View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Measuring Family Support in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey: A Psychometric Investigation

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Measuring Family Support in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey: A Psychometric Investigation
Language: English
Authors: Cristian Zanon (ORCID 0000-0003-3822-5275), Makilim N. Baptista (ORCID 0000-0001-6519-254X), Mark Rubin (ORCID 0000-0002-6483-8561), Nursel Topkaya (ORCID 0000-0002-8469-9140), Ertugrul Sahin (ORCID 0000-0003-3341-8887), Rachel E. Brenner (ORCID 0000-0003-1069-9591), David L. Vogel, Winnie W. S. Mak (ORCID 0000-0002-9714-7847)
Source: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2024 57(4):318-335.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Family Relationship, Social Support Groups, Psychometrics, Foreign Countries, Test Validity, Test Reliability, Measures (Individuals), Factor Analysis, College Students, Depression (Psychology), Anxiety, Stress Variables, Mental Health, Cultural Differences, Psychological Needs, Coping, Social Isolation, Aggression, Trust (Psychology), Privacy, Translation, English, Chinese, Turkish
Geographic Terms: Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, Turkey
DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2023.2219009
ISSN: 0748-1756
1947-6302
Abstract: This study presents a reduced version of the Perception of Family Support Scale (PFSS)--a measure of family support designed for research and clinical purposes--and examine construct validity, invariance, and reliability evidence for scores obtained from the instrument. Data collection occurred in 2019. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with college student samples from Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey (N = 1,256), we identified an oblique three-factor model corresponding to the original scale's internal structure (e.g. affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy). We also found configural, metric, and scalar invariance, good reliability coefficients, and significant relationships with distress (e.g. depression, anxiety, and stress) across the four studied countries. These results indicate good validity evidence for using the brief version of the PFSS. Applications of the PFSS and implications of the current results are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1443874
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFD5DTIuJwhAXu_6E3a73euAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKqEfZWlPvDxjeYVCAIBEICBmjWZqYuq0CMHxZTK3vbtVmzAXBKb_0YyQbd84O2GWWYHlb5pg-7qqyTal3JHzZ6N7xkAuqPZcLw7iA9qbTsVFYtSarCqW_ETKiz14pG7W83e9mTAPGFOy9M6GV7J6AG66pxHgMukH90t2tAevQGyimRDRoZSP-88NXYKmzWSCy6edGmj2Uv8WazCCiYJP9G4V2PfvZlXNcU0Z_k=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180231271;mev01oct.24;2024Oct15.04:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180231271-1">Measuring Family Support in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey: A Psychometric Investigation </title> <p>This study presents a reduced version of the Perception of Family Support Scale (PFSS)—a measure of family support designed for research and clinical purposes—and examine construct validity, invariance, and reliability evidence for scores obtained from the instrument. Data collection occurred in 2019. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with college student samples from Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey (N = 1,256), we identified an oblique three-factor model corresponding to the original scale's internal structure (e.g. affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy). We also found configural, metric, and scalar invariance, good reliability coefficients, and significant relationships with distress (e.g. depression, anxiety, and stress) across the four studied countries. These results indicate good validity evidence for using the brief version of the PFSS. Applications of the PFSS and implications of the current results are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Social support; psychological assessment; test adaptation; family therapy; cross-cultural psychology</p> <p>Family support constitutes a specific type of social support provided by family members and plays an essential role in healthy human development. Indeed, a lack of proper family support is considered one of the most relevant risk factors for poor mental and physical health from childhood and adolescence (Scully et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref1">57</reflink>]) through adulthood (Tough et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref2">63</reflink>]) to old age (Carr & Utz, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]). Considering the relevance of family support to human development, it is important to establish measures that yield valid and reliable scores of this construct both within and across cultures. This research contributes to the family support literature by refining a measure of family support called the Perception of Family Support Scale (PFSS; Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>]) and providing validity evidence for scores from the instrument obtained from four countries: Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-2">Family Support and Mental Health</hd> <p>Social support is believed to help buffer the negative effects of stress on health (Drageset, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref5">21</reflink>]; Rui & Guo, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref6">51</reflink>]). Social support may come from different sources, such as friends, partners, relatives, or family members. Families, in particular, provide rich sources of different types of social support, including instrumental support (e.g., money, goods, and services), emotional support (e.g., empathy, love, liking, trust), and informational support (Drageset, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]). Evidence indicates family support constitutes a relevant construct to research in counseling and development because it has been consistently linked to positive outcomes for disadvantaged neighborhood residents (Stevenson et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref8">58</reflink>]), is positively associated with mental well-being in children and adolescents (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]), and provides constructive coping strategies to deal with adversities (Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref10">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous research has demonstrated a positive association between family support and mental health in multiple populations and cultural contexts. For example, family support was positively associated with mental health among Latinx migrants in the United States (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref11">61</reflink>]); suicidal adolescents in the United States (LeCloux et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>]); older adults in China and the United States (Poulin et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]); and university students in Pakistan (Khan & Arif, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]), Belgium and the United States (Dorrance Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]), and Jordan and Turkey (Khallad & Jabr, 2016).</p> <p>However, living with a family is not necessarily a panacea for mental health (Connidis, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]; Milberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref17">42</reflink>]). Various family factors may cause distress, such as economic issues or financial difficulties (Masarik & Conger, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>]). For example, Chauhan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]) found that older adults living with families in rural India were more likely to report depressive symptoms than those living alone. Similarly, Khallad and Jabr ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref20">34</reflink>]) found that Jordanian and Turkish college students who viewed their families to be too demanding of them reported higher levels of depression. In Hong Kong, family involvement positively impacts the personal recovery of people with schizophrenia only if the family member perceives the level of family involvement to be optimal (Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref21">69</reflink>]). Hence, family support must be more than simply family contact to be beneficial because contact with maladaptive interactions with family members can be detrimental to mental health.</p> <p>Evidence suggests the perception of the quality and type of relations established among family members is related to more resilience or vulnerability to psychopathology. Critical ingredients of family support appear to be the sense of belonging and connectivity with others, as well as meaning and identity (Lund et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref22">39</reflink>]). The sense of belonging, meaning, and identity are beneficial for mental health (Sani et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref23">53</reflink>]; Wakefield et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref24">64</reflink>]) and are among the constituents of the PFSS's dimensions (e.g., affective-consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy; Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-3">Cross-Cultural Differences</hd> <p>Like all social groups, the family is liable to be influenced by sociocultural factors in many ways, and these cultural influences may, in turn, affect the association between family support and mental health. In particular, sociocultural factors may shape (a) the meaning and psychological centrality of the family group, (b) the relationships between family members, and (c) the attitudes and beliefs of family groups. It is no surprise that cross-cultural differences have emerged in this area. For example, Khallad and Jabr ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]) found that the positive association between family support and well-being was stronger among Jordanians than Turks. Similarly, Poulin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]) found that the negative association between family support and depression and loneliness was stronger among Chinese older adults than among American older adults.</p> <p>The traditional family support system in Australia prioritizes individual autonomy and open emotional expression. Family adaptation is also emphasized, with families adapting to changing circumstances and roles, such as shifting gender roles and increasing cultural diversity, reflecting the cultural values of individualism and openness in Australian society (Meyer & Fozdar, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref28">55</reflink>]). In Brazil, close familial ties are prioritized, with open expression of feelings and concerns among family members. Autonomy may be influenced by collectivist cultural norms, with decisions often made collectively particularly by older generations. Family adaptation involves flexibility in roles and responsibilities reflecting the cultural values of emotional expressiveness, collectivism, and adaptability prevalent in Brazilian society (Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]). In Hong Kong, families may exhibit a tendency to avoid direct and verbal expression of their thoughts and emotions to maintain harmony and avoid conflicts. Communication styles and responsibilities within families may be influenced by their interdependent orientation. However, intergenerational differences in self-construals and cultural orientation may result in varying opinions and values among family members, leading to ineffective communication and misunderstandings (Bedford & Yeh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]). Aligned with the collectivist values of Turkish culture, the family unit serves as the primary support system and plays a crucial role in providing social support to individuals during difficult times. Even in adulthood, individuals may not be encouraged to become independent as parents make decisions on their behalf, leading to lower levels of family adaptation and autonomy, with paternal authority being prominent (Ataca, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]; Kağıtçıbaşı, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref32">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-4">The Current Study</hd> <p>Mental health professionals aim to deliver effective services in family social support interventions, prevention programs and to identify their client's strengths and weaknesses. A key issue in the family support literature is the development of measures of family support that yield reliable and valid scores and are sufficiently versatile to be used within and across different cultures. To address this need, the present study focused on reducing a measure of family support called the Perception of Family Support Scale (PFSS; Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The PFSS is a Brazilian instrument approved by the Brazilian Federal Council of Psychology for use in clinical practice, interventions, and psychological assessments. The PFSS has been extensively used in Brazil, with over 40 psychometric or clinical studies conducted with this measure, including studies by Batista et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref34">4</reflink>]), Baptista et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]), and Brandão et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]). It has also been tested in another European Portuguese-speaking country (Gonçalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref37">25</reflink>]), but its psychometric properties and invariance in other countries have not been evaluated. While various measures of family support are widely used worldwide, few scales on family support have been adapted and/or developed in Brazil. The PFSS was constructed based on item content from globally recognized scales, including the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES-III), Family Assessment Device (FAD), Family Awareness Scale (FAZ), and Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI), among others, which emphasize cohesion, sense of belonging, and bonding among family members.</p> <p>The PFSS captures three domains of family support: (a) affective consistency, (b) family maladaptation, and (c) family autonomy. The affective-consistency dimension measures verbal and non-verbal expressions of affection and skills in coping strategies for problem situations. The family maladaptation dimension evaluates negative feelings toward the family, such as isolation, aggressive relationships, and guilt in conflict situations. The family autonomy dimension evaluates the perception of trust, privacy, and freedom between family members. This three-factor model is theoretically supported from the previous work of Janssens et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]) who discuss these dimensions using different terminologies such as cordiality, hostility, respect for autonomy, and environmental boundaries.</p> <p>Internal structure validity evidence for the PFSS comes from exploratory factor analyses that indicated the presence of the three previously described dimensions in Brazil (Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>]) and Portugal (Gonçalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>]). Additional evidence is based on confirmatory factor analyses that indicated excellent fit for the three-factor model (<emph>CFI</emph> = 0.96; <emph>TLI</emph> = 0.96; <emph>RMSEA</emph> = 0.05) and convergent associations with social support ranging from <emph>r</emph> = 0.32 to <emph>r</emph> = 0.53 (Batista et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]). Finally, the scale appears to yield reliable scores, based on the method of split-half method (Spearman-Brown = 0.96) and test-retest results with four applications of up to one month (mean Guttman index = 0.96; Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]). More information about the scale is presented in the 'Instrument section.'</p> <p>Given the potential relevance of culture to the PFSS and its association with mental health, the present study aimed to undertake a more thorough cross-cultural analysis to reach firmer conclusions about the validity and reliability of scores produced by a brief version of the PFSS. For research purposes, short measures or subscales are more likely to be included in epidemiological, large-scale, and longitudinal studies that use many instruments (Brenner et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref43">9</reflink>]). For example, two epidemiological studies evaluating the role of family relations on distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil (Cerqueira-Santos et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>]) and in China (Li & Xu, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]) used only four items from the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support to evaluate family support. Two longitudinal investigations that addressed the role of family support on psychopathology also used only four items from the Group Identification Scale (Sani et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref46">53</reflink>]) to evaluate family identification (Wakefield et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref47">65</reflink>]; Wakefield et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref48">64</reflink>]). Moreover, mental health professionals might benefit from a shorter family support scale for screening or clinical intervention evaluation purposes. Thus, reducing the PFSS constitutes a worthwhile endeavor to produce faster and more effective family support evaluations in applied contexts. In sum, large-scale and longitudinal studies using short measures of family support that demonstrate evidence of validity and reliability have the potential to provide more representative and robust evidence that might help to advance the theoretical field of family social support.</p> <p>In the context of family support, cross-cultural invariance indicates that a measure of family support has consistent meaning and comparability across different cultural groups (e.g., Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey). Cross-cultural invariance is relevant because it allows researchers and practitioners to make valid comparisons of family support across different cultures, without confounding cultural differences with measurement bias. This might be particularly relevant for cross-cultural large scale assessments and interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-5">Research Questions</hd> <p>The present study undertook a cross-cultural investigation of the PFSS in four countries: Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey. We addressed three key research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent do scores from the brief version of the PFSS have configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance across cultural samples?</item> <p></p> <item> Assuming scalar invariance, to what extent do scores from a brief version of the PFSS differ among samples from distinct cultures?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent do scores from the brief version of the PFSS demonstrate concurrent validity in predicting depression, anxiety, and stress in each cultural sample?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0180231271-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231271-7">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 1,256 college students from universities/colleges located in four different countries: Australia (<emph>n</emph> = 312) with 80.4% female, Brazil (<emph>n</emph> = 275) with 79.3% female, Hong Kong (<emph>n</emph> = 324) with 62.9% female, and Turkey (<emph>n</emph> = 345) with 61.6% female. The criteria for selecting countries in this research was based on the interest of the researchers who participated in a multi-center study on stigma and their desire to adapt the Perception of Family Support Scale to their respective countries. Thus, countries were chosen based on the availability of participating researchers and their willingness to collaborate in the adaptation process. The data were collected in 2019 as part of a larger unpublished project focused on cross-cultural perceptions of stigma.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-8">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231271-9">Family Support Perception</hd> <p>The Perception of Family Support Inventory (PFSS; Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]) is a measure that assesses adults' perceptions of the different types of support provided by family members. The instrument is composed of 42 items, and the response scale is a ordered response category of three points: 0 (<emph>almost never/never</emph>), 1 (<emph>sometimes</emph>), and 2 (<emph>almost always/always</emph>). The instrument evaluates three dimensions: Affective-Consistency, Family maladaptation, and Family Autonomy. The Affective-Consistency dimension includes 21 items that evaluate positive affective relationships within the family, interest in the other, verbal and non-verbal expression of affection, clarity in the roles and rules of family members, as well as skills in coping strategies for problem situations (e.g. "My family makes me feel better when I'm upset"). The Family Maladaptation dimension includes 13 items that assess negative feelings toward the family, such as isolation, exclusion, anger, shame, aggressive relationships (e.g. fights and screams), irritation, misunderstanding, perception of competitive relationships in the family, and interest and guilt between members in conflict situations (e.g. "I feel angry with my family"). Finally, the Family Autonomy dimension includes eight items that gauge the perception of autonomy from family, which denotes relationships of trust, privacy, and freedom between family members (e.g. "My family allows me to be the way I want to be").</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-10">Depression, Anxiety, and Stress</hd> <p>The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref50">38</reflink>]) was employed to measure the presence and severity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms among the participants. The DASS-21 is the shorter version of the DASS-42. It contains similar psychometric properties and is generally preferred for research purposes when respondents have limited time available, as in this study. The DASS-21 consists of 21 items and three subscales that assess depression, anxiety, and stress. Each subscale is composed of seven items. Participants respond to each item on a 4-point ordered response category ranging from 0 (<emph>did not apply to me at all</emph>) to 3 (<emph>applied to me very much or most of the time</emph>). Possible scores range from 0 to 21 in each subscale. Higher scores reflect higher symptoms of depression, anxiety, or stress. A sample item from the depression subscale is "I couldn't seem to experience any positive feeling at all." A sample item from the anxiety subscale is "I was aware of dryness of my mouth." A sample item from the stress subscale is "I found it hard to wind down." Previous studies examining the psychometric properties of the DASS-21 have provided strong evidence for construct, convergent, and discriminant validity as well as for its reliability across different cultures and samples, including samples from Turkey, Brasilia, Australia, and Hong Kong (Şahin et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref51">52</reflink>]; Yeung et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref52">68</reflink>]; Zanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref53">71</reflink>]). In the current study, the DASS-21 scores showed evidence of reliability across depression, anxiety, and stress subscales within each country (<emph>α's</emph> =.82 −.98; see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Validity and Reliability Evidence of the Oblique Three-Factor Model of the PFSS and DASS-21 across the Countries.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Countries</td><td>Factors</td><td><italic>χ<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>CFI</italic></td><td><italic>RMSEA</italic></td><td><italic>SRMR</italic></td><td><italic>α</italic></td><td><italic>ω</italic></td><td>Inter-Factor Correlations</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Australia</td><td>A.C.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.885</td><td char=".">0.960</td><td>φ<sub>12 =</sub> −0.811</td></tr><tr><td>F.Ad.</td><td char=".">337</td><td char=".">132</td><td char=".">0.978</td><td char=".">0.071</td><td char=".">0.071</td><td char=".">0.877</td><td char=".">0.953</td><td>φ <sub>13 =</sub> 0.580</td></tr><tr><td>F.Au.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.819</td><td char=".">0.928</td><td>φ <sub>23 =</sub> −0.512</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>A.C.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.861</td><td char=".">0.945</td><td>φ <sub>12 =</sub> −719</td></tr><tr><td>F.Ad.</td><td char=".">302</td><td char=".">132</td><td char=".">0.964</td><td char=".">0.069</td><td char=".">0.068</td><td char=".">0.847</td><td char=".">0.949</td><td>φ <sub>13 =</sub> 0.531</td></tr><tr><td>F.Au.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.835</td><td char=".">0.944</td><td>φ <sub>23 =</sub> −0.525</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong</td><td>A.C.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.874</td><td char=".">0.960</td><td>φ <sub>12 =</sub> −0.741</td></tr><tr><td>F.Ad.</td><td char=".">300</td><td char=".">132</td><td char=".">0.981</td><td char=".">0.063</td><td char=".">0.062</td><td char=".">0.833</td><td char=".">0.950</td><td>φ <sub>13 =</sub> 0.553</td></tr><tr><td>F.Au.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.833</td><td char=".">0.953</td><td>φ <sub>23 =</sub> −0.572</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td>A.C.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.844</td><td char=".">0.956</td><td>φ <sub>12 =</sub> −0.477</td></tr><tr><td>F.Ad.</td><td char=".">264</td><td char=".">132</td><td char=".">0.966</td><td char=".">0.058</td><td char=".">0.065</td><td char=".">0.684</td><td char=".">0.928</td><td>φ <sub>13 =</sub> 0.753</td></tr><tr><td>F.Au.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.820</td><td char=".">0.948</td><td>φ <sub>23 =</sub> −0.301</td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>Depression</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.935</td><td char=".">0.982</td><td>φ <sub>da =</sub> 0.849</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Anxiety</td><td char=".">431</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">0.982</td><td char=".">0.052</td><td char=".">0.047</td><td char=".">0.899</td><td char=".">0.958</td><td>φ <sub>ds =</sub> 0.830</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.913</td><td char=".">0.955</td><td>φ <sub>as =</sub> 0.904</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>Depression</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.925</td><td char=".">0.962</td><td>φ <sub>da =</sub> 0.798</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Anxiety</td><td char=".">327</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">0.994</td><td char=".">0.052</td><td char=".">0.045</td><td char=".">0.915</td><td char=".">0.953</td><td>φ <sub>ds =</sub> 0.873</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.917</td><td char=".">0.956</td><td>φ <sub>as =</sub> 0.885</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong</td><td>Depression</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.862</td><td char=".">0.966</td><td>φ <sub>da =</sub> 0.823</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Anxiety</td><td char=".">543</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">0.953</td><td char=".">0.081</td><td char=".">0.062</td><td char=".">0.820</td><td char=".">0.940</td><td>φ <sub>ds =</sub> 0.784</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.881</td><td char=".">0.952</td><td>φ <sub>as =</sub> 0.847</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td>Depression</td><td char=".">543</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">0.954</td><td char=".">0.072</td><td char=".">0.068</td><td char=".">0.838</td><td char=".">0.955</td><td>φ <sub>da =</sub> 0.886</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Anxiety</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.841</td><td char=".">0.945</td><td>φ <sub>ds =</sub> 0.910</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.820</td><td char=".">0.948</td><td>φ <sub>as =</sub> 0.848</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Measurement Invariance for the Oblique Three-Factor Model of the PFSS Across the Four Countries</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Nested Models Tested</td><td><italic>χ<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>Δχ<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td><italic>CFI</italic></td><td><italic>ΔCFI</italic></td><td><italic>RMSEA</italic></td><td><italic>ΔRMSEA</italic></td><td><italic>SRMR</italic></td><td><italic>ΔSRMR</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Configural</td><td char=".">1195</td><td char=".">528</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0.976</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0.064</td><td>–</td><td char=".">0.066</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Metric</td><td char=".">1412</td><td char=".">573</td><td char=".">131*</td><td char=".">0.970</td><td char=".">0.006</td><td char=".">0.068</td><td char=".">0.004</td><td char=".">0.080</td><td char=".">0.014</td></tr><tr><td>Scalar</td><td char=".">1722</td><td char=".">618</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">0.960</td><td char=".">0.010</td><td char=".">0.076</td><td char=".">0.008</td><td char=".">0.068</td><td char=".">0.012</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> A.C. = affective consistent factor. F.Ad. = family maladaptation factor. F.Au = family autonomy factor. α = alpha coefficient. ω = McDonald's omega. φ <subs>12</subs> = latent factor correlation between affective consistent factor and family maladaptation factor. φ <subs>13 </subs>= latent factor correlation between affective consistent factor and family autonomy factor. φ <subs>23</subs> = latent factor correlation between family maladaptation factor and family autonomy factor. <emph>φ</emph><subs>da</subs> = latent factor correlation between depression and anxiety. <emph>φ</emph><subs>ds</subs> = latent factor correlation between depression and stress. <emph>φ</emph><subs>as </subs>= latent factor correlation between anxiety and stress. <emph>χ<sups>2</sups></emph> = robust chi-square. <emph>df</emph> = degrees of freedom<emph>. Δ χ<sups>2</sups></emph> = scaled chi-squared difference test (method = "satorra.2000"). * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05. <emph>CFI</emph> = comparative fit index. <emph>ΔCFI</emph> = difference in <emph>CFI</emph> between the compared models. <emph>RMSEA</emph> = root mean square error of approximation. <emph>ΔRMSEA</emph> = difference in <emph>RMSEA</emph> between the compared models. <emph>SRMR</emph> = standardized root mean squared residual. <emph>ΔSRMR</emph> = difference in <emph>SRMR</emph> between the compared models.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-11">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231271-12">Adaptation Procedures</hd> <p>The PFSS was adapted from Brazilian-Portuguese into English by the second author and this version was revised by one U.S. faculty with expertise in psychometrics. No significant modifications were implemented in item contents, and the adaptation focused on the global meaning of the items instead of literal translations (International Test Commission, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]). For example, the original item "<emph>Minha família me faz sentir melhor quando eu estou aborrecido(a)</emph>" was translated as "My family makes me feel better when I'm upset."</p> <p>The adaptation from English to Chinese was conducted by one bilingual faculty and followed the forward-translation procedure (Toma et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref55">62</reflink>]). The adaptation procedure from English to Turkish followed the traditional back-translation procedure. Initially, the scale was independently translated by two bilingual faculty members who consolidated it into a unique version and then back-translated by three bilingual experts in psychometrics. The five Turkish faculty members compared the original (English version) and the back-translated version of the scale and found no significant differences.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-13">Ethical and Data Collection Procedures</hd> <p>This research project has been granted approval by the respective Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in all four studied countries. All ethical care was taken to guarantee the rights and integrity of the participants at each stage of the research process. The Australian data was collected using an online survey (Qualtrics), and it was advertised in the School of Psychology's Research Participant Pool. In Brazil, participants were invited to participate in this research on social networks (e.g. Facebook) and completed the questionnaire in Google Forms. In Hong Kong, participants were invited through the university's mass e-mail, and all participants completed the questionnaire online in Qualtrics. In Turkey, participants were invited in their classrooms, and data collection occurred through paper-and-pencil. Before answering the questionnaires, all participants read and signed an information statement that presented information about the research and their rights. Data collection took approximately 40 min.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-14">Data Analytic Approach</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231271-15">Item Selection</hd> <p>Our goal was to create a brief version of the PFSS that retained the original three concepts. Thus, to achieve a common internal structure of the PFSS across Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey, we initially carried out principal axis factor analysis and examined a three-factor solution (i.e., affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy) in each sample. Promax rotation was used, which first conducts a varimax rotation in which factors are orthogonal and then relaxes constraints and allows for factors to correlate, consistent with the nature of social science constructs (Fabrigar et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]). Items that presented low loadings (i.e. <emph>λ</emph> < 0.32) on the expected factor were removed, as were items that cross-loaded by demonstrating loadings greater of.32 on multiple factors (Costello & Osborne, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]; Tabachnick & Fidell, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref58">60</reflink>]). The six items with the highest factor loadings (<emph>λ</emph> > 0.32) were retained for each of the three factors. Considering that the nature of the common factors and their relationships with the indicators (e.g. items) are usually replete with substantial uncertainty, the inclusion of minimally four items, but more ideally six items, per factor is recommended (Fabrigar et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>]). The selection of six items per factor in the PFSS aimed to increase the content validity of each factor by extending its coverage. A content validity review was conducted by the second author to ensure that no essential contents were lost in the item deletion procedure.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-16">Confirmatory Factor Analyses</hd> <p>An oblique three-factor solution with the same six items per factor representing affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy was tested within each country. No correlated residuals were estimated. The first factor loading of each factor was set to one to establish the metric in each model.</p> <p>Please note that we performed our CFAs on the same data set that we used for our EFAs. This approach might be regarded as contentious because it raises concerns about circularity in using the same data to generate and test models. However, this circularity can be avoided by ensuring that the results that are used to generate models are not reused to provide further support for those models (Rubin & Donkin, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref60">50</reflink>]). For example, in the present study, we did not use the results from our EFAs to provide support for the tests of our CFA models. More broadly, we did not use EFA and CFA to perform "exploratory" and "confirmatory" tests, because such tests require a rigid and demonstrable demarcation of model generation and testing. Instead, and in line with recent advice, we used EFA and CFA to test different models that were less and more constrained (i.e. the CFAs constrained cross-loadings to zero; Greene et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref61">26</reflink>]; Schmitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref62">56</reflink>]; see also Zanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref63">72</reflink>], for a practical application in a test adaptation procedure).</p> <p>All confirmatory factor analyses were carried out using lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) was used because the PFSS presents ordinal data (i.e. three response categories; Beauducel & Herzberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]). To evaluate the degree of model fit, we inspected chi-square (<emph>χ<sups>2</sups></emph>), root mean square error of approximation (<emph>RMSEA</emph>), standardized root mean squared residual (<emph>SRMR</emph>), and comparative fit index (<emph>CFI</emph>). Commonly accepted thresholds indicate that non-significant <emph>χ<sups>2</sups></emph>, and cutoff values of <emph>RMSEA</emph> <.06, <emph>SRMR</emph> <.08 and <emph>CFI</emph> >.95 suggest good fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]). More flexible cutoff values suggest acceptable fit: <emph>RMSEA</emph> <.08 (Browne & Cudeck, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>]) and <emph>CFI</emph> >.90 (Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-17">Measurement Invariance</hd> <p>To evaluate the degree of equivalence in model structure and parameters (e.g. loadings and intercepts) of the PFSS scores across samples, we tested three hierarchically and increasingly restrictive models: configural, metric, and scalar (see Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>] and Oliveira et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref69">45</reflink>] for applications of these models in distinct contexts). The configural model specifies the same factor structure across groups and thus examines whether the factor structure is the same across groups (i.e., the pattern of which variables load on which factors is the same for each group). The metric model builds upon the configural model by also constraining the factor loadings to be equivalent across groups and theoretically examining whether the items measure the same construct. The scalar model extends upon the metric model by also constraining the intercepts to be equivalent across groups (Wang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref70">66</reflink>]). Evidence of scale invariance supports the use of mean group comparisons. Brazil was used as the reference group because the scale was originally developed for a Brazilian population.</p> <p>Measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I) was based on <emph>ΔRMSEA</emph>, <emph>ΔSRMR</emph>, and <emph>ΔCFI</emph> across models (e.g., configural, metric, and scalar). For metric invariance, <emph>ΔCFI</emph> > 0.010 complemented by <emph>ΔRMSEA</emph> > 0.015 or <emph>ΔSRMR</emph> > 0.030 from the configural model indicates non-invariance. For scalar invariance, <emph>ΔCFI</emph> > 0.010 complemented by <emph>ΔRMSEA</emph> > 0.015 or <emph>ΔSRMR</emph> > 0.010 relative to the metric model indicates non-invariance (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref71">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-18">Concurrent Validity</hd> <p>Four models were run to evaluate the latent factor correlations between three factors of the PFSS (i.e., affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy) with depression, anxiety, and stress within each sample. The latent variables were estimated from their respective items in the PFSS and in the DASS-21. These models presented no cross-loadings nor correlated uniqueness (i.e., associated error terms). The first item of each factor was set to one to establish the metric.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231271-20">Internal Structure</hd> <p>The final solution found in the Brazilian sample presented three eigenvalues higher than one (e.g. 6.81, 2.14, and 1.58), with each factor being represented by six items. This solution was also supported by the inspection of the scree plot, which indicated the presence of three distinct factors, and by a parallel analysis (Horn, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref72">29</reflink>]) conducted with 1,000 simulated similar samples based on the 95-percentile criterion (O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref73">44</reflink>]). The solution presented no cross-loadings, and the factor loadings were appropriate in the three factors (e.g., 0.51 < <emph>λ</emph> < 0.81 for the affective consistency factor, 0.55 < <emph>λ</emph> < 0.85 for the family maladaptation factor, and 0.33 < <emph>λ</emph> < 0.77 for the family autonomy factor). The results in the other samples (e.g., Australia, HK, and Turkey) presented similar patterns to those found in Brazil (i.e., three eigenvalues higher than one and items loaded only in the expected factor [<emph>λ</emph> > 0.32]). An oblique three-factor model with six items per factor and no correlated uniqueness was tested within each sample (using CFAs) and fitted well the four samples (see Table 1 for fit indexes, factor correlations, alphas, and omegas and Table 2 for factor loadings). As the mean inter-factor correlations in the four countries were higher than those found in the original version of the PFSS, we additionally fitted a two-factor model. This model estimated a single factor comprising affective consistency and family maladaptation items, while the family autonomy factor was composed of the same items as before, specifically designated to this factor. The two-factor model presented poorer fit than the three-factor model (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 2. Standardized Factor Loadings (CFA) of the Oblique Three-Factor Model of the PFSS Across the Groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Australia</td><td>Brazil</td><td>HK</td><td>Turkey</td></tr><tr><td>Items</td><td>A.C.</td><td>F.Ad.</td><td>F.Au.</td><td>A.C.</td><td>F.Ad.</td><td>F.Au.</td><td>A.C.</td><td>F.Ad.</td><td>F.Au.</td><td>A.C.</td><td>F.Ad.</td><td>F.Au.</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>PFSS17</td><td char=".">0.746</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.604</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.715</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.662</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS24</td><td char=".">0.751</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.810</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.714</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.810</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS25</td><td char=".">0.986</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.941</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.981</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.834</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS26</td><td char=".">0.928</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.848</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.947</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.819</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS28</td><td char=".">0.707</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.725</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.747</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.752</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS37</td><td char=".">0.871</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.825</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.754</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.778</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS8</td><td /><td char=".">0.617</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.744</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.669</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.442</td><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS20</td><td /><td char=".">0.874</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.743</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.861</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.675</td><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS27</td><td /><td char=".">0.895</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.844</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.955</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.695</td><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS33</td><td /><td char=".">0.935</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.668</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.801</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.634</td><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS36</td><td /><td char=".">0.843</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.857</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.612</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.818</td><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS39</td><td /><td char=".">0.924</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.905</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.803</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.687</td><td /></tr><tr><td>PFSS10</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.715</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.729</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.738</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.734</td></tr><tr><td>PFSS14</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.691</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.724</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.434</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.619</td></tr><tr><td>PFSS18</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.771</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.635</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.707</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.752</td></tr><tr><td>PFSS19</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.941</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.892</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.890</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.762</td></tr><tr><td>PFSS34</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.775</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.829</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.933</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.823</td></tr><tr><td>PFSS38</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.823</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.841</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.874</td><td /><td /><td char=".">0.706</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Fit Indexes of the Oblique Two-Factor Model for the PFSS Within the Groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td><italic>χ<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>CFI</italic></td><td><italic>RMSEA</italic></td><td><italic>SRMR</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Australia</td><td char=".">464</td><td char=".">134</td><td char=".">0.964</td><td char=".">0.089</td><td char=".">0.087</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td char=".">484</td><td char=".">134</td><td char=".">0.926</td><td char=".">0.098</td><td char=".">0.092</td></tr><tr><td>HK</td><td char=".">509</td><td char=".">134</td><td char=".">0.959</td><td char=".">0.093</td><td char=".">0.085</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td char=".">671</td><td char=".">134</td><td char=".">0.873</td><td char=".">0.108</td><td char=".">0.116</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note. χ<sups>2</sups></emph> =robust chi-square. <emph>df</emph> = degrees of freedom. <emph>CFI</emph> = comparative fit index. <emph>RMSEA</emph> = root mean square error of approximation. <emph>SRMR</emph> = standardized root mean squared residual. Scaled Chi-Squared Difference Test (method = "satorra.2000") were carried out to compare the three-factor model with the two-factor model within each country. The differences were statistically significant across all countries (<emph>Δχ2</emph>= 40, <emph>Δdf =</emph> 2, <emph>p <.</emph>001 in Australia<emph>; Δχ<sups>2</sups></emph>= 60, <emph>Δdf =</emph> 2, <emph>p <.</emph>001 in Brazil; <emph>Δχ<sups>2</sups></emph>= 67, <emph>Δdf =</emph> 2, <emph>p <.</emph>001 in HK; and <emph>Δχ<sups>2</sups></emph>= 108, <emph>Δdf =</emph> 2, <emph>p <.</emph>001 in Turkey).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-21">Invariance Analyses</hd> <p>The configural model presented acceptable fit to the data (Table 1). Next, we tested a metric model that constrained the factor loadings to be equivalent across groups. Results verified acceptable model fit and adequate cutoffs based on the difference of fit indexes from the configural model (i.e., <emph>ΔCFI</emph> = 0.006, <emph>ΔRMSEA</emph> = 0.004, <emph>ΔSRMR</emph> = 0.014). Because metric invariance was established, we then tested scalar invariance by constraining intercepts to be equivalent across groups. The scalar invariant model presented acceptable fit and adequate cutoffs based on the difference of fit indexes from the metric model (i.e., <emph>ΔCFI</emph> = 0.010, <emph>ΔRMSEA</emph> = 0.008, <emph>ΔSRMR</emph> = 0.012). Four thresholds, however, were non-invariant in Australia, Brazil, HK, and Turkey (τ1 in item27, τ2 in item14, τ2 in item19, and τ2 in item34).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-22">Latent Mean Comparisons</hd> <p>Because scalar invariance was supported, factor latent mean comparison was analyzed. Factor means were set to zero in Brazil (e.g., the reference group) and were freely estimated in the remaining samples (Figure 1). To evaluate whether the other groups presented significant latent mean differences, we ran two additional scalar models using HK and Turkey as the reference group. There were six key results. First, there were significant latent mean differences between Brazil and Australia. Australian participants reported higher affective consistency and family autonomy. However, no latent mean difference between Brazil and Australia was found regarding the family maladaptation factor. Second, there were significant latent mean differences between Brazil and Turkey. Turkish participants reported significantly higher affective consistency but significantly lower family maladaptation and family autonomy. Third, there were no significant latent mean differences between Brazil and Hong Kong. Fourth, there were significant latent mean differences between Hong Kong and Turkey. Turkish participants reported significantly higher affective consistency and significantly lower family maladaptation and family autonomy. Fifth, there were significant latent mean differences between Hong Kong and Australia. Hong Kong participants reported significantly higher family maladaptation scores, and significantly lower affective consistency, and family autonomy. And finally, there were significant latent mean differences between Turkey and Australia. Australian participants reported higher means in the family maladaptation and family autonomy factors. However, no latent mean difference between Turkey and Australia was found in the affective consistent factor.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Latent mean comparisons across countries. Note. The latent means of affective consistent, family maladaptation, and family autonomy were set to zero for Brazilian participants. Thus, the other countries' scores should be interpreted considering the Brazilians as the reference group.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-23">Latent Factor Correlations</hd> <p>The expected pattern of associations between the three factors of the PFSS (i.e. affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy) with distress (e.g. depression, anxiety, and stress) was found across countries. Table 4 shows negative correlations between the affective-consistent and the family autonomy factors with depression, anxiety, and stress scores, and positive correlations between the family maladaptation factor with depression, anxiety, and stress scores. These results show that family support is consistently related to distress in the studied countries.</p> <p>Table 4. Latent Factor Correlations across Countries.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Australia</td></tr><tr><td>Fit indices: <italic>χ<sup>2</sup></italic> = 940.25, <italic>df</italic> = 687, <italic>p</italic> <.001, <italic>CFI</italic> =.987, <italic>RMSEA</italic> =.034, <italic>SRMR</italic> =.055</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Distress variables</td></tr><tr><td>PFSS's variables</td><td>Depression</td><td>Anxiety</td><td>Stress</td></tr><tr><td>Affective consistent</td><td char=".">−0.292</td><td char=".">−0.169</td><td char=".">.332</td></tr><tr><td>Family maladaptation</td><td char=".">−0.245</td><td char=".">−0.187</td><td char=".">.345</td></tr><tr><td>Family autonomy</td><td char=".">−0.255</td><td char=".">−0.296</td><td char=".">.383</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td></tr><tr><td>Fit indices: <italic>χ<sup>2</sup></italic> = 896.74, <italic>df</italic> = 687, <italic>p</italic> <.001, <italic>CFI</italic> =.985, <italic>RMSEA</italic> =.033, <italic>SRMR</italic> =.057</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Depression</td><td>Anxiety</td><td>Stress</td></tr><tr><td>Affective consistent</td><td char=".">−0.296</td><td char=".">−0.270</td><td char=".">.384</td></tr><tr><td>Family maladaptation</td><td char=".">−0.224</td><td char=".">−0.308</td><td char=".">.404</td></tr><tr><td>Family autonomy</td><td char=".">−0.301</td><td char=".">−0.369</td><td char=".">.434</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong</td></tr><tr><td>Fit indices: <italic>χ<sup>2</sup></italic> = 1131.14, <italic>df</italic> = 687, <italic>p</italic> <.001, <italic>CFI</italic> =.967, <italic>RMSEA</italic> =.045, <italic>SRMR</italic> =.068</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Depression</td><td>Anxiety</td><td>Stress</td></tr><tr><td>Affective consistent</td><td char=".">−0.342</td><td char=".">−0.227</td><td char=".">.364</td></tr><tr><td>Family maladaptation</td><td char=".">−0.146</td><td char=".">−0.158</td><td char=".">.330</td></tr><tr><td>Family autonomy</td><td char=".">−0.286</td><td char=".">−0.309</td><td char=".">.421</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td></tr><tr><td>Fit indices: <italic>χ<sup>2</sup></italic> = 1040.99, <italic>df</italic> = 687, <italic>p</italic> <.001, <italic>CFI</italic> =.967, <italic>RMSEA</italic> =.039, <italic>SRMR</italic> =.063</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Depression</td><td>Anxiety</td><td>Stress</td></tr><tr><td>Affective consistent</td><td char=".">−0.246</td><td char=".">−0.171</td><td char=".">.361</td></tr><tr><td>Family maladaptation</td><td char=".">−0.174</td><td char=".">−0.102</td><td char=".">.297</td></tr><tr><td>Family autonomy</td><td char=".">−0.245</td><td char=".">−0.243</td><td char=".">.468</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note.</emph> All factor loadings, factor variances, and correlations are statistically significant in the four tested models. <emph>χ<sups>2</sups></emph> = robust chi-square. <emph>df</emph> = degrees of freedom. <emph>CFI</emph> = comparative fit index. <emph>RMSEA</emph> = root mean square error of approximation. <emph>SRMR</emph> = standardized root mean squared residual. The correlations between the three PFSS's subscales (e.g. affective consistent, family maladaptation, and family autonomy) are presented in Table 2. All correlations are statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> <.05).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-24">Discussion</hd> <p>Family and clinical researchers require score measures on the quantity and quality of family support that are both reliable and valid within and across different countries. This study examined construct validity, measurement invariance, concurrent validity, and reliability of scores obtained from a brief version of the Perception of Family Support Scale (i.e. PFSS)—originally developed in Brazil—across four different countries. The results indicated that the PFSS's internal structure consists of three dimensions corresponding to the original oblique three-factor solution obtained with a more extended PFSS version in Brazil. The three dimensions are affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy. Additionally, relationships with distress, good reliability coefficients, and invariance across countries constitute a strong validity argument for using the brief version of the PFSS in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-25">Validity Evidence for the Brief Version of the PFSS</hd> <p>The oblique three-factor model of the PFSS produced excellent fit indices within four different countries. This result is consistent with the original factor structure proposed by the scale's developer (Baptista, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]) and with previous studies among Portuguese-speaking high school, college student, and adult samples (Batista et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>]; Gonçalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref76">25</reflink>]). The moderate-to-high factor loadings found on each subscale suggest that the selected items constitute proper indicators of the latent constructs (e.g. affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy; Costello & Osborne, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]; Tabachnick & Fidell, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref78">60</reflink>]). Thus, this study extends on the findings of previous investigations in Brazil and Portugal by demonstrating validity evidence for the brief version of the PFSS among three different countries (e.g. Australia, HK, and Turkey).</p> <p>The invariance results also offer new information about using the brief version of the PFSS in cross-cultural studies. The oblique three-factor model presented configural, metric, and scalar invariance across the four countries. The configural invariance suggests that the phenomena of family support might be theoretically and structurally conceptualized in three correlated latent factors (e.g. affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy) that are similar across the countries. In other words, the same items are indicators of the same factors (e.g. same factorial structure) across the countries. The metric invariance of PFSS indicates that the strength of the association between PFSS items and their corresponding latent factors is similar across different groups or, more simply, unstandardized item factor loadings of PFSS are equivalent across the countries. Last, the scalar invariance suggests that individuals from different countries have the same expected item response at the same absolute level of the latent factors across the groups. Because the PFSS's scalar invariance holds for different countries, researchers can validly compare latent factor means using structural equation modeling among individuals from Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>]; Gana & Broc, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref80">24</reflink>]; Wang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref81">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study also provides some initial support for the concurrent cross-cultural validity of the PFSS scores by demonstrating that individuals with high family maladaptation, low affective consistency, and low family autonomy tend to exhibit higher psychological distress as characterized by symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress (Zanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref82">71</reflink>]) within the four studied countries. These findings are consistent with the stress-buffering model's prediction that social support buffers or protects people from the harmful effects of psychological stress (Drageset, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref83">21</reflink>]; Rui & Guo, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref84">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-26">Cross-Cultural Differences in Family Support</hd> <p>The results of the latent mean difference analyses indicated some consistent differences in affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy across countries. For example, Turkish and Australian individuals reported higher affective consistency scores than Chinese and Brazilians. However, Turkish individuals reported lower family maladaptation and family autonomy scores than Chinese, Brazilians, and Australians. Australian individuals also had significantly higher family autonomy scores than Chinese, Turkish, and Brazilians. These findings indicate substantial differences in family social support behaviors and practices across countries that are consistent with Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory (Hoftede et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref85">28</reflink>]). Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory posits that cultural values and beliefs shape individuals' attitudes, behaviors, and practices, and these values can vary across different societies or countries. According to this theory, there are six cultural dimensions that are useful in understanding cross-cultural differences: Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation, and Indulgence versus Restraint. For particular interest of this study, individualism versus collectivism refers to the degree to which individuals in a society prioritize their own interests versus the interests of the group (Hoftede et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref86">28</reflink>]). In this perspective, individuals from individualistic countries prioritize values related to personal accomplishment, independence, freedom, and autonomy. In contrast, individuals from collectivist countries place importance on values related to preserving group harmony and interdependence, sacrificing own interests for in-group goals, selflessness, and unity. According to predictions of this theory, individualistic and collectivistic values affect family social support behaviors because they influence how individuals view their relationships with their family members and their role within the family. Another prediction of this theory is that individualistic and collectivistic values underscore the importance of certain types of family support behaviors in different cultures.</p> <p>Previous country classification based on individualistic and collectivistic characteristics, with a score range between zero and 120, indicates Australia (individuality score [<emph>IS</emph>] = 91) is an individualist society whereas Brazil (<emph>IS</emph> = 38), Turkey (<emph>IS</emph> = 36), and Hong-Kong (<emph>IS</emph> = 25) exhibit more collectivistic cultural scores (Hoftede et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref87">28</reflink>]). Thus, it may be expected that Australian families are more likely to encourage their young adults to become more independent, autonomous, self-reliant, and self-determined people as compared to the other countries in this study. Research suggests that salient characteristics of Turkish families are high emotional interdependency among family members, high sensitivity to each family member's needs, faithfulness to one another, obedience and respect to elderly family members, especially to fathers and mothers—due to the hierarchical ordering of members with regard to generation (Ataca, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]; Sunar & Fişek, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref89">59</reflink>]; Zabriskie et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref90">70</reflink>]). Kağıtçıbaşı ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref91">33</reflink>]) also indicates that affection, warmth, discipline, self-reliance, and authoritarian control are salient features of Turkish parenting. Thus, it may be expected that Turkish families express verbal and non-verbal affection and interest to their young adults more frequently than Brazilian and Chinese families.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-27">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Our study is not without limitations. First, the validity of the PFSS scores was examined only with college student samples—groups representing a minor frequency of people in the world. Second, the gender imbalance in the samples presents a limitation in terms of the generalizability of the study's findings. The limited number of male participants may have an impact on the study's ability to assess the reliability and validity of scores on the measures of family support for male students. Thus, we recommend that new validity and reliability evidences be investigated when transferring the instrument to other contexts that were not thoroughly investigated by us. As such, caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of this study, particularly with respect to the generalizability of findings to male students. Future research should aim to address this limitation by recruiting more male participants to achieve a more balanced sample. Third, this study examined only construct and concurrent validity of scores obtained from the PFSS. Thus, future studies may examine the scale's cross-cultural predictive validity and short-term and long-term test-retest reliability. Fourth, the original version of the measure had a lower mean inter-factor correlation (<emph>r</emph> =.45) than the short versions in Australia (<emph>r</emph> =.63), Brazil (<emph>r</emph> =.59), HK (<emph>r</emph> =.62), and Turkey (<emph>r</emph> =.51). This indicates that the factors in the original version had less overlap or were less strongly related to each other than in the short versions.</p> <p>Additionally, the results regarding the concurrent validity of the PFSS scores were provided only by using indicators of psychological distress (e.g. DASS-21). Therefore, future cross-cultural studies may examine the convergent and divergent validity of PFSS scores using scales that measure the quality and quantity of social support received from family and psychological well-being. Last, information from college students was collected with self-report scales, which can lead to common method biases, such as midpoint responses and social desirability (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref92">46</reflink>]). However, to prevent some common method biases during the data collection process, we allowed participants to answer the questionnaires and ensured their information was confidential. Future studies can also use informant-based assessment methods to complement and extend this study's findings.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-28">Implications for Counseling Practice and Research</hd> <p>The patterns of latent mean similarities and differences in the PFSS subscales (e.g., affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy) across different countries have some practical implications for counseling practice and research. Professional counselors need to be aware of these differences to better understand and respond to their clients' needs and concerns. Culturally sensitive assessments should be used to accurately assess clients' family social support behavior experiences and identify potential issues related to these cultural differences. Adjusting therapeutic approaches when working with clients from cultures with higher or lower levels of family autonomy may be necessary. In other words, these findings can help professional counselors to better understand their clients' cultural backgrounds and experiences and tailor their counseling approaches accordingly.</p> <p>The results of the current study also indicate that scores obtained from a brief version of the PFSS demonstrate evidence of acceptable validity and reliability among college students in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey. This suggests that mental health professionals could utilize the translated, brief PFSS to assess family support in individuals of Australian, Brazilian, Hong Kong, and Turkish descent, to identify clients with low family support, changes in family social support, and evaluate the effectiveness of family social support intervention and prevention programs. Given the responsibility of mental health professionals to provide effective services to their clients, using valid and reliable scales to identify strengths and weaknesses is crucial. Understanding a client's level of family support could assist practitioners in identifying and enhancing this facilitator for positive growth.</p> <p>A briefer measure of family social support could enhance its inclusion in large-scale research, such as epidemiological medical studies and nationally representative public health assessments, as these studies often utilize brief versions of existing measures or selected items from existing scales (McDermott et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref93">41</reflink>]). Moreover, a brief measure could help address current family social support research limitations, such as the lack of longitudinal studies examining its impact over time. Including the brief family social support measure in longitudinal studies may be more feasible, as shorter surveys typically experience less participant attrition (Rolstad et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref94">49</reflink>]). Additionally, briefer versions of the scale may facilitate more inclusive research, as shorter surveys tend to have higher response rates, making data collection from small or difficult-to-access populations more feasible (Nakash et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref95">43</reflink>]; Sheldon et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref96">54</reflink>]). This could also enable examining the differential impact of family social support on health disparities in access to care across privileged and marginalized populations. Furthermore, providing validity evidence for a brief version of the family social support scale could expand its use in various settings, including medical professionals and applied clinical settings such as University Counseling Centers (Druss et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref97">22</reflink>]; Reust et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref98">48</reflink>]), easing the assessment process.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-29">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study highlights the acceptable validity and reliability of scores on the brief PFSS version among college students in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey and suggest the PFSS constitutes a potential usefulness tool for mental health professionals in assessing family support. Using a briefer measure could also enhance its inclusion in large-scale research, address current limitations in family social support research, and expand its use in various settings. Overall, the study highlights the importance of intercultural sensitivity and culturally sensitive assessments in cross-cultural counseling practices. Further research is warranted to provide additional validity evidence from scores obtained from the brief PFSS among different populations and settings and to investigate potential longitudinal impacts on well-being and health outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-30">Availability of Data and Material</hd> <p>Materials can be obtained under reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-31">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-32">Ethics</hd> <p>All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the relevant institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0180231271-33">Informed Consent</hd> <p>All participants were informed about the goals of the research and agree that the data collected will be published. The participation of respondents was anonymous. The participants were informed that their identities would not be exposed in the surveys or any information that could identify them.</p> <ref id="AN0180231271-34"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Trial registration number and date of registration. 60623516.7.0000.5514, January 8th, 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref4" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Public significance statement: Our results indicate that a brief version of the Perception of Family Support Scale presents validity evidence in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey. Mental health professionals might benefit from these scales to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their clients.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref35" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Nursel Topkaya was affiliated with Ondokuz Mayıs University at the time of this research, but is now affiliated with Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University. Nursel Topkaya received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article as a coauthor of the article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0180231271-35"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ataca, B. (2009). Turkish family structure and functioning. In S. Bekman & A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Perspectives on human development, family, and culture (pp. 108 – 125). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baptista, M. N. (2007). Inventário de percepção de suporte familiar (IPSF): Estudo componencial em duas configurações [Perception of family support inventory: Study of components in two sets]. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 27 (3), 496 – 509. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98932007000300010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baptista, M. N., Oliveira, K. L., Inácio, A. L. M., Burgos, M. N., & Peixoto, E. M. (2020). Versão Infantojuvenil do Inventário de Percepção de Suporte Familiar (IPSF-IJ). Avaliação Psicológica, 19 (4), 441 – 450. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2020.1904.18533.10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref34" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Batista, H. H. V., Gonçalves, A. P., Pallini, A. C., Campos, A. M. B., & Baptista, M. N. (2021). Propriedades psicométricas do inventário de percepção de suporte familiar (IPSF). Ciencias Psicológicas, 15 (1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v15i1.1976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref64" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13 (2), 186 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bedford, O., & Yeh, K. H. (2019). The history and the future of the psychology of filial piety: Chinese norms to contextualized personality construct. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref67" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref36" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brandão, E. M., Rueda, F. J. M., & Baptista, M. N. (2017). Suporte familiar e autoconceito infantojuvenil em acolhidos, escolares e infratores. Psicologia em Pesquisa (UFJF), 11 (1), 55 – 64. https://doi.org/10.24879/2017001100100212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref43" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brenner, R. E., Colvin, K. F., Hammer, J. H., & Vogel, D. L. (2021). Using item response theory to develop Revised (SSOSH-7) and Ultra-Brief (SSOSH-3) Self-Stigma of Seeking Help Scales. Assessment, 28 (5), 1488 – 1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120958496</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 – 162). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, N., Quigg, Z., Bates, R., Jones, L., Ashworth, E., Gowland, S., & Jones, M. (2022). The contributing role of family, school, and peer supportive relationships in protecting the mental wellbeing of children and adolescents. School Mental Health, 14 (3), 776 – 788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09502-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carr, D., & Utz, R. L. (2020). Families in later life: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 82 (1), 346 – 363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cerqueira-Santos, E., de Miranda Ramos, M., & Gato, J. (2021). Indicadores de distress entre jovens LGBT + durante o isolamento social pela COVID-19 no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Psicoterapia, 23 (2), 35 – 46. https://doi.org/10.5935/2318-0404.20210024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chauhan, S., Kumar, S., & Patel, R. (2021). Does living arrangement predict urban–rural differential in depressive symptoms among older adults in India? A study based on longitudinal ageing study in India survey. Journal of Population Ageing, 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-021-09348-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14 (3), 464 – 504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connidis, I. A. (2015). Exploring ambivalence in family ties: Progress and prospects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77 (1), 77 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conselho Federal de Psicologia. (2023). Sistema de Avaliação de Testes Psicológicos (SATEPSI). https://satepsi.cfp.org.br/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10 (7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorrance Hall, E., McNallie, J., Custers, K., Timmermans, E., Wilson, S. R., & Van den Bulck, J. (2017). A cross-cultural examination of the mediating role of family support and parental advice quality on the relationship between family communication patterns and first-year college student adjustment in the United States and Belgium. Communication Research, 44 (5), 638 – 667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216657755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drageset, J. (2021). Social support. In G. Haugan & M. Eriksson (Eds.), Health promotion in health care – vital theories and research (pp. 137 – 144). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63135-2_11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Druss, B. G., Bornemann, T., Fry-Johnson, Y. W., McCombs, H. G., Politzer, R. M., & Rust, G. (2008). Trends in mental health and substance abuse services at the nation's community health centers: 1998-2003. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 126 – 131. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.98.supplement_1.s126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gana, K., & Broc, G. (2019). Structural equation modeling with Lavaan. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonçalves, M., Baptista, M. N., & Farcas, D. (2016). IPSF: Análise da estrutura interna em uma amostra de jovens adultos portugueses. Revista Avaliação Psicológica, 15 (1), 115 – 123. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2016.1501.12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, A. L., Watts, A. L., Forbes, M. K., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., & Eaton, N. R. (2022). Misbegotten methodologies and forgotten lessons from Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine: A demonstration with competing structural models of psychopathology. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, K., Colarelli, S. M., & Weed, N. C. (2019). Methodological and statistical advances in the consideration of cultural diversity in assessment: A critical review of group classification and measurement invariance testing. Psychological Assessment, 31 (12), 1481 – 1496. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000731</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoftede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. (3rd ed.) McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30 (2), 179 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). https://<ulink href="http://www.intestcom.org/">www.intestcom.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssens, J. M. A. M., De Bruyn, E. E. J., Manders, W. A., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2005). The multitrait-multimethod approach in family assessment: Mutual parent-child relationships assessed by questionnaires and observations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21 (4), 232 – 239. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.4.232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2017). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315205281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khallad, Y., & Jabr, F. (2016). Effects of perceived social support and family demands on college students' mental well-being: A cross-cultural investigation. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie, 51 (5), 348 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan, M. J., & Arif, A. (2019). Role of social support as predictor of mental health among university students. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 13 (1), 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeCloux, M., Maramaldi, P., Thomas, K., & Wharff, E. (2016). Family support and mental health service use among suicidal adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25 (8), 2597 – 2606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0417-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, S., & Xu, Q. (2022). Family support as a protective factor for attitudes toward social distancing and in preserving positive mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Health Psychology, 27 (4), 858 – 867. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320971697</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33 (3), 335 – 343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lund, C., Brooke-Sumner, C., Baingana, F., Baron, E. C., Breuer, E., Chandra, P., Haushofer, J., Herrman, H., Jordans, M., Kieling, C., Medina-Mora, M. E., Morgan, E., Omigbodun, O., Tol, W., Patel, V., & Saxena, S. (2018). Social determinants of mental disorders and the sustainable development goals: A systematic review of reviews. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 5 (4), 357 – 369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30060-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masarik, A. S., & Conger, R. D. (2017). Stress and child development: A review of the family stress model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 85 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Borgogna, N. C., & McKelvey, D. K. (2019). Development and validation of a five-item Male Role Norms Inventory using bifactor modeling. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20 (4), 467 – 477. https:// doi.org/ 10.1037/men0000178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milberg, A., Liljeroos, M., Wåhlberg, R., & Krevers, B. (2020). Sense of support within the family: A cross-sectional study of family members in palliative home care. BMC Palliative Care, 19 (1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00623-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakash, R. A., Hutton, J. L, Jørstad-Stein, E. C., Gates, S., & Lamb, S. E. (2006). Maximising response to postal questionnaires: A systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6 (1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, B. P. (2004). SPSS and SAS programs for addressing interdependence and basic levels-of-analysis issues in psychological data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (1), 17 – 28. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195546</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveira, C. M., Zanon, C., Bandeira, C. M., Heath, P. J., & Giacomoni, C. H. (2022). Evaluating optimism in children and adolescents: Adaptation, factor structure, convergent validity, and invariance of the Brazilian version of the Youth Life Orientation Test (YLOT). Psychological Assessment, 34 (1), e1 – e14. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulin, J., Deng, R., Ingersoll, T. S., Witt, H., & Swain, M. (2012). Perceived family and friend support and the psychological well-being of American and Chinese elderly persons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 27 (4), 305 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-012-9177-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reust, C. E., Thomlinson, R. P., & Lattie, D. (1999). Keeping or missing the initial behavioral health appointment: A qualitative study of referrals in a primary care setting. Families, Systems, & Health, 17 (4), 399 – 411. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health, 14 (8), 1101 – 1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, M., & Donkin, C. (2022). Exploratory hypothesis tests can be more compelling than confirmatory hypothesis tests. Philosophical Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2113771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rui, J. R., & Guo, J. (2022). Differentiating the stress buffering functions of perceived versus received social support. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02606-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Şahin, E., Topkaya, N., & Gençoğlu, C. (2022). Severity and correlates of the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress in a nationally representative sample of Turkish secondary boarding school counselors. SAGE Open, 12 (2), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221096123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sani, F., Madhok, V., Norbury, M., Dugard, P., & Wakefield, J. R. H. (2015). Greater number of group identifications is associated with healthier behaviour: Evidence from a Scottish community sample. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20 (3), 466 – 481. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheldon, H., Graham, C., Pothecary, N., & Rasul, F. (2007). Increasing response rates amongst Black and minority ethnic and seldom heard groups. <ulink href="http://www.nhssurveys.org/Filestore/documents/Increasing%5fresponse%5frates%5fstakeholder%5fconsultation%5fv6.pdf">http://www.nhssurveys.org/Filestore/documents/Increasing%5fresponse%5frates%5fstakeholder%5fconsultation%5fv6.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, M., & Fozdar, F. (2022). Complex but ordinary: Intercultural negotiations among mixed families in Australia. Journal of Family Studies, 28 (4), 1504 – 1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2020.1844039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitt, T. A., Sass, D. A., Chappelle, W., & Thompson, W. (2018). Selecting the "best" factor structure and moving measurement validation forward: An illustration. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100 (4), 345 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1449116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scully, C., McLaughlin, J., & Fitzgerald, A. (2020). The relationship between adverse childhood experiences, family functioning, and mental health problems among children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Family Therapy, 42 (2), 291 – 316. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, C., Wakefield, J. R. H., Kellezi, B., Stack, R. J., & Dogra, S. (2022). Families as support and burden: A mixed methods exploration of the extent to which family identification and support predicts reductions in stress among disadvantaged neighbourhood residents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39 (4), 886 – 907. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211050071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sunar, D., & Fişek, G. O. (2005). Contemporary Turkish families. In U. Gielen & J. Roopnarine (Eds.), Families in global perspective (pp. 169 – 183). Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. (7th ed.) Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, Z. E., Ruiz, Y., Nair, N., & Mishra, A. A. (2022). Family support and mental health of Latinx children in migrant farmworker families. Applied Developmental Science, 26 (2), 329 – 346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1800466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toma, G., Guetterman, T. C., Yaqub, T., Talaat, N., & Fetters, M. D. (2017). A systematic approach for accurate translation of instruments: Experience with translating the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale into Arabic. Methodological Innovations, 10 (3), 2059799117741406. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799117741406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tough, H., Siegrist, J., & Fekete, C. (2017). Social relationships, mental health and wellbeing in physical disability: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 17 (1), 414. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4308-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wakefield, J. R., Bowe, M., Kellezi, B., Butcher, A., & Groeger, J. A. (2020). Longitudinal associations between family identification, loneliness, depression, and sleep quality. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25 (1), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wakefield, J. R., Sani, F., Herrera, M., Khan, S. S., & Dugard, P. (2016). Greater family identification—but not greater contact with family members—leads to better health: Evidence from a Spanish longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46 (4), 506 – 513. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2020). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus (2nd ed.). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, C., Gao, H., Li, Y., Wang, E., Wang, N., & Wang, Q. (2022). Analyzing the role of family support, coping strategies and social support in improving the mental health of students: Evidence from post COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1064898. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1064898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeung, A. Y., Yuliawati, L., & Cheung, S. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analytic factor analysis of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 27 (4), Article, e12362. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu, B. C., Mak, W. W., & Chio, F. H. (2021). Family involvement moderates the relationship between perceived recovery orientation of services and personal narratives among Chinese with schizophrenia in Hong Kong: A 1-year longitudinal investigation. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 56 (3), 401 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01935-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabriskie, R. B., Aslan, N., & Williamson, M. (2018). Turkish family life: A study of family leisure, family functioning, and family satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 49 (1), 8 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2018.1425049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zanon, C., Brenner, R. E., Baptista, M. N., Vogel, D. L., Rubin, M., Al-Darmaki, F. R., Gonçalves, M., Heath, P. J., Liao, H.-Y., Mackenzie, C. S., Topkaya, N., Wade, N. G., & Zlati, A. (2021). Examining the dimensionality, reliability, and invariance of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale–21 (DASS-21) across eight countries. Assessment, 28 (6), 1531 – 1544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119887449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zanon, C., Fabretti, R. R., Martins, J. Z., & Heath, P. J. (2022). Adaptation of the Steen Happiness Index (SHI) to Brazil: A comparison of the psychometric properties of the SHI and the Subjective Happiness Scale. Assessment, 29 (8), 1597 – 1610. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211024354</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cristian Zanon; Makilim N. Baptista; Mark Rubin; Nursel Topkaya; Ertuğrul Şahin; Rachel E. Brenner; David L. Vogel and Winnie W. S. Mak</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Cristian Zanon is a Professor in the Department of Developmental Psychology and Personality of the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). He is the Director of the Psychometric Center and his interests focus on personality assessment, well-being, test adaptation, and psychometrics. He has published over 70 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. His research has been supported by grants from National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and "Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior".</p> <p>Makilim Nunes Baptista , Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the Stricto-Sensu Graduate Program in Psychology at the University of São Francisco (São Paulo/Brazil), a program that focuses on Psychological Assessment. He develops psychometric scales and conducts evidence studies of the validity and accuracy of scales in mental health based on classical and modern statistical theories. The secondary interest is the assessment of risk and protection variables for mental disorders (e.g., depression) and psychological phenomena (e.g., suicide), such as family support, social support, self-efficacy, self-concept, and loneliness.</p> <p>Mark Rubin is a professor of psychology at Durham University, UK. He received an MSc from the London School of Economics and a PhD from Cardiff University, UK. He has published over 100 research articles, mainly in the areas of social identity and intergroup relations. His research interests include sexism, immigration, social class, social exclusion, and mental health. He has also published metascientific work on issues connected with the replication crisis such as preregistration, multiple testing, significance testing, and hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). For more information about his work, please visit: <ulink href="http://bit.ly/rubinpsyc">http://bit.ly/rubinpsyc</ulink></p> <p>Nursel Topkaya , received her PhD from Ege University in 2011. She is currently a Professor in the Department of Guidance and Psychological Counseling at ÇanakkaleOnsekiz Mart University. Her primary research interests include self-stigma, social stigma, attitudes toward seeking help, and intention to seek help. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on individual counseling, group counseling, and counseling ethics principles. She has published over 49 peer-reviewed articles and has given over 32 national and international conference presentations.</p> <p>Ertuğrul Şahin , received his PhD from Ondokuz Mayıs University in 2018. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Child and Youth Services, SabuncuoğluŞerefeddin Health Services Vocational School, Amasya University. His primary research interests include the self-concept, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and differential item functioning. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on family education, child development, quantitative methods, and scientific research methods. He has published over 25 peer-reviewed articles and has given over 25 national and international conference presentations.</p> <p>Rachel E. Brenner , PhD received her doctorate in Counseling Psychology from Iowa State University in 2018 with a graduate certificate in Quantitative Psychology. Formerly an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Colorado State University, she is now a Staff User Researcher focused on integrating research and psychology to build more accessible, empathic software products. Her academic research focuses on how individuals respond to stressful events, with emphasis on stigma, cognition, measurement and LGBTQ mental health.</p> <p>David L. Vogel is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University (ISU), a Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA), and a licensed psychologist in the State of Iowa. He is the Director of the ISU Interdisciplinary Communication Studies program. His professional interests focus on issues of diversity with specific attention to the role of stigma and stereotyping as they are applied to psychological health and the decision to seek therapy. He has published over 130 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters and has given over 100 national conference presentations. His research has been supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Department of Defense, and the American Psychological Foundation. Current work is focused on developing interventions that will help reduce stigma and increase the likelihood that people in need will seek quality mental health care services.</p> <p>Winnie W. S. Mak , PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on stigma reduction and mental health promotion, particularly through digital technology or other novel approaches, community psychology, and Buddhist psychology. She is a community-based clinical psychologist who works closely with people with lived experiences to translate research into practice.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref98"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1443874
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Measuring Family Support in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey: A Psychometric Investigation
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cristian+Zanon%22">Cristian Zanon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3822-5275">0000-0003-3822-5275</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Makilim+N%2E+Baptista%22">Makilim N. Baptista</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6519-254X">0000-0001-6519-254X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mark+Rubin%22">Mark Rubin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561">0000-0002-6483-8561</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nursel+Topkaya%22">Nursel Topkaya</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8469-9140">0000-0002-8469-9140</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ertugrul+Sahin%22">Ertugrul Sahin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3341-8887">0000-0003-3341-8887</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+E%2E+Brenner%22">Rachel E. Brenner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1069-9591">0000-0003-1069-9591</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+L%2E+Vogel%22">David L. Vogel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Winnie+W%2E+S%2E+Mak%22">Winnie W. S. Mak</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9714-7847">0000-0002-9714-7847</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+and+Evaluation+in+Counseling+and+Development%22"><i>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</i></searchLink>. 2024 57(4):318-335.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Relationship%22">Family Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Support+Groups%22">Social Support Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Depression+%28Psychology%29%22">Depression (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Differences%22">Cultural Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Needs%22">Psychological Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coping%22">Coping</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Isolation%22">Social Isolation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aggression%22">Aggression</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trust+%28Psychology%29%22">Trust (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Privacy%22">Privacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Translation%22">Translation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkish%22">Turkish</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Brazil%22">Brazil</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hong+Kong%22">Hong Kong</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkey%22">Turkey</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07481756.2023.2219009
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-1756<br />1947-6302
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study presents a reduced version of the Perception of Family Support Scale (PFSS)--a measure of family support designed for research and clinical purposes--and examine construct validity, invariance, and reliability evidence for scores obtained from the instrument. Data collection occurred in 2019. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with college student samples from Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey (N = 1,256), we identified an oblique three-factor model corresponding to the original scale's internal structure (e.g. affective consistency, family maladaptation, and family autonomy). We also found configural, metric, and scalar invariance, good reliability coefficients, and significant relationships with distress (e.g. depression, anxiety, and stress) across the four studied countries. These results indicate good validity evidence for using the brief version of the PFSS. Applications of the PFSS and implications of the current results are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1443874
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1443874
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07481756.2023.2219009
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 318
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Family Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Support Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Depression (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coping
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Isolation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aggression
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trust (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Privacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Translation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chinese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Turkish
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Brazil
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hong Kong
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Turkey
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Measuring Family Support in Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Turkey: A Psychometric Investigation
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cristian Zanon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Makilim N. Baptista
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mark Rubin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nursel Topkaya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ertugrul Sahin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel E. Brenner
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David L. Vogel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Winnie W. S. Mak
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-1756
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1947-6302
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1