Translation, Adaption, and Psychometric Testing of the Myanmar Version of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey for People Living With HIV/AIDS

Huang, Feifei; Chen, Wei-Ti; Lin, Sai Htun; Tun, Min San; Nwe, Thet Wai; Oo, Yin Thet Nu; Oo, Htun Nyunt

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707142

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies did not report their translation equivalence evaluation (Alaloul et al, 2021; Nicolaou et al, 2015; Norhayati et al, 2015). Three studies had one person compare two English versions (Huang et al, 2021; Khazaee‐Pool et al, 2018; Yilmaz & Bozo, 2019). Seven studies reported that a group compared two English versions (Bavarsad et al, 2021; Dafaalla et al, 2016; Giangrasso & Casale, 2014; Khuong et al, 2018; Saddki et al, 2017; Shyu et al, 2006; Yu et al, 2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of 22 studies performing CFA, most used the classical test theory approach, a few used Rasch analysis (Huang et al, 2021) or Mokken scale for data analysis (Thompson et al, 2014). One study did not mention the criteria for model fit clearly (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies explored cross‐cultural validity, including one exploring measurement invariance in data collected by using the questionnaire in different languages (Robitaille et al, 2011) and three examining the differential item functioning (DIF) across two groups (Huang et al, 2021; Kim et al, 2017; Soares et al, 2012). When DIF was examined, the studies found that respondents from different groups responded similarly to the measurement items (non‐DIF), indicating sufficient cross‐cultural validity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of 22 studies performing CFA, most used the classical test theory approach, a few used Rasch analysis (Huang et al, 2021) or…”

Section: Structural Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey (MOS‐SSS): A psychometric systematic review

Dao‐Tran

Lam

Balasooriya

et al. 2023

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo evaluate and synthesize psychometric properties of the MOS‐SSS and to identify quality versions of MOS‐SSS for use in future research and practice.DesignA psychometric systematic review.Data SourcesArticles about the translation, adaptation, or validation of the MOS‐SSS in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science and their reference lists published before 11 November 2022.Review MethodsThe review followed the Consensus Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines.ResultsThe review included 35 articles. Eleven versions of MOS‐SSS (3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 22 items) have been validated in various populations and 13 languages. Of 14 studies developing a translated version of MOS‐SSS, four studies performed both an experts' evaluation of content validity and a face validity test; two studies reported translation evaluation in the form of a content validity index. Of 35 studies, six performed both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis for structural validity; hypotheses and measurements for construct validity testings were often not clearly stated; two examined criterion validity; and four assessed cross‐cultural validity. Internal consistency reliabilities were commonly examined by calculating Cronbach's alpha and reported satisfactory. Five studies analysed test–retest reliabilities using intra correlation coefficient. Methodological concerns exist.ConclusionThe English 19‐item, Farsi Persian 19‐item, and Vietnamese 19‐item versions are recommended for future use in research and practice. Italian 19‐item and Malaysian 13‐item versions are not recommended to be used in future research and practice. All other versions considered in this review have potential use in future research and practice. Proper procedures for developing a translated version of MOS‐SSS and validating the scale are recommended.ImpactThe review identified quality versions of MOS‐SSS to measure social support in future research and practice. The study also indicated methodological issues in current validation studies. Application of the study findings and recommendations can be useful to improve outcome measurement quality and maximize the efficiency of resource use in future research and practice.No Patient or Public ContributionThis systematic review synthesized the evidence from previous research and did not involve any human participation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of 22 studies performing CFA, most used the classical test theory approach, a few used Rasch analysis (Huang et al, 2021) or…”

Section: Structural Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey (MOS‐SSS): A psychometric systematic review

Dao‐Tran

Lam

Balasooriya

et al. 2023

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, higher scores indicated higher levels of perceived social support, which refers to the belief that there are people in their social network that can provide this type of support [54]. The MSS-SSS is a robust measure that has been used extensively and translated into many languages, including Spanish [55][56][57][58]. The scale has been found to have adequate divergent validity compared to other measures [34].…”

Section: Measure Of Social Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Stress on Father Involvement in Early Infancy: Examining Risk and Protective Factors in Residential and Nonresidential Fathers

Krueger,

Smith,

Pollock

et al. 2024

OBM Integr Complement Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residential and nonresidential fathers are taking an increasingly greater role in their children’s lives, and father involvement predicts positive child outcomes across development. This study utilized data from a large sample of racially and ethnically diverse fathers of low to middle income (n = 1,112) to test if paternal stress is associated with lower father involvement in early infancy and whether perceived social support is protective. Exploratory analyses examined whether the effects of stress on father involvement differ depending on whether a father lives with his child. Multiple regression analyses tested associations between three different forms of stress (perceived general stress, financial stress, major life events) and father involvement measured as time spent with infant, father confidence, and father provision of tangible support, and to examine whether social support moderated the relation. Controlling for residential status, results showed that perceived and financial stress in fathers were significantly associated with lower father confidence in parenting and lower provision of tangible support. In addition, higher paternal perceived stress related to less time spent with infants. Some patterns differed for residential versus nonresidential fathers. Further, only perceived available affectional social support emerged as protective. These results highlight the importance of identifying the unique types of stress that affect father involvement in the first few months of life, what may be protective, and a possible need to distinguish between residential and nonresidential fathers as they enter parenthood.

show abstract

Translation, Adaption, and Psychometric Testing of the Myanmar Version of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey for People Living With HIV/AIDS

Cited by 2 publications

References 41 publications

The Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey (MOS‐SSS): A psychometric systematic review

The Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey (MOS‐SSS): A psychometric systematic review

The Impact of Stress on Father Involvement in Early Infancy: Examining Risk and Protective Factors in Residential and Nonresidential Fathers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About