Validation of the social provisions scale in a sample of undergraduate students of social work in Spain

Abstract

Providing validated instruments in higher education on social support perceived by students allows research and improvement of university policies aimed at developing the psychosocial well-being of future social workers. The objective of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the social provisions scale (SPS) in a sample of uniiversity students of social work in Spain. The results obtained through structural equation modeling confirmed the structure of six correlated factors and adequate levels of reliability; and factorial invariance analysis indicates that the SPS remains stable up to the level of metric invariance for the sex variable.

Keywords

College student sex social provisions scale social support validity

Introduction

The restrictions imposed to avoid virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic have had a great impact on university students, since not only were they forced to adapt quickly to a remote or hybrid education, but also the social distancing, the radical transition of routines, and the instability in the learning process had great repercussions on their mental health (Appleby et al., 2022; Arima et al., 2020; Bergantz and Curtis, 2022). COVID-19 has caused personal, emotional, and social losses, and will continue to significantly affect the usual forms of social relationships (Van Bavel et al., 2020).

The changes produced by the COVID-19 pandemic in the personal, social, and academic development of social work students calls for a review of the role of social support as a buffer in the face of stressful or traumatic events, since its predictive capacity in academic motivation has been evidenced (Camacho et al., 2021; Tinajero et al., 2020), and it has been considered as a determining dimension to reduce stress and to cope with academic demands (Stadtfeld et al., 2019). In addition, numerous studies have shown that social support is a predictor of emotional well-being in young people (Chu et al., 2010; Hui et al., 2018; Rueger et al., 2016).

In university populations, low perceptions of social support are associated with mental health-related problems (Bukhari and Afzal, 2017; Safree and Dzulkifli, 2010), and it is a determinant variable in the perception of quality of life (Dafaalla et al., 2016; Alsubaie et al., 2019). In this regard, reduced social interactions, social distancing, lack of social support, and stressors associated with university demands negatively affect mental health (Elmer et al., 2020; Lawrence et al., 2022). In this sense, digital skills are essential for university success, and therefore professional and personal success (López Peláez et al., 2020).

Decreased social contact has greater consequences in psycho-emotional areas linked to loneliness, psychosocial distress, anxiety symptoms, and depression, fear, and life satisfaction (Rogowska et al., 2021). In addition, correlations have been found between perceived lack of social connections and feelings of loneliness and with higher rates of morbidity and mortality (Yanguas et al., 2018). Conversely, social support has been shown to reduce anxiety levels and to buffer feelings of loneliness (Özmete and Pak, 2020; Xu et al., 2020).

The dimension of social support can be conceptualized from two approaches: a global approach that refers to any process through which social relationships can promote health and well-being, and a functional approach that identifies different support processes through which relationships can influence health (Cohen et al., 2000). Based on the previously cited research, social support is a multifaceted construct rooted in the cognitive valuation of the existence of a trusting relationship with others in case of need (Martínez-López et al., 2014), whose bond generates a direct relation in the impact of stressful events in a person’s life (Cohen and Wills, 1985).

The functional approach is based on the theory of social provisions developed by Weiss (1974). According to the author, an important aspect of interpersonal relationships is feeling needed by other people. He describes six different social functions or ‘provisions’ that can be obtained from relationships with others. He argues that all six provisions are necessary for individuals to feel adequately supported and to avoid loneliness, and that some of them are more determinant at different stages of the life cycle. Each of the provisions is usually obtained from a particular type of relationship, but multiple provisions can be obtained from the same person. These provisions are reliable alliance, guidance, attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth, and opportunity for nurturance.

The provisions of Weiss (1974) can be conceptually divided into two broad categories: (1) those related to assistance and (2) those not related to assistance. In the first category, the functions are most directly relevant to problem-solving in the context of stress: guidance (advice or information) and reliable alliance (the assurance that others can be counted on for tangible help). Within the second category, the provision of attachment is associated with emotional proximity and a sense of security with others, and it may come from family or friendship relationships. Social integration refers to the feeling of belonging to a group, providing security, pleasure, and a sense of identity. Reassurance of worth is the recognition by others of our competencies, skills, and qualities. Finally, the opportunity for nurturance refers to the responsibility for the well-being of another person (Cutrona and Russell, 1987; Martínez-López et al., 2014; Weiss, 1974).

Based on this conceptual framework, Cutrona and Russell (1987) designed an instrument to measure social support called the social provisions scale (SPS). Based on this work, several studies have confirmed its appropriateness for assessing the provisions of social support perceived among university students. Internationally, the scale has demonstrated reliability and validity in university academic settings in Canada (Caron, 1996), Turkey (Duru and Balkis, 2007), Iran (Zaki, 2009), Nigeria (Oluwatomiwo, 2015), and the United States (Osmane et al., 2021). In the Spanish context, there is only the study developed by Martínez-López et al. (2014), in which they examine the psychometric properties of the SPS scale in a sample of 885 university students enrolled in the first year of undergraduate studies of 16 degrees at the University of Santiago de Compostela. The findings show that the Spanish version of the SPS is a reliable and valid measure for the assessment of perceived social support in the first-year university population.

Considering both the available evidence and the relevance of the analysis, and measurement of social support in university students, and the lack of international validations of the SPS in social work students, and, in addition, that include the gender variable in the profession (high rates of feminization in social work students), the present study formulated two hypotheses (h). H1: SPS scores will maintain a structure of six correlated factors and adequate levels of reliability in a sample of university students of social work in Spain. H2: SPS scores will be equivalent up to the level of metric invariance according to sex. Based on the previously cited research, the objective of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and factorial structure of the SPS in undergraduate students of social work in Spain.

Method

Participants

Participants were selected by non-probability sampling. The final sample consisted of 619 undergraduate students in social work (88.3% women and 11.7% men), belonging to the Complutense University of Madrid (CUM) and enrolled in the 2020–2021 academic year. Considering the total number of students enrolled in the academic year 2020–2021, the sampling error is +/–2.695 at a confidence level of 95 percent. In relation to the sample profile, the sample was composed of 543 women (87.7%) and 76 men (12.3%). These percentages are consistent with the distribution of students enrolled in the academic program (85% female and 15% male). The mean age is 21.24 years and its distribution by academic year is 32.3 percent (first year), 26.7 percent (second year), 23.7 percent (third year), and 17.3 percent (fourth year), percentages analogous to the enrollment of that academic year.

Instruments

A sociodemographic questionnaire of closed questions was applied in relation to sex, age, and academic year.

On the other hand, the SPS elaborated by Cutrona and Russell (1987) was applied based on the six provisions of perceived social support elaborated by Weiss (1974): reliable alliance (e.g. ‘there are people I can count on whenever I need it’), guidance (e.g. ‘I have someone to talk to about the decisions that affect me’), attachment (e.g. ‘I feel that I do not have very close relationships with other people’), social integration (e.g. ‘I feel that I am part of a group that thinks like me’), reassurance of worth (e.g. ‘there are people who recognize my competencies’), and finally, the opportunity for nurturance (e.g. ‘I feel that I am responsible for the well-being of others’).

The SPS consists of 24 items with a 4-point ordinal response format (1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree). Each provision or dimension is measured by four items assessing presence (two items) or absence (two items). The Spanish adaptation, produced by Martínez-López et al. (2014), has a Cronbach’s α coefficient of .844.

Procedure

For access to the student sample, authorization was requested from the Department of Social Work and the Dean’s Office of the Faculty of Social Work of the Complutense University of Madrid (CUM). Once the ethical authorizations were obtained, the questionnaire was disseminated by the Vice-Deanship of Students by e-mail to all students enrolled in the 2020–2021 academic year. Likewise, the research team requested the participation of the undergraduate professors, who posted the questionnaire on the virtual platforms of their respective subjects. Informed consent was applied prior to completing the questionnaire to safeguard the principles of confidentiality and anonymity, and the students were informed of the purpose of the study. Data were collected between February 26 and May 10, 2021.

A pilot test was applied beforehand to verify the understanding of the instrument and to assess the user’s experience with the online format. This test produced some modifications to the initial format of the questionnaire.

Data analysis

The first stage of the data analysis consisted of estimating descriptive measures: central tendency, dispersion, shape, and an analysis of the uni- and multivariate normality of the questionnaire items. To provide evidence of validity, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed with the software Mplus 7.11 (Muthén and Muthén, 2017), using a polychoric correlation matrix, and, in this case, the method of estimation was weighted least squares with mean and variance (WLSMV; Muthén and Muthén, 2017) adjusted. For the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), values greater than or equal to .90 are considered a reasonable fit (Schumacker and Lomax, 2016), while for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), values below .08 are considered a reasonable fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). Subsequently, a factorial invariance analysis was conducted to evaluate the equivalence of the scale according to sex; this analysis considered the following models (Vandenberg and Lance, 2000): M0 configural (equal number of factors), M1 metric (equal factor loadings) and M2 scalar (equality of thresholds). For the evaluation of invariance, ΔWLSMV-χ² was analyzed; in addition, the recommendations of Chen (2007) were followed, based on the following criteria: ΔCFI ⩽ .010 and ΔRMSEA ⩽ .015 as evidence of invariance. Reliability estimation was performed from the JASP 012.2 software, using the following coefficients: McDonald’s ω, greatest lower bound (GLB), and Cronbach’s α (Green and Yang, 2015; Trizano-Hermosilla et al., 2021).

Results

Descriptive analysis

The descriptive results of the scale items are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, item 7 ‘I have a trusted person to turn to if I have problems’ presented the highest mean (M = 3.61, SD = .682); in contrast, item 22 ‘I feel that I am responsible for the well-being of others’ presented the lowest mean (M = 2.81, SD = .808). In addition, univariate normality was estimated; the results provided by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test allow to reject the null hypothesis of normality (p < .001). Complementarily, the multivariate kurtosis test was estimated, giving results consistent with the univariate tests, rejecting the hypothesis of multivariate normality (multivariate coefficient of kurtosis = 62.183, p < .001).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and univariate normality tests, gathered in February 26 and May 10, 2021 (N = 619).

Item	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	K–S test
1. There are people I can count on whenever I need them	3.57	.668	−1.513	1.949	.395**
2. If something goes wrong, no one helps me	3.43	.798	−1.335	1.096	.355**
3. I can’t turn to anyone when I need it	3.55	.743	−1.743	2.610	.399**
4. There are people I can turn to in difficult times	3.55	.682	−1.454	1.655	.390**
5. I can’t turn to anyone in situations that affect me	3.52	.778	−1.652	2.108	.393**
6. I have someone to talk to about decisions that affect me	3.52	.674	−1.274	1.094	.375**
7. I have a trusted person I can turn to if I have problems	3.61	.682	−1.773	2.702	.422**
8. I don’t feel comfortable talking to anyone about my problems	3.18	.873	−.912	.145	.251**
9. I feel that I do not have very close relationships with other people	3.15	.949	−.818	−.396	.275**
10. My intimate relationships are satisfactory	3.17	.852	−.827	.012	.248**
11. I feel emotionally very close to at least one person	3.47	.757	−1.408	1.473	.363**
12. I do not have a feeling of intimacy with anyone	3.43	.834	−1.377	1.012	.370**
13. There are people who like the same activities as I do	3.20	.701	−.718	.744	.271**
14. I feel that I am part of a group that thinks like me	3.14	.821	−.722	−.033	.240**
15. No one shares my interests and concerns	3.40	.759	−1.092	.554	.330**
16. No one likes to do the same things I like to do	3.42	.706	−.983	.373	.328**
17. Some people do not see me as competent	3.26	.761	−.844	.363	.259**
18. I think that other people do not value my abilities	3.03	.801	−.435	−.427	.244**
19. There are people who recognize my competence	2.97	.721	−.506	.368	.309**
20. There are people who admire my abilities	2.88	.749	−.375	−.020	.297**
21. There are people who come to me for help	3.15	.627	−.394	.620	.324**
22. I feel that I am responsible for the well-being of others	2.81	.808	−.222	−.490	.255**
23. No one shares their well-being concerns with me	3.35	.775	−.907	−.074	.319**
24. No one needs my care	3.19	.795	−.748	.029	.244**

K–S test: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

= p < .001.

Confirmatory factor analysis

To study the stability of the factorial structure, two alternative CFA models were estimated with the 24 items of the SPS. The first model considered a unidimensional structure; the results provided an unsatisfactory fit: WLSMV-χ² (df = 252) = 1421.387, p < .001; CFI = .892; TLI = .881; RMSEA = .087 (IC90% = .082–.081). The second model considered a model of six correlated factors; the results showed a satisfactory fit: WLSMV-χ² (df = 237) = 919.780, p < .001; CFI = .937; TLI = .926; RMSEA = .068 (IC90% = .064–.073). From these results, it is possible to indicate that the model of six correlated factors is the best fit to the data (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The path diagram of social provisions scale (N = 619).

Factorial invariance

Once the factorial structure of six correlated factors of the SPS was confirmed, a factorial invariance analysis (Table 2) was conducted according to sex (female and male). The first model tested was configural invariance (M0), which obtained satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, allowing to conclude that the factorial structure of the SPS is the same between men and women. Subsequently, the metric invariance model (M1), which imposes restrictions on the factor loadings, was tested. This second model presented satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, showing that there are no statistically significant differences between the M1 and M0 models; therefore, the factor loadings are equivalent between men and women. Finally, a third model called scalar invariance (M2), which imposes restrictions on the thresholds, was tested. The results show that there are no differences between M2 and M1, so that, it can be concluded that the thresholds are equivalent between men and women.

Table 2.

Factorial invariance models of social provisions scale.

Model	WLSMV-χ² (gl)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	Comp.	ΔWLSMV-χ²	Δgl	p (ΔWLSMV-χ²)	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
1. M0	1116.143 (474)	.939	.929	.066
2. M1	820.687 (492)	.969	.965	.046	2 vs 1	16.788	18	.5377	.003	−.02
3. M2	849.042 (534)	.970	.969	.044	3 vs 2	28.356	42	.9468	.001	−.002

CFI: comparative fit index, TLI: Tucker–Lewis index, RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation, WLSMV: weighted least squares with mean and variance.

Comparative models for the sex variable, gathered in February 26 and May 10, 2021 (N = 619).

Reliability

Table 3 presents the reliability evidence for SPS, considering the model of six correlated factors. The results indicate a high reliability for each factor, highlighting the reliable alliance factor with a GLB value equal to .878; in contrast, the opportunity for nurturance factor has a GLB value equal to .699.

Table 3.

Evidence of reliability for the social provisions scale, for the model of six correlated factors, gathered in February 26 and May 10, 2021 (N = 619).

Factors	McDonald’s ω	Cronbach’s α	Greatest lower bound
Reliable alliance	.814	.814	.878
Guidance	.782	.772	.809
Attachment	.729	.716	.755
Social integration	.794	.792	.864
Reassurance of worth	.811	.809	.864
Opportunity for nurturance	.581	.564	.699

Discussion

The study presented aimed to analyze the psychometric properties of the SPS in a sample of CUM social work students enrolled during the 2021–2022 academic year. The results obtained confirm hypothesis 1, which stated that the SPS scores would maintain a structure of six correlated factors and adequate reliability levels. The results obtained from the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) support the original model developed by Cutrona and Russell (1987) based on the theoretical model of social provisions developed by Weiss (1974). Likewise, the internal consistency indicators obtained for each dimension were satisfactory and similar to those obtained in previous research (Martínez-López et al., 2014; Moreira et al., 2002). These results provide psychometric evidence of the SPS as a reliable and appropriate instrument for use with undergraduate students of social work in Spain.

In relation to hypothesis 2, which stated that the SPS scores would be equivalent up to the level of metric invariance according to sex, the results obtained support this hypothesis. These results are presented coincide with previous studies that evidence that female students perceive higher levels of social support than male students (Kugbey, 2015), and this may be due to the greater ability of women to seek help (Tahmasbipoura and Taheri, 2012). Ultimately, women tend to have greater vulnerability to personal and environmental stressors; however, they tend to make better use of social support to cope with such situations (Camara and Padilla, 2017; Rose and Rudolph, 2006).

In relation to the university context, the analysis of social support according to its functions is crucial to identify the specific components of support that may facilitate elements in the adaptation and academic development of university students (Martínez-López et al., 2014). Studies of social work students in the United Kingdom indicate that students who reported higher levels of social support presented higher levels of well-being (Coffey et al., 2014). The effectiveness of social support depends, to a large extent, on the capacity of social provisions to respond to the particular needs of each subject in the face of stressful events (Cutrona and Russell, 1990).

Cohen and Wills (1985) first reported the direct relation between social support and the personal impact of stressful life events, in the sense that social support has a buffering effect on the impact experienced by individuals. In this line, there is a large body of research that places social support as a socio-personal variable that reduces anxiety and distress levels (Wang et al., 2018), especially in young people and adolescents, reducing stress and anger and, in addition, facilitating the increase of self-confidence and self-esteem (Hui et al., 2018).

Social work students face a series of stressors different from those of the general undergraduate population (Stanley and Buvaneswari, 2022), linked to the impact of the curricular theoretical-practical content required for professional practice (González et al., 2022). In this sense, university internships to obtain a degree in social work have been recognized as an important stressor (Maidment, 2003). It should be noted that there is abundant literature on the high stress levels of social work professionals (Coffey et al., 2014; McFadden et al., 2017; Ravalier, 2019). However, research on this subject is scarcer with university students (Collins et al., 2010; Kinman and Grant, 2010), among whom high levels of stress are also evidenced.

Academic stress can reduce academic performance and motivation (Pascoe et al., 2020) being a construct that strongly influences academic motivation and competence (Owens et al., 2020; Zaccoletti et al., 2020). This has been confirmed in the recent social and health crisis caused by COVID-19, in which social support was shown to be a protective and/or buffering construct against anxiety, stress, and fear caused by the pandemic situation in university students (Ye et al., 2020). In addition, previous research on social support, depression, and well-being has determined the importance of social support as a predictor of emotional well-being and mental health in young people (Chu et al., 2010; Rueger et al., 2016), as well as a defining variable in professional interventions around mental health after COVID-19 (Saltzman et al., 2020). Also, social support has demonstrated a positive relation with quality of life and emotional balance by providing feelings of belonging and connectedness to others (Alsubaie et al., 2019).

On another note, two key issues of the idiosyncrasy of the profession in relation to social support should be mentioned. The first is based on the recurrent stressful experiences of professional intervention, which entails high levels of burnout (Lloyd et al., 2002), with social support being a dimension that reduces this situation (De la Fuente and Sánchez, 2012). Burnout is linked to professions that establish continuous helping relationships with people (Freudenberger, 1974). Social work professionals play a key role in the lives of some people in situations of vulnerability and psychosocial exclusion (Ravalier et al., 2021), and the constant exposure to working in direct contact with people’s suffering and pain often leads to high levels of burnout. In the university setting, stress management should be considered as a solid basis for coping with future professional practice. Social workers, in their role supporting people in need, require specific programs that provide them with adequate assistance to reduce stress and foster their own well-being (Ravalier, 2019).

The second issue has to do with the feminization of the profession, and despite the fact that, as previously mentioned, female students perceive higher levels of social support, their stress levels are higher than men’s. The professional reality requires interventions aimed at improving their professional and personal well-being. In this regard, and considering that there is a higher prevalence of depressive disorders in women (Boyd et al., 2015; Van de Velde et al., 2010), social support becomes a central element in protecting the health of this group. This is especially relevant in highly feminized fields, such as social work.

Based on the previous considerations, the analysis of social support in social work students has become a relevant dimension of analysis during the last decades (Scheffert et al., 2021; Wilks, 2008). Beyond the stressful events linked to university life (Dyson and Renk, 2006), the vocational profile of social work students in relation to the provision of support, the feminization of the discipline, and the high levels of burnout present in the profession, make social support a central dimension from a theoretical and empirical point of view. In order for future social work professionals to be able to provide social support to the people they work with, it is relevant to know their perception of the social support they receive themselves, with the aim of improving their personal, social, emotional, and academic experience.

In summary, despite the existence of multiple instruments to assess social support in university students, none of them had been validated from the functional perspective of social provisions of Weiss (1974) for social work students. The reliability shown by the SPS in each of the six dimensions is satisfactory, providing the academic and research community with a new validated instrument for undergraduate students in social work.

However, it would be interesting at present, based on the importance of digital competencies in the personal well-being of students (Castillo de Mesa et al., 2020), and, therefore, with their satisfaction with perceived social support, to create new instruments where digital competence could be assessed as a dimension of the construct of perceived social support.

This study has possible implications for the development of programs aimed at undergraduate students in social work, in relation to the desirability of increasing opportunities for the creation of support groups and influencing the nature of the support available to students. Such issues would be effective investments, not only during the university period, but also as a basis for facing professional practice. We agree with Stanley and Buvaneswari (2022), that social work training should focus more explicitly on the development of tools and skills in the management of stressful situations derived from professional interventions as a key issue of social work education.

In future studies, it would be interesting to analyze the psychometric properties of the SPS in social work students from different public and private universities in the Spanish and international context, and to assess the predictive capacity of its scores with variables, such as academic performance, stress, or academic satisfaction. Likewise, it would be of great interest to analyze these psychometric properties in the professional setting and to examine the predictive capacity of its scores with variables, such as burnout.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

David González Casas

Ana Isabel Dorado Barbé

Esther Mercado García

José Luis Gálvez Nieto

IRB Approval

For access to the student sample, authorization was requested from the Department of Social Work and the Dean’s Office of the Faculty of Social Work of the CUM. Once the ethical authorizations were obtained, the questionnaire was disseminated by the Vice-Deanship of Students by e-mail to all students enrolled in the 2020–2021 academic year. However, all research was conducted in accordance with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA 2017). Good ethical practice was rigorously maintained throughout the process; participants were informed about the purpose of the study; participants gave informed consent as a mandatory requirement to fill out the questionnaire online; data were anonymized; privacy of information was guaranteed, and data were securely stored in protected files to ensure only accessibility by the research team. The procedure carried out for the application of the questionnaire was to send it online to the social, professional and academic networks of the research team. The application period was between February 26th and May 10th, 2021.

Author biographies

David González Casas is a Professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Services, Faculty of Social Work, Complutense University of Madrid. His research interests are social support and quality of life.

Ana Isabel Dorado Barbé is a Professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Services, Faculty of Social Work, Complutense University of Madrid. Her research interests are emotional well-being and education.

Esther Mercado García is a Professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Services, Faculty of Social Work, Complutense University of Madrid. Her research interests are well-being and participation.

José Luis Gálvez-Nieto is an Associate Professor of the Department of Social Work of the Universidad de La Frontera, Chile. His research lines include measurement in social sciences and school climate.

References

Alsubaie

Stain

Webster

LAD

, et al (2019) The role of sources of social support on depression and quality of life for university students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 24(4): 484–496.

Appleby

King

Saunders

, et al (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the experience and mental health of university students studying in Canada and the UK: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 12(1): e050187.

Arima

Takamiya

Furuta

, et al (2020) Factors associated with the mental health status of medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in Japan. BMJ Open 10(12): e043728.

Bavel

Baicker

Boggio

. et al. (2020) Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav 4, 460–471.

Bergantz

Curtis

(2022) COVID anxiety and stress in higher Ed (CASH). Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence 5(3): 55–66.

Boyd

Van de Velde

Vilagut

, et al (2015) Gender differences in mental disorders and suicidality in Europe: Results from a large cross-sectional population-based study. Journal of Affective Disorders 173: 245–254.

Browne

Cudeck

(1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen

Long

(eds) Testing Structural Equation Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 136–162.

Bukhari

Afzal

(2017) Perceived social support predicts psychological problems among university students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology 4(2): 2349–3429.

Camacho

Correia

Zaccoletti

, et al (2021) Anxiety and social support as predictors of student academic motivation during the COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 1894.

10.

Camara

Padilla

(2017) The role of social support in adolescents: Are you helping me or stressing me out? International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 22(2): 123–136.

11.

Caron

(1996) L’Echelle de provisions sociales: Une validation québécoise [The scale of social provisions: Their validation in Quebec]. Sante Ment Que 21(2): 158–180.

12.

Castillo de Mesa

Gómez-Jacinto

López Peláez

, et al (2020) Social networking sites and youth transition: The use of Facebook and personal well-being of social work young graduates. Front. Psychol 11: 230.

13.

Chen

(2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14(3): 464–504.

14.

Chu

Saucier

Hafner

(2010) Meta-analysis of the relationships between social support and well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 29(6): 624–645.

15.

Coffey

Samuel

Collins

, et al (2014) A comparative study of social work students in India and the UK: Stress, support and well-being. British Journal of Social Work 44: 163–180.

16.

Cohen

Wills

(1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin 98: 310–357.

17.

Cohen

Gottlieb

Underwood

(2000) Social relationships and health. In: Cohen

Underwood

Gottlieb

(eds) Measuring and Intervening in Social Support. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–25.

18.

Collins

Coffey

Morris

(2010) Social work students: Stress, support and well-being. British Journal of Social Work 40(3): 963–982.

19.

Cutrona

Russell

(1987) The provisions of social relationship and adaptation to stress. In: Jones

Perlman

(eds) Advances in Personal Relationships. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 37–67.

20.

Cutrona

Russell

(1990) Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In: Sarason

Sarason

Pierce

(eds) Social Support: An Interactional View. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 319–366.

21.

Dafaalla

Farah

Bashir

, et al (2016) Depression, anxiety, and stress in sudanese medical students: A cross sectional study on role of quality of life and social support. American Journal of Educational Research 4(13): 937–942.

22.

De la Fuente

Sánchez

(2012) Trabajo social, síndrome de estar quemado por el trabajo y malestar psíquico: Un estudio empírico en una muestra de trabajadores sociales de la Comunidad de Madrid. Portularia 12: 121–130.

23.

Duru

Balkis

(2007) Psychometric characteristics of social provision scale: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal 3(27): 79–90.

24.

Dyson

Renk

(2006) Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62(10): 1231–1244.

25.

Elmer

Mepham

Stadtfeld

(2020) Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS ONE 15(7): e0236337.

26.

Freudenberger

(1974) Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues 30: 159–165.

27.

González

Dorado

Mercado

, et al (2022) Psychometric examination of the Freshman Stress Questionnaire using a sample of social work students in Spain during the Covid-19 pandemic. British Journal of Social Work 52(8): 4703–4720.

28.

Green

Yang

(2015) Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 34(4): 14–20.

29.

Hui

Yuen

Chen

(2018) Career adaptability, self-esteem, and social support among Hong Kong University students. The Career Development Quarterly 66(2): 94–106.

30.

Kinman

Grant

(2010) Exploring stress resilience in trainee social workers: The role of emotional and social competences. British Journal of Social Work 41(2): 61–275.

31.

Kugbey

(2015) The influence of social support on the levels of depression, anxiety and stress among students in Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice 6(25): 135–140.

32.

Lawrence

Garcia

Stewart

, et al (2022) The mental and behavioral health impact of COVID-19 stay at home orders on social work students. Social Work Education 41(4): 707–721.

33.

Lloyd

King

Chenoweth

(2002) Social work, stress and burnout: A review. Journal of Mental Health 11(3): 255–265.

34.

López Peláez

Erro-Garcés

Gómez- Ciriano

(2020) Young people, social workers and social work education: The role of digital skills. Social Work Educatión 39(6): 825–842.

35.

Martínez-López

Fernández

Couñago

, et al (2014) Apoyo social en universitarios españoles de primer año: Propiedades psicométricas del Social Support Questionnaire-Short Form y el Social Provisions Scale. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología 46(2): 102–110.

36.

McFadden

Mallett

Leiter

(2017) Extending the two-process model of burnout in child protection workers: The role of resilience in mediating burnout via organizational factors of control, values, fairness, reward, workload, and community relationships. Stress and Health 34(1): 72–83.

37.

Moreira

Andrez

Moleiro

, et al (2002) Questionário de apoio social (Versão portuguesa do ‘Social support questionnaire’): Tradução e estudos de validade. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 13(1): 55–70.

38.

Muthén

(2017) Mplus User’s Guide (8th edn). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.

39.

Oluwatomiwo

(2015) Development and validation of social provision scale on first year undergraduate psychological adjustment. Journal of Education and Practice 6(28): 78–90.

40.

Osmane

Brennan

Dolan

(2021) Understanding and assessing construct validity of the Social Provisions Scale: Implications for youth development. Journal of Youth Development 16: 183–201.

41.

Owens

Allan

Kassab

, et al (2020) Evaluating a short form of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales: Expanded examination of psychometric properties. School Mental Health 12: 38–52.

42.

Özmete

Pak

(2020) The relationship between anxiety levels and perceived social support during the pandemic of COVID-19 in Turkey. Social Work in Public Health 35(7): 603–616.

43.

Pascoe

Hetrick

Parker

(2020) The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25(1): 104–112.

44.

Ravalier

(2019) Psycho-social working conditions and stress in UK social workers. British Journal of Social Work 49: 371–390.

45.

Ravalier

Wainwright

Clabburn

, et al (2021) Working conditions and wellbeing in UK social workers. Journal of Social Work 21(5): 1105–1123.

46.

Rogowska

Ochnik

Kuśnierz

, et al (2021) Satisfaction with life among university students from nine countries: Cross-national study during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 21: 2262.

47.

Rose

Rudolph

(2006) A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin 132(1): 98–131.

48.

Rueger

Malecki

Pyun

, et al (2016) A meta-analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin 142(10): 1017–1067.

49.

Safree

Dzulkifli

(2010) The relationship between social support and psychological problems among students. International Journal of Business and Social Science 1: 110–116.

50.

Saltzman

Hansel

Bordnick

(2020) Loneliness, isolation, and social support factors in post-COVID-19 mental health. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 12(S1): S55.

51.

Scheffert

Parrish

Harris

(2021) Factors associated with social work students’ academic stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey. Journal of Social Work Education 57(Suppl. 1): 182–193.

52.

Schumacker

Lomax

(2016) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (4th edn). New York: Routledge.

53.

Stadtfeld

Vörös

Elmer

, et al (2019) Integration in emerging social networks explains academic failure and success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(3): 792–797.

54.

Stanley

Buvaneswari

(2022) Do stress and coping influence resilience in social work students? A longitudinal and comparative study from India. International Social Work 65(5): 927–940.

55.

Tahmasbipoura

Taheri

(2012) A survey on the relation between social support and mental health in students Shahid Rajaee University. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 47: 475–479.

56.

Tinajero

Martinez-Lopez

Rodriguez

, et al (2020) Perceived social support as a predictor of academic success in Spanish university students. Anales de Psicología 36(1): 134–142.

57.

Trizano-Hermosilla

Gálvez-Nieto

Alvarado

, et al (2021) Reliability estimation in multidimensional scales: Comparing the bias of six estimators in measures with a bifactor structure. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 2089.

58.

Van de Velde

Bracke

Levecque

, et al (2010) Gender differences in depression in 25 European countries after eliminating measurement bias in the CES-D 8. Social Science Research 39(3): 396–404.

59.

Vandenberg

Lance

(2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3: 4–70.

60.

Wang

Mann

Lloyd-Evans

, et al (2018) Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 18(1): 1–16.

61.

Weiss

(1974) The provisions of social relationships. In: Rubin

(ed.) Doing Unto Others: Joining, Molding, Conforming, Helping, Loving. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 17–26.

62.

Wilks

(2008) Resilience amid academic stress: The moderating impact of social support among social work students. Advances in Social Work 9(2): 106–125.

63.

Luo

, et al (2020) Perceived social support protects lonely people against COVID-19 anxiety: A three-wave longitudinal study in China. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 566965.

64.

Yanguas

Pinazo-Henandis

Tarazona-Santabalbina

(2018) The complexity of loneliness. Acta Biomedica 89(2): 302–314.

65.

Yang

Zeng

, et al (2020) Resilience, social support, and coping as mediators between COVID-19-related stressful experiences and acute stress disorder among college students in China. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being 12(4): 1074–1094.

66.

Zaccoletti

Camacho

Correia

, et al (2020) Parents’ perceptions of student academic motivation during the COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-country comparison. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 592–670.

67.

Zaki

(2009) Reliability and validity of the Social Provision Scale (SPS) in the students of Isfahan University. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology 14(4): 439–446.