Psychometric properties of the 10-item English-language Social Provisions Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most widely used self-report questionnaires to assess perceived social support is the Social Provisions Scale (SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987 ). This 24-item scale was designed to measure six dimensions of social support. A brief, 10-item version of the SPS was developed by Caron (SPS-10; Caron, 2013 ). This study examined the reliability, dimensionality and criterion validity of the English-language SPS-10. SPS-10 data from 19,656 respondents (8,928 men and 10,728 women) of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The external validity of the total score and the suggested dimension scores was assessed through correlations with three criterion health variables: psychological distress, positive mental health, and perceived health. Principal component analysis of the SPS-10 revealed a single dimension of social support. Confirmatory factor analyses of various models were also consistent with a unidimensional interpretation of the SPS-10 scores. Although the reliability of the total score was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.93), the reliabilities of the suggested dimension scores were moderate. The dimension scores do not show evidence of differential validity with respect to the health variables examined. In light of the results of various factor analyses and given the lack of external validity exhibited by the suggested dimensions, SPS-10 scores are best conceptualized as unidimensional. The use of SPS-10 dimension scores is not recommended. L’échelle de provisions sociales (ÉPS; Curtrona et Russell, 1987) est l’un des questionnaires d’auto-évaluation les plus souvent employés pour évaluer le soutien social perçu. Une version brève de ce questionnaire multidimensionnel de 24 items a été mis au point par Caron (2013) : l’ÉPS-10. Cette étude examine la fiabilité, la dimensionnalité et la validité externe de la version anglaise du questionnaire ÉPS-10. Les données de la version anglaise du questionnaire ÉPS-10 de 19 656 répondants (8 928 hommes et 10 839 femmes) de l’Enquête sur la santé dans les collectivités canadiennes (ESCC) sont soumises à l’analyse factorielle exploratoire et confirmatoire. La validité externe du score total et des scores de dimensions proposés est évaluée par la mise en relation avec trois variables de santé : détresse psychologie, santé mentale positive et santé perçue. L’analyse en composante principale révèle une seule dimension de soutien social. L’analyse factorielle confirmatoire de divers modèles est également compatible avec une interprétation unidimensionnelle des scores de l’ÉPS-10. Si la fidélité du score total semble satisfaisante (coefficient alpha de Cronbach de 0,93), celle des scores des dimensions postulées est plutôt faible. Les scores de dimensions ne présentent pas de signes de validité différentielle par rapport aux variables de santé examinées. Compte tenu des résultats des analyses factorielles, et en l’absence de validité différentielle des dimensions, les résultats de la version anglaise du questionnaire ÉPS-10 doivent être conçus comme unidimensionnels ; l’utilisation de scores de dimensions est déconseillée.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".