{"title":"The structure of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support: a meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis.","authors":"Hakan Koğar, Esin Yılmaz Koğar","doi":"10.1017/gmh.2024.118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One of the most popular instruments used to assess perceived social support is the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). Although the original structure of the MSPSS was defined to include three specific factors (significant others, friends and family), studies in the literature propose different factor solutions. In this study, we addressed the controversial factor structure of the MSPSS using a meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis approach. For this purpose, we utilized studies in the literature that examined and reported the internal structure of the MSPSS. However, we used summary data from 59 samples of 54 studies (total <i>N</i> = 27,905) after excluding studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. We tested five different models discussed in the literature and found that the fit indices of the correlated 3-factor model and the bifactor model were quite good. Therefore, we also examined both models' factor loadings and omega coefficients. Since there was no sharp difference between the two models and the theoretical structure of the scale was represented by the correlated three factors, we decided that the correlated three-factor model was more appropriate for the internal structure of the MSPSS. We then examined the measurement invariance for this model according to language and sample type (clinical and nonclinical) and found that metric invariance was achieved. As a result, we found that the three-factor structure of the MSPSS was supported in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":48579,"journal":{"name":"Global Mental Health","volume":"11 ","pages":"e126"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704376/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.118","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
One of the most popular instruments used to assess perceived social support is the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). Although the original structure of the MSPSS was defined to include three specific factors (significant others, friends and family), studies in the literature propose different factor solutions. In this study, we addressed the controversial factor structure of the MSPSS using a meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis approach. For this purpose, we utilized studies in the literature that examined and reported the internal structure of the MSPSS. However, we used summary data from 59 samples of 54 studies (total N = 27,905) after excluding studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. We tested five different models discussed in the literature and found that the fit indices of the correlated 3-factor model and the bifactor model were quite good. Therefore, we also examined both models' factor loadings and omega coefficients. Since there was no sharp difference between the two models and the theoretical structure of the scale was represented by the correlated three factors, we decided that the correlated three-factor model was more appropriate for the internal structure of the MSPSS. We then examined the measurement invariance for this model according to language and sample type (clinical and nonclinical) and found that metric invariance was achieved. As a result, we found that the three-factor structure of the MSPSS was supported in this study.
期刊介绍:
lobal Mental Health (GMH) is an Open Access journal that publishes papers that have a broad application of ‘the global point of view’ of mental health issues. The field of ‘global mental health’ is still emerging, reflecting a movement of advocacy and associated research driven by an agenda to remedy longstanding treatment gaps and disparities in care, access, and capacity. But these efforts and goals are also driving a potential reframing of knowledge in powerful ways, and positioning a new disciplinary approach to mental health. GMH seeks to cultivate and grow this emerging distinct discipline of ‘global mental health’, and the new knowledge and paradigms that should come from it.