Bridges, K.R.

Sanderman, R.

van Sonderen, E.

English

The 34-item Social Support List developed in The Netherlands combines measures of support satisfaction and support interactions in six subscales plus a total score. The present study was designed to assess the applicability of the list in a different cultural context. Data from 421 American undergraduates were consistent with Dutch findings and support the efficacy of the English language version.</p

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenAn English language version of the social support listBridges, K.R.; Sanderman, R.; van Sonderen, E.Published in:Psychological ReportsIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2002Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Bridges, K. R., Sanderman, R., & van Sonderen, E. (2002). An English language version of the socialsupport list: Preliminary reliability. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 1055-1058.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 06-06-2022PsychofogicafRepor~, 2002, 90,1055-1058. O Psychological Reports 2002 AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE VERSION OF  THE SOCIAL SUPPORT LIST: PRELIMINARY RELIABILITY ' K. ROBERT BRDGES ROBBERT SANDERMAN AND ERIC VAN SONDEREN Sum~nary.-The %-item Social Support List developed in The Netherlands com- bines measures of support satisfaction and support interactions in six subscales plus a total score. The present study was designed to assess the applicability of the list in a different cultural context. Data from 421 American undergraduates were consistent with Dutch findings and support the efficacy of the English language version. The middle ground between solitary coping and seeking professional assistance involves acquiring social support, i.e., help from nonprofessionals. Social support is viewed as that provided by a spouse or other family mem- bers, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and comrnunicy support groups. Social support can involve emotional support as well as tangible support, informa- tion, and advice. Also, it has been regarded as the feeling of being loved, cared for, and valued (Cobb, 1976). Social support research has evolved since the initial work in the 1970s. As noted by Trobst (1999), early investigations conducted by epidemiolo- gists established the relationship between social support and health. Social support has recently been W e d  to lower distress postcancer surgery (Atferi, Carver, Antoni, Weiss, & Durin, 2001) and recovery from burns (Solomon & Roy, 2000). Health, community, and social psychologists later &ed with epidemiologists and expanded the investigation of the role of social support. Research has shown social support to be prelctive of marital satisfaction (Trobst, 1999) and important in reducing stress experienced with unemploy- ment, long-term dlness, retirement, and bereavement (Krantz, Grunberg, & Baum, 1985). Many measures of social support have been developed. As early as 1988 Heitzmann and Kaplan (1988) identified 23 ddferenc measurement tech- niques. A Dutch investigator, van Sonderen (1990), argued that many of the early tests were lunited in that they l d  not incorporate several important domains of support. Specifically, van Sonderen suggested that, taken alone, dscrepancies in support or deficiencies are more importanc than interactions 'Address correspondence to K. Robert Bridges, Ph.D.. Department of Psychology, Penn Stare University, New Kensington, PA 15068 or e-mail (krb3@psu.edu). 1056 K. R. BRIDGES, ET AL. (the amount received) in explaining reported psychological &stress. How- ever, he found that the combination of discrepancies and interactions pro- vided an indication of the need for support and important clues in the study of the process. Consequently, he developed the Dutch language version of the Social Support List in The Netherlands, a multidimensional question- naire in which discrepancies and interactions are combined. The present re- search examined the initial reliabil~ty of the English language version. METHOD Participants A sample of 421 undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology at three American colleges and universities (one each from the east, midwest, and west) responded to the list. There were 241 women and 176 men (four students did not provide information on their sex). The sample ranged in age from 18 to 41 years (M=21.2, SD=5.1). Measure The Social Support List measures several dimensions of support which were originally factorially derived in a Dutch sample, namely, daily-oriented emotional support, problem-oriented emotional support, esteem, instrumen- tal support, social companionship, and informative support. In addtion to these subscales, a total support score can be employed. The list contains 34 items which are classified into six subscales (see Table I ) .  The respondent evaluates each item on two separate 4-point scales, one for interactions and one for discrepancies. The response categories for interactions were (1) I miss it, (2) I don't really miss it, but I prefer more, (3) exactly the right amount, and (4) it happens too often. For deficiencies, the categories were rescored in the opposite direction. TABLE 1 SUBSCALE ITEM DISTRIBLITLON Subscale Items in Each Scale Daily Emotional 1, 7, 8, 24 Problem Emotional 3, 6, 10, 11, 17, 26, 29. 34 Esteem 2, 14, 15, 16, 28, 30 Instrumental Supporr 5, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 32 Social companionship 9, 13, 19, 23, 33 Informative 4, 25, 27, 31  To achieve language equivalence (Dutch to English), a standard for- ward-backward translation process was employed. During translation consul- tants reviewed the items on prespecified rules for adequacy of translation (Brislin, 1986). The list was designed to be used for theoretical research in the field of social support and applied research on stress. SOCIAL SUPPORT LIST I N  ENGLISH 1057 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Cronbach coefficients alpha and mean interitem correlations were com- puted for each subscale and total score for both discrepancies and interac- tions measures; they are   resented in Table 2. Using the guidelines for the beginning phase of questionnaire development reported by Nunnally (1978), TABLE 2 COEFFICLENTS ALPHA AND MEAN INTERITEM CORREIATIONS FOR SUBSCALES OF SOCIAL S U P ~ O R T  LIST Subscale Discrepancies Interactions Coefficient a T * Coeficient = r C  East Mid- West Total Toral East md- West Total Total west west Daily Emotional .82 .83 .80 .82 .52 .83 .77 .79 .80 .50 Problem Emotional .80 .79 .88 .82 .36 .86 .79 .87 .85 .41 Esteem .77 .75 .83 .78 .38 .75 .79 .85 .80 .40 Instrumental Support .71 .74 .67 .71 .27 .78 .72 .80 .78 3 3  Social Companionship .85 .83 .88 .86 .54 .83 .78 .87 .83 .49 Informative .59 .61 .69 .63 .30 .73 .66 .74 .72 .39 Total Score .93 .92 .95 .93 .28 .94 .93 .96 .94 .32 *Mean interitem correlations. for the total sample the reliabhties of the subscales (with the exception of the informative subscale in the &screpancy measure) and the total scores were of acceptable magnitudes. Indeed, as alpha is dependent on scale length, the interitem correlations indicate that some low alphas can be attrib- uted to the scale length and not to the lack of coherence among items. Scale means and standard deviations for the total sample are presented in Table 3 .  TMLE 3 SUBSCAU MEANS AND STANDARD EVIATIONS Subscale Discrepancies Interactions M SD M SD Daily Emodond 6.3 2.3 11.4 2.7 Problem Emotional 12.1 3.5 21.0 4.3 Esteem 8.6 2.6 16.4 3.3 Instrumental 10.1 2.7 16.0 3.9 Social Companionship 8.1 2.9 13.8 3.3 Informative 5.7 1.7 9.6 2.4 Total 50.9 12.5 88.1 16.2 Butcher, Nezami, and Exner (1998) recently observed an increase in the cross-cultural use of self-report personaLty measures adapted for use in cul- tures other than those for which they were originally intended. Perhaps anti- cipating this, Eysenck and Eysenck (1983) urged that investigators use cau- 1058 K R BIUDGES, ET AL. tion when evaluating the responses to these measures because psychometric properties obtained within one culture cannot be assumed for others. They emphasized the necessity of verifying such generahations empirically. The present findings were consistent with Dutch reliabhty data and support the efficacy of the English language version. If the list is to become useful in in- ternational research, data from additional cultures are needed. REFERENCES ALFERI. S. M., CARVER, C. S., ANTONI. M. H., WEISS, S.,  &DuRAN, R. E. (2001) An exploratory study of social support, distress, and life disruption among low-income Hispanic women under treatment for early stage breast cancer. Health Psychology, 20, 41-46. BNSLIN, R. W. (1986) The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Barry (Eds.), Field  neth hods in moss-nrlturol research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pp. 137-164. BUTCHER, J .  N.,  NEZAMI, E., &EWER, J .  (1998) Psychological assessment of eople in diverse cultures. In S. S. Kazarian & D. R. Evans (Eds.), Czrlftrral clinical psyc&logy: theory, re- search, and practice. New York: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 61-10>, COBB, S. (1976) Social support as a moderator of Life stress. Psychosovzalic Medicine, 38, 300- 314. EYSENCK, H.  1.. &EYSENCK, S. B. G. (1983) Recent advances in the cross-cultural study of per- sonality. In J. N .  Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.). Advonce.v in personalify assesstnent. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 41-69. HEITZMANN, C.  & KAPLAN, R. M. (1988) Assessment of methods for measuring social support. Health Psychology, 7, 75-109. KRANTZ, D. S.. GRUNBERG, N. E., & BAUM, A. (19853 Health psychology. A~tnzrol Review oJPsy- chology, 36, 349-383. NUNNALLY, 1. C. (1978) Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. SOLOMON, S. E., &ROY, E. R. (2000) Social support and self-regard: psychological symptorna- tology among burn sun~ivors. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Washington, DC, August. TROBST. K. K. (1999) Social support as an interpersonal construct. Europwrt ]ourrtaf of psycho- logical Assessmefzt, 15, 246-255. VAN SONDEREN. E. (1990) Her Meten van sociale steun [The assessment of social support]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Groningen, The Netherlands. Accepted April 26, 2002. 

An English language version of the social support list:Preliminary reliability

https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/3052226/Bridges2002PsycholReports.pdf

An English language version of the social support list:Preliminary reliability

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ARTS repository - University of Groningen