Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T10:37:32.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Revised Thai Multi-Dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Nahathai Wongpakaran*
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University (Kingdom of Thailand)
Tinakon Wongpakaran
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University (Kingdom of Thailand)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nahathai Wongpakaran, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intawarorot Rd., Tambon Sriphoom, Amphur Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200 (Kingdom of Thailand). Phone: +66-53945422. Fax: +66-53945426. E-mail: nkuntawo@med.cmu.ac.th

Abstract

In order to ensure the construct validity of the three-factor model of the Multi-dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and based on the assumption that it helps users differentiate between sources of social support, in this study a revised version was created and tested. The aim was to compare the level of model fit of the original version of the MSPSS against the revised version - which contains a minor change from the original. The study was conducted on 486 medical students who completed the original and revised versions of the MSPSS, as well as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and Beck Depression Inventory II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to compare the results, showing that the revised version of MSPSS demonstrated a good internal consistency - with a Cronbach's alpha of .92 for the MSPSS questionnaire, and a significant correlation with the other scales, as predicted. The revised version provided better internal consistency, increasing the Cronbach's alpha for the Significant Others sub-scale from 0.86 to 0.92. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed an acceptable model fit: χ2 128.11, df 51, p < .001; TLI 0.94; CFI 0.95; GFI 0.90; PNFI 0.71; AGFI 0.85; RMSEA 0.093 (0.073-0.113) and SRMR 0.042, which is better than the original version. The tendency of the new version was to display a better level of fit with a larger sample size. The limitations of the study are discussed, as well as recommendations for further study.

En este trabajo se creó y probó una nueva versión de la Escala multidimensional de soporte social percibido (siglas en inglés: MSPSS); con el objetivo de asegurar su validez de constructo. Se comparó el nivel de ajuste del modelo de la versión original del MSPSS con la versión revisada que incluye cambios menores con respecto a aquella. En el estudio participaron 486 estudiantes de medicina que completaron ambas versiones del instrumento en cuestión, así como la Escala de autoestima de Rosenberg y el inventario de depresión de Beck II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). El análisis factorial confirmatorio realizado para comparar los resultados, mostró que la versión revisada del cuestionario MSPSS presentaba una buena consistencia interna, con un alfa de Cronbach de .92, y una correlación significativa con otras escalas, tal y como se predijo. La versión revisada mostró una mejor consistencia interna, incrementándose el alfa de Crombach para la subescala de Otros significantes de .86 a .92. El análisis factorial confirmatorio reveló un aceptable modelo de ajuste: χ2 128.11, df 51, p < 0.001; TLI 0.94; CFI 0.95; GFI 0.90; PNFI 0.71;AGFI 0.85; RMSEA 0.093 (0.073-0.113) y SRMR 0.042, mejorándose la versión original. La nueva versión tendía a mostrar un mejor nivel de ajuste con un mayor tamaño muestral. Se discuten las limitaciones del estudio, así como las recomendaciones para estudios futuros.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos (Version 18.0) Computer Program. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory—II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bruwer, B., Emsley, R., Kidd, M., Lochner, C., & Seedat, S. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in youth. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49, 195201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.09.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canty-Mitchell, J., & Zimet, G. D. (2000). Psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in urban adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 391400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cecil, H., Stanley, M. A., Carrion, P. G., & Swann, A. (1995). Psychometric properties of the MSPSS and NOS in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 593602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199509)51:5<593::AID-JCLP2270510503>3.0.CO;2-W3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, S-T., & Chan, A. C. M. (2004). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: Dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 13591369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, K-L. (2000). Assessing Chinese adolescents' social support: The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 299307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00098-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clara, I. P., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., Murray, L. T., & Torgrudc, L. J. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in clinically distressed and student samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 265270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8103_09CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, G. D., & Walker, R. R. (1991). The Multi-dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support: A confirmation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 756761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199111)47:6<756::AID-JCLP2270470605>3.0.CO;2-L3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (Eds.). (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ege, E., Timur, S., Zincir, H., Geçkil, E., & Sunar-Reeder, B. (2008). Social support and symptoms of postpartum depression among new mothers in Eastern Turkey. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 34, 585593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00718.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eker, D., Arkar, H., & Yaldiz, H. (2000). Generality of support sources and psychometric properties of a scale ofperceived social support in Turkey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 228233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frasure-Smith, N., Lespérance, F., Gravel, G., Masson, A., Juneau, M., Talajic, M., & Bourassa, M. G. (2000). Social support, depression, and mortality during the first year after myocardial infarction. Circulation, 101, 19191924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.101.16.1919CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multi-disciplinary Journal, 6, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (Eds.). (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lotrakul, M., & Sukanich, P. (1999). Development of the Thai Depression Inventory. Journal of Medical Association of Thailand, 82, 12001207.Google ScholarPubMed
Marsh, H. W., Balla, R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.105.3.430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 353377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. R. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S. S., Spinder, H., Erdman, R. A., & Denollet, J. (2009). Poor perceived social support in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients and their partners: Cross-validation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Psychosomatics, 50, 461467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.psy.50.5.461CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramaswamy, V., Aroian, K. J., & Templin, T. (2009). Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support for Arab American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(1–2), 4956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9220-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princenton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, M. A., Beck, J. G., & Zebb, B. J. (1998). Psychometric properties of the MSPSS in older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 2, 186193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13607869856669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaingankar, J. A., Abdin, E., & Chong, S. A. (2012). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in patients with schizophrenia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53, 286291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.04.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wongpakaran, T., Wongpakaran, N., & Ruktrakul, R. (2011). Reliability and validity of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS): Thai version. Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 7, 161166. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1745017901107010161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wongpakaran, T., Wongpakaran, N., & Wannarit, K. (2011). Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Experiences of Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire. Singapore Medical Journal, 52, 100106.Google ScholarPubMed
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 3041. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990). Psychometric characteristics of the Multi-dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 610617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674095CrossRefGoogle Scholar