4.7 Article

Psychometric Properties of Multi-Dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in Chinese Parents of Children with Cerebral Palsy

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02020

关键词

social support; confirmatory factor analysis; validity; reliability; measurement invariance

资金

  1. Peak Discipline Construction Project of Education at East China Normal University
  2. National Social Science Foundation Project in China [13AZD097]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [GK20170.090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Multi-dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) is one of the most extensively used instruments to assess social support. The purpose of this research was to test the reliability, factorial validity, concurrent validity and measurement invariance across gender groups of the MSPSS in Chinese parents of children with cerebral palsy. A total of 487 participants aged 21-55 years were recruited to complete the Chinese MSPSS and Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF). Composite reliability was calculated as the internal consistency of the Chinese MSPSS and a (multi-group) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the factorial validity and measurement invariance across gender. And Pearson correlations were calculated to test the relationships between MSPSS and PSI-SF. The Chinese MSPSS had satisfactory internal reliability with composite reliability values of more than 0.7. The CFA indicated that the original three-factor model was replicated in this specific population. Importantly, the results of the multi-group CFA demonstrated that configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender groups was supported. In addition, all the three subscales of MSPSS were significant related with PSI-SF. These findings suggest that the Chinese MSPSS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing social support and can generally be utilized across sex in the parents of children with cerebral palsy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据