MOS Social Support Survey
Overview
- Purpose
- To assess social support
- Respondent
- Person with a Disability
- Administration Method
- Interview
- Administration Mode
- Phone
- Item Count
- 19
- Populations
- Mental Health Challenges
- Age Related Disability
Instrument Citation(s)
Sherbourne, C.D., & Stewart, A.L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social science and medicine,
32(6), 705-714.
Sherbourne, Cathy D. and Anita Stewart. The MOS Social Support Survey. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation, 1993. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP218.html
Instrument Domains
Domain | Number of Items |
---|---|
Community Inclusion | 12 |
Social connectedness and relationships | 12 |
Employment | 0 |
Meaningful activity | 0 |
Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion | 0 |
Transportation | 0 |
Human and Legal Rights | 1 |
Informed decision-making | 1 |
Freedom from abuse and neglect | 0 |
Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights | 0 |
Privacy | 0 |
Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights | 0 |
Service Delivery and Effectiveness | 19 |
Delivery | 19 |
Person's needs met and goals realized | 0 |
Caregiver Support | 0 |
Access to resources | 0 |
Family caregiver/natural support involvement | 0 |
Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing | 0 |
Training and skill-building | 0 |
Choice and Control | 0 |
Choice of services and supports | 0 |
Personal choices and goals | 0 |
Personal freedoms and dignity of risk | 0 |
Self-direction | 0 |
Consumer Leadership in System Development | 0 |
Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement | 0 |
Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement | 0 |
System supports meaningful consumer involvement | 0 |
Equity | 0 |
Availability | 0 |
Equitable access and resource allocation | 0 |
Transparency and consistency | 0 |
Fluctuation of Need | 0 |
Holistic Health and Functioning | 0 |
Health promotion and prevention | 0 |
Individual health and functioning | 0 |
Level of Caregiver Well-Being | 0 |
Person-Centered Planning and Coordination | 0 |
Assessment | 0 |
Coordination | 0 |
Person-centered planning | 0 |
System Performance and Accountability | 0 |
Data management and use | 0 |
Evidence-based practice | 0 |
Financing and service delivery structures | 0 |
Workforce | 0 |
Adequately compensated with benefits | 0 |
Culturally competent | 0 |
Demonstrated competencies when appropriate | 0 |
Person-centered approach to services | 0 |
Safety of and respect for the worker | 0 |
Staff Turnover | 0 |
Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability | 0 |
Workforce engagement and participation | 0 |
Psychometric Citation
Sherbourne, C.D., & Stewart, A.L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social science and medicine,
32(6), 705-714.- Type of Publication
- Peer review
- Instrument Language
- English
- Sample: Age (Mean and Range)
Mean age=55, range from 18-98
- Sample: Age Group
18-64 Years, 65+ Years
- Sample: Countries/State
United States
- Sample: Disability Type
Other
- Sample: Gender (%male)
39% male
- Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)
20% nonwhite
- Sample: Sampling Strategy
Stratified Random Sample
- Sample: Size
2987
- Reliability: Internal Consistency
Cronbach's alpha for overall support (α=0.97); emotional/info support (α=0.96); tangible support (α=0.92); positive interaction (α=0.94); affection (α=0.91);
- Reliability: Test-retest
One year stability coefficient for overall support (r=0.78), emotional/info support (r=0.72); tangible support (r=0.74); positive interaction (r=0.72); affection (r=0.76);
- Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)
Confirmatory factor analysis showed factors loadings above .76 for all subscales.
- Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)
The social support measures correlate highly with the measure of loneliness (r=-.67) and mental health (r=0.45)
- Study design
- Longitudinal