Cited by 263Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and ValidationHealth and Well-being Studies

A brief form of the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU) was developed, validated, and standardized

Kliem, Sören, Mößle, Thomas, Rehbein, Florian, Hellmann, Deborah F., Zenger, Markus, Brähler, Elmar·2015·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives Development of a brief instrument (F-SozU K-6) for the measurement of perceived social support in epidemiologic contexts by shortening a well-established German questionnaire (F-SozU K-14).Study design and setting The development of the F-SozU K-6 consisted of two phases; phase 1: the F-SozU K-14 was presented to a general population sample representative for the Federal Republic of Germany (N = 2,007; age: 14-92 years). Six items for the short form were selected based on the maximization of coefficient alpha. Phase 2: the new short form (F-SozU K-6) was evaluated and standardized in an independent second population survey (N = 2,508, age: 14-92 years).Results The F-SozU K-6 showed very good reliability and excellent model fit indices for the one-dimensional factorial structure of the scale. Furthermore, strict measurement invariance was detected allowing unbiased comparison of means and correlation coefficients and path coefficients between both sexes across the full lifespan from adolescence (14-92 years). Well-established associations of perceived social support with depression and somatic symptoms could be replicated using the short form.Conclusion The F-SozU K-6 presents a reliable, valid, and economical instrument to assess perceived social support and can thus be effectively applied within the frameworks of clinical epidemiologic studies or related areas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.003

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kliem, S., Mößle, T., Rehbein, F., Hellmann, D. F., Zenger, M., & Brähler, E.
Affiliations
  • Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony (DE)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Kliem, Sören
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
68
Issue
5
Pages
551-562
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062269587
Cited by
263
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
Keywords
perceived social support, short-form questionnaire, questionnaire development, measurement invariance, depression, somatic symptoms, lifespan, German-language instrument, psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Mental Disorders, Depression, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review