A Scoping Review of Instruments Used in Measuring Social Support among Refugees in Resettlement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically review current research on the application of existing social support scales in research with refugees in resettlement, assess their quality, and identify gaps in measurement to enhance research and practice. A scoping review was conducted on the extant literature published until March 2023. A team of researchers conducted search, sorting, and data extraction processes following best practices for scale development and validation. Of the 1185 studies collected from the search process, 41 articles were retained in the final analysis, from which 17 distinct social support instruments used in research with resettled refugees were identified. An assessment of all 17 instruments showed the presence of one or more limitations associated with construct, criterion, convergent, and/or discriminant validity. Test of reliability was assessed in all studies, with a range of 0.80 to 0.90. Our findings show that most of the research evaluating social support among resettled refugees is conducted without measurement instruments adequately validated in the resettlement context. This analysis highlights the need for rigorously developed social support scales that reflect the lived experiences, needs, and priorities of resettled refugees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".