Hi,
I am a Master of Nursing Science student. Currently, I am conducting a research in patients with breast cancer. I have chosen social support as an independent variable to examine its predictive power in health-related quality of life. To measure Social support, I used the Modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (eight item). The scoring manual didn't exactly explained the cut off score for poor, fair and good social support measured in 0-100 point scale. But I referred to previous similar study (only found one study) which categorized as poor,(less than 60) fair(60-79) and good social support (more than 80) and explained that it was categorized according to Bloom's theory. But there is no citation to search further. I tried to confirm searching so many times. But I could not find the article that used same categorization based on score. So, I kindly request you to let me know how it can be done or post article here if you have idea.
Thank you.
Hello,
I don't know if this (or anything else listed below) will be of help:
https://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/mos/social-support.html
You can click on the two links (see below):
MOS Social Support Survey Instrument (HTML)
View and print the MOS Social Support Survey Instrument.
Scoring Instructions for Social Support Survey Instrument
The scoring instructions include references to many articles that describe the process by which the measures were developed and discuss their validity and reliability.
There is also a list of related reading (on the initial link).
This paper is not in the above mentioned list:
Moser, A., Stuck, A. E., Silliman, R. A., Ganz, P. A., & Clough-Gorr, K. M. (2012). The eight-item modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey: psychometric evaluation showed excellent performance. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 65(10), 1107-1116.
This is the full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4119888/
This is the ResearchGate link in case you wanted to contact the authors:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229435010
This is another paper:
Zanini, D. S., & Peixoto, E. M. (2016). Social support scale (MOS-SSS): analysis of the psychometric properties via item response theory. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 26(65), 359-368.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308740061
I have not seen the full text of this paper:
Togari, T., & Yokoyama, Y. (2016). Application of the eight-item modified medical outcomes study social support survey in Japan: a national representative cross-sectional study. Quality of Life Research, 25(5), 1151-1158.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282732221
This is a link re multiple sclerosis:
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/For-Professionals/Researchers/Resources-for-Researchers/Clinical-Study-Measures/MOS-Modified-Social-Support-Survey-(MSSS)
Very best wishes for your Master of Nursing Science,
Mary
Article The eight-item modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Suppor...
Article Social Support Scale (MOS-SSS): Analysis of the Psychometric...
Article Application of the eight-item modified medical outcomes stud...
I don't understand why you want to create cut-offs for a continuous variable, which would involve a loss of information. If this variable is typically analyzed using techniques such as correlations and regression, then it doesn't make sense to chop it up.
Though it can be categorise if required, but I agree with David that it will result in loss of information. There are better ways to handle the issue than simple categorisation.
How did you measure your dependent variable (Health-related quality of life)? If it is a continuous variable, then as suggested by David there is no need to categorize your independent variable, you can use correlations and regression.
Sorry for being blunt but it is unfortunate and shocking that researchers still choose to categorize variables measured on a continuum. Even more unfortunate is that such a practice is accepted as standard in some topic areas. Please do not contribute to such a vicious cycle.
There are numerous articles pointing out dangers of categorization (or dichotomization, trichotomization) but my favorite is MacCallum et al. (2002). Please note the year of publication. It has been decades since such warnings were published. The bottom line is never, ever categorize continuous variables. This is not just a statistical issue but a validity issue too. Both Type I and II errors are increased.
Dear all,
Thank you very much for your suggestions. Actually, I want to know how much patients perceived inadequate, fair and poor social support based on the score. To examine predictive power, I have no problem. Thanks again.
Hi ... Did you find an answer to your question ?
Also can you refer me to the one article that categorized as poor,(less than 60) fair(60-79) and good social support (more than 80)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology