80 4.4.2. Correlation of social network measures within teams Table 4.4 indicates the correlations between the different network measures, per school team. These correlations are analyzed on matrices, see the Methods for the explanation. As expected, the correlations between density and reciprocity indicated a general positive trend, with some correlations being significant, though with small strength. Furthermore, as expected, the correlations between density and indegree centralization indicated a general negative trend and were mostly significant, with small to moderate strength. Thus, the small to moderate correlations suggest that the three social network measures study and represent distinct aspects of distributed leadership and thus add to each other and using all three can help to comprehensively study distributed leadership. Table 4.4 Correlations per School Team on Advice-seeking Team (n) Density x reciprocity Density x indegree centralization A (13) 0.011 -0.209* C (10) -0.065 -0.333* E (11) 0.349* -0.293* J (7) -0.113 -0.317 M (5) 0.128 0.128 D (11) 0.100 -0.030 F (11) 0.169 -0.349* B (12) 0.140 -0.322* G (9) 0.190 0.027 K (7) 0.317 -0.585* I (9) 0.349* 0.069 N (6) 0.293 -0.579* H (10) 0.374* 0.1 L (7) -0.412* -0.490* Note. Bold printed correlations fit measurement of distributed leadership. * Sig. < .05. 4.4.3. Distinguishing differences in distributed leadership between school teams To distinguish differences regarding distributed leadership between teams, we ordered the school teams based on low to high scores of density, reciprocity, and centralization. Table 4.5 indicates that school teams that scored high on density also scored high on reciprocity, low on indegree centralization, and had a relatively higher percentage of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw