ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015
Factor analyses of a social support scale using two methods.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and validity testing of the Chinese version of the self-directed learning scale among middle school students.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Shared Risk Factors for Depressive Disorder Among Older Adult Couples in Korea.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Peruvian Version of the MOS Scale for Social Support in Cancer Patients and Convergent Network with Quality of Life.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Article
- How Do Perceived Social Support and Community Social Network Alleviate Psychological Distress During COVID-19 Lockdown? The Mediating Role of Residents' Epidemic Prevention Capability.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) Among Family Caregivers of People with Schizophrenia in China.Psychology research and behavior management · 2021Article
- A Comprehensive Resiliency Framework: Theoretical Model, Treatment, and Evaluation.Global advances in health and medicine · 2021Article
- Assessment of Burden Among Family Caregivers of Schizophrenia: Psychometric Testing for Short-Form Zarit Burden Interviews.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Article
- The differential relationships of dimensions of perceived social support with cognitive function among older adults.Aging & mental health · 2016Article
- A Mixed-Methods Study Supporting a Model of Chinese Parental HIV Disclosure.AIDS and behavior · 2016Article
- Assessment of mental health literacy using a multifaceted measure among a Chinese rural population.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Psychometric Analysis of the Professional Identity Questionnaires in Croatian Nursing Student Context.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEvaluation and comparison of the factor structure of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) using both confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with two samples of people living with HIV/AIDS in China.
methodsSecondary analyses were conducted with data from two comparable samples of 320 people living with HIV/AIDS from the same hospital using the same inclusion criteria. The first sample of 120 was collected in 2006, and the second sample of 200 was collected in 2012. For each sample, CFA was first performed on the original four-factor structure to check model fit, followed by EFA to explore other factor structures and a subsequent CFA for model fit statistics to be compared to the original four-factor CFA.
resultsIn both samples, CFA on the originally hypothesized four-factor structure yielded an acceptable model fit. The EFA yielded a two-factor solution in both samples, with different items included in each factor for the two samples. Comparison of CFA on the a priori four-factor structure and the new two-factor structure in both samples indicated that both factor structures were of acceptable model fit, with the four-factor model performing slightly better than the two-factor model.
conclusionFactor structure of the MOS-SSS is method-dependent, with CFA supporting a four-factor structure, while EFA yielded a two-factor structure in two separate samples. We need to be careful in selecting the analytic method when applying the MOS-SSS to various samples and choose the factor structure that best fits the theoretical model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.