SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar / 2026 / Cilt: 18 Sayı: Supplement 1 Özel Sayı

Adaptation of the Psychosocial Support Scale to Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study

Psikososyal Destek Ölçeğinin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Hüseyin Zahid Kara(Sakarya Üniversitesi)0000-0003-4503-2703
Hülya Yıldız(SAKARYA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9403-2780
Umut Solmaz(BOLU ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-1112-3041
Zeynep Atalay(SAKARYA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7588-0610
Pages
39–50
Publication Date
2026-10-18
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Its brevity and conceptual clarity make it suitable for evaluating the extent to which individuals perceive psychosocial support from their environment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to adapt the Psychosocial Support Scale, initially developed by Panzeri et al., into Turkish and evaluate its psychometric properties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: The CFA supported the original factor structure, with all items loading significantly onto a single psychosocial support dimension.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Its brevity and conceptual clarity make it suitable for evaluating the extent to which individuals perceive psychosocial support from their environment.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Psikososyal · Destek · Uyarlama

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to adapt the Psychosocial Support Scale, initially developed by Panzeri et al., into Turkish and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: A methodological research design was used, following standard translation and back-translation procedures. After cultural adaptation, data were collected from adults through an online survey. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine whether the original one-dimensional, four-item structure was retained in the Turkish sample. Construct validity and model fit indices served as the primary outcomes. Results: The CFA supported the original factor structure, with all items loading significantly onto a single psychosocial support dimension. The model demonstrated acceptable fit indices (SRMR = .047; CFI = .994; NFI = .982; GFI = .985; TLI = .982; CMIN/DF = 1.447; RMSEA = .067). These findings suggest that the adapted scale accurately reflects the theoretical foundation of the original instrument and is suitable for assessing perceived psychosocial support. The results also demonstrate that the scale offers a concise and practical tool for use in both the general population and research settings. Conclusion: The Turkish adaptation of the Psychosocial Support Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool. Its brevity and conceptual clarity make it suitable for evaluating the extent to which individuals perceive psychosocial support from their environment.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Panzeri ve arkadaşları tarafından geliştirilen Psikososyal Destek Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanmasını ve psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesini amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: Araştırma, standart çeviri ve geri çeviri adımlarını içeren metodolojik bir tasarıma dayanmaktadır. Kültürel uyarlamanın ardından veriler yetişkin katılımcılardan çevrim içi anket yoluyla toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin orijinaldeki tek boyutlu ve dört maddeli yapısının korunup korunmadığını incelemek için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Yapı geçerliliği ve uyum indeksleri temel değerlendirme ölçütleri olarak kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: DFA sonuçları, tüm maddelerin tek bir psikososyal destek boyutuna anlamlı şekilde yüklendiğini göstermiştir. Model uyum indeksleri kabul edilebilir düzeydedir (SRMR = .047; CFI = .994; NFI = .982; GFI = .985; TLI = .982; CMIN/DF = 1.447; RMSEA = .067). Bulgular, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun kuramsal temele uygun olduğunu ve algılanan psikososyal desteğin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir. Ölçek, genel toplum ve araştırma ortamlarında kullanılabilecek kısa ve işlevsel bir araç niteliği taşımaktadır. Sonuç: Psikososyal Destek Ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlaması geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır. Ölçeğin kısa olması ve kavramsal açıdan açık bir yapıya sahip olması, bireylerin çevrelerinden aldıkları psiko-sosyal desteğin değerlendirilmesini kolaylaştırmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kara, H. Z., Yıldız, H., Solmaz, U., Atalay, Z. (2026). Adaptation of the Psychosocial Support Scale to Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, Cilt: 18 Sayı: Supplement 1 Özel Sayı, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1826727

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Afacan E, Demir M (2022) Profesyonel futbolcuların psikososyal (mental) destek gereksinimlerinin araştırılması. Mediterranean Journal of Sport Science, 5(Özel Sayı 1):404-413.
  2. Alpar R (2013) Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik. Ankara, Detay Yayıncılık.
  3. APA (2018a) Psychosocial support. https://dictionary.apa.org/psychosocial-support (Accessed 01.11.2025).
  4. APA (2018b) Social support. https://dictionary.apa.org/social-support (Accessed 01.11.2025).
  5. Arafat SMY, Chowdhury HR, Qusar MS, Hafez MA (2016) Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of research instruments: a methodological review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5:129-136.
  6. Aşık M, Yildirim T (2024) Opinions of psychological counselor and guidance teachers taking work in earthquake psychosocial support works (Malatya province example). Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 14:1-20.
  7. Ayre C, Scally AJ (2014) Critical values for Lawshe's content validity ratio: revisiting the original calculation methods. Meas Eval Couns Dev, 47:79-86.
  8. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL (2018) Best practices for developing and validating health, social, and behavioral research scales: a primer. Front Public Health, 6:e149.
  9. Bolton D (2023) A revitalized biopsychosocial model: core theory, research paradigms, and clinical implications. Psychol Med, 53:7504-7511.
  10. Boz-Semerci A, Tayfur-Ekmekçi Ö (2020) Social support as a predictor of quality of life: Turkish validation of two-way social support scale. Psychol Health Med, 25:13-24.
  11. Bussmann S, Vaganian L, Gerlach AL, Kusch M, Labouvie H, Cwik JC (2023) Screening and assessment for cancer patients' psychosocial support needs: development and validation of the psychosocial risk questionnaire. Eur J Oncol Nurs, 63:102240.
  12. Craig GM, Hajdukova EB, Harding C, Flood C, McCourt C, Sellers D et al. (2020) Psychosocial support for families of children with neurodisability who have or are considering a gastrostomy: the G-PATH mixed-methods study. Health Soc Care Deliv Res, 8(38):1-125.
  13. Çam OM, Arabacı BL (2010) Tutum ölçeği hazırlamada nitel ve nicel adımlar. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi, 2:59-71.
  14. Drageset J (2021) Social support. In Health Promotion in Health Care: Vital Theories and Research (Eds G Haugan, M Eriksson):137-144. Cham, Springer.
  15. Duru E (2007) Re-examination of the psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support among Turkish university students. Soc Behav Pers, 35:443-452.
  16. Düzel B, Sevinçli Bayram C (2024) Bağımlılıkla mücadele öyküsü olan bireylerde psikososyal destek üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Tıbbi Sosyal Hizmet Dergisi, 12:19-40.
  17. Engel GL (1977) The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196:129-136.
  18. Engel GL (2012) The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Psychodyn Psychiatry, 40:377-396.
  19. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2019) Multivariate Data Analysis. Boston, MA, Cengage Learning.
  20. Hjern A (2023) Psychosocial support for refugee parents in well-baby clinics. Acta Paediatr, 112:2460-2461.
  21. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Struct Equ Modeling, 6:1-55.
  22. IASC (2007) IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings. Geneva, Inter-Agency Standing Committee.
  23. IFRC (2009a) IFRC Community Based Psychosocial Support. Participant's Book. Copenhagen, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
  24. IFRC (2009b) Psychosocial Interventions: A Handbook. Copenhagen, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
  25. INEE (2010) Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery. New York, NY, Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies.
  26. INEE (2018) INEE Psikososyal Destek Kılavuzu. New York, NY, Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies.
  27. ITC (2017) The International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests, 2nd ed. https://www.intestcom.org (Accessed 2024).
  28. Johansson G, Hallberg LRM, Pettersson K (2010) The role of pilot studies in instrument development. J Nurs Meas, 18:70-83.
  29. Khan B, Hameed W, Avan BI (2023) Psychosocial support during childbirth: development and adaptation of WHO's mhGAP. PLoS One, 18:e0285209.
  30. Kline RB (2015) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, Guilford Press.
  31. Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol, 28:563-575.
  32. Lingens SP, Schulz H, Bleich C (2021) Evaluations of psychosocial cancer support services: a scoping review. PLoS One, 16:e0251126.
  33. Mağden Ç, Ademhan Ç, Şavur E, Yeniokatan İ, Kılıç M et al. (2008) Afetlerde Psikososyal Destek Uygulama Rehberi. Ankara, Türk Kızılayı.
  34. Meral BF, Cavkaytar A (2013) Çok boyutlu algılanan sosyal destek ölçeği'nin psikometrik özellikleri. e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3:20-32.
  35. Oral M, Tuncay T (2012) Ruh sağlığı alanında sosyal hizmet uzmanlarının rol ve sorumlulukları. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 23:93-114.
  36. Panzeri A, Bettinardi O, Bottesi G, Bertolotti G, Brambatti L, Monfredo M et al. (2023) Assessment of perceived support in emergency: development and validation of the psycho-social support scale. Curr Psychol, 42:22514–22525.
  37. Reynolds CR, Livingston RB, Willson V (2010) Measurement and Assessment in Education. London, UK, Pearson.
  38. Roberts A (2023) The biopsychosocial model: its use and abuse. Med Health Care Philos, 26:367-384.
  39. Russell JE (2004) Mentoring. In Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Ed CD Spielberger): 609-615. London, UK; Academic Press.
  40. Sapnas KG, Zeller RA (2002) Minimizing sample size when using exploratory factor analysis for measurement. J Nurs Meas, 10:135-154.
  41. Sargın N, Demirelli MA (2023) Psikososyal destek ve psikolojik ilk yardım. Current Research and Reviews in Psychology and Psychiatry, 3:81-92.
  42. Saxena A, Paredes-Echeverri S, Michaelis R et al. (2022) Using the biopsychosocial model to guide patient-centered neurological treatments. Semin Neurol, 42:80-87.
  43. Smith RC (2021) Making the biopsychosocial model more scientific. Soc Sci Med, 272:113568.
  44. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2015) Çok Değişkenli İstatistiklerin Kullanımı (Çev. Ed. M. Baloğlu). Ankara, Nobel.
  45. Tavakol M, Wetzel A (2020) Factor analysis: a means for theory and instrument development. Int J Med Educ, 11:245-247.
  46. Tol WA, Le PD, Harrison SL, Annan J, Baingana FK, Betancourt TS et al. (2023) Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings. Lancet Glob Health, 11:e969-e975.
  47. Treanor CJ (2020) Psychosocial support interventions for cancer caregivers. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care, 14:247-262.
  48. UNICEF (2005) UNICEF Programming for Psychosocial Support. New York, NY, UNICEF.
  49. Williamson S (2022) The biopsychosocial model: not dead, but in need of revival. BJPsych Bull, 46:1-3.
  50. Yavrutürk AR (2024) Deprem psikososyal destek çalışmalarında görev alan psikolojik danışmanların deneyimleri. Kapadokya Eğitim Dergisi, 5:196-211.
  51. Yeşilyurt S, Çapraz C (2018) Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için yol haritası. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20:251-264.
  52. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK (1988) The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess, 52:30-41.
  53. Zyphur JM, Bonner VC, Tay L (2023) Structural equation modeling in organizational esearch. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav, 10:495-517.
  54. INEE (2018) INEE Psikososyal Destek Kılavuzu. New York, NY, Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies.