, De Boni R, Sukop P. Psychometric properties of the World
Health Organization Quality of Life instrument (WHOQoL-BREF) in alcoholic males: A pilot
study. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment
Care & Rehabilitation. 2005; 14(2):473–478. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-5327-1
Garcia-Rea EA, LePage JP. Reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Quality of Life:
Brief version (WHOQOL-BREF) in a homeless substance dependent veteran population. Social
Indicators Research. 2010; 99(2):333–340. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-010-9583-x
Groh D, Jason LA, Ferrari J, Halpert J. A longitudinal investigation of the predictability of the three-
factor model of the important people inventory. American Journal of Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2011;
37(4):259–263. DOI: 10.3109/00952990.2011.591017 [PubMed: 21702726]
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture
(REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational
research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2009; 42:377–381. [PubMed:
18929686]
Jason LA, Davis MI, Ferrari JR, Anderson E. The need for substance abuse after-care: Longitudinal
analysis of Oxford House. Addictive Behaviors. 2007; 32(4):803–818. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.
2006.06.014 [PubMed: 16843612]
Jason and Stevens Page 6
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Jason LA, Light JM, Stevens E, Beers K. Dynamic social networks in Oxford House recovery homes.
American Journal of Community Psychology. 2014; 53:324–334. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-013-9610-6
[PubMed: 24217855]
Jason LA, Olson BD, Ferrari JR, Majer JM, Alvarez J, Stout J. An examination of main and interactive
effects of substance abuse recovery housing on multiple indicators of adjustment. Addiction. 2007;
102(7):1114–1121. DOI: 10.1111/add.2007.102.issue-7 [PubMed: 17567399]
Jason LA, Olson BD, Foli K. Rescued lives: The Oxford House approach to substance abuse. New
York, NY: Routledge; 2008.
Laudet A, Becker J, White W. Don’t wanna go through that madness no more: Quality of life
satisfaction as predictor of sustained substance use remission. Substance Use and Misuse. 2009;
44:227–252. DOI: 10.1080/10826080802714462 [PubMed: 19142823]
Litt MD, Kadden RM, Kabela-Cormier E, Petry NM. Changing network support for drinking: Network
support project 2-year follow up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2009; 77(2):229–
242. DOI: 10.1037/a0015252 [PubMed: 19309183]
Longabaugh R, Wirtz PW, Zywiak WH, O’Malley SS. Network support as a prognostic indicator of
drinking outcomes: The COMBINE study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010; 71(6):
837–846. DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.837 [PubMed: 20946740]
Majer JM, Jason LA, Aase DM, Droege JR, Ferrari JR. Categorical 12-step involvement and
continuous abstinence at 2 years. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2013; 44(1):46–51. DOI:
10.1016/j.jsat.2012.03.001 [PubMed: 22498012]
Min MO, Tracy EM, Kim H, Park H, Jun M, Brown S, … Laudet A. Changes in personal networks of
women in residential and outpatient substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment. 2013; 45:325–334. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.04.006 [PubMed: 23755971]
Mohr CD, Averna S, Kenny DA, Del Boca FK. Getting by (or getting high) with a little help from my
friends: An examination of adult alcoholics’ friendships. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2001;
62:637–645. DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.637 [PubMed: 11702803]
Schaefer JA, Cronkite RC, Hu KU. Differential relationships between continuity of care practices,
engagement in continuing care, and abstinence among subgroups of patients with substance use
and psychiatric disorders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2011; 72:611–621. DOI:
10.15288/jsad.2011.72.611 [PubMed: 21683043]
Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality
of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report
from the WHOQOL group. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life
Aspects of Treatment Care & Rehabilitation. 2004; 13(2):299–310. DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.
0000018486.91360.00
Stone A, Jason LA, Light JM, Stevens EB. The role of ego networks in studies of substance use
disorder recovery. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 2016; 34:315–328. DOI:
10.1080/07347324.2016.1182818 [PubMed: 27594761]
Tracy EM, Kim H, Brown S, Min MO, Jun M, McCarty C. Substance abuse treatment stage and
personal networks of women in substance abuse treatment. Journal of the Society for Social Work
and Research. 2012; 3(2):65–79. DOI: 10.5243/jsswr.2012.5 [PubMed: 22639705]
Vaillant GE. A 60-year follow-up of alcoholic men. Addiction. 2003; 98:1043–1051. DOI: 10.1046/j.
1360-0443.2003.00422.x [PubMed: 12873238]
The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of
life assessment. Psychological Medicine. 1998; 28:551–558. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291798006667
[PubMed: 9626712]
Zywiak WH, Longabaugh R, Wirtz PW. Decomposing the relationships between pretreatment social
network characteristics and alcohol treatment outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002;
63(1):114–121. [PubMed: 11925053]
Zywiak WH, Neighbors CJ, Martin RA, Johnson JE, Eaton CA, Rohsenow DJ. The important people
drug and alcohol interview: Psychometric properties, predictive validity, and implications for
treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2009; 36(3):321–330. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.
2008.08.001 [PubMed: 18835677]
Jason and Stevens Page 7
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Appendix. Social Network Measure
Six items focused on relationship, resources, and access which are scored on 5-point scales.
The lower the score, the stronger the relationship. Currently, Item 2 must be reversed scored.
Each resident answers these questions about every other member of the house.
1. How friendly are you with this person?
2. If this person asked to borrow money from you, how much would you be willing
to lend them?
3. If this person needed help for a day, how likely would you be to help?
4. How often do you have a personal conversation with this person?
5. How often do you go to this person for advice on your recovery and other
important life issues?
6. Overall, how strong would you rate your relationship with this person?
Jason and Stevens Page 8
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Distribution of mean social network scores.
Jason and Stevens Page 9
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Loadings for confirmatory factor analysis.
Jason and Stevens Page 10
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Evidence of recovery relationships & reciprocity. LOS = length of stay; QOL = Quality of
Life; SN1 = person’s ratings of all other members; SN2 = a house measure of the whole
network.
Jason and Stevens Page 11
Alcohol Treat Q
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 September 19.
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript