ArticleBMC nursing2024
Validation of the Chinese version of the Oslo-3 Social Support Scale among nursing students: a study based on Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory models.
Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of oral frailty, social support, and technophobia with depressive symptoms in Chinese older adults with chronic diseases: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Improving Mental Health, Self-Efficacy and Social Support in Older People Through Community Intervention Based on Mindfulness: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Social Support and Hospital Discharge Readiness in CHD Patients: Mediating Roles of Self-Efficacy and Adherence.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the patient self-advocacy scale among colorectal cancer patients.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNursing students are encountering a range of health issues. Assessing social support is a key component in most questionnaire surveys related to health status, aiming to investigate the relationships and mechanisms between health status and social support to enhance overall health. Therefore, it is essential to seek out appropriate instruments to evaluate social support for nursing students. The Oslo-3 Social Support Scale (OSSS-3) is a reliable and concise instrument for evaluating social support. To date, there have been no studies validating the OSSS-3 based on Item Response Theory (IRT) models. Also, an officially validated Chinese version has not been found. The current research intended to verify the Chinese version of the OSSS-3.
methodsThe OSSS-3 was translated into Chinese and culturally adapted. Subsequently, the OSSS-3 was validated by employing the Classical Test Theory (CTT) and IRT models.
resultsThe split-half reliability was 0.622. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.687. The correlations between each item and total scores varied from 0.723 to 0.835. The retest coefficient was 0.907. The content validity index was 0.933. A single common factor was extracted and accounted for 61.559% of the variance. The item loading values on the single factor were between 0.743 and 0.814. The communalities were between 0.552 and 0.663. There was no variance between males and females (P = 0.055). The difference in scores between the top (30%) and bottom (30%) groups attained significance. IRT models results revealed that the discrimination parameters ranged from 1.39 to 2.33 and difficulty parameters increased monotonically.
conclusionThe OSSS-3 demonstrates satisfying psychometric properties and is a proper instrument for measuring social support in Chinese nursing students.
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.