Literature DB >> 35464674

Common datastream permutations of animal social network data are not appropriate for hypothesis testing using regression models.

Daniel W Franks1, Darren P Croft2, Michael N Weiss2,3, Lauren J N Brent2, Samuel Ellis2, Matthew J Silk4.   

Abstract

1. Social network methods have become a key tool for describing, modelling, and testing hypotheses about the social structures of animals. However, due to the non-independence of network data and the presence of confounds, specialized statistical techniques are often needed to test hypotheses in these networks. Datastream permutations, originally developed to test the null hypothesis of random social structure, have become a popular tool for testing a wide array of null hypotheses in animal social networks. In particular, they have been used to test whether exogenous factors are related to network structure by interfacing these permutations with regression models. 2. Here, we show that these datastream permutations typically do not represent the null hypothesis of interest to researchers interfacing animal social network analysis with regression modelling, and use simulations to demonstrate the potential pitfalls of using this methodology. 3. Our simulations show that, if used to indicate whether a relationship exists between network structure and a covariate, datastream permutations can result in extremely high type I error rates, in some cases approaching 50%. In the same set of simulations, traditional node-label permutations produced appropriate type I error rates (~ 5%). 4. Our analysis shows that datastream permutations do not represent the appropriate null hypothesis for these analyses. We suggest that potential alternatives to this procedure may be found in regarding the problems of non-independence of network data and unreliability of observations separately. If biases introduced during data collection can be corrected, either prior to model fitting or within the model itself, node-label permutations then serve as a useful test for interfacing animal social network analysis with regression modelling.

Entities:  

Keywords:  group living; null hypothesis significance testing; null model; permutation test; randomisations; regression; social networks

Year:  2020        PMID: 35464674      PMCID: PMC9033095          DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Ecol Evol            Impact factor:   8.335


  11 in total

1.  Testing association patterns of social animals.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.844

2.  A method for testing association patterns of social animals.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.844

Review 3.  The evolutionary and ecological consequences of animal social networks: emerging issues.

Authors:  Ralf H J M Kurvers; Jens Krause; Darren P Croft; Alexander D M Wilson; Max Wolf
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Indirectly connected: simple social differences can explain the causes and apparent consequences of complex social network positions.

Authors:  Josh A Firth; Ben C Sheldon; Lauren J N Brent
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Inferring social network structure in ecological systems from spatio-temporal data streams.

Authors:  Ioannis Psorakis; Stephen J Roberts; Iead Rezek; Ben C Sheldon
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Common datastream permutations of animal social network data are not appropriate for hypothesis testing using regression models.

Authors:  Daniel W Franks; Darren P Croft; Michael N Weiss; Lauren J N Brent; Samuel Ellis; Matthew J Silk
Journal:  Methods Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 8.335

7.  Sensitivity of MRQAP Tests to Collinearity and Autocorrelation Conditions.

Authors:  David Dekker; David Krackhardt; Tom A B Snijders
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2007-08-07       Impact factor: 2.500

8.  Proximity data-loggers increase the quantity and quality of social network data.

Authors:  Thomas B Ryder; Brent M Horton; Mike van den Tillaart; Juan De Dios Morales; Ignacio T Moore
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 3.703

9.  Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis.

Authors:  Damien R Farine; Hal Whitehead
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 5.091

10.  A guide to null models for animal social network analysis.

Authors:  Damien R Farine
Journal:  Methods Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 7.781

View more
  6 in total

1.  Female social structure influences, and is influenced by, male introduction and integration success among captive rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta).

Authors:  Krishna N Balasubramaniam; Brianne A Beisner; Brenda McCowan; Mollie A Bloomsmith
Journal:  Behaviour       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 1.672

2.  Common datastream permutations of animal social network data are not appropriate for hypothesis testing using regression models.

Authors:  Daniel W Franks; Darren P Croft; Michael N Weiss; Lauren J N Brent; Samuel Ellis; Matthew J Silk
Journal:  Methods Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 8.335

3.  Social networks respond to a disease challenge in calves.

Authors:  Katharine C Burke; Sarah do Nascimento-Emond; Catherine L Hixson; Emily K Miller-Cushon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 4.  A guide to choosing and implementing reference models for social network analysis.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Hobson; Matthew J Silk; Nina H Fefferman; Daniel B Larremore; Puck Rombach; Saray Shai; Noa Pinter-Wollman
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2021-07-03

5.  Group and individual social network metrics are robust to changes in resource distribution in experimental populations of forked fungus beetles.

Authors:  Robin A Costello; Phoebe A Cook; Vincent A Formica; Edmund D Brodie
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Permutation tests for hypothesis testing with animal social network data: Problems and potential solutions.

Authors:  Damien R Farine; Gerald G Carter
Journal:  Methods Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 8.335

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.