Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The 13 item Family Support Scale: Reliability and validity of the Greek translation in a sample of Greek health care professionals

The 13 item Family Support Scale: Reliability and validity of the Greek translation in a sample... Background: The Julkunen Family Support Scale aims to record the sense of support that a subject receives from the members of his family. The object of the present study was to investigate the reliability and to assess the validity of the Greek translation of the Julkunen Family Support Scale in Greek health care professionals in a public general hospital. Methods: In order to determine the indicator of validity of content we addressed nine expert professionals and one sociologist, asking them to evaluate how much relevant to the sense of familial support are the items of the questionnaire. Additionally, to assess reliability we used a sample of health care professionals. Results: There was agreement among experts for the validity of content. Cronbach’s alpha for the total items was 0.820, pointing to high validity. Only replacing item four could increase the scale’s validity, but without significant differences. Conclusions: The scale, in its Greek version, appears to be a brief and reliable tool that can be used for inpatients, in clinics as well as in epidemiologic studies of received family support. Background Examples of subjects of particular items are: “My family In the international bibliography of health psychology, supports me in each my effort” (item 1) and “there is no many studies have attempted to delineate the relation- benefit in speaking about your daily difficulties at home” ship between the input in family support of patients (item 4). At the same time, the examinee is asked to with acute or chronic disease or their level of anxiety or record the number of members of his family that live depression [1], as well as the effect of this support in together.Seven of thirteen items(items4,5,6, 8,9,10 the confrontation of illness [2,3]. Simultaneously, other and 11) are graded inversely. The scale is self-answered research studies have focused in the cross-correlation of and it is not recommended to be given to individuals degrees of familial support with the presence of burnout that live alone, since all of the items focus on the inter- in health professionals and, particularly, in nurses [4]. relations of individuals that live together. High scores The Julkunen Family Support Scale (Julkunen J & correspond to an increased sense of family support. For every subject the scale does not aim to examine objec- Greenglass ER: The family support scale, submitted) has been conceived in Finland and aims to record the sense tively the family support that the individual receives, but of support that a subject receives from the members of rather the sense that he/she has of how much he/she is his family (with whom he/she lives). The scale is consti- supported by the persons with whom he/she lives tuted by 13 items, which are answered on a Likert scale, together. The particular scale has been translated ranging from 1 ("I disagree a lot”)to5 ("Iagreealot”). in Greek (T. Anagnostopoulou, Hellenic Institute of Psychology & Health, Thessaloniki) and has been used in a number of research works in Greece [5-11]. In * Correspondence: atselebis@yahoo.gr 1 these studies the measurement of perceived family Sotiria General Hospital, Athens, Greece Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2011 Tselebis et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Tselebis et al. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011, 10:3 Page 2 of 4 http://www.apfmj.com/content/10/1/3 support focused on the particularities that characterize factors that were evaluated in the interview were related interpersonal relations in Greek society and, more speci- to the feelings of tension or any intense arguments that fically, in the Greek family. The Greek family is charac- each examinee experienced within his/her home, along terizedbyveryclose-knitrelationships;itconstitutes with the support that he/she considered to have received often the basic source for receiving support and feed- in making personal or professional plans as well as back, while also appearing to function protectively whether his/her return home was accompanied by a against stressful events. The lack of a family network or sense of comfort and rest. Regarding the scale’s reliability, this was assessed with the existence of disturbed relations inside the narrow Cronbach’s alpha (i.e. a measure of internal consistency). family environment appears to relate with higher stress levels [5-7] and depression [10]. Furthermore, a high The total alpha coefficient if a given item is deleted was degree of sense of received family support appears to be also assessed. Further reliability testing was also imple- linked with better adaptation and confrontation in the mented with split-half reliability measures (also referred case of patients with chronic diseases [8,9]. It is remark- to as internal consistency reliability). These are mea- able that in relevant studies the Family Support Scale sures of estimation based on the correlation of two presents systematically negative cross-correlations with equivalent forms of the scale. More in detail, the Spear- Beck’s depression scale (Beck Depression Inventory, man-Brown coefficient was calculated (using samples of BDI), as well as with Spielberger’sanxiety scale(State unequal length that give the reliability estimate assum- Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI). The aim of the present ing unequal numbers of items in each set; this is neces- study was to investigate the reliability and assess the sary in a battery with a total of 13 items). The Guttman validity of the Greek translation of the Family Support split-half reliability coefficient was also calculated (this Scale in Greek health care professionals in a public gen- an adaptation of the Spearman-Brown coefficient that eral hospital. does not require equal variances between the two split forms). Methods Regarding the interview-based validity leg of the study, The scale was translated and back translated in Greek comparisons of the subjects’ gender (with the Chi- by two English speaking psychologists. square test) and of age, years of education and Family To determine the indicator of validity of content we Support scale (with Student’s t-test) were done. Pear- addressed nine expert health professionals (3 psychia- son’s correlation of the interview-based family support trists, 3 psychologists and 3 nurses) and a sociologist, scores and Family Support Scale scores of the adminis- asking them to evaluate how much relevant to the sense tered test was also calculated. of familial support that somebody feels is the total of the items in the questionnaire. The scale of marking Results was from 1 “not relevant” to 4 “absolutely relevant” Content validity To asses reliability we used a sample of health care There was agreement among experts for the validity of professionals, chosen randomly from workers in one of content of the questionnaire in its entirety. Three the bigger general hospitals in Athens, Greece. Overall, experts considered it “very relevant” and 7 “absolutely 165 workers were asked to participate in the study, 35 relevant”. of whom were excluded either after declaring that they live alone them or after denying to participate in the Reliability study. Of the 130 final participating workers (40 men The age of the study subjects (mean ± SD) 39.23 ± 9.48 and 90 women) age and level of education, were and years of education (mean ± SD) 13.35 ± 2.06 did recorded, followed by filling in the Family Support not differ statistically significant between male and Scale. The directions that were given to all participants female (student t-test p > 0.05). Family support was were as follows: “The questions that follow refer to your higher in men (mean ± SD) 50.8 ± 8.6 compared to family. We ask that you answer each question putting in women (mean ± SD) 47 ± 9.8, (student t-test p < 0.05). a circle the number that describes better your family Family Support Scale score was not correlated with (the individuals with whom you live together)”.The years of education or age for the whole sample or for time for answering the questionnaire did not exceed each gender examined separately (Person’s correlation, 4 minutes. p > 0.05, r: 0.010). From the whole sample 28 subjects (7 men and 21 The reliability of the questionnaire’s 13 items was women) were randomly selected to participate in a 30- assessed with Cronbach’s alpha and was verified after minute-long personal interview with a psychologist; the splitting the sample (Guttmann’s “split-half”). More in latter noted on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) detail, Cronbach’s alpha for the 13 items was 0.820 each examinee’s perception of family support. The (table 1), pointing to high validity [12]. Each item’s Tselebis et al. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011, 10:3 Page 3 of 4 http://www.apfmj.com/content/10/1/3 Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis statistics The men studied appear to enjoy a higher sense of family support. Regarding gender, however, more exten- Family Support Item’s correlation with the Alpha if item is Item No entire set deleted sive investigation is required, since this finding likely 1 0.541 0.803 reflects formal characteristic traits of Greek society vis- 2 0.498 0.807 à-vis formal social roles that the two sexes are called to 3 0.334 0.817 undertake. 4 0.250 0.825 Conceptual validity of the construct is confirmed by 5 0.494 0.805 studies in different populations [5,7,8]: they show a 6 0.571 0.798 negative cross-correlation between the Family Support 7 0.497 0.806 Scale and the BDI depression scale [14,15] as well as the 8 0.362 0.818 STAI [16,17]. Results of these studies agree with other 9 0.539 0.801 research works [18-20], according to which, the lack of 10 0.463 0.808 feeling of familial support constitutes an anxiety- and 11 0.566 0.799 depression-generating factor, while the presence of feel- 12 0.322 0.817 ing of family support can improve the corresponding 13 0.632 0.798 symptomatology. In patients with chronic somatic disease, as diabetes mellitus is, the role of family support has been studied extensively [8,9]: an important correlation has been correlation with the entire test was not high (but only noted with the course of disease, a fact that it is likely items 3,4,8 and 12 were lower than 0.40) nevertheless isolated deletion of each item provided alpha coefficients to imply better conformity with medical advice and that fell within a narrow - and acceptable - range from therapy. 0.798 to 0.818 [13]. Only replacing item 4 could increase the scale’s validity, without, however, important differ- Conclusions ences. Thus it was chosen that it should not be modified The Family Support Scale, in its Greek version, appears (table 1). Examining the reliability of the scale vis-à-vis to be a brief and reliable tool that can be used for inpa- gender, alpha was 0.821 for men and 0.821 for women. tients, in clinics as well as in epidemiologic studies of The unequal length Spearman-Brown coefficient (with received family support. 6 items in one group and 7 items in the other group) was 0.819. Guttman’s “split-half” coefficient was 0.818, Author details 1 2 confirming the good reliability of the scale. Sotiria General Hospital, Athens, Greece. Hellenic Institute of Psychology & Health, Thessaloniki, Greece. Department of Endocrinology, “Elena Venizelou” Hospital, Athens, Greece. Dept of Social Medicine, Medical Interview-based validity School, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece. The subjects that were interviewed did not differ in age Authors’ contributions (mean ± SD) 39 ± 9.8 vs 39 ± 9.5 years; Student t-test p AT and TA conceived the paper; AT, DB and II carried out the statistical > 0.05), education level (yrs) (mean ± SD) 13 ± 2 vs analysis and drafted the paper; AikM, AM and CS performed the scale, 13.4 ± 2.06; Student t-test p > 0.05), Family Support collected data and helped drafted the paper; AK, GM and NT supervised the study. Scale score (mean ± SD): 48.7 ± 9.8 vs 48.3 ± 9.9; Stu- All authors read and approved the final manuscript. dent t-test p > 0.05) or gender (Chi-square p > 0.05) from the rest of the sample. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. This group had a mean ( ± SD) interview-based family support score of 3.4 ± 1.3. Men had higher scores com- Received: 11 November 2009 Accepted: 13 April 2011 pared to women (4.1 ± 0.70 vs 3.09 ± 1.1; Student t-test Published: 13 April 2011 p < 0.05). A strong positive correlation was noted between interview-based family support scores and References 1. Christensen AJ, Turner CW, Slaughter JR, Holman JM Jr: Perceived family Family Support Scale scores (Pearson Correlation, r = support as a moderator psychological well being in end-stage renal 0.750, p < 0.001). disease. J Behav Med 1989, 12(3):249-265. 2. Christensen AJ, Smith TW, Turner CW, Holman JM Jr, Gregory MC, Rich MA: Family support, physical impairment, and adherence in hemodialysis: an Discussion investigation of main and buffering effects. J Behav Med 1992, In the present work the Greek version of the Family 15(4):313-25. Support Scale shows important reliability and validity 3. Okkonen E, Vanhanen H: Family support, living alone, and subjective health of a patient in connection with a coronary artery bypass surgery. characteristics. The degree of sense of familial support Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care 35(4):234-244. does not appear to be influenced from factors such as 4. Dara Ogus E: Burnout and social support systems among ward nurses. age or years of education. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 1990, 11(3):267-281. Tselebis et al. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011, 10:3 Page 4 of 4 http://www.apfmj.com/content/10/1/3 5. Tselebis A, Bratis D, Moussas G, Karkanias A, Tzitzanidou G, Lekka D, Papageorgiou E, Ilias I: Study of anxiety, family support and Type A behavior in patients with cardiovascular disease. Electronic Proceedings of the 27th Star Society Conference 2006. 6. Tselebis A, Karkanias A, Bratis D, Giotakis K, Moussas G, Ilias I, Vassila-Demi K: Anxiety, family support and alexithymia in patients with bronchial asthma. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2006, 16(suppl 4). 7. Moussas G, Bratis D, Tselebis A, Vassila-Demi K, Aridaki A, Tzitzanidou G, Lekka D, Giotakis K, Karkanias A: Anxiety and family support in patients with cardiovascular diseases, bronchial asthma and COPD. Hippokratia Journal 2006, 10(suppl 1). 8. Ilias I, Hatzimichelakis E, Souvatzoglou A, Anagnostopoulou T, Tselebis A: Perception of family support is correlated with glycemic control in Greeks with diabetes mellitus. Psychol Rep 2001, 88:929-930. 9. Ilias I, Tselebis A, Theotoka I, Hatzimichelakis E: Association of Perceived Family Support through Glycemic Control in Native Patients Managing Diabetes with Diet Alone. Ethn Dis 2004, 14(2). 10. Tselebis A, Karkanias A, Gournas G, Bratis D, Perissaki K: Depression and sense of family support in nursing stuff [in Modern Greek]. Psychiatriki 2004, 15(suppl 1). 11. Bratis D, Tselebis A, Sikaras Ch, Moulou Aik, Giotakis K, Zoumakis E, Ilias I: Alexithymia and its association with burnout, depression and family support among Greek nursing staff. Human Resources for Health 2009, 7:72. 12. George D, Mallery P: SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference 11.0 update. Boston, Allyn & Bacon;, 4 2003. 13. Nunnally JC: Psychometric theory. NY, McGraw Hill;, 2 1978. 14. Beck AT, Steer RA: Manual for the Revised Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation; 1987. 15. Donias S, Demertzis I: Validation of the Beck depression inventory [in Modern Greek]. In 10th Hellenic Congress of Neurology and Psychiatry: 1983; Thessaloniki. Edited by: Varfis G. University Studio Press; 1983:486-492. 16. Spielberger GD, Gorush RL, Lusshene RE: The state - trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970. 17. Liakos A, Giannitsi S: The validity of the Greek modification of the Spielberger anxiety scale [in Modern Greek]. Encephalos 1984, 21:71-76. 18. Holahan CJ, Moos RH: Life stress and health: Personality, coping and family support in stress resistance. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985, 49(3):739-747. 19. Holahan CJ, Moos RH: Personality, coping and family resources in stress resistance: A longitudinal analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986, 51(2):389-395. 20. Tselebis A, Bratis D, Karkanias A, Apostolopoulou E, Moussas G, Gournas G, Ilias I: Associations of burnout dimensions and family support for a sample of Greek nurses. Psychological Reports 2008, 103:63-66. doi:10.1186/1447-056X-10-3 Cite this article as: Tselebis et al.: The 13 item Family Support Scale: Reliability and validity of the Greek translation in a sample of Greek health care professionals. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011 10:3. Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission • Thorough peer review • No space constraints or color figure charges • Immediate publication on acceptance • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar • Research which is freely available for redistribution Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asia Pacific Family Medicine Springer Journals

The 13 item Family Support Scale: Reliability and validity of the Greek translation in a sample of Greek health care professionals

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-13-item-family-support-scale-reliability-and-validity-of-the-greek-d2y0ZFoXqZ
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by Tselebis et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; General Practice / Family Medicine; Primary Care Medicine
eISSN
1447-056X
DOI
10.1186/1447-056X-10-3
pmid
21489235
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background: The Julkunen Family Support Scale aims to record the sense of support that a subject receives from the members of his family. The object of the present study was to investigate the reliability and to assess the validity of the Greek translation of the Julkunen Family Support Scale in Greek health care professionals in a public general hospital. Methods: In order to determine the indicator of validity of content we addressed nine expert professionals and one sociologist, asking them to evaluate how much relevant to the sense of familial support are the items of the questionnaire. Additionally, to assess reliability we used a sample of health care professionals. Results: There was agreement among experts for the validity of content. Cronbach’s alpha for the total items was 0.820, pointing to high validity. Only replacing item four could increase the scale’s validity, but without significant differences. Conclusions: The scale, in its Greek version, appears to be a brief and reliable tool that can be used for inpatients, in clinics as well as in epidemiologic studies of received family support. Background Examples of subjects of particular items are: “My family In the international bibliography of health psychology, supports me in each my effort” (item 1) and “there is no many studies have attempted to delineate the relation- benefit in speaking about your daily difficulties at home” ship between the input in family support of patients (item 4). At the same time, the examinee is asked to with acute or chronic disease or their level of anxiety or record the number of members of his family that live depression [1], as well as the effect of this support in together.Seven of thirteen items(items4,5,6, 8,9,10 the confrontation of illness [2,3]. Simultaneously, other and 11) are graded inversely. The scale is self-answered research studies have focused in the cross-correlation of and it is not recommended to be given to individuals degrees of familial support with the presence of burnout that live alone, since all of the items focus on the inter- in health professionals and, particularly, in nurses [4]. relations of individuals that live together. High scores The Julkunen Family Support Scale (Julkunen J & correspond to an increased sense of family support. For every subject the scale does not aim to examine objec- Greenglass ER: The family support scale, submitted) has been conceived in Finland and aims to record the sense tively the family support that the individual receives, but of support that a subject receives from the members of rather the sense that he/she has of how much he/she is his family (with whom he/she lives). The scale is consti- supported by the persons with whom he/she lives tuted by 13 items, which are answered on a Likert scale, together. The particular scale has been translated ranging from 1 ("I disagree a lot”)to5 ("Iagreealot”). in Greek (T. Anagnostopoulou, Hellenic Institute of Psychology & Health, Thessaloniki) and has been used in a number of research works in Greece [5-11]. In * Correspondence: atselebis@yahoo.gr 1 these studies the measurement of perceived family Sotiria General Hospital, Athens, Greece Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2011 Tselebis et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Tselebis et al. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011, 10:3 Page 2 of 4 http://www.apfmj.com/content/10/1/3 support focused on the particularities that characterize factors that were evaluated in the interview were related interpersonal relations in Greek society and, more speci- to the feelings of tension or any intense arguments that fically, in the Greek family. The Greek family is charac- each examinee experienced within his/her home, along terizedbyveryclose-knitrelationships;itconstitutes with the support that he/she considered to have received often the basic source for receiving support and feed- in making personal or professional plans as well as back, while also appearing to function protectively whether his/her return home was accompanied by a against stressful events. The lack of a family network or sense of comfort and rest. Regarding the scale’s reliability, this was assessed with the existence of disturbed relations inside the narrow Cronbach’s alpha (i.e. a measure of internal consistency). family environment appears to relate with higher stress levels [5-7] and depression [10]. Furthermore, a high The total alpha coefficient if a given item is deleted was degree of sense of received family support appears to be also assessed. Further reliability testing was also imple- linked with better adaptation and confrontation in the mented with split-half reliability measures (also referred case of patients with chronic diseases [8,9]. It is remark- to as internal consistency reliability). These are mea- able that in relevant studies the Family Support Scale sures of estimation based on the correlation of two presents systematically negative cross-correlations with equivalent forms of the scale. More in detail, the Spear- Beck’s depression scale (Beck Depression Inventory, man-Brown coefficient was calculated (using samples of BDI), as well as with Spielberger’sanxiety scale(State unequal length that give the reliability estimate assum- Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI). The aim of the present ing unequal numbers of items in each set; this is neces- study was to investigate the reliability and assess the sary in a battery with a total of 13 items). The Guttman validity of the Greek translation of the Family Support split-half reliability coefficient was also calculated (this Scale in Greek health care professionals in a public gen- an adaptation of the Spearman-Brown coefficient that eral hospital. does not require equal variances between the two split forms). Methods Regarding the interview-based validity leg of the study, The scale was translated and back translated in Greek comparisons of the subjects’ gender (with the Chi- by two English speaking psychologists. square test) and of age, years of education and Family To determine the indicator of validity of content we Support scale (with Student’s t-test) were done. Pear- addressed nine expert health professionals (3 psychia- son’s correlation of the interview-based family support trists, 3 psychologists and 3 nurses) and a sociologist, scores and Family Support Scale scores of the adminis- asking them to evaluate how much relevant to the sense tered test was also calculated. of familial support that somebody feels is the total of the items in the questionnaire. The scale of marking Results was from 1 “not relevant” to 4 “absolutely relevant” Content validity To asses reliability we used a sample of health care There was agreement among experts for the validity of professionals, chosen randomly from workers in one of content of the questionnaire in its entirety. Three the bigger general hospitals in Athens, Greece. Overall, experts considered it “very relevant” and 7 “absolutely 165 workers were asked to participate in the study, 35 relevant”. of whom were excluded either after declaring that they live alone them or after denying to participate in the Reliability study. Of the 130 final participating workers (40 men The age of the study subjects (mean ± SD) 39.23 ± 9.48 and 90 women) age and level of education, were and years of education (mean ± SD) 13.35 ± 2.06 did recorded, followed by filling in the Family Support not differ statistically significant between male and Scale. The directions that were given to all participants female (student t-test p > 0.05). Family support was were as follows: “The questions that follow refer to your higher in men (mean ± SD) 50.8 ± 8.6 compared to family. We ask that you answer each question putting in women (mean ± SD) 47 ± 9.8, (student t-test p < 0.05). a circle the number that describes better your family Family Support Scale score was not correlated with (the individuals with whom you live together)”.The years of education or age for the whole sample or for time for answering the questionnaire did not exceed each gender examined separately (Person’s correlation, 4 minutes. p > 0.05, r: 0.010). From the whole sample 28 subjects (7 men and 21 The reliability of the questionnaire’s 13 items was women) were randomly selected to participate in a 30- assessed with Cronbach’s alpha and was verified after minute-long personal interview with a psychologist; the splitting the sample (Guttmann’s “split-half”). More in latter noted on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) detail, Cronbach’s alpha for the 13 items was 0.820 each examinee’s perception of family support. The (table 1), pointing to high validity [12]. Each item’s Tselebis et al. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011, 10:3 Page 3 of 4 http://www.apfmj.com/content/10/1/3 Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis statistics The men studied appear to enjoy a higher sense of family support. Regarding gender, however, more exten- Family Support Item’s correlation with the Alpha if item is Item No entire set deleted sive investigation is required, since this finding likely 1 0.541 0.803 reflects formal characteristic traits of Greek society vis- 2 0.498 0.807 à-vis formal social roles that the two sexes are called to 3 0.334 0.817 undertake. 4 0.250 0.825 Conceptual validity of the construct is confirmed by 5 0.494 0.805 studies in different populations [5,7,8]: they show a 6 0.571 0.798 negative cross-correlation between the Family Support 7 0.497 0.806 Scale and the BDI depression scale [14,15] as well as the 8 0.362 0.818 STAI [16,17]. Results of these studies agree with other 9 0.539 0.801 research works [18-20], according to which, the lack of 10 0.463 0.808 feeling of familial support constitutes an anxiety- and 11 0.566 0.799 depression-generating factor, while the presence of feel- 12 0.322 0.817 ing of family support can improve the corresponding 13 0.632 0.798 symptomatology. In patients with chronic somatic disease, as diabetes mellitus is, the role of family support has been studied extensively [8,9]: an important correlation has been correlation with the entire test was not high (but only noted with the course of disease, a fact that it is likely items 3,4,8 and 12 were lower than 0.40) nevertheless isolated deletion of each item provided alpha coefficients to imply better conformity with medical advice and that fell within a narrow - and acceptable - range from therapy. 0.798 to 0.818 [13]. Only replacing item 4 could increase the scale’s validity, without, however, important differ- Conclusions ences. Thus it was chosen that it should not be modified The Family Support Scale, in its Greek version, appears (table 1). Examining the reliability of the scale vis-à-vis to be a brief and reliable tool that can be used for inpa- gender, alpha was 0.821 for men and 0.821 for women. tients, in clinics as well as in epidemiologic studies of The unequal length Spearman-Brown coefficient (with received family support. 6 items in one group and 7 items in the other group) was 0.819. Guttman’s “split-half” coefficient was 0.818, Author details 1 2 confirming the good reliability of the scale. Sotiria General Hospital, Athens, Greece. Hellenic Institute of Psychology & Health, Thessaloniki, Greece. Department of Endocrinology, “Elena Venizelou” Hospital, Athens, Greece. Dept of Social Medicine, Medical Interview-based validity School, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece. The subjects that were interviewed did not differ in age Authors’ contributions (mean ± SD) 39 ± 9.8 vs 39 ± 9.5 years; Student t-test p AT and TA conceived the paper; AT, DB and II carried out the statistical > 0.05), education level (yrs) (mean ± SD) 13 ± 2 vs analysis and drafted the paper; AikM, AM and CS performed the scale, 13.4 ± 2.06; Student t-test p > 0.05), Family Support collected data and helped drafted the paper; AK, GM and NT supervised the study. Scale score (mean ± SD): 48.7 ± 9.8 vs 48.3 ± 9.9; Stu- All authors read and approved the final manuscript. dent t-test p > 0.05) or gender (Chi-square p > 0.05) from the rest of the sample. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. This group had a mean ( ± SD) interview-based family support score of 3.4 ± 1.3. Men had higher scores com- Received: 11 November 2009 Accepted: 13 April 2011 pared to women (4.1 ± 0.70 vs 3.09 ± 1.1; Student t-test Published: 13 April 2011 p < 0.05). A strong positive correlation was noted between interview-based family support scores and References 1. Christensen AJ, Turner CW, Slaughter JR, Holman JM Jr: Perceived family Family Support Scale scores (Pearson Correlation, r = support as a moderator psychological well being in end-stage renal 0.750, p < 0.001). disease. J Behav Med 1989, 12(3):249-265. 2. Christensen AJ, Smith TW, Turner CW, Holman JM Jr, Gregory MC, Rich MA: Family support, physical impairment, and adherence in hemodialysis: an Discussion investigation of main and buffering effects. J Behav Med 1992, In the present work the Greek version of the Family 15(4):313-25. Support Scale shows important reliability and validity 3. Okkonen E, Vanhanen H: Family support, living alone, and subjective health of a patient in connection with a coronary artery bypass surgery. characteristics. The degree of sense of familial support Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care 35(4):234-244. does not appear to be influenced from factors such as 4. Dara Ogus E: Burnout and social support systems among ward nurses. age or years of education. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 1990, 11(3):267-281. Tselebis et al. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011, 10:3 Page 4 of 4 http://www.apfmj.com/content/10/1/3 5. Tselebis A, Bratis D, Moussas G, Karkanias A, Tzitzanidou G, Lekka D, Papageorgiou E, Ilias I: Study of anxiety, family support and Type A behavior in patients with cardiovascular disease. Electronic Proceedings of the 27th Star Society Conference 2006. 6. Tselebis A, Karkanias A, Bratis D, Giotakis K, Moussas G, Ilias I, Vassila-Demi K: Anxiety, family support and alexithymia in patients with bronchial asthma. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2006, 16(suppl 4). 7. Moussas G, Bratis D, Tselebis A, Vassila-Demi K, Aridaki A, Tzitzanidou G, Lekka D, Giotakis K, Karkanias A: Anxiety and family support in patients with cardiovascular diseases, bronchial asthma and COPD. Hippokratia Journal 2006, 10(suppl 1). 8. Ilias I, Hatzimichelakis E, Souvatzoglou A, Anagnostopoulou T, Tselebis A: Perception of family support is correlated with glycemic control in Greeks with diabetes mellitus. Psychol Rep 2001, 88:929-930. 9. Ilias I, Tselebis A, Theotoka I, Hatzimichelakis E: Association of Perceived Family Support through Glycemic Control in Native Patients Managing Diabetes with Diet Alone. Ethn Dis 2004, 14(2). 10. Tselebis A, Karkanias A, Gournas G, Bratis D, Perissaki K: Depression and sense of family support in nursing stuff [in Modern Greek]. Psychiatriki 2004, 15(suppl 1). 11. Bratis D, Tselebis A, Sikaras Ch, Moulou Aik, Giotakis K, Zoumakis E, Ilias I: Alexithymia and its association with burnout, depression and family support among Greek nursing staff. Human Resources for Health 2009, 7:72. 12. George D, Mallery P: SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference 11.0 update. Boston, Allyn & Bacon;, 4 2003. 13. Nunnally JC: Psychometric theory. NY, McGraw Hill;, 2 1978. 14. Beck AT, Steer RA: Manual for the Revised Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation; 1987. 15. Donias S, Demertzis I: Validation of the Beck depression inventory [in Modern Greek]. In 10th Hellenic Congress of Neurology and Psychiatry: 1983; Thessaloniki. Edited by: Varfis G. University Studio Press; 1983:486-492. 16. Spielberger GD, Gorush RL, Lusshene RE: The state - trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970. 17. Liakos A, Giannitsi S: The validity of the Greek modification of the Spielberger anxiety scale [in Modern Greek]. Encephalos 1984, 21:71-76. 18. Holahan CJ, Moos RH: Life stress and health: Personality, coping and family support in stress resistance. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985, 49(3):739-747. 19. Holahan CJ, Moos RH: Personality, coping and family resources in stress resistance: A longitudinal analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986, 51(2):389-395. 20. Tselebis A, Bratis D, Karkanias A, Apostolopoulou E, Moussas G, Gournas G, Ilias I: Associations of burnout dimensions and family support for a sample of Greek nurses. Psychological Reports 2008, 103:63-66. doi:10.1186/1447-056X-10-3 Cite this article as: Tselebis et al.: The 13 item Family Support Scale: Reliability and validity of the Greek translation in a sample of Greek health care professionals. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2011 10:3. Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission • Thorough peer review • No space constraints or color figure charges • Immediate publication on acceptance • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar • Research which is freely available for redistribution Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit

Journal

Asia Pacific Family MedicineSpringer Journals

Published: Apr 13, 2011

References