Validation of the 10-Item Social Provision Scale (SPS-10): Evaluating Factor Structure,Reliability,Measurement Invariance,and Nomological Network Across 38 Countries
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2025
Validation of the 10-Item Social Provision Scale (SPS-10): Evaluating Factor Structure,Reliability,Measurement Invariance,and Nomological Network Across 38 Countries
The 24-item Social Provision Scale is among the most frequently used self-report scales to assess perceived social support. A shortened 10-item version (SPS-10) with promising psychometric properties has been proposed. However, so far only a few studies in specific cultural contexts investigated its psychometric properties. Thus, the aim of the current study was an extensive investigation of the psychometric properties of the SPS-10 among 38 countries (N = 88,857 respondents) using the COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey data. Item response theory bifactor analysis revealed that the general factor accounts for the largest part of the covariance among the items in all countries (explained common variance ≥ .75) and that the mean/sum score of the SPS-10 can be used as a total score of perceived general social support. Reliability was high for all countries (ρunidimensional GRM ≥ .89). Measurement invariance and differential item/test functioning analysis of the unidimensional graded response model indicated negligible differential test functioning across countries. The association with the external criteria mainly supported its construct validity. The SPS-10 is a psychometrically sound measure of perceived social support for large-scale cross-cultural studies.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2023). Multiple group alignment for exploratory and structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 30(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2127100
3.
BarańczukU. (2019). The Five Factor Model of personality and social support: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.002
4.
BarreraM.Jr. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(4), 413–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00922627
5.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
6.
BoerD.HankeK.HeJ. (2018). On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: A review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(5), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117749042
7.
CamposB.KimH. S. (2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000122
8.
CaronJ. (2013). Une validation de la forme abrégée de l’Échelle de provisions sociales: l’ÉPS-10 items [A validation of the social provisions scale: The SPS-10 items]. Santé Mentale Québec, 38(1), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.7202/1019198ar
9.
ChalmersR. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
CooperC. (2019). Psychological testing: Theory and practice. Routledge.
14.
CornwellB.LaumannE. O.SchummL. P. (2008). The social connectedness of older adults: A national profile. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240807300201
15.
CutronaC. E.RussellD. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In JonesH.PearlmanD. (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships. A research annual (pp. 37–67). Jai Press.
DepaoliS.TiemensmaJ.FeltJ. M. (2018). Assessment of health surveys: Fitting a multidimensional graded response model. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 23(Suppl. 1), 1299–1317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2018.1447136
18.
DubéJ. P.SmithM. M.SherryS. B.HewittP. L.StewartS. H. (2021). Suicide behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis of 54 studies. Psychiatry Research, 301, 113998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113998
19.
ErnstM.NiedererD.WernerA. M.CzajaS. J.MiktonC.OngA. D.RosenT.BrählerE.BeutelM. E. (2022). Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 77(5), 660–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001005
20.
FrankC.LeeJ. E.ZamorskiM. A. (2021). Family snapshot: Characteristics of the economic and social environment and their associations with mental health in Canadian military personnel with a history of deployment. Current Psychology, 40, 4394–4405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00357-z
21.
GarridoL. E.AbadF. J.PonsodaV. (2013). A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030005
22.
GolinoH.ChristensenA. P. (2022). EGAnet: Exploratory graph analysis–a framework for estimating the number of dimensions in multivariate data using network psychometrics (R package version 1.1.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=EGAnet
23.
GolinoH.ShiD.ChristensenA. P.GarridoL. E.NietoM. D.SadanaR.ThiyagarajanJ. A.Martinez-MolinaA. (2020). Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000255
24.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
GroskurthK.BluemkeM.LechnerC. M. (2024). Why we need to abandon fixed cutoffs for goodness-of-fit indices: An extensive simulation and possible solutions. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 3891–3914. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02193-3
27.
HaberM. G.CohenJ. L.LucasT.BaltesB. B. (2007). The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9
28.
HallquistM. N.WileyJ. F. (2018). MplusAutomation: An R package for facilitating large-scale latent variable analyses in Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(4), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334
29.
HanE.TanM. M. J.TurkE.SridharD.LeungG. M.ShibuyaK.. . .Legido-QuigleyH. (2020). Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: An analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe. The Lancet, 396(10261), 1525–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32007-9
30.
HanK.ColarelliS. M.WeedN. C. (2019). Methodological and statistical advances in the consideration of cultural diversity in assessment: A critical review of group classification and measurement invariance testing. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1481–1496. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000731
31.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SörbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195-216). Scientific Software International.
32.
HeinzA.SischkaP. E.CatundaC.CosmaA.García-MoyaI.LyyraN.. . .PickettW. (2022). Item response theory and differential test functioning analysis of the HBSC-symptom-checklist across 46 countries. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1), Article 253. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01698-3
33.
HilbrechtM.MockS. E. (2019). Low-risk, moderate-risk, and recreational gambling among older adults: Self-complexity as a buffer for quality of life. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 14, 1205–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9648-6
34.
HoutsC. R.SavordA.WirthR. J. (2022). Overview of modern measurement theory and examples of its use to measure execution function in children. Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40817-021-00117-7
35.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
36.
HughesM. E.WaiteL. J.HawkleyL. C.CacioppoJ. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574
37.
IapichinoE.RucciP.CorbaniI. E.ApterG.BollaniM. Q.CauliG.GalaC.BassiM. (2016). Development and validation of an abridged version of the Social Provisions Scale (SPS-10) in Italian. Journal of Psychopathology, 22, 157–163.
38.
Indoumou PeppeC.AltintasE.Ngoma VoumbiE.GuerrienA. (2018). Personality, relationships with others and psychological well-being: A pilot study on the Gabonese older people. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 1965–1979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9900-z
39.
JiménezM.AbadF. J.Garcia-GarzonE.GolinoH.ChristensenA. P.GarridoL. E. (2023). Dimensionality assessment in bifactor structures with multiple general factors: A network psychometrics approach. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000590
40.
KangT.ChenT. T. (2011). Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for the graded response model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9082-4
Kent de GreyR. G.UchinoB. N.TrettevikR.CronanS.HoganJ. N. (2018). Social support and sleep: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 37(8), 787–798. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000628
43.
KimE. S.CaoC.WangY.NguyenD. T. (2017). Measurement invariance testing with many groups: A comparison of five approaches. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(4), 524–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1304822
44.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
45.
LangF. R.JohnD.LüdtkeO.SchuppJ.WagnerG. G. (2011). Short assessment of the Big Five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z
46.
LieberothA.LinS. Y.StöckliS.HanH.KowalM.GelpiR.. . .DubrovD. (2021). Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: Relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey. Royal Society Open Science, 8(2), 200589. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200589
LinM.HirschfeldG.MargrafJ. (2019). Brief form of the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU K-6): Validation, norms, and cross-cultural measurement invariance in the USA, Germany, Russia, and China. Psychological Assessment, 31(5), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000686
49.
LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford press.
50.
LubbeD. (2019). Parallel analysis with categorical variables: Impact of category probability proportions on dimensionality assessment accuracy. Psychological Methods, 24(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000171
51.
LuoF.Ghanei GheshlaghR.DalvandS.SaedmoucheshiS.LiQ. (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of fear of COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 661078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661078
52.
MaitreJ.Bergeron-LeclercC.MaltaisD.GabouryS. (2023). Investigating anxiety levels in the Quebec university community during the COVID-19 pandemic using machine learning and data exploration techniques. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82, 46109–46127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-16096-0
53.
ManciniJ. A.BliesznerR. (1992). Social provisions in adulthood: Concept and measurement in close relationships. Journal of Gerontology, 47(1), P14–P20. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.1.P14
54.
MarkonK. E. (2018). Reconciling information and reliability in scaling local measurement precision: A comment on O’Connor (2017). Psychological Assessment, 30(8), 1004–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000548
55.
MarshH. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810
56.
MatthewsS.StansfeldS.PowerC. (1999). Social support at age 33: The influence of gender, employment status and social class. Social Science & Medicine, 49(1), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00122-7
57.
MiW.GouZ.MaZ. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the 10-item social provisions scale in Chinese populations. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-023-10047-7
58.
MillerK. J.MesagnoC.McLarenS.GraceF.YatesM.GomezR. (2019). Exercise, mood, self-efficacy, and social support as predictors of depressive symptoms in older adults: Direct and interaction effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02145
59.
MonroeS.CaiL. (2015). Evaluating structural equation models for categorical outcomes: A new test statistic and a practical challenge of interpretation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(6), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1032398
60.
MuthénB.AsparouhovT. (2014). IRT studies of many groups: The alignment method. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00978
61.
MuthénB.KaplanD.HollisM. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52(3), 431–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294365
62.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén and Muthén.
63.
NisbetJ.JamshidiL.AndrewsK. L.StewartS. H.ShieldsR. E.TeckchandaniT. A.. . .CarletonR. N. (2023). Mental health and social support among Royal Canadian Mounted Police cadets. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1092334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1092334
64.
O’ConnorB. P. (2018a). An illustration of the effects of fluctuations in test information on measurement error, the attenuation of effect sizes, and diagnostic reliability. Psychological Assessment, 30(8), 991–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000471
65.
O’ConnorB. P. (2018b). Clarifications regarding test information and reliability, and new methods for estimating attenuation due to measurement error: Reply to Markon (2018). Psychological Assessment, 30(8), 1010–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000632
66.
OrpanaH. M.LangJ. J.YurkowskiK. (2019). Validation of a brief version of the Social Provisions Scale using Canadian national survey data. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice, 39(12), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.39.12.02
67.
PereraH. N. (2016). Construct validity of the Social Provisions Scale: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Assessment, 23(6), 720–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115589344
68.
PierceG. R.LakeyB.SarasonI. G.JosephH. J. (1997). Personality and social support processes: A conceptual overview. In PierceG. R.LakeyB.SarasonI. G.SarasonB. R. (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality (pp. 3–18). Plenum Press.
69.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
70.
ReinwarthA. C.PetersenJ.BeutelM. E.HautzingerM.BrählerE. (2024). Social support in older adults: Validation and norm values of a brief form of the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU K-6). PLOS ONE, 19(3), Article e0299467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299467
71.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW.HavilandM. G. (2018). Bifactor modelling and the evaluation of scale scores. In IrwingP.BoothT.HughesD. J. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing (pp. 675–707). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489772.ch22
72.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
73.
ReiseS. P.CookK. F.MooreT. M. (2015). Evaluating the impact of multidimensionality on unidimensional item response theory model parameters. In ReiseS. P.RevickiD. A. (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling (pp. 13–40). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315736013-11
74.
ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.WidamanK. F.HavilandM. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
75.
RevelleW. (2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 2.3.6). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
76.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016a). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
77.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016b). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
78.
RoyR.SommerJ. L.BoltonJ. M.El-GabalawyR. (2021). Understanding correlates of suicidality among those with usual pain and discomfort: A Canadian nationally representative study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 151, 110651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110651
79.
ScarderaS.PerretL. C.Ouellet-MorinI.GariépyG.JusterR. P.BoivinM.. . .GeoffroyM. C. (2020). Association of social support during adolescence with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in young adults. JAMA Network Open, 3(12), e2027491–e2027491. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27491
80.
SchwarzerR.KnollN.RieckmannN. (2004). Social support. In KapteinA.WeinmanJ. (Eds.), Introduction to health psychology (pp. 283–293). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00414-1
81.
ShorE.RoelfsD. J.YogevT. (2013). The strength of family ties: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of self-reported social support and mortality. Social Networks, 35(4), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.08.004
82.
SiedleckiK. L.SalthouseT. A.OishiS.JeswaniS. (2014). The relationship between social support and subjective well-being across age. Social Indicators Research, 117, 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0361-4
83.
SischkaP. E.CostaA. P.SteffgenG.SchmidtA. F. (2020). The WHO-5 well-being index–validation based on item response theory and the analysis of measurement invariance across 35 countries. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 1, 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2020.100020
84.
SischkaP. E.GrübbelL.ReisingerC.NeufangK.SchmidtA. F. (2024). On dimensionality, suitability of sum/mean scores, and cross-country measurement invariance of the Perceived Stress Scale 10 (PSS-10). Evidence from 41 countries. International Journal of Stress Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000330
85.
SischkaP. E.SchmidtA. F.SteffgenG. (2024). COVID—19 countermeasures at the workplace, psychological well—being, and mental health—a nationally representative latent class analysis of Luxembourgish employees. Current Psychology, 43(14), 13202–13218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03377-4
86.
SpeedD.BarryC.CragunR. (2020). With a little help from my (Canadian) friends: Health differences between minimal and maximal religiosity/spirituality are partially mediated by social support. Social Science & Medicine, 265, 113387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113387
87.
SteigenA. M.BerghD. (2019). The Social Provisions Scale: Psychometric properties of the SPS-10 among participants in nature-based services. Disability and Rehabilitation, 41(14), 1690–1698. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1434689
88.
StrongeS.OverallN. C.SibleyC. G. (2019). Gender differences in the associations between relationship status, social support, and wellbeing. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(7), 819–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000540
89.
SuY.D’ArcyC.LiM.MengX. (2022). Determinants of life satisfaction and self-perceived health in nationally representative population-based samples, Canada, 2009 to 2018. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(6), 3285–3310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-022-10065-9
90.
TaberS. M. (2010). The veridicality of children’s reports of parenting: A review of factors contributing to parent–child discrepancies. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.014
91.
TolandM. D. (2014). Practical guide to conducting an item response theory analysis. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(1), 120–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613511332
92.
TolandM. D.SulisI.GiambonaF.PorcuM.CampbellJ. M. (2017). Introduction to bifactor polytomous item response theory analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.001
93.
TomaiM.LauriolaM.CaputoA. (2019). Are social support and coping styles differently associated with adjustment to cancer in early and advanced stages?Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/2019.7.1983
94.
UchinoB. N.TrettevikR.KentdeGreyR. G.CronanS.HoganJ.BaucomB. R. W. (2018). Social support, social integration, and inflammatory cytokines: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 37(5), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000594
95.
UdayarS.UrbanaviciuteI.RossierJ. (2020). Perceived social support and Big Five personality traits in middle adulthood: A 4-year cross-lagged path analysis. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15, 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9694-0
96.
Van GroenouM. I. B.Van TilburgT. (2003). Network size and support in old age: Differentials by socio-economic status in childhood and adulthood. Ageing & Society, 23(5), 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X0300134X
97.
WangY.ChungM. C.WangN.YuX.KenardyJ. (2021). Social support and posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 85, 101998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101998
98.
WeissR. (1974). The provision of social relationships. In RubinZ. (Ed.), Doing unto others: Joining, molding, conforming, helping, loving (pp. 17–26). Prentice Hall.
99.
WellsC. S.HambletonR. K. (2016). Model fit with residual analyses. In van der LindenW. J. (Ed.), Handbook of item response theory, volume 2: Statistical tools (pp. 395–413). CRC Press.
100.
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2. Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
101.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL. D. A.FrançoisR.. . .YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
102.
WidamanK. F.FerrerE.CongerR. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x
103.
WillsT. A.ShinarO. (2000). Measuring perceived and received social support. In CohenS.UnderwoodL. G.GottliebB. H. (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 86–135). Oxford University Press.
104.
WongS. T.NordstokkeD.GregorichS.Pérez-StableE. J. (2010). Measurement of social support across women from four ethnic groups: Evidence of factorial invariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 25, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-010-9111-0
105.
XiongJ.LipsitzO.NasriF.LuiL. M. W.GillH.PhanL.Chen-LiD.IacobucciM.HoR.MajeedA.McIntyreR. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
106.
YamadaY.ĆepulićD. B.Coll-MartínT.DeboveS.GautreauG.HanH.. . .LieberothA. (2021). COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak. Scientific Data, 8(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00784-9
107.
Zager KocjanG.JoseP. E.SočanG.AvsecA. (2022). Measurement invariance of the subjective happiness scale across countries, gender, age, and time. Assessment, 29(4), 826–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191121993558
108.
ZellE.StockusC. A. (2024). Social support and psychological adjustment: A quantitative synthesis of 60 meta-analyses. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001323
109.
ZhengS.MasudaT.MatsunagaM.NoguchiY.OhtsuboY.YamasueH.IshiiK. (2021). Cultural differences in social support seeking: The mediating role of empathic concern. PLOS ONE, 16(12), Article e0262001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262001
110.
ZhuangX.LauY. Y.ChanW. M. H.LeeB. S. C.WongD. F. K. (2021). Risk and resilience of vulnerable families in Hong Kong under the impact of COVID-19: An ecological resilience perspective. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 56(12), 2311–2322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02117-6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
