B Goodger1, J Byles, N Higganbotham, G Mishra. 1. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Newcastle, New South Wales. mdbgg@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social support strongly influences health, but research has been limited by the paucity of brief, inexpensive, psychometrically sound scales suitable for use with older people. METHOD: The validity and reliability of the 11-item Duke Social Support Index (DSSI) were tested among a random sample of 565 community dwelling people aged 70 years and over. RESULTS: A response rate of 76% was obtained. Participants had a mean age of 76 years. Internal consistency using Cronbachs alpha for the overall index was 0.77. Test-retest reliability (n = 117) scores ranged from 0.70 to 0.81. Concurrent validity is supported by the DSSI's moderate to strong correlations with the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction. Construct validity of the DSSI was supported by moderate correlations with health, quality of life and loneliness. To further test construct validity a multiple regression model was used and 25.6% of the variance in social support was explained using three expected variables; self rated health, quality of life, and living arrangements. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence for reliability and validity of the 11-item Duke Social Support Index support its use in aged care research and health promotion strategies. IMPLICATIONS: The DSSI provides researchers with the opportunity to use a brief measure of social support which has been assessed specifically with older Australians instead of single-item measures or scales which have limited psychometric evidence.
BACKGROUND: Social support strongly influences health, but research has been limited by the paucity of brief, inexpensive, psychometrically sound scales suitable for use with older people. METHOD: The validity and reliability of the 11-item Duke Social Support Index (DSSI) were tested among a random sample of 565 community dwelling people aged 70 years and over. RESULTS: A response rate of 76% was obtained. Participants had a mean age of 76 years. Internal consistency using Cronbachs alpha for the overall index was 0.77. Test-retest reliability (n = 117) scores ranged from 0.70 to 0.81. Concurrent validity is supported by the DSSI's moderate to strong correlations with the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction. Construct validity of the DSSI was supported by moderate correlations with health, quality of life and loneliness. To further test construct validity a multiple regression model was used and 25.6% of the variance in social support was explained using three expected variables; self rated health, quality of life, and living arrangements. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence for reliability and validity of the 11-item Duke Social Support Index support its use in aged care research and health promotion strategies. IMPLICATIONS: The DSSI provides researchers with the opportunity to use a brief measure of social support which has been assessed specifically with older Australians instead of single-item measures or scales which have limited psychometric evidence.
Authors: Puja K Mehta; Donna M Polk; Xiao Zhang; Ning Li; Jeannette Painovich; Kamlesh Kothawade; Joan Kirschner; Yi Qiao; Xiuling Ma; Yii-Der Ida Chen; Anna Brantman; Chrisandra Shufelt; Margo Minissian; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Linda Burke; Jonine Jancey; Peter Howat; Andy Lee; Deborah Kerr; Trevor Shilton; Andrew Hills; Annie Anderson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-12-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Namkee G Choi; Renee Pepin; C Nathan Marti; Courtney J Stevens; Martha L Bruce Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Joseph Vaglio; Mark Conard; Walker S Poston; James O'Keefe; C Keith Haddock; John House; John A Spertus Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 3.186