| Literature DB >> 34205305 |
Alexander Steiger1, Fabian Mumenthaler1,2, Siegfried Nagel1.
Abstract
Social networks affect health. In this empirical study, friendship networks in integrative organized sports were examined and then compared with friendship networks in integrative school. Relevant factors for friendship network formation were investigated, with a particular interest in the relevance of intellectual disability. Advanced social network analysis was performed using exponential random graph modeling (ERGM) on individual attributes and dyadic factors, while controlling for network structures. A meta-analysis of estimated ERGMs in each setting, organized sports and school, was conducted. When controlling for all other included factors, intellectual disability is not relevant for friendship networks in organized sports. Athletic ability and gender homophily are relevant factors, while language and similarity in athletic ability are not. Contrary to the results for organized sports, intellectual disability and speaking a foreign language at home are negative factors in friendship networks at school. Athletic ability is important in both settings. Regarding dyadic factors, gender homophily is important in both settings, but similarity in athletic ability is not. To foster the psychosocial health of children with intellectual disabilities, they should be encouraged to participate in integrative organized sports as, there, they are part of friendship networks in a manner equal to their peers without an intellectual disability.Entities:
Keywords: children; exponential random graph models; inclusion; intellectual disability; physical activity; psychosocial health; social network analysis; social participation; sports
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34205305 PMCID: PMC8296506 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Description of sample (N = 24 sports groups, N = 24 school classes).
| Organized Sports | School | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children | Children | Children | Children | |
| n | 306 | 25 | 416 | 25 |
| Age (M, SD) | 11.31 (2.24) | 12.27 (1.31) 3 | 11.31 (1.06) | 11.85 (0.95) |
| Gender | 88 | 9 | 209 | 9 |
| Language | 256 | 16 | 334 | 16 |
1 Intellectual disability. 2 Percentage of children speaking Swiss-German (CHger) or German (GER) at home. 3 The sports groups were visited, on average, five months later than the school classes.
Endogenous factors.
| Model Parameter | Description | Visualization |
|---|---|---|
| Density | Density indicates the general probability of the presence of a friendship nomination in a network. A coefficient of zero means that exactly half of all possible nominations are sent; that density is 0.5. The density coefficient is comparable to the intercept in a regression analysis. |
|
| Reciprocity | Reciprocity indicates the probability that a sent friendship nomination is reciprocated. A positive coefficient means that the probability of a nomination from child |
|
| Popularity | Popularity is a measure of indegrees. A positive coefficient indicates that there are children in the network that are more popular than the others, i.e., some children receive more friendship nominations. |
|
| Activity | Activity is a measure of outdegrees. A positive coefficient indicates that there are children in the network that are more active than the others, i.e., some children send more friendship nominations. |
|
| Transitivity | Transitivity indicates the probability that we observe the structure “a friend’s friend is also my friend”, i.e., the probability of an existing friendship nomination from child |
|
| Two-Path | Two-path is used as a control structure to correctly estimate the effect of transitivity. |
|
Number of model parameters estimated for 24 full network models in integrative sports groups and school classes for meta-analyses.
| No. of Estimated | Density | Reciprocity | Popularity | Activity | Transitivity | Two-Path | Gender |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sports groups | 24 | 24 | 21 | 19 | 22 | 18 | 6 |
| School classes | 24 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sports groups | 20 | 13 | 13 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 23 |
| School classes | 21 | 17 | 16 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 25 |
1 Intellectual disability.
Figure 1Friendship networks in integrative organized sports and school. Square = boy; circle = girl; blue = child with ID; orange = child without ID; node size = athletic ability; black border = speaks Swiss-German or German at home; no border = other languages; ties = friendship nominations.
Figure 2Continued friendship networks. 1 With sports group 21, school class 23 and school class 24, missing values in athletic ability were replaced with the average for visualization purposes. For model estimation, athletic ability was not included with the aforementioned networks (see Table A1 in Appendix A).
Descriptive results (N = 24 sports groups, N = 24 school classes).
| Organized Sports | School | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children | Children | Children | Children | |
| n | 306 | 25 | 416 | 25 |
| Athletic ability | 1.16 (0.64) | 0.52 (0.51) | 1.20 (0.63) | 0.75 (0.68) |
| Indegrees (M, SD) | 4.65 (2.78) | 4.44 (2.81) | 5.95 (2.68) | 3.32 (2.58) |
| Outdegrees (M, SD) | 4.66 (2.69) | 4.36 (2.5) | 5.85 (2.21) | 5.00 (2.27) |
| Density (M, SD) | 0.36 (0.13) | 0.33 (0.06) | ||
| Reciprocity (M, SD) | 0.64 (0.10) | 0.69 (0.12) | ||
| Group size | 13.79 (3.44) | 18.38 (3.06) | ||
1 Intellectual disability.
Figure A1Density and reciprocity in friendship networks of integrative organized sports and at school.
Random-effects models for friendship networks in organized sports.
| Effect | OSM 1 | OSM 2 | OSM 3 | OSM 4 | (Full) OSM 5 | OR OSM 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Density | −2.59 *** | −2.50 *** | −2.27 *** | −2.53 *** | −2.57 *** | |
| Reciprocity | 1.87 *** | 1.87 *** | 1.81 *** | 1.96 *** | 1.84 *** | |
| Popularity | 0.19 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.17 *** | 0.17 *** | 0.13 *** | |
| Activity | 0.17 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.16 *** | 0.17 *** | 0.14 *** | |
| Transitivity | 0.70 *** | 0.76 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.72 *** | 0.68 *** | |
| Two-Path | −0.14 *** | −0.14 *** | −0.16 *** | −0.16 *** | −0.16 *** | |
| Gender Homophily | 0.21 (0.14) | 0.27 (0.2) | 0.26 (0.15) + | 0.19 (0.14) | 0.26 (0.15) + | 1.30 |
| Sim. Athletic Ability | −0.01 (0.06) | −0.03 (0.07) | 0.97 | |||
| Language (indegree) | −0.01 (0.13) | −0.10 (0.18) | 0.91 | |||
| Language (outdegree) | 0.01 (0.14) | −0.01 (0.15) | 0.99 | |||
| Athletic Ability (in.) | 0.15 (0.05) ** | 0.20 (0.06) ** | 1.22 | |||
| Athletic Ability (out.) | 0.07 (0.06) | 0.12 (0.06) * | 1.13 | |||
| Int. Disability (in.) | 0.05 (0.14) | 0.18 (0.19) | 1.20 | |||
| Int. Disability (out.) | 0.04 (0.13) | 0.09 (0.16) | 1.09 |
p values: *** 0.1%, ** 1%, * 5%, + 10%; OSM = organized sports model; OR = odds ratio.
Random-effects models for friendship networks in school.
| Effect | SCM 1 | SCM 2 | SCM 3 | SCM 4 | (Full) SCM 5 | OR SCM 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Density | −3.78 *** | −3.84 *** | −4.09 *** | −3.66 *** | −3.80 *** | |
| Reciprocity | 2.03 *** | 2.01 *** | 1.89 *** | 2.04 *** | 2.03 *** | |
| Popularity | 0.22 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.1 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.17 *** | |
| Activity | 0.09 *** | 0.08 ** | 0.09 ** | 0.08 ** | 0.06 * | |
| Transitivity | 0.62 *** | 0.63 *** | 0.60 *** | 0.60 *** | 0.53 *** | |
| Two-Path | −0.10 *** | −0.09 *** | −0.11 *** | −0.10 *** | −0.10 *** | |
| Gender Homophily | 1.66 (0.14) ** | 1.83 (0.16) *** | 1.78 (0.16) *** | 1.70 (0.14) *** | 1.80 (0.15) *** | 6.05 |
| Sim. Athletic Ability | −0.09 (0.04) * | −0.08 (0.05) | 0.93 | |||
| Language (indegree) | −0.29 (0.1) ** | −0.21 (0.09) * | 0.81 | |||
| Language (outdegree) | −0.02 (0.1) | 0.03 (0.11) | 1.03 | |||
| Athletic Ability (in.) | 0.26 (0.05) *** | 0.23 (0.05) *** | 1.26 | |||
| Athletic Ability (out.) | 0.10 (0.06) + | 0.11 (0.07) | 1.11 | |||
| Int. Disability. (in.) | −0.48 (0.17) ** | −0.41 (0.21) * | 0.66 | |||
| Int. Disability (out.) | −0.03 (0.14) | −0.11 (0.15) | 0.90 |
p values: *** 0.1%, ** 1%, * 5%, + 10%; SCM = school model; OR = odds ratio.
Mixed-effects meta-analyses for intellectual disability with the setting as the moderator variable.
| Effect | Organized Sports | School | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Int. Disability (in.) | 0.17 | −0.39 | 0.05 |
| Int. Disability (out.) | 0.09 | −0.11 | 0.37 |