Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 10 Agreement between sociometric and self-nominating instruments for generic and condition-specific opinion leadership

From: Is the involvement of opinion leaders in the implementation of research findings a feasible strategy?

Sociometric Instrument Generic vs. condition-specific Opinion Leadership

 

Condition-specific instrument

 
 

Opinion leader

Not opinion leader

 

Generic instrument

 

Opinion leader

23

64

87

Not opinion leader

61

856

917

 

84

920

1001

Self-designating Instrument Generic vs. condition-specific Opinion Leadership1

 

Condition-specific instrument

 
 

Opinion leader

Not opinion leader

 

Generic instrument

 

Opinion leader

77

116

193

Not opinion leader

93

563

656

 

170

679

849

Generic Opinion Leadership sociometric vs. self-designating instrument1

 

Self-designating instrument

 
 

Opinion leader

Not opinion leader

 

Sociometric instrument

   

Opinion leader

23

37

60

Not opinion leader

200

720

920

 

223

757

980

Condition-specific Opinion Leadership sociometric vs. self-designating instrument1

 

Self-designating instrument

 
 

Opinion leader

Not opinion leader

 

Sociometric instrument

   

Opinion leader

26

15

41

Not opinion leader

149

678

827

 

175

693

868

  1. 1. Analysis limited to respondents with both generic and condition-specific instruments completed.
Back to article page

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908