Psychometric properties of the 10-item English-language Social Provisions Scale

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
François Vigneau , Philippe Rousselle , Dalton Breno Costa
{"title":"Psychometric properties of the 10-item English-language Social Provisions Scale","authors":"François Vigneau ,&nbsp;Philippe Rousselle ,&nbsp;Dalton Breno Costa","doi":"10.1016/j.erap.2025.101098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>One of the most widely used self-report questionnaires to assess perceived social support is the Social Provisions Scale (SPS; <span><span>Cutrona &amp; Russell, 1987</span></span>). This 24-item scale was designed to measure six dimensions of social support. A brief, 10-item version of the SPS was developed by Caron (SPS-10; <span><span>Caron, 2013</span></span>).</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study examined the reliability, dimensionality and criterion validity of the English-language SPS-10.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>SPS-10 data from 19,656 respondents (8,928 men and 10,728 women) of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The external validity of the total score and the suggested dimension scores was assessed through correlations with three criterion health variables: psychological distress, positive mental health, and perceived health.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Principal component analysis of the SPS-10 revealed a single dimension of social support. Confirmatory factor analyses of various models were also consistent with a unidimensional interpretation of the SPS-10 scores. Although the reliability of the total score was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.93), the reliabilities of the suggested dimension scores were moderate. The dimension scores do not show evidence of differential validity with respect to the health variables examined.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In light of the results of various factor analyses and given the lack of external validity exhibited by the suggested dimensions, SPS-10 scores are best conceptualized as unidimensional. The use of SPS-10 dimension scores is not recommended.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46883,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee","volume":"75 6","pages":"Article 101098"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1162908825000337","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

One of the most widely used self-report questionnaires to assess perceived social support is the Social Provisions Scale (SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987). This 24-item scale was designed to measure six dimensions of social support. A brief, 10-item version of the SPS was developed by Caron (SPS-10; Caron, 2013).

Objectives

This study examined the reliability, dimensionality and criterion validity of the English-language SPS-10.

Method

SPS-10 data from 19,656 respondents (8,928 men and 10,728 women) of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The external validity of the total score and the suggested dimension scores was assessed through correlations with three criterion health variables: psychological distress, positive mental health, and perceived health.

Results

Principal component analysis of the SPS-10 revealed a single dimension of social support. Confirmatory factor analyses of various models were also consistent with a unidimensional interpretation of the SPS-10 scores. Although the reliability of the total score was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.93), the reliabilities of the suggested dimension scores were moderate. The dimension scores do not show evidence of differential validity with respect to the health variables examined.

Conclusion

In light of the results of various factor analyses and given the lack of external validity exhibited by the suggested dimensions, SPS-10 scores are best conceptualized as unidimensional. The use of SPS-10 dimension scores is not recommended.
十项英语社会保障量表的心理测量特性
社会保障量表(social Provisions Scale, SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987)是应用最广泛的评估感知社会支持的自我报告问卷之一。这个24项的量表被设计用来测量社会支持的六个维度。Caron (SPS-10; Caron, 2013)开发了一个简短的10项SPS版本。目的检验英语SPS-10量表的信度、维度和效度。方法对加拿大社区健康调查(CCHS) 19,656名调查对象(8,928名男性和10,728名女性)的sps -10数据进行探索性和验证性因素分析。通过与心理困扰、积极心理健康和感知健康三个标准健康变量的相关性来评估总分和建议维度得分的外部效度。结果社会支持量表主成分分析显示社会支持维度单一。各种模型的验证性因素分析也与SPS-10分数的单向度解释一致。虽然总得分的信度令人满意(Cronbach 's alpha系数为0.93),但建议维度得分的信度一般。维度得分没有显示出与所检查的健康变量相关的差异效度证据。结论根据各种因素分析的结果,并考虑到所建议的维度缺乏外部效度,SPS-10得分最好被概念化为一维。不建议使用SPS-10维度评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The aim of the Revue européenne de Psychologie appliquée / European Review of Applied Psychology is to promote high-quality applications of psychology to all areas of specialization, and to foster exchange among researchers and professionals. Its policy is to attract a wide range of contributions, including empirical research, overviews of target issues, case studies, descriptions of instruments for research and diagnosis, and theoretical work related to applied psychology. In all cases, authors will refer to published and verificable facts, whether established in the study being reported or in earlier publications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信