Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the cross-cultural translations and adaptations of the Multidimensional Perceived Social Support Scale (MSPSS)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201816:80

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0912-0

Received: 1 June 2017

Accepted: 24 April 2018

Published: 2 May 2018

Abstract

Background

Social support (SS) has been identified as an essential buffer to stressful life events. Consequently, there has been a surge in the evaluation of SS as a wellbeing indicator. The Multidimensional Perceived Social Support Scale (MSPSS) has evolved as one of the most extensively translated and validated social support outcome measures. Due to linguistic and cultural differences, there is need to test the psychometrics of the adapted versions. However, there is a paucity of systematic evidence of the psychometrics of adapted and translated versions of the MSPSS across settings.

Objectives

To understand the psychometric properties of the MSPSS for non-English speaking populations by conducting a systematic review of studies that examine the psychometric properties of non-English versions of the MSPSS.

Methods

We searched Africa-Wide Information, CINAHL, Medline and PsycINFO, for articles published in English on the translation and or validation of the MSPSS. Methodological quality and quality of psychometric properties of the retrieved translations were assessed using the COSMIN checklist and a validated quality assessment criterion, respectively. The two assessments were combined to produce the best level of evidence per language/translation.

Results

Seventy articles evaluating the MSPSS in 22 languages were retrieved. Most translations [16/22] were not rigorously translated (only solitary backward-forward translations were performed, reconciliation was poorly described, or were not pretested). There was poor evidence for structural validity, as confirmatory factor analysis was performed in only nine studies. Internal consistency was reported in all studies. Most attained a Cronbach’s alpha of at least 0.70 against a backdrop of fair methodological quality. There was poor evidence for construct validity.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence supporting the psychometric robustness of the translated versions of the MSPSS, and given the variability, the individual psychometrics of a translation must be considered prior to use. Responsiveness, measurement error and cut-off values should also be assessed to increase the clinical utility and psychometric robustness of the translated versions of the MSPSS.

Trial registration

PROSPERO - CRD42016052394.

Keywords

Multidimensional perceived social supportTranslationAdaptationValidationReliabilityValidity

Background

Social support (SS) is an essential buffer to stressful life events [113]. An adequate amount of SS improves mental health by mitigating the effects of negative psychosocial outcomes such as depression, anxiety, low self-efficacy, stress and loneliness or social isolation [1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 1416]. Further, SS is a multidimensional, latent variable that dependents upon an individual’s politico-social environment, socialization process and personal values/ethos amongst other factors [1, 3, 1012, 17, 18]. The conceptualization and perception of SS is both complex and diverse, as testified by a plethora of conceptual frameworks and definitions which have been postulated to describe this subjective and yet important phenomenon [12, 13, 15, 16]. Social support can be defined as the amount of assistance one gets through interactions with other people [15, 16]. The support can be either emotional (e.g. empathy), tangible (e.g. practical help) or informational (e.g. advice) [15, 16, 19, 20].

Various outcome measures have been developed to measure SS [3, 11]. Originally created to measure SS in American adolescents, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) has evolved as one of the most extensively used SS outcome measure [3, 68, 11, 12, 18]. The MSPSS has 12 items that measure the perceived adequacy of the available amount of SS [15, 21, 22] (See Additional file 1). It measures the amount of SS an individual receives from three sources i.e. friends, family and significant other/special person. The amount of SS is rated on a seven-point Likert scale; with responses ranging from very strongly disagree (=1) to very strongly agree (=7). The cumulative/total scores ranges from 12 to 84. As no item response theory calibration has been applied to the tool, the scores are interpreted as, the higher the score, the greater the amount of available SS [21]. The original version of the MSPSS yielded a three-factor structure, high internal consistency (α = 0.88), stability (yielded α = 0.85 after 3 months from first administration) and moderate construct validity as the SS scores were negatively correlated to anxiety (r = − 0.18; p < 0.01) and depression scores (r = − 24; p < 0.01) [22].

The drive towards evidence-based practise (EBP) and patient-centred care has led to an increase in the cross-cultural adaptation and translation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) [7, 2325]. To this end, the MSPSS has undergone extensive translation and adaption across linguistic and socio-economic contexts and settings i.e. from low- [7, 13, 26] and middle [11, 18, 2729] to high-income countries [3, 6, 9, 17, 18, 3034]. However, evidence of the psychometric properties of the translated and adapted versions of the MSPSS is fragmented, but deeply important to both clinical practice and research. For instance, due to conceptual differences, some authors have collapsed the scoring system (response options) to three [30, 35], four [12], five [13, 26, 36], and six [31] levels against the original seven-point Likert scoring system. However, the category “reordering” was based on “qualitative” analysis yet in those circumstances, item response theory techniques such as Rasch analysis are a prerequisite for ensuring the interpretability of response categories for translated tools [37, 38]. Secondly, due to linguistic differences, some of the terminology of the original MSPSS have been changed, for example, the term “someone special” has been replaced by the term “husband” for some translations [5]. Thirdly, cultural differences are likely to influence perception of social support [1012, 17, 18] thus potentially influencing the structural validity of the translated versions of the MSPSS. For example, single factor structures were reproduced in the validation of the MSPSS in Asian countries such as Turkey [3942], Thailand [28, 43, 44] and Pakistan [4549], which are considered as “collectivistic” societies [50]. This implies that respondents could not differentiate between support provided by family, friends and significant others as postulated by the developers. The MSPSS was originally validated in the US which is considered an “individualistic” society [51]. Given the wide variation in MSPSS translations and cultural adaptations, a systematic evaluation of the adapted and translated versions of the MSPSS will help bring an understanding of the quality of the existing tools, and gaps in knowledge and adaptation [7, 23, 24, 52]. Further, a recent literature review asserts the psychometric robustness of the MSPSS across various settings and study populations [53]. However, the methodologies of the cited studies were not critically appraised. This is a limitation as the reported psychometrics are dependent on the quality of the methodologies applied in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criterion [5457] . For instance, issues such as the sampling, handling of missing responses, the model used for analysis, bias in research reporting amongst other factors affects both the internal and external validity of the psychometric evaluation studies [55, 56, 58]. More so, other psychometric properties such as floor and ceiling effects, critical/cut off values and responsiveness were not reported and this weakens the level of evidence of the purported psychometric robustness of the MSPSS [53]. Therefore, the aims of the present review are to: (I) systematically identify the translated and adapted versions of the MSPSS; (II) evaluate the methodologies applied in the adaptation and translation process; and (III) appraise the psychometric properties of the translated and adapted versions.

Methods

Protocol and registration

This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA) guidelines (Additional file 2). The protocol was registered with and published on the PROSPERO database (Ref-CRD42016052394) [59].

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if one of the aim(s) was to: translate and culturally adapt the MSPSS; evaluate the psychometrical properties of translated version(s) of the MSPSS or if they measured SS using translated versions of the MSPSS. Additionally, only studies applying a quantitative study designs and reporting on the psychometrics of the translated, 12-item version of the MSPSS were included. Due to limitation in resources for translation, only full text articles published in English were included. Studies based in more than one country that applied the MSPSS as an outcome measure, commentaries, review articles and studies which utilized several linguistic versions of the MSPSS were excluded. Additionally, studies which utilized both the original version of the MSPSS and the translated version were also excluded as the aim of the review was to appraise the psychometric properties of the translated versions of the MSPSS.

Information sources

We searched Africa-Wide information, CINAHL, PubMed, Psych INFO, and Scopus for peer-reviewed articles. Google Scholar was also searched to identify grey literature such as dissertations. We also contacted the developer of the MSPSS to identify the translations which we might have missed through database searches. We did not impose a time limit to publication dates to gather as many articles as possible. In cases where the abstract was available online and where it was unclear as to whether the translated version of the MSPSS was applied, the authors were contacted for clarification. Reference lists of the identified articles were manually searched for possible articles for inclusion for the attainment of literature saturation. Literature searches were conducted between November 2016 and February 2017.

Search

Outlined in Table 1 below is the search strategy applied in retrieving articles on EBSCO-host search engine:
Table 1

Search strategy

Key term

Alternative term(s)

multidimensional scale of perceived social support

MSPSS, mspss

translation

translated, translat*

adaption

Cultural adaptation, adapt*

 • Language in which the MSPSS was translated to e.g. French

 

 • Country where the translation was done e.g. France

 

As an illustration, articles on the translation and adaptation of the French version of the MSPSS were retrieved as follows: {multidimensional scale of perceived social support OR MSPSS OR mspss} AND {translation OR translated OR translat*} AND {france OR France OR French OR french OR francias}.

Study selection

A previously described study selection process was utilized [60, 61]. One author (JD) ran the search strategy across all databases. Two independent reviewers (MC and LC) then selected the eligible titles and abstracts for further investigation using a predefined search strategy. Reviewers resolved disagreements about inclusion through discussion, and a, third reviewer (JD) was brought in if the two reviewers could not agree. Another author (MC) manually searched the reference lists of identified articles to screen full texts for inclusion.

Data collection process

The principal investigator (JD) developed the data collection sheet. The tool/checklist was validated by three co-investigators (MC, TM & JD) with prior experience with psychometrics and psychometrics systematic reviews. The tool was then piloted on ten randomly selected studies of definite rating. Three reviewers (MC, JD & TM) independently applied the COSMIN checklist to rate the methodological quality of the ten studies. The inter-rater reliability was 0.8 as measured by the Kappa coefficient. Most of the disparities emanated from the rating of the structural validity and differences were discussed upon further reference to the COSMIN user manual. Afterwards, two reviewers (MC & TM) independently extracted data from the retrieved studies and their inter-rater reliability was 0.9. The two data collection sheets were reconciled into one data set through discussions between the principal author (JD) and two reviewers (MC & TM).

Data items

The extracted information included the research setting and design, study sample, demographic and or clinical characteristics of the participants, target translation language and secondary outcome measures e.g. depression. The methodological quality of the translation process and evidence for reliability and validity of the questionnaires was also documented.

Risk of bias in individual studies

The methodological quality of the retrieved articles was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist [54]. It consists of eight boxes which evaluate the methodological quality of the following psychometrics: internal consistency (box A), reliability (box B), measurement error (box C), content validity (box D), structural validity (box E), hypotheses testing (box F), cross-cultural validity (box G), and criterion validity (box H) [54, 55]. Methodological quality is rated on a four-point Likert scale i.e. poor, fair, good and excellent. In assessing a domain, the lowest rating of an item is assigned as the overall quality of the domain under investigation. For example, in assessing structural validity, if an inappropriate rotation method is employed i.e. if orthogonal rotation instead of oblique rotation is used to interpret factors on the MSPSS, the evidence will be rated as poor even if all the other sub-domains are rated as of excellent quality [5457].

Best evidence synthesis

To come up with best evidence synthesis for each psychometric property, we used the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group criterion [62] as outlined in Table 2 to synthesise results from the COSMIN methodological assessment [5457] (see Table 3) and Terwee et al. criterion for evaluation of quality of psychometrics [58] (see Table 4).
Table 2

Best evidence synthesis of the psychometric properties

Version -Country

Internal consistency

Criterion validity

Construct validity – convergent

Construct validity- divergent

Reproducibility- agreement

Reproducibility- reliability

Arabic women (MSPSS-AW)- USA

Moderate (−-)

 

Limited (−)

Limited (−)

  

Arabic Generic – Lebanon

Limited (−)

 

Unknown (?)

Unknown (?)

  

Chichewa- Malawi

Strong (+++)

  

Limited (−)

  

Chinese (Simplified) – Malaysia

Strong (+++)

Unknown (?)

 

Unknown (?)

 

Unknown (?)

Chinese (Traditional) – Hong Kong, China

Conflicting (−)

Unknown (?)

Moderate (−-)

Moderate (−-)

 

Limited (+)

Chiyao - Malawi

Strong (+++)

  

Limited (−)

  

Creole- USA (Haiti)

Unknown (?)

 

Unknown (?)

  

Unknown (?)

French - France

Limited (+)

  

Limited (−)

 

Limited (−)

Hausa – Nigeria

Strong (+++)

  

Limited (−)

 

Limited (−)

Korean-Korea

Strong (+++)

 

Limited (−)

Limited (−)

  

Luganda - Uganda

Limited (−)

     

Malay – Malaysia

Unknown (?)

Unknown (?)

 

Unknown (?)

 

Unknown (?)

Persian – Iran

Limited (−)

 

Unknown (?)

  

Limited (−)

Polish – Poland

Strong (+++)

 

Moderate (−-)

Moderate (−-)

  

Portuguese – Portugal

Strong (+++)

 

Limited (−)

Limited (+)

Limited (−)

 

Spanish – *USA, ** Spain

Limited (+)

Moderate (−-)

Moderate (−-)

   

Swedish – Sweden

Moderate (++)

 

Limited (−)

  

Limited (+)

Tamil – Malaysia

Limited (−)

Unknown (?)

Unknown (?)

Unknown (?)

  

Thai – Thailand

Moderate (++)

 

Unknown (?)

  

Limited (+)

Turkish (Original) - Turkey

Moderate (++)

 

Conflicting (−)

Conflicting (+)

  

Turkish (Revised) – Turkey

Conflicting (−)

 

Unknown (?)

Unknown (?)

 

Unknown (?)

Urdu – Pakistan

? (unknown)

 

Limited (−)

Moderate (−-)

  

* and ** denotes findings from the USA and Spain respectively

Table 3

Methodological ratings of retrieved studies

Version -Country

Crosscultural validity

Structural validity

Internal consistency

Reliability

Hypothesis testing/construct validity

Criterion validity

Divergent validity

Convergent validity

Arabic women – USA

Poor [5]

Fair [5]

Fair [5]

Fair

[5, 47]

Fair [5]

 

Arabic Generic – Lebanon

Poor [27]

Poor [27]

Fair [27]

Fair [27]

Fair [27]

  

Chichewa- Malawi

Fair [26]

Excellent [26]

Excellent [26]

Fair [26, 36]]

   

Chinese (Simplified) – Malaysia

Poor [12]

Poor [12]

Fair [12]

Poor [12]

Poor [12]

 

Poor [12]

Chinese (Traditional) – Hong Kong, China

Poor [17]

Poor [17] Fair [64, 65]

Excellent [17] Fair [64, 80]

Fair [64]

Poor [17], [73, 76]

Fair [64, 7578, 8084]

Poor [73, 84]

Fair [74, 76, 7882, 84]

Fair [17]

Chiyao – Malawi

Fair [26]

Excellent [26]

Excellent [26]

Fair [26]

   

Creole- Haiti(USA)

Poor [6]

 

Poor [6]

Fair [6]

Fair [6]

  

French – France

Poor [9]

Fair [9]

Fair [9]

Fair [9]

Fair [9]

  

Hausa – Nigeria

Good [7, 14]

Excellent [14]

Excellent [14]

Fair [14]

Fair [85]

  

Korean-Korea

Poor [87]

Poor [87]

Excellent [87]

Fair [87]

Fair [87]

  

Luganda – Uganda

Fair [13]

Poor [13]

Fair [13]

    

Malay – Malaysia

Poor [11]

Poor [11, 88]

Fair [11, 88]

Poor [11]

Poor [11, 88]: Fair [89]

Poor [11]

Poor [11]

Persian – Iran

Poor [18]

Poor [18]

Fair [18]

Fair [18]

Poor [90, 91]

  

Polish – Poland

Good [92]

Excellent [92]

Excellent [92]

 

Fair [92, 93], Good [94]

Fair [79, 92, 93], Good [94]

 

Portuguese – Portugal

Fair [32]

Excellent [32]

Excellent [32]

Fair [32]

Fair [96, 97], Good [32]

Fair [96]

 

Spanish – *USA, ** Spain

Poor ** [99]

Poor * [101], Fair ** [99]

Fair * [101]

 

Fair ** [34, 98, 99]

Fair ** [34, 98, 99]

 

Swedish – Sweden

Good [3]

Poor [3]

Good [3]

Fair [3]

 

Good [3], Fair [102]

 

Tamil – Malaysia

Poor [87]

Poor [87]

Fair [87]

 

Poor [87]

Poor [87]

Poor [87]

Thai – Thailand

Poor [44]

Good [43, 44]

Good [43, 44]

Fair [44]

Fair [28, 43, 44]

Fair [28, 43, 44]

 

Turkish (Original)– Turkey

Poor [39]

Poor [39, 41]

Fair [39, 41]

 

Poor [41, 42], Fair [39, 40]

Poor [41, 42] Fair [40]

 

Turkish (Revised) – Turkey

 

Fair [29, 104]

Fair [29]

Poor [29]

Fair [29]

Poor [29]

 

Urdu – Pakistan

Poor [49]

Poor [49] Fair [47]

Poor [49]

 

Fair [4548]

Fair [47]

 

* and ** denotes findings from the USA and Spain respectively

Table 4

Ratings of quality of psychometric properties

Version –Country

Cross-cultural validity

Structural validity

Internal consistency

Reliability

Construct validity

Criterion validity

Arabic women - USA

? [5]

- [5]

+ [5]

 

? [63]

 

Arabic Generic – Lebanon

? [27]

? [27]

+ [27]

 

? [27]

 

Chichewa- Malawi

- [26]

+ [26]

+ [26]

 

? [26, 36]

 

Chinese (Simplified) – Malaysia

? [12]

? [12]

+ [12]

? [12]

? [12]

? [12]

Chinese (Traditional) – Hong Kong, China

? [17]

? [17], − [64, 80]

? [17], + [64],- [80]

? [17], + [64]

? [17, 6484]

? [17]

Chiyao – Malawi

- [26]

+ [26]

+ [26]

 

? [26, 36]

 

Creole- Haiti(USA)

? [6]

? [6]

? [6]

? [6]

  

French – France

? [9]

- [9]

+ [9]

? [9]

? [9]

 

Hausa – Nigeria

- [7, 14]

+ [14]

+ [14]

? [14]

? [85]

 

Korean-Korea

? [87]

? [87]

+ [87]

 

? [87]

 

Luganda – Uganda

- [13]

? [13]

? [13]

   

Malay – Malaysia

? [11]

? [11, 88]

- [11, 88]

? [11]

? [11, 88], − [89]

? [11]

Persian – Iran

? [18]

? [18]

? [18]

? [18]

? [90, 91]

 

Polish – Poland

- [92]

+ [92]

+ [92]

 

? [9294]

 

Portuguese – Portugal

- [32]

+ [32]

+ [32]

? [32]

? [32, 96, 97]

 

Spanish – *USA, ** Spain

? [99] **

? [85] *, − [99] **

+ [85] *, + [99] **

 

? [34, 84, 99]**, + [98]

 

Swedish – Sweden

- [3]

? [3]

+ [3]

+ [3]

+ [3]? [102]

 

Tamil – Malaysia

? [103]

? [103]

? [103]

 

? [103]

? [103]

Thai – Thailand

? [44]

- [43, 44]

+ [43, 44]

 

? [28, 43, 44]

 

Turkish (Original)- Turkey

? [39]

? [39, 41]

+ [39, 41]

 

? [3942]

 

Turkish (Revised) – Turkey

 

- [29, 104]

+ [29];? [104]

 

? [29]

 

Urdu – Pakistan

? [49]

? [49], − [47]

? [49]

 

? [4548]

 

* and ** denotes findings from the USA and Spain respectively

Results

Study selection

Study characteristics

Description of study participants and settings

A total of 22 translations were retrieved from 70 studies. A sample of convenience was the most common method of participant selection [n = 7, 31.8%], and translations were most often validated using a cross sectional study design [72.7%, n = 16]. Most studies were from high-income settings [72.7%, n = 16] and conducted in clinical settings [45.8%, n = 11] or at universities [29.1%, n = 7]. Participants were of varying ages with the youngest and eldest groups averaging 14.8 (SD 1.6) and 58.7 (SD 13.2) years respectively Table 5.
Table 5

Study descriptions

Authors [Year of publication]

Language (s)

Study aim(s)

Design

Country – [income bracket]

Setting

Participants

Sampling

Age in years- Mean [SD]

Aroian et al. [2010]

Arabic

T & PT

Cross-sectional

USA - HIC

Community

Arab Muslim immigrant married woman, N = 539

Convenience

40.2 (6.5)

Norries et al. [2011]

Arabic

PT

Cross-sectional

USA - HIC

Community

Arab Muslim immigrant women, N = 519

Convenience

40.22 (6.5)

Merhi & Kazarian [2012]

Arabic

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Lebanon - UMIC

Community

Healthy adults, N = 221

Not stated

34.0 (11.7)

Stewart et al. [2014]

Chichewa & Chiyao

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Malawi – LIC

Clinical

Women attending antenatal visits, N = 583

Convenience

25.1 (6.2)

Stewart et al. [2014]

Chichewa & Chiyao

PT

Cross-sectional

Malawi – LIC

Clinical

Women attending antenatal visits, N = 583

Consecutive

25.14 (6.22)

Cao et al. [2015]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

Community

Elderly population, N = 928

Two-stage stratified cluster sampling

*60–94 [Range]

Chan et al. [2010]

Chinese

PT

Random Controlled Trial

China - HIC

Clinical

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, N = 206

Random

72.9 (7.7)

He et al. [2016]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

Clinical

Burns patients, N = 246

Not stated

25.77 (2.14)

Liu et al. [2015]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

Community

Adults, N = 1471

Not stated

34.5 (10.4)

Meng-Yao et al. [2016]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

Clinical

Patients with bladder cancer, N = 365

Convenience

63.76 (11.45)

Tan et al. [2016]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

High schools

Adolescents, N = 618

Random

16.29 (2.58)

Taylor-Piliae et al. [2005]

Chinese

PT

Quasi-experimental

USA-HIC

Community

Chinese nationals with cardio vascular disease risk factors, N = 38

Convenience

66 (8.3)

Wang et al. [2014]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

Clinical

Patients with depression, N = 100

Not stated

41.36 (15.55)

Wang et al. [2015]

Chinese

PT

Longitudinal

China - HIC

Clinical

Patients with breast cancer, N = 404

Not stated

47.64 (7.66)

Zeng et al. [2016]

Chinese

PT

Longitudinal

China - HIC

Clinical

Patients mild traumatic brain injury, N = 219

Convenience

34.7 (14.8)

Zhang et at [2016]

Chinese

PT

Random Controlled Trial

China - HIC

Clinical

Outpatients with mild depression, N = 62

Random

48.3 (17.5)

Zhou et al. [2015]

Chinese

PT

Cross-sectional

China - HIC

Clinical

Patients on methadone maintenance treatment, N = 1212

Not stated

42.5 (6.2)

Zhu, Hu & Efird [2012]

Chinese

PT

Cross-sectional, correlational

China - HIC

Community

Elderly population, N = 120

Quasi-random

71.42 (7.18)

Chan, Yu & Li [2011]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

Clinical

Peritoneal dialysis patients, N = 141

Random

57 (12)

Cheng et al. [2004]

Chinese

PT

Cross-sectional

Hong Kong - HIC

High schools

Adolescents, N = 2105

Not stated

14.8 (1.6)

Sing & Wong [2011]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

Hong Kong - HIC

College

College students, N = 529

Not stated

21.1 (1.77)

Kee-Lee Chou [2000]

Chinese

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Hong Kong - HIC

High schools

Adolescents, N = 410

Random

17.5 (0.7)

Liu et al. [2015]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

Clinical

Patients with haematological malignancies, N = 225

Consecutive

*15–83 [Range]

Wong et al. [2012]

Chinese

PT

Comparative cross-sectional survey

Hong Kong - HIC

1. Clinical 2. Community

1. Caregivers of stroke, Parkinson’s disease, or Alzheimer disease patients, n = 55 2. General population, n = 61

Not stated

1. caregivers- 72 (6.2)

2. General population- 72 (6.3)

Liu et al. [2015]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

University

University students, N = 722

 

19.68 (1.12)

Yeung et al. [2013]

Chinese

PT

Quasi-experimental

USA-HIC

Clinical

Chinese Americans, N = 14

Convenience

53 (14)

Yu Ling et al. [2015]

Chinese

PT

Cross sectional

China - HIC

High schools

Adolescents, N = 1654

Random

15.85 (1.02)

Hannan et al. [2016]

Creole

T & PT

Longitudinal

USA-HIC

University

Haitian post-partum mothers, N = 85

Convenience

45.8 (11.1)

Denis et al. [2015]

French

T & PT

Cross-sectional

France-HIC

Clinical

Post-partum mothers, N = 148

Not stated

30.5 (5.1)

Hamza et al. [2012]

Hausa

T

Mixed methods

Nigeria -LMIC

Clinical

Patients with stroke, N = 10

Random

51.5 (not provided)

Mohammad et al. [2015]

Hausa

PT

Cross-sectional

Nigeria - LMIC

Clinical

Patients with stroke, N = 140

Consecutive

58.8 (13.2)

Vincent-Onabajo et al. [2015]

Hausa

PT

Cross-sectional

Nigeria - LMIC

Clinical

Patients with stroke, N = 100

Consecutive

51.4 (13.5)

Park et al. [2011]

Korean

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Korea-HIC

Clinical

Women with diabetes, N = 123

Convenience

53.4 (5.9)

Nakigudde et al. (2009)

Luganda

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Uganda- LIC

Clinical

Post-partum mothers, N = 240

Systematic

26 (5.7)

Ng* et al. [2010]

Malay

T & PT

Longitudinal

Malaysia-UMIC

Clinical

University students, N = 237

Not stated

*19–25 [range]

Ng* et al. [2015]

Malay

PT

Prospective cohort

Malaysia-UMIC

Clinical

Female patients with breast cancer, N = 221

Not stated

551 (11.5)

Razali & Yusoff [2014]

Malay

PT

Cross-sectional

Malaysia-UMIC

Clinical

Patients with Schizophrenia, N = 70

Universal

33 (9)

Roohafza et al. [2016]

Persian

PT

Cross sectional

Iran-UMIC

Clinical

Patients with irritable bowel syndrome, N = 4763

Not stated

Not stated

Bagherian-Sararoudi, et al. [2013]

Persian

T & PT

Longitudinal

Iran-UMIC

Clinical

1.Myocardial patients, n = 176; 2. Healthy participants, n = 71: N = 247

Not stated

1. 56 (9.8)

Ghorbani et al. [2005]

Persian

PT

Cross sectional

Iran-UMIC

Clinical

Parents of pre-term & full-term infants, N = 164

Multi-stage sampling

1. pre-term - 27.6 (6.25)

2. full term-28.22 (4.54)

Adamczyk & DiTommaso [2014]

Polish

PT

Cross-sectional

Poland - HIC

University

Young adults, N = 417

Not stated

21.14 (2.05)

Adamczyk &Segrin[2015]

Polish

PT

Cross-sectional

Poland - HIC

University

Young adults, N = 553

Not stated

23.42 (3.27)

Adamczyk [2013]

Polish

T & PT

Longitudinal

Poland - HIC

University

University students, N = 418

Convenience

21.1 (2.1)

Adamczyk & Segrin[2015]

Polish

PT

Cross-sectional

Poland - HIC

University

Young adults, N = 553

Not stated

23.42 (3.27)

Martins et al. [2011]

Portuguese

PT

Cross-sectional

Portugal- HIC

Clinical & Online

Adults attempting to get pregnant, N = 312

Convenience

32.01 (4.65)

Martins et al. [2012]

Portuguese

T & PT

Longitudinal

Portugal- HIC

Clinical & Online

Adults attempting to get pregnant, N = 589

Convenience

33.8 (5.2)

Martins et al. [2014]

Portuguese

PT

Cross-sectional

Portugal- HIC

Clinical & Online

Adults attempting to get pregnant, N = 426

Convenience

1.Men- 34.3(6.2) 2. Women-32.3 (4.9)

Guan et al. [2015]

Simplified Chinese

T & PT

Longitudinal

China - HIC

University

University students, N = 202

Convenience

21.9 (2.0)

Cobb & Xie [2015]

Spanish

PT

Cross-sectional

USA-HIC

Community

Hispanic immigrants, N = 122

Not stated

33.7 (8.2)

Guillén et al. [2015]

Spanish

PT

Cross-sectional

Spain - HIC

Community

Female intimate partner violence victims, N = 136

Convenience

31.67 (SD not stated)

Ramos et al. [2016]

Spanish

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Spain - HIC

Community

Retirees, N = 991

Convenience

62.7 (5.89)

Rey et al. [2016]

Spanish

PT

Cross-sectional

Spain - HIC

Community

Adults, N = 613

Not stated

34.36 (11.18)

Trujols et al. [2014]

Spanish

PT

Cross-sectional

Spain - HIC

Clinical

Patients with depression, N = 173

Consecutive

50.2 (14.9)

Ekbäck et al. [2013]

Swedish

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Sweden -HIC

Clinical

1. Patients with Hirsutism, n = 127 2. Nursing students, n = 154

Not stated

1. Patients with, Hirsutism, 32.0 (10.3)

2. Nursing students, 27.3 (7.8)

Ekbäck et al. [2014]

Swedish

PT

Comparative, cross-sectional

Sweden -HIC

Clinical

1.Patients with Hirsutism, n = 127 2. Normative sample, n = 1115

Not stated

1. Patients with Hirsutism 32.0 (10.2)

2. Normative sample, 32.7 (7.9)

Guan et al. [2013]

Tamil

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Malaysia-UMIC

University

University students, N = 94

Not stated

38.3 (17.9)

Ross et al. [2011]

Thai

PT

Cross-sectional, correlational

Thailand-UMIC

Clinical

Postpartum, HIV-positive women, N = 85

Convenience

26.8 (5.64)

Wongpakaran [2011]

Thai

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Thailand-UMIC

University

1. Medical students, n = 310 2.Patients with major depressive disorder, n = 152 [N = 462]

Convenience

1. Medical students, n = 19.16 (1.02)

2. Patients with major depressive disorder, 41.23 (12.30)

Wongpakaran [2012]

Thai

T & PT

Cross sectional

Thailand-UMIC

University

Medical students, N = 486

Not stated

19.01 (0.90)

Eker & Arkar [1995]

Turkish

T & PT

Cross-sectional

Turkey - UMIC

University & Clinical

1. University students, n = 146 2. Patients with renal problems, n = 50

Not stated

1. University students,20.34 (1.55)

2. Patients with renal problems,37.18 (12.8)

Ersoy & Varan [2007]

Turkish

PT

Cross-sectional

Turkey - UMIC

Clinical

Patients with psychiatric disorders, N = 203

Convenience

33.79 (11.77)

Eker, Arkar & Yaldiz [2000]

Turkish

PT

Cross-sectional

Turkey - UMIC

Clinical

1. Psychiatry patients, n = 50 2. Surgery patients, n = 50 3. Normative sample, n = 50

Convenience

1. Psychiatry patients, 36(13)

2. Surgery patients, 36(13)

3. Normative sample, 35(11)

Kuscu et al. [2009]

Turkish

PT

Cross-sectional

Turkey - UMIC

Clinical

Caregivers of adult cancer patients, N = 51

Convenience

Not stated

Duru [2007]

Turkish

PT

Cross-sectional

Turkey - UMIC

University

Students, N = 340

Not stated

18.83 (1.35)

Basol [2008]

Turkish

PT

Cross-sectional

Turkey - UMIC

Schools

Administrators, N = 433

Not stated

Not stated

Akhtar et al. [2010]

Urdu

PT

Longitudinal

Pakistan- LMIC

Community

Antenatal women, N = 325

Not stated

27 (5)

Saleem et al. [2013]

Urdu

PT

Cross sectional

Pakistan- LMIC

Clinical

Drug addicts, N = 70

Not stated

32.21 (8.30)

Khan et al. [2015]

Urdu

PT

Cross sectional

Pakistan- LMIC

Community

Pregnant women, N = 349

Cluster

< 19–30+ [Range]

Qadir et al. [2013]

Urdu

PT

Cross sectional

Pakistan- LMIC

Community

Married women, N = 277

Convenience

36.7 (9.96)

Naveed & Naz [2015]

Urdu

PT

Cross sectional

Pakistan- LMIC

Clinical

Women with postpartum depression, N = 100

Not stated

27.31 (5.20)

T- translation: PT psychometric testing, LIC lower income country, LMIC lower-middle income country, UMIC upper middle-income country, HIC high income country <World Bank Classification system>

Description of adaptations

For seven of the translations, the response options were reduced from the original seven -point Likert scale to a five (n = 4), three (n = 1), four (n = 1) and six-point (n = 1) scale. Some of the original terms on the MSPSS were modified/changed in four of the studies i.e. the term special person/significant other was changed to “husband” or “spouse”. The MSPSS was self-administered in most studies [54.5%, n = 12]. Depression, general psychological well-being, social networks and anxiety were the most commonly measured secondary outcome measures Fig. 1 and Table 6.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Flowchart of article search and selection process: We identified 2251 articles, of which 356 were duplicates. After applying the selection criterion, 70 articles were analysed for the present review

Table 6

Adaptations to the MSPSS and outcome measures per study

Language (s)

esponse options

Modification

Mode of administration

Statistical analyses

Secondary outcome measures

     

Measure 1

Measure 2

Measure 3

Arabic

3

Special person changed to Husband

Interviewer administered

CFA

Seeking Social Support, Problem Solving, Blaming Self and Avoidance Scales - Revised Ways of Coping Checklist (RWCCL)

Emotional distress- Profile of Mood States (POMS)

Daily Hassles Scale (DHS)

Arabic

7

None

Not stated

EFA

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Arabic-ERQ)

Satisfaction with Life Scale (Arabic-SWLS)

 

Chichewa (n = 269) & Chiyao (n = 314)

5

Questions changed to second person pronouns

self-administered & interviewer administered

1. EFA

2. CFA

Depression – Self Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ)

Depression – Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)

Depression – Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID)

Creole

7

none

Self-administered

Parametric & non-parametric tests

Perceived Adequacy of Resource Scale (PARS)

  

French

7

None

Not stated

CFA

Depression – Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)

  

Hausa

7

Terms changed to culturally acceptable equivalents

Interviewer administered

Qualitative

   

Hausa

7

None

Not stated

CFA

   

Hausa

7

None

Not stated

Regression

Disability- modified Rankin Scale

  

Simplified Chinese

4

Not clearly stated

Self-administered

EFA

Psychological symptomatology – GHQ 30

Social networks- Lubben Social Network Scale

 

Simplified Chinese

5

None

Self-administered

CFA

   

Korean

7

Significant other replaced by “spouse/partner”

Not stated

EFA

Perceived social support- Personal Resource Questionnaire −2 (PRQ)

Self-efficacy- Self -efficacy for Diabetes Scale

Depression- Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CEDS)

Luganda

5

use of facial cues

Interviewer administered

EFA

   

Malay

7

Not clearly stated

Self-administered

EFA

Social support - Medical Outcome Survey (MOS)

Depression- BDI

Mental health- General Health Questionnaire

Persian

7

Not clearly stated

Not stated

EFA

   

Polish

7

None

Self-administered

1. EFA

2. CFA

Loneliness- The Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults-Short Form (SELSA-S)

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

Portuguese

6

None

Self-administered

CFA

Depression – Beck Depression Inventory

Fertility- Fertility Problem Inventory

 

Simplified Chinese

7

None

Self-administered

EFA

Social support - Medical Outcome Survey (MOS)

Depression - BDI

Mental health- General Health Questionnaire

Spanish

7

None

Self-administered

EFA

None

None

none

Swedish

7

None

Self-administered

EFA

   

Tamil

7

None

Self-administered

EFA

Social support - Medical Outcome Survey (MOS)

Depression – Beck Depression Inventory

Mental health- General Health Questionnaire

Thai

7

None

Self-administered

1.EFA

2.CFA

Anxiety- The Sate Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)

Self-esteem-The Roseburg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)

Depression- Thai Depression Scale (TDS)

Traditional Chinese

7

Not clearly stated

Interviewer administered

1. EFA

2. CFA

   

Turkish

7

None

Not stated

EFA

Depression – Beck Depression Inventory

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)

 

Urdu

7

None

Interviewer administered

EFA

Mental distress- Self Report Questionnaire (SRQ-20)

Depression - EPDS

 

EFA exploratory factor analysis, CFA confirmatory factor analysis

Results of individual studies

Arabic

Two variants of Arabic translations were retrieved [27, 35].

Arabic generic version

The Arabic generic version was described in one study [27]. The methodology for this cross-cultural validation study was poor, as scanty details were provided for the adaptation process. The evidence for structural validity was poor as only exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. There was limited evidence for internal consistency (IC) as the handling of missing responses was not reported. There was unknown evidence for construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Arabic version for women (MSPSS-AW)

Two studies on the MSPSS-AW were available [35, 63]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. There was no description of; translators’ expertise, whether the translations were done independently, the number of forward and backward translations performed and the reconciliation process. This version was not reviewed by a committee and was not pretested. There was moderate evidence for IC, the handling of missing responses was not reported. There was fair evidence for structural validity, although confirmatory factor analysis (CFA was performed, the number of missing responses was not documented. There was limited evidence of construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated and the psychometrics of the comparator instruments were not adequately described.

Chichewa and Chiyao

Two studies were available [26, 36]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was fair as only one forward and one backward translations were performed. Further, the expertise of the translators, pre-test sample and the reconciliation of the forward translation were poorly described. There was strong evidence for structural validity and IC. Both EFA and CFA were applied for structural validity evaluation. There was limited evidence for construct validity, no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Chinese

Two versions in simplified and traditional Chinese versions were retrieved [12, 17].

Traditional Chinese

Twenty-one studies, applying the traditional Chinese version of the MSPSS, were available [17, [6484]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. Solitary forward and backward translations were performed; the translators’ expertise were not outlined and it was not clear whether the translations were done independently and if the tool was pretested in the target population. Two studies tested structural validity of the MSPSS-C in different populations [17, 64]. There was poor evidence for structural validity as only EFA was performed. There was conflicting evidence for IC. The methodological quality of one of the studies was questionable [17] with the second study yielding a Cronbach’s alpha< 0.70 despite fair methodological quality [65]. There was limited evidence for reliability as the test conditions and the stability of the re-test sample were not clearly outlined. There was moderate evidence for construct validity, no specific hypotheses were formulated. The evidence for criterion validity was unknown as the psychometrics of the “purported” gold standard measure was questionable.

Simplified Chinese

Only one study was available [12]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. The credentials of the translators were not clearly described; it was not clear if the translations were done independently and the tool was not pretested. The evidence for criterion validity, construct validity and reliability was indeterminate. No information was provided on the psychometric robustness of comparison outcome measures, the time for the re-test was inappropriate and no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Creole

Only one study was available [6]. The tool was poorly translated as; there were no multiple translations, the tool was not pre-tested and factorial analysis was not done. The evidence for IC was indeterminate as the subscales unique ICs were not computed and handling of missing responses was not documented. There was indeterminate evidence for reliability as the conditions for the administrations were not clearly stated and the evidence for no systematic change in the outcomes was not provided.

French

Only one study was available [9]. The cross-cultural translation and adaptation process was poor. The tool was not pre-tested and only solitary forward-backward translations were performed. There was limited evidence for structural validity, IC, reliability and construct validity. The methodologies applied were of fair quality, the handling of missing response was not reported, the conditions for the test-retest were not clearly outlined and no specific hypotheses were formulated respectively.

Hausa

Three studies were available [7, 14, 85]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was good. A solitary backward translation was done and reconciliation process was poorly described. There was strong evidence for structural validity and IC. There was limited evidence for test-retest reliability and construct validity. It was not clear if administrations were independent, if patients were stable in between administrations and the MSPSS was re-administered after a week against the recommended 2 weeks [57, 86]. Further, the handling of missing responses was not reported and no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Korean

One study was available [87]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. There was a scanty description of the expertise of the translators and whether the translations were done independently. It was not clear if the tool was pretested in the target population and solitary forward and backward translations were performed. There was poor evidence for structural validity as only EFA was performed. There was strong evidence for IC as the methodology was of excellent quality. There was limited evidence for construct validity, no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Luganda

One study was available [13]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was fair. A solitary forward translation was performed; the characteristics of the pre-test sample were not clearly described and details of the reconciliation of the original and forward translation were scanty. There was unknown evidence for structural validity as only EFA was performed. Further, an inappropriate rotation method (orthogonal rotation) was applied for EFA. There was limited evidence of the IC, the handling of missing responses was not documented.

Malay

Three studies were available [11, 88, 89]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. There was a scanty description of; the expertise of the translators, whether the translations were done independently, the reconciliation process, and the tool was not pretested in the target population. There was poor evidence for structural validity as only EFA was performed. There was indeterminate evidence for IC, the handling of missing responses was not documented. There was unknown evidence for construct validity; no specific hypotheses were formulated with poor/no description of the psychometrics of the comparator instruments. There was no report of test-retest reliability; the stability of the respondents was not clearly outlined; the tool was re-administered after a week and there was a disparity in administration conditions as the items were reshuffled for the retest. There was unknown evidence for criterion validity, the psychometrics for the purported “gold standard” outcome measure was not provided.

Persian

Three studies were available [18, 90, 91]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. The expertise of translators, handling of missing responses and reconciliation process was poorly described. Further, solitary forward and backward translations were performed and the tool was not pre-tested. There was poor evidence for structural validity as only EFA was performed. There was limited evidence for IC and reliability as the methodologies were of fair quality. Only 71 participants were recruited for test re-test reliability and the conditions and stability for the re-test sample were not clearly stared. There was unknown evidence for construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated and no the psychometrics of the comparator instruments were not provided.

Polish

Four studies were available [9295]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was good. The reconciliation of the translations was poorly described and the tool was not reviewed by a committee. There was strong evidence for IC and structural validity. There was moderate, negative evidence for construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Portuguese

Three studies were available [31, 96, 97]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was fair. The expertise of the translators was not stated, if was not clear if translations were done independently, only solitary forward and backward translations were done and the tool was not reviewed by a committee. There was excellent evidence for both structural validity and IC. There was unknown evidence for test-retest reliability; a sub-optimal sample (n = 52) was utilized, the stability of the participants and the conditions for the re-test were not stated. There was limited evidence for construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Spanish

Five studies were available [34, 98101]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. The expertise of the translators was not stated; only solitary forward and backward translations were done and the tool was not pre-tested. There was conflicting evidence for structural validity as the cited studies were of both poor and fair quality. For instance, for one of the studies, EFA contrary to the CFA reported was done and authors performed varimax (orthogonal) rotation [101]. There was limited evidence for IC as the handling of missing responses was not recorded. There was moderate evidence for construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Swedish

Two studies were available [3, 102]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. A solitary backward translation was performed; the handling of missing responses was not reported and the credentials of the translators were not clearly described. Evidence for structural validity was poor, only EFA was performed and an inappropriate rotation method (orthogonal varimax) was utilized. There was moderate evidence for IC, the handling of missing responses was not described. Evidence for reliability was limited as a sub-optimal sample size (n = 44) was used for the retest and the conditions of the re-test administration were not clearly described. There was limited evidence for construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Tamil

Only one study was available [103]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation poor. There was scanty description of: the expertise of the translators was, if forward translations were done independently, the reconciliation process, whether the tool was not pre-tested in the target population and the profile of the pre-test sample. There was limited evidence for IC, a sub-optimal sample size (N = 94) was recruited and handling of missing responses was not reported. There was unknown evidence for structural validity, construct validity and criterion validity. Only EFA was performed, no specific hypotheses were formulated and the psychometrics of the purported “gold standard” were not provided.

Thai

Three studies were available [28, 43, 44]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. The forward translators did not work independently; only solitary forward and backward translations were performed and scanty details were provided for the reconciliation process and the pre-test sample profile. There was moderate evidence for structural validity and IC. Both EFA and CFA were performed, however, the percentage of missing responses was not stated. There was unknown evidence for construct validity as the no specific hypothesis were formulated. There was limited evidence for test-retest reliability, a suboptimal sample (N = 72) was utilized, the conditions and stability of patients for the re-test were not clearly outlined.

Turkish

Two versions of the Turkish translations were available i.e. the original Turkish version [39, 41] and the revised Turkish version [29, 104].

Original Turkish version

Four studies were available [3942]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. A solitary forward translation was performed; it is not clear if the forward translators worked independently and the tool was not pre-tested. There was poor evidence for structural validity as CFA was not performed. There was moderate evidence for IC, the handling of missing responses was not described. There was unknown evidence for construct validity as no specific hypotheses were formulated and one of the studies was of poor methodological quality [41].

Revised Turkish version

Two studies were available [29, 104]. There was moderate evidence for structural validity as the handling of missing values was not described. Evidence was; conflicting for IC and unknown for reliability and construct validity. A sub-optimal sample was utilized; the test conditions and stability of the participants was neither described and no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Urdu

Five studies were available [4549]. The methodology for the cross-cultural validation was poor. The following were not stated; the expertise of the translators, if translations were done independently, the number of forward and backward translations. Further, the tool was not reviewed by a committee and was not pretested in the target population. There was limited evidence for structural validity [47, 49]. One of the studies was of poor quality, only EFA was performed [49]. For the second study, although CFA was performed, the handling of missing responses was not documented [47]. There was indeterminate evidence for IC as the methodology was of poor quality. There was moderate evidence for construct validity, no specific hypotheses were formulated.

Discussion

Settings

The MSPSS has been translated across a range of settings and populations.

Translation quality

Trans-cultural adaptation, translation and validation aim to succinctly capture the meaning of a latent construct in another population. As such, a rigorous translation process is essential [25, 52]. None of the studies included in this review were translated using robust methodologies, with 16 of the 22 studies being of poor methodological quality in accordance with the COSMIN criteria [56]. The lack of quality of the translations affects the generalizability and comparability of the study findings. For example, if the MSPSS is applied in a large multi-national trial, there is risk of misleading results if one of the translations was poorly conducted. The findings could have negative implications on policy formulation, over−/under estimation of an intervention effect size amongst other.

The lack of detailed descriptions of both language and construct expertise of the translators, whether the translations were done independently and reconciliation of the translations compromised the methodological rigor of most of the retrieved studies. Furthermore, the absence of a panel of experts review process for content and face validation, as was the case in 13 of the 21 included studies, could have jeopardised the ability to produce a culturally acceptable translation [25, 52]. Ideally, the panel should consist of experts with diverse professional backgrounds to ensure the attainment of semantic, idiomatic, and conceptual equivalence [25]. For instance, given the differences in cultures, the interpretation of the term “special person” can vary from setting to setting. It is argued that respondents from collectivistic cultures may not distinguish between family and a significant other as sources of SS [47, 49]. For example, in Turkey, when the term “special person” was changed to “husband” following a panel of experts’ review, the resultant/revised translation yielded a three-factor structure as opposed to the earlier two-factor structure [29, 104]. This illustrates that a more rigorous reconciliation and adaptation can yield a more reliable factor structure. Lastly, pretesting/cognitive debriefing of the translated and adapted tool is essential before the tool can be applied to a larger population [25, 52, 56]. This should be done in the target population as translation is an integrated and iterative process and requires input from “experts” and the “target users” of the PROM [52]. Unfortunately, only five of the 23 translations described this process in detail, including description of sample selection, hence this could also be a source of methodological limitation for the retrieved studies.

Structural validity

Structural/factorial validity is defined as the extent to which scores on an outcome measure adequately reflect the dimensions/structure of the construct to be measured [41]. Factorial validity can be envisaged as the ‘backbone’ for the statistical evidence of the validity or lack thereof of a translated tool. Ideally for translated outcome measures, both EFA and CFA should be performed to test factorial validity [3, 31]. EFA is a technique used to explore/discover the number of factors a tool possesses [105107]. The original MSPSS has a three-factor structure, it is essential to test if this is the same for the translated versions as SS is a multidimensional, subjective construct which is dependent on socio-cultural contextual factors [1, 3, 1012, 17, 18, 108]. To this end, it is acceptable to obtain a one- or two-factor structured translation if the translation method is adequately robust. However, EFA alone is inadequate, as was the case in most of the retrieved translations; therefore, CFA ought to also have been performed [57, 86]. CFA is an advanced structural equation modelling statistical technique which combines the concepts of EFA, correlation and multiple regression [109, 110]. It provides evidence as to whether the translated versions replicated the original three-factor structure as postulated by the developers of the MSPSS. Unfortunately, a minority of the studies [9/23] performed CFA with only four studies [4/23] performing both EFA and CFA which is a major shortcoming for the level of evidence for structural validity. Further, in some instances, some authors/studies refer to EFA as CFA [28, 43, 44, 103] and this again yields inaccurate conclusions. In instances were only EFA was performed, some authors utilized an inappropriate rotational method i.e. orthogonal instead of oblique rotation [3, 13, 102]. Orthogonal rotation is used when the factors are hypothesized to be unrelated [105, 107, 111], which is not the case for the MSPSS as the domains are stipulated to be correlated [15, 21, 22]. For studies which performed CFA, only three adequately described the goodness of fitness (GOF) indices. These are important as they provide concrete evidence to the degree to which the data/translation fits into the original factor model [109, 110, 112]. Furthermore, given that the MSPSS can yield one-, two- or three- factors, all the three models should be tested using CFA before a decision on the degree of fit can be made. None of the studies which performed both EFA and CFA included this analysis, hence this could be envisaged as a potential source of reporting bias. Replication of the original factorial structure is not necessarily a benchmark for an accurate translation process [25]. For instance, authors may be tempted not to report the results of a two-factor model if the degree of fit is much better than for a three-factor model. Provision of multiple GOF indices for all the three models should be a “standard” reporting practise as it provides the potential readership with all the essential information for them to critique the methodological quality and subsequent conclusions in keeping with the evidence supplied [110].

Reliability

Most of the translated tools displayed adequate evidence for IC as most attained a Cronbach’s alpha of at least 0.70. However, given the limitations in the structural validity testing and lack of rigour in the translation process, the results for IC may need to be interpreted with caution. This is because a tool can be reliable, yet not valid [25, 113]. To illustrate this, if only EFA is performed, the factorial validity will be poor, however, the tool can still yield a high alpha statistic. In that instance the reliability findings can be deemed as “misleading” [114]. The validity of the alpha scores is also dependent on the homogeneity/unidimensionality of a test and this can be established through factor analysis [56]. Therefore, if CFA (the preferred unidimensionality test for translated tools) is not performed, the IC for that test will/may not be valid [56, 114, 115]. Additionally, the longitudinal validity (test-retest) also gives further evidence of the stability of an outcome measure over time [56]. Only four studies reported the stability of the translated versions which is another potential limitation. Given the potential limitation in relying solely on the IC as an indicator of reliability, other indices such as the alternative forms, split-half and test-retest reliability are recommended for concrete evidence of reliability of outcome measures [113, 115]. More so, it is argued that despite its wide usage and popularity, the Cronbach alpha is least desirable index for reliability estimation [115].

Construct validity

Construct validity refers to the extent to which scores on an instrument relate to other measures in a manner that is consistent with theoretically derived hypotheses concerning the concepts that are being measured [54]. Depression, anxiety, self-esteem and general mental well-being were the most commonly reported outcomes against which SS scores were compared. To prevent report bias, the developers of the COSMIN checklist recommend that authors should formulate specific hypothesis before data collection [54, 57, 86]. None of the studies specified the expected magnitude of correlations with only three studies formulating specific hypotheses. Further, there is need for authors to describe in detail the comparator instruments as well as demonstrating their reliability and validity in the study population as failure to do so affects the both internal and external validity [86]. For example, some of the translations [eight out of twenty-three] did not report the psychometrics of the comparator instruments. In other instances, the authors refer to the psychometrics of the comparator from another population which again is questionable [4549]. Failure to demonstrate the psychometric robustness of the comparator instruments would thus affect the construct validity of the translated versions of the MSPSS.

Criterion validity

Criterion validity is defined as the extent to which scores on an outcome measure perform against an established gold standard [58]. Given that SS is a latent variable [3, 11], it is difficult to establish a gold standard against which the MSPSS can be assessed against. Nevertheless, for the three studies which evaluated criterion validity, the psychometrics of the purported gold standard were either questionable or were not well described. Therefore, there was poor evidence for criterion validity.

Limitations

The use of the COSMIN checklist for the evaluation of the methodological quality may have been a potential limitation. This is because the checklist came into effect in 2011 and some of the translations had been performed prior to its’ publication. The stringent nature of the checklist has also been reported in almost similar systematic reviews [24, 116]. For example, in the assessment of IC and factorial validity, if the handling of missing responses is not reported, the domain(s) are rated as fair quality despite the rest of the ratings being of excellent quality. Inconsistencies within the COSMIN checklist may also be viewed as a potential source of limitation. For example, in evaluating the structural validity of translated tools, if CFA is not performed, item 6 for the structural validity/Box E is rated as good and the same is rated as poor for item 14 under Box G/cross-cultural validity. As the COSMIN guidelines are currently under review, it is hoped the revised guidelines will further harmonize the terminology utilized in the methodological and further increase the checklist validity in rating methodological quality of the translation and adaptation of PROMs. Additionally, we could not evaluate fifteen language versions of the MSPSS which were published in other than English language and this could have introduced language bias for the present review.

Conclusions

We identified 22 translated versions of the MSPSS. The psychometric properties which were most often reported included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, structural validity and construct validity. Many of the tools did not follow a rigorous translation process and there was poor evidence for structural validity. The advent of EBP and increased usage of PROMs requires quality translations to ensure reliable and valid outcome measures. The retrieved MSPSS translations therefore need to be utilized with precautions. There is also need to assess other psychometric properties such as responsiveness, measurement error and establishment of cut-off values to increase the clinical utility and psychometric robustness of the translated versions of the MSPSS. We also recommend the development of a standardized protocol for the translation and adaptation of the MSPSS. Future translation studies should utilize the backward-forward translation method with special emphasis on the use of multiple translators, reconciliation of translations, panel of expert assessment and both EFA and CFA should be performed for factorial analysis.

Abbreviations

CFA: 

Confirmatory factor analysis

COSMIN: 

COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments

EBP: 

Evidence based practise

EFA: 

Exploratory factor analysis

HIC: 

High-income country

IC: 

Internal consistency

LIC: 

Low income country

LMIC: 

Lower-middle income country

MIC: 

Middle income country

MSPSS: 

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

PROMs: 

Patient-reported outcome measures

SS: 

Social support

UMIC: 

Upper middle income country

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The assistance by Mrs. Morgan from the University of Cape Town library in formulating the search strategy is greatly appreciated.

Disclosure statement

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AAS, NEPAD Agency, Wellcome Trust, or the UK government.

Funding

The systematic review is part of the primary authors’ PhD work at the University of Cape Town. The work is being funded by The African Mental Health Research Initiative (AMARI). AMARI is a consortium of four African universities whose overall goal is to build excellence in leadership, training and science amongst African scholars in mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) research in Ethiopia, Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe. AMARI, at the University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences (UZCHS) secured funding from the Wellcome Trust through the Developing Excellence in Leadership and Science (DELTAS) Africa initiative. The DELTAS Africa Initiative is an independent funding scheme of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS)‘s Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA) and supported by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency) with funding from the Wellcome Trust [DEL-15-01] and the UK government.

Availability of data and materials

The data will not be shared since it forms part of ongoing research.

Authors’ contributions

JMD- conceptualized the systematic review, developed the search strategy, ran database searches and drafted the manuscript. JJ - conceptualized the systematic review and edited the manuscript. MC, LC TM – data extraction and editing of the manuscript. HJ - editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted as systematic review, so no ethical approval was sought and there was no need for informed consents.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Physiotherapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
(2)
Rehabilitation Department, College of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
(3)
King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, London, England
(4)
Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA

References

  1. Stewart RC, Umar E, Tomenson B, Creed F. Validation of the multi-dimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) and the relationship between social support, intimate partner violence and antenatal depression in Malawi. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:180.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Raina P, Donnell MO, Schwellnus H, Rosenbaum P, King G, Brehaut J, et al. Caregiving process and caregiver burden: conceptual models to guide research and practice. BMC Pediatr. 2004;4:1–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Ekbäck M, Benzein E, Lindberg M, Årestedt K. The Swedish version of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) - a psychometric evaluation study in women with hirsutism and nursing students. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:168.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Wilson A, Yendork JS, Somhlaba NZ. Psychometric properties of multidimensional scale of perceived social support among Ghanaian adolescents. Child Indic Res. 2016;10:101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Aroian K, Templin TN, Ramaswamy V. Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support for Arab immigrant women. Health Care Women Int. 2010;31:153–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hannan J, Alce M, Astros A. Psychometric properties of the newly translated creole multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) and perceived adequacy of resource scale (PARS) and the relationship between perceived social support and resources in Haitian mothers in the USA. BMC Psychol. 2016;4:7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamza A, Mohsein NAA, Siew YL. Measuring percieved social support in stroke survivors: linguistic validation of the multidimensional scale of Percieved social support ( MSPSS ) in Hausa ( Nigerian ) language. South Afr J Occup Ther. 2012:42.Google Scholar
  8. Pedersen SS, Spinder H, Erdman R a M, Denollet J. Poor perceived social support in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients and their partners: cross-validation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Psychosomatics. 2009;50:461–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Denis A, Callahan S, Bouvard M. Evaluation of the French version of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support during the postpartum period. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19:1245–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Shvedko A, Whittaker AC, Thompson JL, Greig CA. Physical activity interventions for treatment of social isolation, loneliness or low social support in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Psychol Sport Exerc [Internet]. Elsevier; 2018;34:128–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.10.003
  11. Ng CG, Amer Siddiq AN, Aida SA, Zainal NZ, Koh OH. Validation of the Malay version of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS-M) among a group of medical students in Faculty of Medicine, university Malaya. Asian J Psychiatry. 2010;3:3–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Guan NC, Seng LH, Hway Ann AY, Hui KO. Factorial validity and reliability of the Malaysian simplified Chinese version of multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS-SCV) among a group of university students. Asia-Pac J Public Health. 2015;27:225–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Nakigudde J, Musisi S, Ehnvall A, Airaksinen E, Agren H. Adaptation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in a Ugandan setting. Afr Health Sci. 2009;9(Suppl 1):S35–41.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohammad AH, Al Sadat N, Yim LS, Chinna K. Validity and reliability of the Hausa version of multidimensional scale of perceived social support index. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015;17:0–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Peplau LA. Loneliness research: basic concepts and findings. In: Sarason I.G., Sarason B.R. (eds) Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications. NATO ASI Series (D: Behavioural and Social Sciences), vol 24. Dordrech: Springer; 1985.Google Scholar
  16. Lakey B, Cohen S. Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social Support and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195126709.003.0002
  17. Chou K-L. Assessing Chinese adolescents’ social support: the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Personal Individ Differ. 2000;28:299–307.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Bagherian-Sararoudi R, Hajian A, Bahrami Ehsan H, Sarafraz MR, Zimet GD. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in Iran. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4:1177–81.Google Scholar
  19. Fleury J, Keller C, Perez A. Social support theoretical perspective. Geriatr Nurs N Y N. 2009;30:11–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattson M& JGH. Linking Health Communication with Social Support. Health Commun. Nexus. 2011.Google Scholar
  21. Dahlem N, Zimet G, Walker R. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support: a confirmation study. J Clin Psychol. 1991;47:756–61.Google Scholar
  22. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of Percieved social support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52:30–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Shrestha SD, Pradhan R, Tran TD, Gualano RC, JRW F. Reliability and validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS ) for detecting perinatal common mental disorders ( PCMDs ) among women in low-and lower-middle-income countries : a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Monticone M, Nava C, Leggero V, Rocca B, Salvaderi S, Ferrante S, et al. Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire, SRS-22 : a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1981–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Stewart RC, Umar E, Tomenson B, Creed F. Validation of the multi-dimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) and the relationship between social support, intimate partner violence and antenatal depression in Malawi. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:1–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Merhi R, Kazarian SS. Validation of the Arabic translation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support (Arabic-MSPSS) in a Lebanese community sample. Arab. J Psychiatry. 2012;23:159–68.Google Scholar
  28. Ross R, Sawatphanit W, Mizuno M, Takeo K. Depressive symptoms among HIV-positive postpartum women in Thailand. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2011;25:36–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Duru E. Re-examination of the psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support among Turkish university students. Soc Behav Personal. 2007;35:443–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramaswamy V, Aroian KJ, Templin T. Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support for Arab American adolescents. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:49–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Martins MV, Peterson BD, Almeida V, Costa ME. Measuring perceived social support in Portuguese adults trying to conceive: adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Peritia. 2012;13:5–14.Google Scholar
  32. Theofilou P. Translation and cultural adaptation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support for Greece. Health Psychol Res. 2015;3:9–11.Google Scholar
  33. Yang SO, Jeong GH, Kim SJ, Lee SH. Correlates of self-care behaviors among low-income elderly women with hypertension in South Korea. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2014;43:97–106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Trujols J, De Diego-Adeliño J, Feliu-Soler A, Iraurgi I, Puigdemont D, Álvarez E, et al. The Spanish version of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology-self-report (QIDS-SR16): a psychometric analysis in a clinical sample. J Affect Disord Elsevier. 2014;169:189–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Hetherington E, Doktorchik C, Premji SS, McDonald SW, Tough SC, Sauve RS. Preterm birth and social support during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2015;29:523–35.Google Scholar
  36. Stewart RC, Umar E, Tomenson B, Creed F. A cross-sectional study of antenatal depression and associated factors in Malawi. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2014;17:145–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory. Psychology Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  38. Khadka J, Huang J, Mollazadegan K, Gao R, Chen H, Zhang S, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation, and Rasch analysis of the visual function (VF-14) questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:4413–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Eker D, Arkar H. Perceived social support: psychometric properties of the MSPSS in normal and pathological groups in a developing country. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1995;30:121–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ersoy MA, Varan A. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the internalized stigma of mental illness scale. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2007;18:1–7.Google Scholar
  41. Eker D, Arkar H, Yaldiz H. Generality of support sources and psychometric properties of a scale of perceived social support in Turkey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000;35:228–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuscu MK, Dural U, Önen P, Yaşa Y, Yayla M, Basaran G, et al. The association between individual attachment patterns, the perceived social support, and the psychological well-being of Turkish informal caregivers. Psychooncology. 2009;18:927–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Nahathai W, Tinakon W. A revised Thai multi-dimensional scale of Percieved social support. Span J Psychol. 2012;15:1503–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Wongpakaran T, Wongpakaran N, Ruktrakul R. Reliability and validity of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS): Thai version. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health CP EMH. 2011;7:161–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Saleem M, Tahir MA, Ul Huda N. Perceived social support and clinical anger among drug addicts of southern Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Commer Soc Sci. 2013;7:298–308.Google Scholar
  46. Khan MN, Chiumento A, Dherani M, Bristow K, Sikander S, Rahman A. Psychological distress and its associations with past events in pregnant women affected by armed conflict in Swat, Pakistan: a cross sectional study. Confl Health [Internet]. Conflict and Health; 2015;9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-015-0063-4
  47. Qadir F, Khalid A, Haqqani S, Zill-e-Huma, Medhin G. The association of marital relationship and perceived social support with mental health of women in Pakistan. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1150.Google Scholar
  48. Naveed A. Risk factors for postpartum depression, interpersonal relationship anxiety, neuroticism and social support in women with postpartum depression. Pak J Soc Sci. 2015;35:911–24.Google Scholar
  49. Akhtar A, Rahman A, Husain M, Chaudhry IB, Duddu V, Husain N. Multidimensional scale of perceived social support: psychometric properties in a south Asian population. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36:845–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Gjersoe NL, Newman GE, Chituc V, Hood B. Individualism and the extended-self: cross-cultural differences in the valuation of authentic objects. PLoS One. 2014;9:e90787.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Hamamura T. Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualism–collectivism in the United States and Japan. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2012;16:3–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2005;8:94–104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Hardan-Khalil K, Mayo AM. Psychometric properties of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Clin Nurse Spec [Internet]. 2015;29:258–61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005109522457
  54. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:82.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res [Internet]. Springer International Publishing; 2018;0:1–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
  57. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Dambi J, Jelsma J, Mlambo T. A review of the psychometric properties of the cross-cultural translations and adaptations of the Multidimensional Perceived Social Support Scale (MSPSS) [Internet]. PROSPERO Int. Prospect. Regist. Syst. Rev. 2016 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. p. 1–5. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016052394
  60. Dambi JM, Jelsma J, Mlambo T, Chiwaridzo M, Dangarembizi-Munambah N, Corten L. An evaluation of psychometric properties of caregiver burden outcome measures used in caregivers of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review protocol. Syst rev. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5:42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Dambi JM, Jelsma J, Mlambo T, Chiwaridzo M, Tadyanemhandu C, Chikwanha MT, et al. A critical evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions for improving the well-being of caregivers of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review protocol. Syst rev. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5:112.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back review group. Spine. 2009;34:1929–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Norris AE, Aroian KJ, Nickerson DM. Premigration persecution, postmigration stressors and resources, and postmigration mental health: a study of severely traumatized u.S. Arab immigrant women. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2011;17:283–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhou K, Li H, Wei X, Yin J, Liang P, Zhang H, et al. Reliability and validity of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in Chinese mainland patients with methadone maintenance treatment. Compr Psychiatry. 2015;60:182–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Cheng ST, Chan ACM. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personal Individ Differ. 2004;37:1359–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Ling Y, Huebner ES, Liu J, Liu WL, Zhang J, Xiao J. The origins of hope in adolescence: a test of a social-cognitive model. Personal Individ Differ. 2015;87:307–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Liu W, Li Z, Ling Y, Cai T. Core self-evaluations and coping styles as mediators between social support and well-being. Personal Individ Differ. 2016;88:35–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Yeung A, Slipp LE, Jacquart J, Fava M, Denninger JW, Benson H, et al. The Treatment of Depressed Chinese Americans Using Qigong in a Health Care Setting: A Pilot Study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med [Internet]. Hindawi Publishing Corporation; 2013;2013:168784. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639645/.
  69. Sing CY, Wong WS. The effect of optimism on depression: the mediating and moderating role of insomnia. J Health Psychol. 2011;16:1251–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. He F, Zhou Q, Zhao Z, Zhang Y, Guan H. Effect of perceived social support and dispositional optimism on the depression of burn patients. J Health Psychol 2016;21:1119–25.Google Scholar
  71. Wong SYS, Wong CK, Chan FWK, Chan PKS, Ngai K, Mercer S, et al. Chronic psychosocial stress: does it modulate immunity to the influenza vaccine in Hong Kong Chinese elderly caregivers? Age. 2013;35:1479–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Li M-Y, Yang Y-L, Liu L, Wang L. Effects of social support, hope and resilience on quality of life among Chinese bladder cancer patients: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Zeng EQ, Zeng BQ, Tian JL, Du B, Tian XB, Chen H. Perceived social support and its impact on mental fatigue in patients with mild traumatic brain injury. Balk Med J. 2016;33:152–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Cao W, Li L, Zhou X, Zhou C. Social capital and depression: evidence from urban elderly in China. Aging Ment Health. 2015;19:418–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Tan J, Ai Y, Wen X, Wu Y, Wang W. Relationship between shyness and loneliness among Chinese adolescents: social support as mediator. Soc Behav Personal Int J. 2016;44:201–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Liu L, Yang Y-L, Wang Z-Y, Wu H, Wang Y, Wang L. Prevalence and positive correlates of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among Chinese patients with hematological malignancies: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0145103.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang J, Miller JK, Zhao X. Family functioning and social support in men and women diagnosed with depression in China. Contemp Fam Ther. 2014;36:232–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang Y, Zhu X, Yang Y, Yi J, Tang L, He J, et al. What factors are predictive of benefit finding in women treated for non-metastatic breast cancer? A prospective study. Psychooncology. 2015;539:533–9.Google Scholar
  79. Chan L. Yu E, li S. Depression in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2011;21:99–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Liu X, Liu C, Tian X, Zou G, Li G, Kong L, et al. Associations of perceived stress, resilience and social support with sleep disturbance among community-dwelling adults. Stress Health. 2015;586:578–86.Google Scholar
  81. Zhang B, Ding X, Lu W, Zhao J, Lv Q, Yi Z, et al. Effect of group cognitive-behavioral therapy on the quality of life and social functioning of patients with mild depression. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2016;28:18–27.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Chan AWK, Lee A, Suen LKP, Tam WWS. Effectiveness of a tai chi qigong program in promoting health-related quality of life and perceived social support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease clients. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:653–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Zhu S, Hu J, Efird JT. Role of social support in cognitive function among elders. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21:2118–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Taylor-Piliae RE, Haskell WL, Waters CM, Froelicher ES. Change in perceived psychological status following a 12-week tai chi exercise programme. J Adv Nurs. 2006;54:313–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Vincent-Onabajo GO, Muhammad MM, Ali UM, Masta AM. Influence of sociodemographic and stroke-related factors on availability of social support among Nigerian stroke survivors. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2015;5:353–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  86. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  87. Park H, Nguyen T, Park H. Validation of multidimensional scale of perceived social support in middle-aged Korean women with diabetes. Asia Pac J Soc Work Dev. 2012;22:202–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Ng CG, Mohamed S, See MH, Harun F, Dahlui M, Sulaiman AH, et al. Anxiety, depression, perceived social support and quality of life in Malaysian breast cancer patients: a 1-year prospective study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Razali SM, Yusoff MZAM. Medication adherence in schizophrenia: a comparison between outpatients and relapse cases. East Asian Arch Pyschiatry. 2014;24:68–74.Google Scholar
  90. Ghorbani M, Dolatian M, Shams J, Alavi-Majd H. Anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and social supports among parents of premature and full-term infants. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014;16:e13461.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Roohafza H, Daghaghzadeh AHKH, Afshar H, Zahra Erfani, Adibi P. Life stressors, coping strategies, and social supports in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Adv Biomed Reseach 2016;5:1–7.Google Scholar
  92. Adamczyk K. Development and validation of the polish-language version of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS). Rev Int Psychol Soc. 2013;26:437–66.Google Scholar
  93. Adamczyk K, Segrin C. Direct and indirect effects of young adults ’ relationship status on life satisfaction through loneliness and perceived social support. Psychol Belg. 2015;55:196–211.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Adamczyk K, Segrin C. Perceived social support and mental health among single vs. partnered polish young adults. Curr Psychol. 2015;34:82–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Adamczyk K, DiTommaso E. Psychometric properties of the polish version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults (SELSA-S). Psihol Teme. 2014;23:327–41.Google Scholar
  96. Martins MV, Peterson BD, Almeida VM, Costa ME. Direct and indirect effects of perceived social support on womens infertility-related stress. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2113–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Martins MV, Peterson BD, Almeida V, Mesquita-Guimarães J, Costa ME. Dyadic dynamics of perceived social support in couples facing infertility. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:83–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Rey L, Extremera N, Pela’ez-Ferna’ndez MA. Linking social support to psychological distress in the unemployed: the moderating role of Core self-evaluations. Soc Indic Res 2015;127:435–445.Google Scholar
  99. López-ramos Y. Confirmatory factor analysis for the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in a sample of early retirees enrolled in university programs confirmatory factor analysis for the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in a sample of Ea. Clin Gerontol Routledge. 2016;00:1–12.Google Scholar
  100. Guillén AI, Panadero S, Rivas E, Vázquez JJ. Suicide attempts and stressful life events among female victims of intimate partner violence living in poverty in Nicaragua. Scand J Psychol. 2015;56:349–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Cobb C, Xie D. Structure of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support for undocumented Hispanic immigrants. Hisp J Behav Sci. 2015;37:274–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Ekback MP, Lindberg M, Benzein E, Arestedt K. Social support: an important factor for quality of life in women with hirsutism. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:183.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  103. Guan NC, Sulaiman AR, Seng LH, Ann AYH, Wahab S, Pillai SK. Factorial validity and reliability of the Tamil version of multidimensional scale of perceived social support among a group of participants in university malaya medical Centre, Malaysia. Indian J Psychol Med. 2013;35:385–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  104. Başol G. Validity and reliability of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support-revised, with a Turkish sample. Soc Behav Personal. 2008;36:1303–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Izquierdo I, Olea J, Abad F. Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: uses and recommendations. Psicothema. 2014;26:395–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Zhang G, Preacher KJ. Factor rotation and standard errors in Exporatory factor analysis. J Educ Behav Stat. 2015;40:579–603.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Karami H. Exploratory factor analysis as a construct validation tool: (Mis)applications in applied linguistics research. TESOL J. 2016;6:3.Google Scholar
  108. Brzyski P, Ko’zka, M, Squires A, Brzostek T. How factor analysis results may change due to country context. J Nurs Scholarsh 2016;48:598–607.Google Scholar
  109. Suhr D. Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? [Internet]. Stat. Data Anal. 2006 [cited 2017 Jan 28]. p. 1–17. Available from: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/200-31.pdf
  110. Prudon P. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Brief Introduction and Critique [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2017 Feb 22]. p. 1–18. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/80cc/e29fc22d99c4273bee96ebaa6447c64e268d.pdf
  111. Schmitt TA, Sass DA. Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: implications for factor pattern loadings and Interfactor correlations. Educ Psychol Meas. 2011;71:95–113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Guo C, Tomson G, Guo J, Li X, Keller C, Söderqvist F. Psychometric evaluation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Chinese adolescents – a methodological study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:198.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  113. Drost EA. Validity and reliability in social science research. Educ Res Perspect. 2004;38:105–23.Google Scholar
  114. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  115. Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74:107–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement