Cited by 276Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth disparities and outcomesAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Assessing social support, companionship, and distress: National Institute of Health (NIH) Toolbox Adult Social Relationship Scales.

Open access
Cyranowski, Jill M., Zill, Nicholas, Bode, Rita, Butt, Zeeshan, Kelly, Morgen A. R., Pilkonis, Paul A., Salsman, John M., Cella, David·2013·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The quality of our daily social interactions-including perceptions of support, feelings of loneliness, and distress stemming from negative social exchanges-influence physical health and well-being. Despite the importance of social relationships, brief yet precise unidimensional scales that assess key aspects of social relationship quality are lacking. As part of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function, we developed brief self-report scales designed to assess aspects of social support, companionship, and social distress across age cohorts. This article details the development and psychometric testing of the adult NIH Toolbox Social Relationship scales. METHODS: Social relationship concepts were selected, and item sets were developed and revised based on expert feedback and literature review. Items were then tested across a community-dwelling U.S. Internet panel sample of adults aged 18 and above (N = 692) using traditional (classic) psychometric methods and item response theory approaches to identify items for inclusion in 5-8 item unidimensional scales. Finally, concurrent validity of the newly developed scales was evaluated with respect to their interrelationships with classic social relationship validation instruments. RESULTS: Results provide support for the internal reliability and concurrent validity of resulting self-report scales assessing Emotional Support, Instrumental Support, Friendship, Loneliness, Perceived Rejection, and Perceived Hostility. CONCLUSION: These brief social relationship scales provide the pragmatic utility and enhanced precision needed to promote future epidemiological and social neuroscience research on the impact of social relationships on physical and emotional health outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0028586

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Berkman LF Glass T Berkman LF Kawachi I 2000 Social integration, social networks, social support and health Social Epidemiology 137 173 New York, NY Oxford University Press
  2. Cohen S Gottlieb B Cohen S Underwood L Gottlieb B 2000 Social relationships and health Social Support Measurement and Intervention 3 25 New York, NY Oxford University Press
  3. House JS Kahn RL Cohen S Syme SL 1985 Measures and concepts of social support Social support and health 83 108 New York, NY Academic Press
  4. Salsman JM Butt Z Pilkonis PA Cyranowski JM Zill N Hendrie HC (Manuscript under review) Emotional health and its assessment within Toolbox
  5. Sarason IG Sarason BR Shearin EN Pierce GR 1987 A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implications Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 4 497 510
  6. Uchino BN 2004 Social Support & Physical Health Yale University Press New Haven, CT

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cyranowski, J. M., Zill, N., Bode, R., Butt, Z., Kelly, M. A. R., Pilkonis, P. A., Salsman, J. M., & Cella, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Westat (United States) (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
293-301
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2040967213
Cited by
276
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Blueprint for Neuroscience Research and the Basic Behavioral and Social Science Opportunity Network (OppNet)
  • National Institutes of Health (HHS-N-260-2006-00007-C, MH085874, U01 AR052155, KL2RR0254740)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
social support, interpersonal relationships, loneliness, social distress, NIH Toolbox, self-report scale, scale development, psychometric validation, item response theory, emotional support, instrumental support, friendship, perceived rejection, perceived hostility, brief measures, social neuroscience
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Psychometrics, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies

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