RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

Last Updated

Purpose

The MSPSS assess an individual’s perception of the social support he or she receives from family, friends, and significant others (G. D. Zimet, Dahlem, S. G. Zimet, & Farley, 1988).

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym MSPSS

Area of Assessment

Social Relationships
Social Support

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Populations

Non-Specific Patient Population

Key Descriptions

  • The MSPSS is a self-report measure and contains 12-items, rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 “very strongly disagree” to 7 “very strongly agree."
  • The scale was divided into 3 subscales: family, friends, and significant other, with each section consisting of 4 items. Who or what participants consider a significant other is up to their discretion.
  • The scale reports the three subscale scores and an overall total score. The average item rating is reported as the score for the subscales and for the total score. To calculate the family subscale, you would sum the four items composing this subscale, then divide the sum by 4, providing an average score for family social support.
  • Versions of the scale were created in Urdu (also known as MSPSS-U), Nepalese (also known as MSPSS-N), and Chinese.
  • Versions of the scale in other languages were translated into each population’s language by bilingual translators and back into English. In one case, before the actual study began, a pilot study was carried out using native speaking speakers to ensure accuracy.
  • For the Chinese version, items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree."

Number of Items

12

Equipment Required

  • Test Form
  • Pencil/ Pen

Time to Administer

5-10 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initial review completed by Tabitha Anderson, Latasha Merkerson-Miller, Deysi Paniagua, and Melissa Ivins-Lukse at the Illinois Institute of Technology (2015). Review and revisions completed by Kristian Nitsch, MS (3/4/2015)

ICF Domain

Participation

Measurement Domain

Emotion

Considerations

The MSPSS is available in several langauges including Englsih, Luganda, Malay, and has been validated in a diverse sample of populations.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

American Undergraduate Students (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) 

** (n= 69 Duke University undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course re-tested 2-3 months after initially completing the questionnaire) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: SEM= .66 
  • Family Subscale: SEM= .43 
  • Friends Subscale: SEM= .47 
  • Total: SEM= .33

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

American Undergraduate Students (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) 

** (n= 69 Duke University undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course re-tested 2-3 months after initially completing the questionnaire) 

  • Significant Other Subscale at 95% CI: MDC= 1.83 
  • Family Subscale at 95% CI: MDC= 1.20 
  • Friends Subscale at 95% CI: MDC= 1.30 
  • Total at 95% CI: MDC= .92

Normative Data

American Undergraduate Students (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) 

** (n= 275 Duke University undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course; Mean Age= 18.6, SD= .88) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 5.74, SD= 1.25 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 5.80, SD= 1.12 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 5.85, SD= .94 
  • Total: Mean= 5.80, SD= .86 

 

Pregnant American Women (Zimet, Powell, Farley, Werkman, & Berkoff, 1990) 

** (n= 265 pregnant women in their third trimester; Mean Age= 25.8, SD= 5.3) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 6.39, SD= .88 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 6.02, SD= 1.16 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 5.64, SD= 1.27 
  • Total: Mean= 6.01, SD= .90 

 

European Adolescents (Zimet, Powell, Farley, Werkman, & Berkoff, 1990) 

** (n= 74 adolescents attending high school in Madrid or Paris; Mean Age= 16.7, SD= .84) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 5.82, SD= 1.08 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 5.52, SD= 1.07 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 5.48, SD= 1.20 
  • Total: Mean= 5.60, SD= .80 

 

American Pediatric Residents (Zimet, Powell, Farley, Werkman, & Berkoff, 1990) 

** (n= 55 first- and second-year pediatric residents; Mean Age= 29.2, 3.0) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 5.51, SD= 1.73 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 5.69, SD= 1.07 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 5.53, SD= .92 
  • Total: Mean= 5.58, SD= .98 

 

Pakistani & Nepalese Migrants Living in Hong Kong (Tonsing, Zimet, & Tse, 2012) 

Pakistani Sample

** (n= 148, Mean Age= 32.4, SD= 8.09) 

Men: 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 5.50, SD= 1.22 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 5.69, SD= 1.12 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 5.65, SD= 1.07 
  • Total: Mean= 5.62, SD= 1.02 

Women: 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 5.40, SD= 1.49 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 5.72, SD= 1.27 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 5.33, SD= 1.35 
  • Total: Mean= 5.48, SD= 1.23 

 

Nepalese Sample

** (n=153; Mean Age= 33.2, SD= 8.90) 

Men: 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 4.49, SD= 1.77 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 5.44, SD= 1.44 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 4.87, SD= 1.33 
  • Total: Mean= 4.93, SD= 1.30 

Women: 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 4.84, SD= 1.60 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 5.70, SD= 1.14 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 4.58, SD= 1.27 
  • Total: Mean= 5.04, SD= 1.10 

 

Patients with Schizophrenia (Living in Singapore; Used a Mandarin & Malays translated MSPSS) (Vaingankar, Abdin, & Chong, 2012) 

** (n= 959 patients with schizophrenia; Mean Age= 43.2, SD= 10.3) 

Total Sample: 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 4.6, SD= 1.8 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 4.7, SD= 1.7 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 3.6, SD= 1.8 
  • Total: Mean= 4.3, SD= 1.4 

Men: 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 4.4, SD= 1.8 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 4.5, SD= 1.8 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 3.5, SD= 1.8 
  • Total: Mean= 4.2, SD= 1.4 

Women: 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 4.9, SD= 1.7 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 4.9, SD= 1.7 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 3.8, SD= 1.8 
  • Total: Mean= 4.5, SD= 1.4 

 

South African Youth Exposed to Trauma & Violence (Bruwer, Emsley, Kidd, Lochner, & Seedat, 2008) 

** (n= 787; only respondents with complete data sets were retained for analyses [n= 502], recruited from five high schools in Cape Town, South Africa; Mean Age= 16.22, SD= 1.84) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Mean= 21.49, SD= 6.99 
  • Family Subscale: Mean= 21.08, SD= 6.59 
  • Friends Subscale: Mean= 20.37, SD= 6.75

Test/Retest Reliability

Undergraduate Student (American)

(Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) 

Overall Test-Retest Reliability: Adequate (ICC=.85) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Adequate (ICC= .72) 
  • Family Subscale: Adequate (ICC= .85) 
  • Friends Subscale: Adequate (ICC= .75) 

 

Malaysian Medical Students (Malay Version)

(Ng, Amer Siddiq, Aida, Zainal, & Koh, 2010) 

Overall Test-Retest Reliability: Adequate (Spearman’s rho= .77, p< .01)

Internal Consistency

Undergraduate Student (American) (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) 

Overall internal consistency was Excellent (Chronbach’s Alpha= .88) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Excellent (Chronbach’s Alpha= .91)* 
  • Family Subscale: Excellent (Chronbach’s Alpha= .87) 
  • Friends Subscale: Excellent (Chronbach’s Alpha= .85) 

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions. 

 

Individuals with Schizophrenia (Singapore)(Vaingankar, Abdin, & Chong, 2012) 

  • Significant Other Subscale: Excellent (Chronbach’s Alpha= .90)* 
  • Family Subscale: Excellent (Chronbach’s Alpha= .90)* 
  • Friends Subscale: Excellent (Chronbach’s Alpha= .91)* 

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions. 

 

Pregnant Women, European Adolescents, and Pediatric Residents (Zimet, Powell, Farley, Werkman, & Berkoff, 1990) 

**Three different sample groups were used including: (1) 265 pregnant women (Mean Age= 25, SD= 5.3). (2) 74 European adolescents (49 Females, 25 Males; Mean Age= 16.7, SD= .84), and (3) 55 second-year pediatric residents (33 Females, 22 Males; Mean Age= 29.2, SD= 3.0) 

  • Overall Total Scale 
    •  Prepartum Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .92)* 
    • Adolescent Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .84)
    • Resident Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .90)* 
  • Significant Other Subscale
    • Prepartum Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .90)* 
    • Adolescent Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .83)
    • Resident Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .98)* 
  • Family Subscale
    • Prepartum Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .90)* 
    • Adolescent Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .81)
    • Resident Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .83) 
  • Friend’s Subscale
    • Prepartum Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .94)* 
    • Adolescent Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .92)* 
    • Resident Group: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .90)* 

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions. 

 

Pakistani and Nepalese migrants living in Hong Kong : (Tonsing, Zimet, & Tse, 2012) 

Internal consistency for the Total MSPSS-N (Nepalese Version) was Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .9)* 

  • Family Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .86)
  • Friends Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .84)
  • Significant Others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .80) 

Internal consistency for the total MSPSS-U (Urdu Version) was Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .93)* 

  • Family Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .91)*
  • Friends Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .9)* 

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions. 

 

Hong Kong Adolescents: (Cheng & Chan, 2004) 

  • Family Subscale: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .78) 
  • Friends Subscale: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .76)
  • Significant Others: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .69) 

 

Malaysian Medical Students: (Ng et al., 2010) 

Internal consistency for the total MSPSS was Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .89) 

  • Family Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .94)*
  • Friends Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .88)
  • Significant Others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .82) 

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions. 

 

Patients with schizophrenia (Vaingankar, Abdin & Chong 2012) 

  • Family Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .90)*
  • Friends Subscale: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .91)*
  • Significant Others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .90)* 

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

 

American undergraduate students: (Zimet et al., 1988; n = 275, mean age = 18.6 (0.88) years) 

  • Depression (as measured by the subsale of the HSCL) was found to be significantly negatively correlated with all scales: Family (r = -.24, p <.01), Friends (r = -2.4, p<.01), Significant Other (r = -.13, p <.05), Total (r = -.25, p<.01). 
  • Anxiety (as measured by the subsale of the HSCL) was found to be significantly negatively correlated with the Family subscale (r =-.18, p<.01). 

 

Pakistani and Nepalese migrants living in Hong Kong : (Tonsing, Zimet, and Tse, 2012) 

  • Adequate to Excellent predictive validity among all three subscales: family, friends, and significant others on he MSPSS-N. Family was related to friends,( r =.530; p < .01) family with significant others r =.540; p < .01, and significant others with friends (r =.575; p < .01). 
  • Adequate predictive validity for two factors only (family and significant others loaded on a single factor); friends subscale was retained. However, both family and friends subscales were significantly correlated (r=.722; p< .01). 

 

Arab immigrant women in the United States: (Aroian, Templin, & Ramaswamy, 2010) 

  • Correlation between the three subscales (Husbands, Friends, Family) significant for Family with Friends and Husbands (r = 0.26, 0.15 respectively) 
  • Friends and Family subscales positively correlated with seeking social support (r = 0.18, 0.16 respectively)
  • Friends and Family subscales positively correlated with problem focused coping (r = 0.16, 0.17 respectively)

 

Discriminant validity:

 

South African youth exposed to trauma and violence: (Bruwer, Emsley, Kidd, Lochner & Seedat 2008) 

  • Positive correlation between perceived social support and resilience, and a negative correlation between perceived social support and depression, exposure to community violence, and other potentially life threatening trauma. 

 

Pakistani and Nepalese migrants living in Hong Kong : (Tonsing, Zimet, and Tse, 2012) 

  • Authors present a theory of the MSPSS being negatively correlated to various symptoms of anxiety and depression. Within the MSPSS-N, the Family subscale was inversely correlated with depression, stress, and anxiety (p < .01); the Friend subscale with stress (p < .05); and the Significant Other subscale with anxiety (p < .05). 
  • Although the family and friends subscales were inversely correlated with depression and stress within the MSPSS-U, this was not the case with anxiety. 

 

Malaysian Medical Students: (Ng et al., 2010) 

  • All three subscales correlated inversely with the General Health Questionnaire: Friends (Spearman’s rho = -0.14, p <.05), Family (rho = -0.23, p<.01), Significant Other (rho =-.21, p<.01) 
  • All three subscales correlated inversely with the Beck Depression Inventory: Friends subscale (rho = -0.20, p < 0.01), Family (rho =-0.27, p < 0.01), Significant Other (rho =-0.27). 

 

Arab women immigrants in the United States: (Aroian, Templin, & Ramaswamy, 2010) 

  • Social support from husbands negatively correlated with Profile of Mood States score (r = -.34) showing less signs of self-blame and avoidance. 
  • Daily Hassles Scale for spouse negatively correlated with husband support (r = -0.58) showing less hassles from husbands with more support

Content Validity

Singapore Patients with schizophrenia (Vaingankar, Abdin & Chong 2012) 

  • Confirmatory factor analysis how that first-order 3 factor model and final higher order 3-factor model adequately fulfilled the criteria for good fit. 

 

Arab women immigrants in the United States: (Aroian, Templin, & Ramaswamy, 2010)

  • Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed comparative fit index = 0.96 (RMSEA = 0.06)

Bibliography

Aroian, K., Templin, T., & Ramaswamy, V. (2010). Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support for Arab Immigrant Women. Health Care for Women International, 31(2), 153–169. 

Bruwer, B., Emsley, R., Kidd, M., Lochner, C., & Seedat, S. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in youth. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49(2), 195-201. 

Cheng, T. C. & Chan A. C. M. (2004). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personality and Individual Difference, 37, 1359-1369. 

Ng, C.G, Siddiq, A., Aida, S., Zainal, N., & Koh, O. (2011). Validation of the Malay version of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS-M) among a group of medical students in Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 3(1), 3-6. 

Tonsing, K., Gregory, G. D., & Tse, S. (2012). Assessing social support among South Asians: The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 5, 164-168. 

Vaingankar, J. A., Abdin, E., & Chong, S. A. (2012). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in patients with schizophrenia. Comprehensive psychiatry, 53(3), 286-291. 

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of personality assessment, 52(1), 30-41. 

Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990). Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of personality assessment, 55(3-4), 610-617.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Jul 31, 2024

PROMIS – Ability to Partic...

read more