4.4 Article

Psychometric testing of the social support survey on a Taiwanese sample

Journal

NURSING RESEARCH
Volume 55, Issue 6, Pages 411-417

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00006199-200611000-00005

Keywords

emotional social support; factor analysis; tangible social support

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SS) is a multidimensional, self-administered instrument used to assess various functional dimensions of social support. Less is known regarding its value for a Chinese population. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the MOS-SS on an adult sample in Taiwan. Methods: A total of 265 adult family caregivers of patients with cancer from four different hospitals in the north, middle, and south regions of Taiwan completed the MOS-SS. Results: In the original five-factor model, unsatisfactory item discriminant validity was found in almost half of the items; the item-own subscale correlation was lower than the item-other subscale correlation. A two-factor model accounting for 68.98% of the variance was found using exploratory factor analysis. The first factor (emotional support) accounted for 62.28% of the total variance, whereas the second factor (tangible support) accounted for 6.7%; the interfactor correlation was .71. The two-factor model seemed to have satisfactory reliability and validity and better discrimination between different subscales than did the original five-factor model. Discussion: Good reliability and validity were demonstrated in the MOS-SS when applied to an adult sample in Taiwan. A two-factor model, instead of a five-factor model as found in the Western countries, was found for this sample. Confirmation of the two-factor model and exploration of the two-factor model in related concepts are suggested for future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available