NSSQ

Developing a Social Support Measurement Instrument: A Methodological Approach to
Measuring Undergraduate Perceptions of Social Support
Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Sarah Nadel, B.S.
Graduate Program in Educational Studies
The Ohio State University
2014
Thesis Committee:
P. Cristian Gugiu, Ph.D., Advisor
Dorinda Gallant, Ph.D.

Copyrighted by
Sarah Nadel
2014
Abstract
The level of perceived social support in higher education continues to be a field of
interest within academia, particularly with regards to its relationship to academic retention.
The study investigated social support using 143 randomly selected students (100 females
and 43 males) from a large Midwestern university. In order to characterize their
perceptions of social support, students were asked to write 5-10 open-ended statements
their closest family member could ask of them that would demonstrate feelings of support.
Data were analyzed utilizing QDA Miner and WordStat software. Cluster analysis was
used to identify the themes undergraduate students perceived as indicators of social
support.
Using a grounded theory approach in which the researcher did not restrict analysis
with a priori assumptions about thematic content, the study identified three themes:
academic support, personal support, and financial support. Based on these results a survey
was developed to assess levels of perceived social support from undergraduate students.
The new instrument provides academic institutions the opportunity to better access levels
of family social support, where students with lower scores are at higher risk for attrition.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to give my sincere appreciation to Dr. Cristian Gugiu for pushing me
to learn more, develop further as a researcher, and for his unyielding support in my studies
and with my research. I would also like to thank Dr. Dorinda Gallant for offering another
perspective on my thesis project and her advice throughout my tenure in my Masters
program.
iii
Vita
2011................................................................B.S. Psychology, Northern Kentucky
University
2012 to present ..............................................Graduate Administrative Associate, Office
of Enrollment, Analysis, and Reporting, and
Office of First Year Studies, The Ohio State
University
2013 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Office of
Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio
State University
Fields of Study
Major Field: Educational Studies
Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii
Vita..................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Methods............................................................................................................................... 9
Results ............................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33
References ......................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix A: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support ................................. 41
Appendix B: Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire ....................................................... 42
Appendix C: Perceived Social Support Scale - Family Version....................................... 43
Appendix D: Perceived Social Support Scale - Friend Version ....................................... 45
Appendix E: Social Provisions Scale ................................................................................ 46
v
Appendix F: Social Support Questionnaire ...................................................................... 48
Appendix G: Thesis Research Survey .............................................................................. 54
Appendix H: Undergraduate Family Social Support Scale .............................................. 58
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Jaccard's Similarity Dendogram: Manual Coding ............................................. 18
Figure 2: Jaccard's Similarity Dendogram: Semi-Automated Coding.............................. 23
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Cluster Definitions by Theme ............................................................................. 15
Table 2: Jaccard's Coefficient Similarity Matrix: Independent Analysis ......................... 17
Table 3: WordStat Content Analysis: Keyword Frequency ............................................ 20
Table 4: WordStat Content Analysis: Keyword Revisions............................................... 21
Table 5: Jaccard's Similarity Matrix: Semi-Automated Analysis .................................... 22
Table 6: Crosstab Frequency Between Clusters and Keywords ...................................... 24
Table 7: Cluster Analysis Theme and Cluster Frequencies .............................................. 27
Table 8: Demographic Cluster Percentage by Respondent............................................... 28
Table 9: Social Support Instrument Cluster Comparison ................................................. 30
viii
Introduction
Increased job satisfaction, higher income, and higher employment rates have been
directly linked to students obtaining a bachelor’s degree (Greenstone, Looney, Patashnik,
& Yu, 2013; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Additionally, research has shown that
individuals with a college degree have healthier levels of mental and physical health,
broader world views, and increased levels of job security as opposed to those who do not
hold a college degree (Maria, 2012; Porter, 2002). Lastly, students who come from
extreme levels of poverty who obtain a college degree are more likely than students who
do not obtain a college degree to escape poverty and obtain increased salaries within their
careers (Pascarella & Terenzine, 2005). While a college degree can improve the livelihood
and health of an individual, attrition rates continue to increase in spite of the benefits
obtaining a college degree can offer. According to the ACT (2013), only 36% of students
who enroll in a four year public institution graduate within four to five years. In order to
increase graduation rates at colleges and universities, factors affecting retention must be
investigated to determine strategies to help students reach graduation.
Research continues to be conducted to identify key factors that affect academic
achievement and student retention, with specific interest related to levels of social support
(Reis, 1988). A major area of focus is on the relationship between social support systems
and undergraduate student retention (Nicpon, Huser, Banks, Sollenberger, Befort, &
Robinson-Kurpius, 2006, 2007; Wintre & Bowers, 2007; Bank, Slavings, & Biddle, 1990;
91
Bordes, Sand, Arredondo, Robinson-Kurpius, & Rayle, 2006; Wilcox, Winn, & Fyvie-
Gauld, 2009). Social support has been found to predict positive outcomes in regards to
persistence and academic motivation (Nicpon et al., 2006, 2007).
Academic persistence is a positive predictor of retention in higher education
settings and has been defined as the amount of time a student attends their courses (Park,
Boman, Dean Care, Edwards, & Perry, 2008, 2009; Rovai, 2003). Additionally, academic
persistence has been found to be similar among genders in educational settings (Nicpon et
al., 2006, 2007). Higher levels of social support have also been shown to increase a
student’s level of academic persistence (Nicpon et al., 2006, 2007; Rayle, Robinson
Kurpius, & Arredondo, 2006, 2007). This suggests that social support plays a vital role in
academic persistence levels of undergraduate students, which thus, enables them to reach
graduation.
Academic motivation is another factor influenced by levels of social support. It has
been shown to affect academic persistence and student retention (Morrow & Ackermann,
2012). Moreover, research has found that positive parental social support is linked to
increased levels in academic motivation which in turn leads to increased student GPA and
retention (Alfaro, Umaña-Taylor, & Bámaca, 2006).
Over the past 30 years, research has attempted to define social support in various
settings, including, but not limited to, education, medical studies, and cultural contexts
(Gavazzi, 1994; Gloria, Castellanos, Lopez, & Rosales, 2005; Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009;
Pearson, 1986; Schmidt, Miles, & Welsh, 2011). Savitz-Romer, Jager-Hyman, and Coles
(2009) defined social support as perceived behaviors, expectations, and/or services that
promote self-confidence, academic motivation, and school connectedness. However,
10
2
social support must be more clearly defined to help increase undergraduate retention and
to produce better educational outcomes (Procidano & Heller, 1983; Rothan, Goodwin, &
Stansfeld, 2012). The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that undergraduate
students used to define family social support. The factors were then utilized to develop a
more representative family social support measurement instrument for higher education
students.
Current Social Support Instruments
Several instruments have been developed to measure family social support,
including the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (Zimet,
Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988), the Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire (NSSQ)
(Norbeck, Lindsey, & Carrieri, 1981), the Perceived Social Support Scale (PSSS-FR/FA)
(Procidano & Heller, 1983), the Social Provisions Scale (SPS) (Russell & Cutrona, 1984),
and the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ) (Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983). Each of
these instruments has been utilized in previous research to identify students at higher risk
for attrition in educational settings. Findings indicate that, when utilized in a higher
education setting, each instrument has helped identify students at higher-risk for attrition
based on lower levels of social support.
The MSPSS is a 12-item social support instrument (see Appendix A) that measures
social support on two dimensions (emotional support and instrumental support) based on
three sources: family, friends, and a significant other (Dahlem, Zimeti, & Walker, 1991,
López & Cooper, 2011). Prior research has found that students with lower levels of support
as measured by the MSPSS were more likely to isolate themselves and experience mental
health issues while enrolled in post-secondary school (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009), thereby
3
11
increasing drop-out rates among students with lower social support levels. The NSSQ (see
Appendix B) is a 6-item instrument, based on Kahn’s (1979) definition of perceived social
support that consists of three subscales (affect, affirmation, and aid) measuring emotional
support and tangible support (Gigliotti, 2022). In various studies, specifically those related
to medical students, the NSSQ has found that lower levels of social support lead to both
increased levels of anxiety and decreased levels of wellness (Granello, 2001; Koivula,
Paunonen-Ilmonen, Tarkka, & Laippala, 2002).
The PSSS-FR/FA is a 40-item instrument that consists of two subscales—one
measuring support from family (see Appendix C) and another measuring support from
friends (see Appendix D)—measured by 20 questions per subscale. The PSSS-FR/FA
accessed positive correlations between levels of social support and sociability (Moller,
Fouladi, McCarthy, & Hatch, 2003). Studies utilizing the PSSS-FR/FA have found the
relationship between higher levels of social support and increased levels of mental and
physical health in various settings (Russell & Cutrona, 1984). The SPS (see Appendix E),
developed by Russell and Cutrona (1984), is a 24-item instrument that measures 6 different
factors based on Weiss’s (1974) model: attachment, social integration, reassurance of
worth, reliable alliance, guidance, and opportunity for nurturance (Russell & Cutrona,
1984).
Lastly, the SSQ (see Appendix F), is a 27-item questionnaire; unlike the prior
surveys discussed, each item in this instrument has two parts. The first part measures the
perceived availability of social support whereas the second part measures the respondent’s
satisfaction with social support (López & Cooper, 2011). Research has indicated that the
4
12
SSQ has been useful in identifying students at risk for attrition due to increased levels of
depression linked to lower social support levels (Bouteyre, Maurel, & Bernaud, 2007).
While reliability and various types of validity were established for the
aforementioned surveys, there are issues with respect to the accuracy with which they
measure social support that raise concern. First, each of the surveys was developed over
20 years ago, suggesting that they may no longer measure contemporary indicators of
social support. Additionally, the content validity of the instruments was never established.
Conceivably, then, there may be factors that are not measured by these instruments but are
important dimensions of social support.
To address these issues, the current study developed a new instrument to measure
family social support. To this end, this study analyzed the qualitative responses of a sample
of undergraduate students to identify how they conceived the construct of social support.
A grounded theory approach was utilized to identify relevant themes. This analysis was
then followed by a hierarchical cluster analysis to determine the structure (grouping) of the
identified themes. A thematic analysis was performed utilizing two methods and select
demographic variables were used to explore the stability of the themes. Lastly, items
representing the detected themes were written and organized as an instrument.
Grounded Theory Approach
Grounded theory is an exploratory technique developed by Glaser and Strauss
(1967). It has been utilized with qualitative data, where no preconceptions were made
about potential findings, allowing key elements of the research area to be identified in an
organic manner (Creswell, Hanson, Clark-Plano, & Morales, 2007; Urquhart, Lehmann, &
Myers, 2010). In contrast to other research techniques such as ethnography,
5
13
phenomenology, and field research, grounded theory allows the qualitative or quantitative
researcher to identify significant findings the data has to offer from an inductive approach
(Kennedy & Lingard, 2006; Martin & Turner, 1986, Suddaby, 2006; Tan, 2010).
Furthermore, where other techniques give descriptions of the data or restate previous data
findings, grounded theory privileges an open coding process followed by theoretical
coding, which may identify new theories within the data (Bitsch, 2005; Creswell et al.,
2007; Hernandez, 2009; Manuj & Pohlen, 2012). While previous techniques have been
found useful in building upon existing research, in trying to identify new theories, grounded
theory allows the researcher to detect new theories.
One such study, for example, sought out to develop a theory based on the job
functions and well-being of part-time nurses (Jamieson, Williams, Lauder, and Dwyer;
2008). The main issue they sought to address was the differences between the job realities
of part-time nurses and full-time nurses. They utilized focus groups and individual
interviews to collect data from participants. Through the use of grounded theory, they were
able to create a concise theory including various factors that affected a part-time nurses’
work environment that had not been previously identified.
Grounded theory allows for increased content validity by identifying significant
domain areas within the data (Bitsch, 2005; Mace & Ward, 2022; Schreiber & Stern, 2001;
Zbaracki, 2007). De-la-Cueva-Ariza et al. (2013) conducted a study using grounded theory
to develop an instrument to measure patient satisfaction regarding nursing care. Their main
concern was that prior instruments within the field neglected to measure the specific issues
faced by critically ill patients in regards to patient care. Utilizing a grounded theory
approach, they used in-depth interviews and discussion groups to identify what specific
6
14
domain areas should be measured by their new instrument. Their findings indicated that
the instrument should include domain areas pertaining to self-perceptions, beliefs,
experiences, demographic information, and socio-cultural epistemological and political
determinants for satisfaction. By identifying these specific domains and including two
previously developed survey instruments to measure received care, they were able to
account for a greater proportion of the domain space underlying patient satisfaction,
thereby increasing content validity. Consequently, grounded theory was employed in the
current study so as to enable the identification of specific family social support themes.
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
In this study, hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was utilized to group similar
statements together to form different themes and clusters using an inductive approach
(Ketchen & Shook, 1996). In general, cluster analysis is used to identify similar objects
(or people) by utilizing various algorithms to calculate the similarity or distance between
individual objects and clusters (Chiu, Douglas, & Li, 2009; Garwood, Anderson, &
Greengart, 1991; Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011). Traditionally, HCA is performed on quantitative
data; however, in the past few years, it has gained traction among qualitative researchers.
Whereas, HCA on quantitative data tends to measure the dissimilarity (distances) between
numeric objects, HCA on qualitative data measures the similarity of attributes within a
cluster (Chang & Ding, 2004). This can be done utilizing one of two methods: analyzing
co-occurrences between clusters or transforming data into binary variables (Abdu, 2009).
Once HCA groups similar statements using a specific distance algorithms, such as
the K-means algorithm, Ward’s method, or the Euclidean distance, a dendogram is
produced to establish the number of clusters present (Hubert & Baker, 1976, Tabachnick
7
15
& Fidell, 2013). The dendogram is produced using linkage methods, such as the average
linkage method, the single linkage method, or the centroid linkage method; however, fewer
linkage methods are available for a cluster analysis on qualitative data due to software
limitations (Hassanein & Elmelegy, 2014). Once the linkage method is selected, clusters
are produced and identifiable within the dendogram that can be instructive in developing
new theories or for providing a more detailed conceptualization of specific research areas,
including survey development (Andrews & Withey, 1973).
8
16
Methods
Sample
A random sample of 4000 undergraduate students enrolled at The Ohio State
University, Columbus campus, were recruited to participate in the current study. After IRB
approval was received, students were recruited through email and asked to complete an
online survey. Consent forms were obtained to ensure participants understood the nature
of the research.
Three $25 Amazon gift cards were used as an incentive to increase student
participation. A total of 142 students (3.5% response rate) elected to participate in the
study (70% female and 30% male; 84% White and 16% Non-White; 17% Freshman, 20%
Sophomores, 25% Juniors, and 38% Seniors). Unfortunately, a clear sampling bias was
detected when the demographic figures were compared to those of the university
population demographics: 52% male, 48% female, 63% White, and 37% Non-white.
Instrument
A survey (see Appendix G) was employed to capture basic demographic
information and qualitative responses from participants. Respondents were asked to write
between 5 and 10 open-ended statements or questions their closest family member could
ask them that would represent to the respondent that the family member was demonstrating
social support. The term closest family member was defined as the person the respondent
17
9
considered themselves to have the closest relationship with or the person to whom they
look for support.
Procedure
The initial respondent recruitment correspondence was emailed to 1500 randomly
selected students. Two follow-up emails were sent one week apart. Due to the low
response rate, 2500 additional recruitment emails were emailed to randomly selected
students. Reminder emails were also sent one week after the initial email and then again
after the first reminder to students who had not participated.
Manual Coding
The first technique was conducted by treating each statement/question provided by
respondents as an individual case, resulting in 631 cases. The present author analyzed each
statement/question so as to develop a coding scheme. Statements were then grouped in
clusters with other “like-minded” statements. Similar clusters were then grouped to form
themes. That is, statements were nested within clusters which, in turn, were nested within
broader themes. Clusters with less than a 2% response rate (13 or fewer statement
responses or keyword responses) were amalgamated within other clusters, providing a high
level of similarity existed between the clusters. For this analysis, however, no such incident
occurred.
Semi-Automated Coding
The second technique accounted for the fact that the 631 statements were nested
within (provided by) the 142 respondents, rather than to treat the statements as being
independent. More specifically, each case examined in WordStat consisted of all the open-
ended responses, ranging from 1-10 responses per study participant.
10
18
WordStat utilized a content analysis algorithm by using keyword retrieval. The
content analysis sorted all the qualitative responses and grouped similar responses together
based on a search of the WordStat Sentiment Dictionary. The content analysis also
provided the frequency percentage, the number of cases, and overall percentage of
occurrences exhibited by each keyword. Keywords with less than 1% occurrence across
the 631 statements were identified to be synonyms of keywords that exhibited higher
frequency percentages, and as such, the keywords were merged together. For example, the
keyword “cash” had a 0.3% occurrence and “money” had a 2.6% occurrence. Since the
two words were identified as synonyms, they were merged together.
Next, a cluster retrieval function was employed within the software to group similar
statements together, thereby identifying overarching themes. This function captured all the
responses for each participant and grouped them based on the similarity of keywords
identified by the content analysis within WordStat. Hence, user input for the semi-
automated method was more limited than for the first technique.
WordStat offers three options for clustering data: tight, medium, or loose cluster
retrieval algorithms, all of which were subsequently analyzed within QDA Miner. The
statements were grouped together based on similarity measures between the keywords
identified, where higher coefficients denoted higher levels of similarity. The tight cluster
only included items that were extremely similar. The medium method detected items that
were less similar within clusters than the tight retrieval function. Lastly, the loose retrieval
function clustered items with the lowest similarity measures. A comparison of the three
methods suggested that the medium method yielded the best results since it contained a
19
11
larger expansion of similarity levels between the clusters in comparison to the loose or tight
cluster retrieval function.1
Themes were then created for the clustered items. Responses that were excluded
within the cluster retrieval were reported in an “unclustered items” category which were
then reviewed and coded by the researcher. As new items were clustered, the researcher
worked in conjunction with QDA Miner to recode unclustered items based on new
similarity index changes. This process continued until all statements/questions were
allocated to a specific cluster. This collaboration between researcher and software made
the coding process more time efficient and productive. It also allowed for modifications
based on subjective ideas in regards to analyzing and coding the data collected.
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
Once the clusters had been distinguished, the similarity measures between the
clusters were calculated using Jaccard’s coefficient where equal weight was given to
matches and non-matches. Jaccard’s coefficient is calculated as follows: J=a/(a+b+c),
where a is the number of cases where both clusters occured, and b and c denote the number
of cases where one cluster was detected but the other was not (Péledeau, 2005). The
similarity measures were represented within a similarity matrix wherein the similarity
scores fall between zero (denoting no coding co-occurrences) and unity (denoting 100%
coding co-occurrences between the clusters).
1
No further information could be found in the Provalis Software Manuals that explicate how the tight,
medium, and loose cluster retrieval options were defined and emails to the company regarding explanation
were unanswered.
20
12
Statements and questions where both codes occurred (a) had a higher level of
similarity than cases that did not include both codes (b and c). For example, a statement
such as “My dad calls me to talk about my day and gives me money for groceries” was
double coded as “communication” and “gas/groceries/bills.” Therefore, a represented all
the statements/questions where both codes occurred, b included the statements/questions
only coded as “communication,” and c represented the statements/questions only coded as
“gas/groceries/bills.”
Based on the similarity matrix, a dendogram was generated using the average-
linkage method. This method measured the similarity between clusters by averaging the
similarity levels of all items within one cluster with the similarity average of another cluster
(Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2013). While the decision of where to cut the dendogram in a
hierarchical cluster analysis is subjective, it was decided that clusters with an average
linkage distance of 0.5 or greater would be combined. In other words, two clusters with
more than 50% common statements were merged. Lastly, a coding frequency was
conducted to identify the percentage of statements per cluster. Clusters were manually
analyzed to identify if different clusters contained synonymous statements, further
suggesting the clusters could be combined.
13
21
Results
Manual Coding
Given the 631 statements provided by the 142 respondents, three themes and 17
clusters were manually identified. This conclusion was substantiated by the cluster
analysis that indicated the clusters were distinct. Moreover, the analysis suggested the
presence of three themes: Personal Issues, Financial Issues, and Academic Issues (see
Table 1).
The Jacquard’s coefficient similarity matrix detected low levels of similarity (0.1-
0.3) among the clusters with one exception. For the two clusters “Personal Items” and
“School Expenses” a difference measure of 0.46 was exhibited (see Table 2). That is, 46%
of all the statements/questions that were coded into one of these two themes were coded
into both themes. In view of the qualitative observation that each cluster exhibited
statements/questions specific to each cluster, it was concluded that the two clusters should
not be merged. Additionally, the dendogram (see Figure 1) identified high levels of
distance between clusters, suggesting that the 17 clusters were retained. Lastly, there were
three themes that emerged among the 17 clusters. While an argument could be made that
four themes emerged from the data based on the dendogram, upon further analysis of the
clusters it was identified that the clusters were grouped into a financial theme, an academic
theme, and two personal themes. Therefore, the two personal themes were merged into
one, resulting in a total of three themes.
22
14
Table 1.
Cluster Definitions by Theme
Theme Cluster Definition
Personal Issues Relationships (R) The closest family member inquires about
relationships with friends, roommates, significant
others, family members, and any other person
outside of the academic field (i.e., Teachers,
advisor).
Personal Issues Respect (RR) Suggests a respectful and mutual relationship
between closest family member and student (i.e.,
“My dad asks for my advice.”).
Personal Issues Gives Advice (GA) The closest family member is willing to give advice
regarding various matters pertaining to personal and
social aspects that do not deal with financial advice
or academic advice.
Personal Issues Communication The closest family member ensures that there is
(RC) consistent communication between the student and
themselves either through email, phone calls, or text
messaging.
Personal Issues Supportive (S) The closest family member exhibits behaviors that
show support to the student. (i.e., “My mom shows
support in whatever I do.”).
Personal Issues Love/Care (LC) The closest family member expresses feelings of
love and concern for the student in general or in
areas that involve personal aspects of the student’s
life.
Personal Issues Inquires about Life The closest family member asks about the student’s
Outside School personal life, weekend plans, religious issues, and
(ILOS) other topics that do not involve academics or
finances.
Personal Issues Mental/Physical The closest family member inquires about stress
Health (MPH) levels, eating habits, amount of sleep, and other
health related issues.
Financial Issues School Expenses The closest family member assists the student with
(SE) items specifically related to school expenses (i.e.,
tuition, books, housing, etc.).
Financial Issues Gas/Groceries/Bills The closest family member financially supports the
(GGB) students in regards to expenses related outside of
school expenses. This includes items such as gas,
groceries, car insurance, cell phone bills, etc.
continued
15
23
Table 1 continued.
Cluster Definitions by Theme
Theme Cluster Definition
Financial Issues Need for Money The closest family member asks the student directly
(NM) if they need any financial assistance or inquires
about their financial situation.
Financial Issues Personal Items (PI) The closest family member asks or gives money to
the student for items such as clothing, dining out, or
specific personal expenses.
Academic Issues Inquiry about The closest family member asks the student how
progress (IAP) their grades are, how their research is going, or other
questions regarding their academic progress.
Academic Issues Shows Support (SS) The closest family member asks the student how
things are going in regards to academic issues and
offers support in academic aspects.
Academic Issues Class Satisfaction The closest family member asks the students if they
(CS) enjoy/like their classes, their professors, or their
academic schedule.
Academic Issues Workload (W) The closest family member asks the student how
many assignments they have, how many exams they
have, or any other questions in regards to academic
assignments that the student is trying to complete.
Academic Issues Future Goals (FG) The closest family members asks if the student is on
track to graduate, what academic goals they have,
and what their future goals within academia are or
will be.
16
24
Table 2.
Jaccard’s Coefficient Similarity Matrix: Independent Analysis
CS FG GGB GA ILOS IAP LC MPH NM PI RC R RR SE SS S W
CS 1.00
FG 0.00 1.00
GGB 0.00 0.00 1.00
GA 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
ILOS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
IAP 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.00
LC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.00
MPH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00
17
NM 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

PI 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.00
C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.00
RR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
SE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
SS 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
W 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.00
25
Figure 1.
Jacquard’s Similarity Dendogram: Manual Coding
18
26
Semi-Automated Coding
From the 142 respondents, the content analysis produced 39 keywords (see Table
3). However, not all the words represented distinct concepts. For example, WordStat
classified the keywords “feel” and “feeling” as distinct categories although, clearly, they
are the same. Consequently, 17 keywords were retained as measuring distinct concepts
(see Table 4). Subsequently, the medium cluster retrieval included 56% of the data. The
unclustered items were manually grouped into the clusters deemed to be the closest fit. No
new clusters were deemed necessary. As was the case for the first analysis, the 17 clusters
were categorized into one of the three themes that were identified by the dendogram. A
coding frequency was performed to examine the cluster frequency percentages. As was
the case previously, no clusters reported frequencies with a less than a 2% occurrence.
From the clusters ascertained, a similarity index was produced from Jaccard’s
coefficient. As shown in Table 5, most of the clusters did not exhibit high levels of
similarity, which speaks to the independence of one cluster structure. Akin to the first
analysis, the dendogram (see Figure 2) produced high levels of distance between clusters,
once again, advocating the conceptualization of the three themes and 17 clusters.
Method Comparison
A crosstab was computed to compare the clusters from the manual coding with the
keyword clusters from the second analysis (see Table 6). While there is variability among
the clusters extracted by the methods, when the crosstab was divided into the three themes
there was less variability in the results. Using Jaccard’s coefficient, the crosstab indicated
that among the three themes, Personal Issues had 62% agreement, Financial Issues had
27
19
Table 3.
Wordstat Content Analysis: Keyword Frequency
Keyword Frequency % Shown No. Cases % Cases
School 63 8.6 45 31.7
Life 47 6.4 34 .9
Talk 46 6.3 28 19.7
Friends 40 5.5 34 23.9
Money 37 5.1 28 19.7
Work 32 4.4 25 17.6
Support 26 3.6 21 14.8
Home 25 3.4 20 14.1
Time 23 3.2 20 14.1
College 20 2.7 13 9.2
Feeling 20 2.7 13 9.2
Advice 19 2.6 15 10.6
Helps 18 2.5 14 9.9
Call 17 2.3 12 8.5
Relationship 15 2.1 14 9.9
Financial 14 1.9 13 9.2
Feel 14 1.9 12 8.5
Family 14 1.9 9 6.3
Social 13 1.8 12 8.5
Happy 13 1.8 12 8.5
Supports 13 1.8 10 7.0
Interests 13 1.8 3 2.1
Calls 12 1.6 11 7.7
Love 12 1.6 10 7.0
Daily 12 1.6 10 7.0
Plans 12 1.6 10 7.0
Food 12 1.6 9 6.3
Visit 12 1.6 8 5.6
Week 11 1.5 11 7.7
Eating 11 1.5 9 6.3
Study 11 1.5 8 5.6
Decisions 11 1.5 7 4.9
Share 11 1.5 2 1.4
Beliefs 11 1.5 2 1.4
Personal 10 1.4 10 7.0
Issues 10 1.4 10 7.0
Grades 10 1.4 9 6.3
Future 10 1.4 9 6.3
Events 10 1.4 9 6.3
20
28
Table 4.
WordStat Content Analysis: Keyword Revisions
Theme Cluster Original Keyword
Personal Issues Advice (A) Advice
Personal Issues Advice (A) Helps
Personal Issues Feeling (F) Feeling
Personal Issues Feeling (F) Feel
Personal Issues Happy (Ha) Happy
Personal Issues Home (H) Home
Personal Issues Home (H) Visit
Personal Issues Interest (I) Interests
Personal Issues Interest (I) Decisions
Personal Issues Interest (I) Beliefs
Personal Issues Interest (I) Life
Personal Issues Love (L) Love
Personal Issues Personal (Pe) Personal
Personal Issues Personal (Pe) Issues
Personal Issues Relationship (R) Friends
Personal Issues Relationship (R) Relationship
Personal Issues Relationship (R) Family
Personal Issues Relationship (R) Social
Personal Issues Support (Sp) Support
Personal Issues Support (Sp) Supports
Personal Issues Talk (Ta) Talk
Personal Issues Talk (Ta) Call
Personal Issues Talk (Ta) Calls
Personal Issues Talk (Ta) Share
Financial Issues Food (Fd) Food
Financial Issues Food (Fd) Eating
Financial Issues Money (M) Money
Financial Issues Money (M) Financial
Academic Issues Grades (G) Grades
Academic Issues Plans (Pl) Daily
Academic Issues Plans (Pl) Plans
Academic Issues Plans (Pl) Week
Academic Issues Plans (Pl) Future
Academic Issues Plans (Pl) Events
Academic Issues School (S) College
Academic Issues School (S) School
Academic Issues Time (Ti) Time
Academic Issues Work (W) Work
Academic Issues Work (W) Study
Note: This following 17 distinct categories were identified: advice, feeling, food, grades, happy, home, interest, love, money,
personal, plans, relationship, school, support, talk, time, and work.
21
29
Table 5.
Jaccard’s Coefficient Similarity Matrix: Semi-Automated Analysis
A F Fd G Ha H I L M Pe Pl R S Sp Ta Ti W
A 1.00
F 0.07 1.00
Fd 0.06 0.00 1.00
G 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Ha 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.00
H 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.00
I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.00
L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 1.00
M 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 1.00
22
Pe 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.05 1.00
Pl 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 1.00
R 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 1.00
S 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 1.00
Sp 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Ta 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 1.00
Ti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 1.00
W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.00
30
Figure 2.
Jaccard’s Similarity Dendogram: Semi-Automated Coding
23
31
Table 6.
Crosstab Frequency Between Clusters and Keywords
Personal Issues Financial Issues Academic Issues
Method 2
R RR GA RC S LC ILOS MPH SE GGB NM PI IAP SS CS W FG Total
Method 1
A 2 4 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 32
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10
Ha 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 23
Personal Issues
H 1 10 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
I 0 1 0 0 1 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 26
L 2 2 1 3 6 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
Pe 1 1 1 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 22
R 49 5 2 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
24
Ta 3 5 6 46 13 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 83
Financia
Fd 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
l Issues
M 0 0 6 1 0 0 5 0 23 13 25 4 0 0 1 0 0 78
G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10
Academic Issues
Pl 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 28 58
S 4 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 52 7 17 12 0 101
Sp 0 3 2 4 22 6 5 24 0 1 3 0 5 67 0 0 0 142
Ti 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 14
W 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 8 1 1 18 0 37
Total 67 32 43 66 48 21 64 51 26 31 31 14 101 77 33 30 28 763
32
70% agreement, and Academic Issues had 64% agreement, with an overall agreement of
78% between both methods. For example, in regards to the Personal Issues theme, a
represented the total number of agreement between the clusters of Relationships (R) to
Mental/Physical Health (MPH) and the keywords Advice (A) to Talk (Ta) within the
crosstab. Subsequently, b symbolized the total agreement between the clusters of School
Expenses (SE) to Future Goals (FG) and the keywords of Food (Fd) to Work (W). Lastly,
c denoted the total agreement for the clusters of Relationships (R) to Mental/Physical
Health (MPH) with the keywords of Food (Fd) to Work (W). Once the totals were
computed for a, b, and c, the Jaccard’s coefficient was calculated by dividing a by (a + b
+ c). Thus, identifying the agreement among themes and the overall agreement as well
within the crosstab.
One possible explanation for the lack of 100% agreement between the methods
could be due to double-coded responses. For example, in the theme of Personal Issues, the
Mental and Physical Health (MPH) cluster had responses that were coded within the
keyword of Happiness (Ha) (Personal Issues) and Support (Sp) (Academic Issues). The
same issue was observed for Class Satisfaction (CS) (Academic Issues) that had 10
common responses for the keyword of Feeling (F) (Personal Issues) and 17 responses for
the keyword of Support (S) (Academic Issues).
Overall, both analyses produced similar results with regards to clusters and
frequency of cluster percentage (see Table 7); however, it is recommended that the semi-
automated analysis be used in replicating the current study because it was able to identify
similar results while being more time efficient. More specifically, while the first method
required over 48 hours of data analysis, the second method took approximately 3 hours to
33
25
complete. Despite this recommendation, further research needs to determine which method
is better. For instance, a study with at least four different coders using the same coding
methods and identical coding definitions could be performed to identify the agreement
among coders using both techniques. Two coders should utilize the manual coding method
while the other two coders should utilize the semi-automated coding method. Each coder
would need to present their time constraints when utilizing each method to compare the
average time exhausted between the two methods. Lastly, the coding results would need
to be examined between coders to determine if similar results were found; allowing for a
better understanding of which method is more efficient.
Sampling Demographic Information
Comparisons were conducted to identify whether any clusters were specific to
gender or ethnicity (see Table 8). While there was a sampling bias, it was found that 15 of
17 clusters had similar cluster percentages based on gender and ethnicity. For example,
7.9% of males and 8.3% of females identified the Relationships (R) cluster as significant,
while 7.9% of white and 9.5% of non-white students found it significant.
Additionally, in order to identify any significant differences based on gender or
ethnicity, a two-sample independent test in sample proportions was conducted for the
Respect (RR) cluster, which had the largest differences between gender and ethnicity. The
tests showed no differences existed between gender or ethnicity. Hence, even though, there
was a sampling bias with respect to gender and race, it is unlikely that this bias yielded
biased thematic results.
26
34
Table 7.
Cluster Analysis Theme and Cluster Frequencies
Theme Cluster Statements Respondents
(%) (%)
Personal Issues Relationships 8.9 11.9
Personal Issues Respect 3.9 4.3
Personal Issues Gives Advice 6.3 4.4
Personal Issues Communication 9.8 10.2
Personal Issues Supportive 13.0 14.6
Personal Issues Love/Care 2.8 2.7
Personal Issues Inquires about Life Outside School 10.5 8.5
Personal Issues Mental/Physical Health 9.5 7.3
Financial Issues School Expenses 3.5 2.1
Financial Issues Gas/Groceries/Bills 2.6 2.0
Financial Issues Need for Money 4.4 6.4
Financial Issues Personal Items 2.0 2.5
Academic Issues Inquiry about progress 11.1 10.1
Academic Issues Shows Support 3.8 5.7
Academic Issues Class Satisfaction 2.6 2.2
Academic Issues Workload 2.8 2.5
Academic Issues Future Goals 2.5 2.6
Note: Statements N=631; Respondents N=142;
27
35
Table 8.
Demographic Cluster Percentage by Statement
Cluster Male Female White Non-
White
N=43 N=99 N=119
N=23
Relationships (R) 7.9% 8.3% 7.9% 9.5%
Respect (RR) 2.8% 8.7% 8.7% 1.4%
Gives Advice (GA) 4.8% 3.2% 3.0% 5.4%
Communication (RC) 9.8% 10.4% 11.2% 6.1%
Supportive (S) 12.9% 15.1% 14.9% 13.5%
Love/Care (LC) 0.6% 3.2% 3.1% 0.7%
Inquires About Life Outside School 17.8% 13.1% 14.4% 14.2%
(ILOS)
Mental/Physical Health (MPH) 6.1% 7.6% 7.1% 8.1%
School Expenses (SE) 0.6% 1.2% 0.8% 1.4%
Gas/Groceries/Bills (GGB) 0.8% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4%
Need for Money (NM) 7.3% 6.1% 6.1% 7.4%
Personal Items (PI) 1.2% 2.8% 2.0% 4.7%
Inquiry About Progress (IAP) 13.5% 9.2% 9.4% 12.8%
Shows Support (SS) 9.2% 4.8% 5.3% 7.4%
Class Satisfaction (CS) 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 2.0%
Workload (W) 1.7% 2.4% 2.3% 3.3%
Future Goals (FG) 2.0% 1.2% 1.4% 0.7%
28
36
Survey Development
Based on the aforementioned examination of clusters between each method, it was
identified that each of the 17 clusters encompassed within the 3 themes should be included
in the development of the new family social support survey. The statements within each
cluster were reviewed and three questions were written for each cluster. The new 51-item
instrument, measured on a 6-point Likert scale can be self-administered by undergraduate
students to identify their levels of family social support (see Appendix H). This instrument,
named the Undergraduate Family Social Support Scale (UFSSS), included themes that
were similar to previous surveys, with the exception of the academic issues theme (see
Table 9).
Interestingly, the UFSSS clusters (thematic categories) included more themes than
previous social support instruments. Hence, it provides a more complete picture of the
domain space than the five existing surveys reviewed here in. In fact, the previous surveys
combined only captured 49.7% (7 out of 17 identified clusters) of the total domain space
identified by the UFSSS. While the previous surveys did address personal issues and to
some extent financial issues, the UFSSS also covered academic issues.
37
29
Table 9.
Social Support Instrument Cluster Comparison
Cluster MSPSS NSSQ PSSS: SPS SSQ UFSSS
FR/FA
Relationships X
Respect X X X X X
Gives Advice X X X X
Communication X X X
Supportive X X X X X
Love/Care X X X X X
Inquires About Life Outside of
School X
Mental/Physical Health X X
School Expenses X
Gas/Groceries/Bills X
Need for Money X X
Personal Items X
Inquiry about Progress X
Shows Support X
Class Satisfaction X
Workload X
Future Goals X
Total Domain Space 19.3% 30.4% 40.2% 49.7% 49.7%
38
30
Discussion
The results of the current study added to the understanding and knowledge of the
factors that are essential for accurately measuring undergraduate levels of family social
support. Though this topic is missing from existing survey options, according to the
students who participated in this study, academic issues were integral (accounts for 22.8%
of all the statements) to their perceptions of social support. One reason these specific
clusters and factors emerged may be due to the analyses of the current study. While prior
studies on social support utilized literature findings to construct instruments, the present
study employed a random sample to identify the dimensions of social support as
conceptualized by college students. Furthermore, the UFSSS is likely to be a more
representative measure of the factors and themes that are important to today’s
undergraduate students’ conceptualizations of family social support.
Limitations
As is the case with most studies, a number of limitations are present in this study.
First, a very low response rate was attained. When responses were being collected, there
were two main events that may have taken priority in students’ lives that accounted for the
low response rate. Responses were collected before and during academic midterms.
Students may have been focused on their midterms, such that they did not allot time to
participate in the current study. In addition, academic spring break took place the week
following midterms. Resultantly, students may not have had access to the study or may
39
31
have been on vacation and unwillingly to take time to participate. Nonetheless, a larger
sample could only have yielded a larger domain space. Hence, the conclusion that
grounded theory provides a more comprehensive measure of domain space relative to other
methods would only have been strengthened.
An added limitation was the representation of population gender and ethnic
distributions within the sample. In the current study, the sample proportion of white
students to non-white students as well as females to males was higher and could have
affected the findings of the current study. However, while the ethnicity bias and gender
bias should be acknowledged, as mentioned previously, neither significantly affected the
clusters within the current study, nor caused a thematic bias within the results.
Lastly, the number of themes present is another possible limitation. As previously
mentioned, the dendogram from both methods, identified four possible themes. While it
was determined to include only three themes, one could argue that no themes emerged and
only 17 clusters were present in the current study. Future studies should perform a factor
analysis to better analyze the thematic structure.
40
32
Conclusion
As mentioned previously, a college degree leads to numerous mental, financial, and
psychological benefits. It is imperative that factors associated with college retention be
further developed in order to give students the tools and resources needed to succeed in
their undergraduate career. This, in turn, will decrease attrition rates across college
campuses. This was a crucial aim of the current study and the evidence found suggested
that there are more family social support domains that need to be measured to identify at-
risk students.
By utilizing the UFSSS to identify students with lower levels of family social
support, undergraduate institutions will be able to intervene before the student drops out of
college. For example, colleges and universities may be able to connect these students to
the resources they need to increase motivation, level of academic achievement, and
sequentially, reach graduation. Thus, by attaining undergraduate degrees, students will be
more financially secure, happier, and, in turn, be able to positively contribute to our society.
41
33
References
Abdu, E. (2009). Clustering Categorical Data Using Data Summaries and Spectral
Techniques (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). City University of New York:
New York, NY.
ACT (2013). Retention/Completion Summary Tables [Data File]. Retrieved from

www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/13retain_trends.pdf.
Akmal, T. T., & Larsen, D. E. (2004). Keeping History From Repeating Itself:
Involving Parents About Retention Decisions to Support Academic Achievement.
Research in Middle Level Education, 27(2), 1-14.
Alfaro, E. C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2006). The Influence of Academic
Support on Latino Adolescents’ Academic Motivation. Family Relations, 55(3),
279-291.
Andrews, F., & Withey, S. (1974). Developing Measures of Perceived Life Quality:
Results from National Surveys. Paper presented at the American Sociological
Association annual convention, New York, NY.
Bank, B. J., Slavings, R. L., & Biddle, B. J. (1990). Effects of Peer, Faculty, and Parental
Influences on Students’ Persistence. Sociology of Education, 63(3), 208-225.
Bartholomew, D. J., Steele, F., Moustaki, I., & Galbraith, J.I. (2002). The Analysis and
Interpretation of Multivariate Data for Social Scientists. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press LLC.
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation

Criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91.
Bouteyre, E., Maurel, M., & Bernaud, J.-L. (2007). Daily Hassles and
Depressive Symptoms Among First Year Psychology Students in France: The
Role of Coping and Social Support. Stress and Health, 23, 2, 93-99.
Bordes, V., Sand, J. K., Arredondo, P., Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Rayle, A. D. (2006).
Validation of Four Measures of Social Support with Latina/o and Non-Hispanic
White Undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(1), 65-83.
42
34
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory.
London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Chang, C., & Ding, Z. (2004). Categorical Data Visualization and Clustering Using
Subjective Factors. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 763, 1-20.
Chiu, C., Douglas, J., & Li, X. (2009). Cluster Analysis for Cognitive Diagnosis: Theory
and Applications. Psychometrika, 74(4), 633-665.
Cook, T. D. (2005). Emergent Principles for the Design, Implementation, and Analysis of
Cluster-Based Experiment in Social Sciences. American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 599, 176-198.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The Provisions of Social Relationships and
Adaptation to Stress. Advances in Personal Relationships, 1, 37-67.
Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, G. D., & Walker, R. R. (1991). The Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support: A Confirmatory Study. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 47(6), 756-761.
De-la-Cueva-Ariza, L., Romero-García, M., Delgado-Hito, P., Acosta-Mejuto, B, Jover-

Sancho, C., Ricart-Basagaña, T., Juandó-Prats, C., Solà-Solé, N., & Solà-Ribó, M.
(2014). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Degree of Critical Patient’s
Satisfaction with Nursing Care: Research Protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
70(1), 201-210.
Dunst, C. J., & Leet, H. E. (1987). Measuring the Adequacy of Resources in Households
with Young Children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 13, 111-125.
Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-Centered Practices: Birth Through High School. The Journal
of Special Education, 36(3), 139-147.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey Research Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Fraley, C., & Raftery, A. E. (1998). How Many Clusters? Which Clustering Method?
Answers Via Model-Based Cluster Analysis. The Computer Journal, 41(8), 577-
588.
Garwood, M. K., Anderson, L. E., & Greengart, B. J. (1991). Determining Job Groups:
Application of Hierarchical Agglomerative Cluster Analysis in Different Job
Analysis Situations. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 743-762.
43
35
Gavazzi, S. (1994). Perceived Social Support From Family and Friends in a Clinical
Sample of Adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(3), 465-471.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing
Company, Hawthorne, NY.
Gloria, A., Castellanos, J., Lopez, A., & Rosales, R. (2005). An Examination of
Academic Nonpersistence Decisions of Latino Undergraduates. Hispanic Journal
Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 202-223.
Gigliotti, E. (2002). A Confirmation of the Factor Structure of the Norbeck Social

Support Questionnaire. Nursing Research, 51(5), 276-284.
Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2010). Adding Theoretical Grounding to Grounded

Theory: Toward Multi-Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 9(2), 187-205.
Granello, P. F. (June 06, 2001). A Comparison of Wellness and Social Support Networks
in Different Age Groups. Adultspan Journal, 3, 1, 12-22.
Greenstone, M., Looney, A., Patashnik, J., & Yu, M. (2013). Thirteen Economic Facts
about Social Mobility and the Role of Education. The Hamilton Project,
Brookings Institution, Washington DC.
Hefner, J. & Eisenberg, D. (2009). Social Support and Mental Health Among College
Students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(4), 491-499.
Hernandez, C. (2009). Theoretical Coding in Grounded Theory Methodology. Grounded

Theory Review: An International Journal, 8(3), 51-60.
Huber, L. & Baker, F. (1976). Data Analysis by Single-Link and Complete-Link

Hierarchical Clustering. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1(2), 87-111.
Jamieson, L., Williams, L., Lauder, W., & Dwyer, T. (2008). The 'Realities' of Part-Time
Nursing: A Grounded Theory Study. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(7),
883-892.
Kennedy, T., & Lingard, L. (2006). Making Sense of Grounded Theory in Medical
Education. Medical Education, 40(2), 101-108.
Ketchen Jr., D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The Application of Cluster Analysis in
Strategic Management Research: An Analysis and Critique. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(6), 441-458.
Koivula, M., Paunonen-Ilmonen, M., Tarkka, M. T., Tarkka, M., & Laippala, P. (2002).
44
36
Social support and its relation to fear and anxiety in patients awaiting coronary
artery bypass grafting. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11, 5, 622-33.
LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837-857.
Lorr, M. (1983). Cluster Analysis for Social Scientists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
Incorporated.
Mace, M., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the Creative Process: A Grounded Theory
Analysis of Creativity in the Domain of Art Making. Creativity Research Journal,
14(2), 179-192.
Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (1999). Adolescents’ Ratings of Perceived Social Support
and Its Importance: Validation of the Student Social Support Scale. Psychology in
the School, 36(6), 473-483.
Manuj, I., & Pohlen, T. L. (2012). A Reviewer’s Guide to the Grounded Theory
Methodology in Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), 784-803.
Maria, S. (2012). Education and Mental Health in Europe. International Journal of

Mental Health, 41(3), 79-105.
Martin, P.Y. & Turner, B.A. (1986) Grounded Theory and Organizational Research. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 141–157.
Moller, N., Fouladi, R., McCarthy, C., & Hatch, K. (2003). Relationship of Attachment
and Social Support to College Students’ Adjustment Following a Breakup.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 81(3), 54.
Mooi. E., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). A Concise Gude to Market Research. Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.
Moore, D. L., & Tarnai, J. (2002). Evaluating nonresponse error in mail surveys. In:
Groves, R. M., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., and Little, R. J. A. (eds.), Survey
Nonresponse, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 197–211.
Morrow, J., & Ackermann, M. E. (2012). Intention to Persist and Retention of First-Year
Students: The Importance of Motivation and Sense of Belonging. College Student
Journal, 46(3), 483-491.
National Center for Latino Child and Family Research. (2011). Social Support Measure
Review. Los Angeles, CA: López, M., L., & Cooper, L.
37
45
Nicpon, M. F., Huser, L., Banks, E. H., Sollenberger, S., Befort, C., Robinson Kurpius, S.
E. (2006-2007). The Relationship of Loneliness and Social Support With
College Freshmen’s Academic Performance and Persistence. J. College Student
Retention, 8(3), 345-358.
Norbeck, J. S., Lindsey, A. M., & Carrieri, V. L. (1981). The development of an

instrument to measure social support. Nursing Research, 30, 264-269.
Park, C. L., Boman, J., Dean Care, W., Edwards, M., & Perry, B. (2008-2009).
Persistence and Attrition: What is Being Measured? J. College Student Retention,
10(2), 223-234.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students (pp. 3-7). K. A.
Feldman (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearson, J. (1986). The Definition and Measurement of Social Support. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 64, 390-395.
Péledeau, N. (2005). WordStat: Content Analysis Module for SIMSTAT & QDA Miner
User’s Guide.
Porter, K. (2002). The Value of a College Degree. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Higher Education.
Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of Perceived Social Support From
Friends and From Family: Three Validation Studies. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 11(1), 1-24.
Rayle, A. D., & Chung, K. (2007-2008). Revisiting First-Year College Students’

Mattering: Social Support, Academic Stress, and the Mattering Experience. J.
College Student Retention, 9(1), 21-37.
Rayle, A. D., Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Arredondo, P. (2006-2007). Relationship of

Self-Beliefs, Social Support, and University Comfort with the Academic Success
of Freshman College Woman. J. College Student Retention, 8(3), 325-343.
Reis, J. (1988). A Factor Analysis of a Compound Measure of Social Support. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 44(6), 876-890.
Rothon, C., Goodwin, L, & Stansfeld, S. (2012). Family Social Support, Community
“Social Capital” and Adolescents’ Mental Health and Educational Outcomes: a
Longitudinal Study in England. Soc Psychiatry PsychiatrEpidemiol, 47, 697-709.
Roussos, L., Stout, W., Marden, J. (1998). Using New Proximity Measures with
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis to Detect Multidimensionality. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 35(1), 1-30.
46
38
Rovai, A. P. (2003). In Search of Higher Persistence Rates in Distance Education Online
Programs. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 1-16.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing Social
Support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44(1), 127-139.
Savitz-Romer, M., Jager-Hyman, J., Coles, A., Education Resources Institute, Pathways
to College Network, & Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2009). Removing
Roadblocks to Rigor: Linking Academic and Social Supports to Ensure College
Readiness and Success. Pathways to College Network. Available from: Institute
for Higher Education Policy. 1320 19th Street NW Suite 400, Washington, DC
20036. Tel: 202-861-8223; Fax: 202-861-9307; e-mail: institute@ihep.org; Web
site: http://www.pathwaystocollege.net.
Schmdit, C., Miles, J., & Welsh, A. (2011). Perceived Discrimination and Social Support:
The Influences on Career Development and College Adjustment of LGBT
College Students. Journal of Career Development, 38(4), 293-309.
Schreiber, R., & Stern, P. (2001). Using Grounded Theory in Nursing. New York, NY:
Springer.
Strauss A and Corbin J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology - An Overview. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (273-285).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Tan, J. (2010). Grounded Theory in Practice: Issues and Discussion for New Qualitative
Researchers. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 93-112.
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. (2010). Putting the ‘Theory’ Back Into
Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Grounded Theory Studies in Information
Systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357-381.
Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded Theory: An Exploration of Process and
Procedure. Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547-559.
39
47
Weiss, R. (1974). The Provisions of Social Relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing
Unto Others (pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was Nothing to do with the
University, it was Just the People”: The Role of Social Support in the First-Year
Experience of Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), 707-722.
Wintre, M. G., Yaffe, M., & Crowley, J. (1995). Perception of Parental Reciprocity
Scale (POPRS): Development and Validation with Adolescents and Young
Adults. Social Development, 4(2), 129-148.
Wintre, M. G., & Bowers, C. D. (2007). Predictors of Persistence to Graduation:

Extending a Model and Data on the Transition to University Model. Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Science, 39(3), 220-234.
Zbaracki, M. J. (2007). A Sociological View of Costs of Price Adjustment: Contributions

from Grounded Theory Methods. Managerial & Decision Economics, 28(6), 553-
567.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52(1), 30-41.
48
40
Appendix A: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley (1988)
Instructions: We are interested in how you feel about the following statements. Read each
statement carefully. Indicate how you feel about each statement.
Circle the “1” if you Very Strongly Disagree

Circle the “2” if you Strongly Disagree
Circle the “3” if you Mildly Disagree
Circle the “4” if you are Neutral
Circle the “5” if you Mildly Agree
Circle the “6” if you Strongly Agree
Circle the “7” if you Very Strongly Agree
1. There is a special person who is around when I am

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
in need.
2. There is a special person with whom I can share my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
joys and sorrows.
3. My family really tries to help me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
4. I get the emotional help and support I need from
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
my family.
5. I have a special person who is a real source of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
comfort to me.
6. My friends really try to help me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
7. I can count on my friends when things go wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
8. I can talk about my problems with my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
9. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
sorrows.
10. There is a special person in my life who cares about
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
my feelings.
11. My family is willing to help me make decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
12. I can talk about my problems with my friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
The items tended to divide into factor groups relating to the source of the social support;
namely, family (Fam), friends (Fri) or significant other (SO).
49
41
Appendix B: Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire
Norbeck, Lindsey, Carrieri (1981)
Instructions: List from 1 to 24 network members “who provide personal support for you
or who are important to you” and then specify their relationship (spouse, parent, friend,
etc.). After completing the network list, please rate each listed network member (0–4) on
six functional support questions measuring three types of support: affect, affirmation, and
aid.
Circle the “0” for Not At All
Circle the “1” for A Little
Circle the “2” for Moderately
Circle the “3” for Quite a Bit
Circle the “4” for A Great Deal
Functional Item Response Choice

Designation
Affect 1 1. How much does this person make you feel 0 1 2 3 4
liked or loved?
Affect 2 2. How much does this person make you feel 0 1 2 3 4
respected or admired?
Affirm 1 3. How much can you confide in this person? 0 1 2 3 4
Affirm 2 4. How much does this person agree with your 0 1 2 3 4
actions or thoughts?
Aid 1 5. If you needed to borrow $10, a ride to the 0 1 2 3 4
(short-term) doctor, or some other immediate help, how
much could this person usually help?
Aid 2 6. If you were confined to bed for several 0 1 2 3 4
(short-term) weeks, how much could this person help
you?
50
42
Appendix C: Perceived Social Support Scale - Family Version
Procidano and Heller (1983)
Instructions: The statements which follow refer to feelings and experiences which occur
to most people at one time or another in their relationships with their families. For each
statement there are three possible answers: Yes, No, Don’t Know. Please circle the
answer you choose for each item.
1. My family gives me the moral support I Yes No Don’t Know

need.
2. I get good ideas about how to do things Yes No Don’t Know
or make things from my family.
3. Most other people are closer to their Yes No Don’t Know
family than I am.
4. When I confide in the members of my Yes No Don’t Know
family who are closest to me, I get the
idea that it makes them uncomfortable.
5. My family enjoys hearing about what I Yes No Don’t Know
think.
6. Members of my family share many of Yes No Don’t Know
my interests.
7. Certain members of my family come to Yes No Don’t Know
me when they have problems or need
advice.
8. I rely on my family for emotional Yes No Don’t Know
support.
9. There is a member of my family I could Yes No Don’t Know
go to if I were just feeling down, without
feeling funny about it later.
10. My family and I are very open about Yes No Don’t Know
what we think about things.
11. My family is sensitive to my personal Yes No Don’t Know
needs.
12. Members of my family come to me for Yes No Don’t Know
emotional support.
13. Members of my family are good at Yes No Don’t Know
helping me solve problems.
51
43
14. I have a deep sharing relationship with a Yes No Don’t Know
number of members of my family
15. Members of my family get good ideas Yes No Don’t Know
about how to do things or make things
for me.
16. When I confide in members of my Yes No Don’t Know
family, it makes me uncomfortable.
17. Members of my family seek me out for Yes No Don’t Know
companionship.
18. I think that my family feels that I’m Yes No Don’t Know
good at helping them solve problems.
19. I don’t have a relationship with a Yes No Don’t Know
member of my family that is as close as
other people’s relationship with family
members.
20. I wish my family were much different. Yes No Don’t Know
52
44
Appendix D: Perceived Social Support Scale - Friend Version
Procidano and Heller (1983)
Instructions: The statements which follow refer to feelings and experiences which occur
to most people at one time or another in their relationships with their friends. For each
statement there are three possible answers: Yes, No, Don’t Know. Please circle the
answer you choose for each item.
1. My friends gives me the moral support I need. Yes No Don’t Know

2. Most other people are closer to their friends than I Yes No Don’t Know
am.
3. My friends enjoy hearing about what I think. Yes No Don’t Know
4. Certain friends come to me when they have problems Yes No Don’t Know
or need advice.
5. I rely on my friends for emotional support. Yes No Don’t Know
6. If I felt that one or more of my friends were upset Yes No Don’t Know
with me, I’d just keep it to myself.
7. I feel that I’m on the fringe in my circle of friends. Yes No Don’t Know
8. There is a friend I could go to if I were just feeling Yes No Don’t Know
down, without feeling funny about it later.
9. My friends and I are very open about what we think Yes No Don’t Know
about things.
10. My friends are sensitive to my personal needs. Yes No Don’t Know
11. My friends come to me for emotional support. Yes No Don’t Know
12. My friends are good at helping me solve problems. Yes No Don’t Know
13. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number of Yes No Don’t Know
friends.
14. My friends get good ideas about how to do things or Yes No Don’t Know
make things from me.
15. When I confide in friends, it makes me feel Yes No Don’t Know
uncomfortable.
16. My friends seek me out for companionship. Yes No Don’t Know
17. I think that my friends feel that I’m good at helping Yes No Don’t Know
them solve problems.
18. I don’t have a relationship with a member a friend Yes No Don’t Know
that is as intimate as other people’s relationships with
friends.
19. I’ve recently gotten a good idea about how to do Yes No Don’t Know
something from a friend.
20. I wish my friends were much different. Yes No Don’t Know
53
45
Appendix E: Social Provisions Scale
Russell and Cutrona (1984)
Instructions: In answering the following questions, think about your current relationships
with friends, family members, co-workers, community members, and so on. Please
indicate to what extend each statement describes your current relationships with other
people. Use the following scale to indicate your opinion.
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

1 2 3 4
So, for example, if you feel a statement is very true of your current relationships, you
would respond with a 4 (strongly agree). If you feel a statement clearly does not describe
your relationships, you would respond with a 1 (strongly disagree).
Statement Rating
1. There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it.
2. I feel that I do not have close personal relationships with other people.
3. There is no one I can turn to for guidance with other people.
4. There are people who depend on me for help.
5. There are people who enjoy the same social activities I do.
6. Other people do not view me as competent.
7. I feel personally responsible for the well-being of another person.
8. I feel part of a group of people who share my attitudes and beliefs.
9. I do not think other people respect my skills and abilities.
10. If something went wrong, no one would come to my assistance.
11. I have close relationships that provide me with a sense of emotional
security and well-being.
12. There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life.
13. I have relationships where my competence and skill are recognized.
14. There is no one who shares my interests and concerns.
15. There’s no one who really relies on me for their well-being.
16. There is a trust-worthy person I could turn to for advice if I were having
problems.
17. I feel a strong emotional bond with at least one other person.
18. There is no one I can depend on for aid if I need it.
19. There is no one I feel comfortable talking about my problems with.
20. There are people who admire my talents and abilities.
21. I lack a feeling of intimacy with another person.
46
54
22. There is no one who likes to do the things I do.
23. There are people who I can count on in an emergency.
24. No one needs me to care for them.
55
47
Appendix F: Social Support Questionnaire
Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason (1983)
Instructions: The following questions ask about people in your environments who
provide you with help or support. Each question has two parts. For the first part, list all
the people you know, excluding yourself, whom you can count on for help or support in
the manner described. Give the person’s initials in their relationship to you. Do not list
more than one person next to each of the letters beneath the questions.
For the second part, circle how satisfied you are with the overall support you
have. If you have no support for a question, check the words “No One,” but still rate
your level of satisfaction. Do not list more than nine persons per question.
1. Whom can you really count on to listen to you when you need to talk?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
6- Very 5- Fairly 4- A Little 3- A Little 2- Fairly 1-Very
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
2. Whom could you really count on to help you if a person whom you thought was a good
friend insulted you and told you that he/she didn’t want to see you again?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
3. Whose Lives do you feel that you are an important part of?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?

56
48
4. Whom do you feel would help you if you were married and had just separated from your
spouse?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
5. Whom could you really count on to help you out in a crisis situation, even though they
would have to go out of their way to do so?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
6. Whom can you talk with frankly, without having to watch what you say?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
7. Who helps you feel that you truly have something positive to contribute to others?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
8. Whom can you really count on to distract you from your worries when you feel under
stress?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
49
57
9. Whom can you really count on to be dependable when you need help?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
10. Whom could you really count on to help you out if you had just been fired from your job
or expelled from school?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
11. With whom can you totally be yourself?

No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
12. Whom do you feel really appreciates you as a person?

No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
13. Whom can you really count on to give you useful suggestions that help you to avoid
making mistakes?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
14. Whom can you count on to listen openly and uncritically to your innermost feelings?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
50
58
15. Who will comfort you when you need it by holding you in their arms?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
16. Whom do you feel would help if a good friend of yours had been in a car accident and
was hospitalized in serious condition?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
17. Whom can you really count on to help you feel more relaxed when you are under
pressure or tense?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
18. Whom do you feel would help if a family member very close to you died?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
19. Who accepts you totally, including both your worse and your best points?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
20. Whom can you really count on to care about you, regardless of what is happening to you?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
59
51
21. Whom can you really count on to listen to you when you are very angry at someone else?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
22. Whom can you really count on to tell you, in a thoughtful manner, when you need to
improve in some way?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
23. Whom can you really count on to help you feel better when you are feeling generally
down-in-the-dumps?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
24. Whom do you feel truly loves you deeply?

No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
25. Whom can you count on to console you when you are very upset?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
26. Whom can you really count on to support you in major decisions you make?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
52
60
27. Whom can you really count on to help you feel better when you are very irritable, ready
to get angry at almost anything?
No One 1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
How Satisfied?
61
53
Appendix G: Thesis Research Survey
Demographic Information:
1. What is your Ohio State University email address?

2. What is your sex? M F
3. What is your ethnicity?
a. Black
b. White
c. Asian
d. Two or more races
e. Native Americans/Alaska Native
f. Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islander
g. Other
4. What is your current undergraduate status?
a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior
5. Who is your Closest Family Member? (Closest Family member is defined as the
person you have the closest relationship with and look to for support within your
family)
a. Mother
b. Father
c. Brother
d. Sister
e. Aunt
f. Uncle
g. Cousin
h. Grandfather
i. Grandmother
j. Guardian
k. Other: ___________________________________
54
62
Qualitative Questions: (space will be provided in the survey for respondents to respond
to the questions). The following 10 questions are all identical and ask you to create 1
question regarding family support for each space provided. Please provide at least 5
responses. If you are able to provide more than 5 questions and up to 10 questions, you
may do so. The more questions you provide regarding family support, the more insight
you will provide the researchers in developing a new Family Social Support Instrument.
1. In the following space, please create 1 question that you think accurately measures
the amount of family social support your Closest Family Member gives to you. In
other words, what question do you think would be appropriate for your Closest
Family Member to ask you, the student, in order for a researcher to tell if your
Closest Family Member does/does not support you. This can include emotional,
monetary, and/or psychological support.
2. In the following space, please create 1 question that is different from your previous
responses that you think accurately measures the amount of family social support
your Closest Family Member gives to you. In other words, what question do you
think would be appropriate for your Closest Family Member to ask you, the student,
in order for a researcher to tell if your Closest Family Member does/does not
support you. This can include emotional, monetary, and/or psychological support.
5. In the following space, please create 1 question that you think accurately measures
the amount of family social support your Closest Family Member gives to you. In
other words, what question do you think would be appropriate for your Closest
63
55
Family Member to ask you, the student, in order for a researcher to tell if your
Closest Family Member does/does not support you. This can include emotional,
monetary, and/or psychological support.
10. In the following space, please create 1 questions that is different from your previous
64
56
57
65
Appendix H: The Undergraduate Family Social Support Scale
Nadel (2014)
Purpose:
To measure the respondent’s level of social support received from their closest
family member. The closest family member is defined as the family member that the
respondent has the closest relationship with and look to for support.
Directions:
For the following statements please mark the number that best corresponds to
your response.
Completely Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
My Closest Family Member . . . Completely Agree
1. asks me how my friends are doing 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. offers advice whenever I need it 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. supports me in all the things I do 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. finds ways to make me feel better 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. asks me if I have enough money 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. asks me if I have a lot of assignments due 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. asks me about my plans after graduation 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. is willing to help me with school assignments 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. asks me if I am eating healthy 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. is always there for me when I need them 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. and I can talk about anything 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. asks me if I have enough money to pay my bills 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. gives me money for personal items 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. asks me if I am keeping up with my assignments 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. asks me how my classes are going 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. gives me advice about my relationships at school 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. calls/texts me on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. tells me about how things are going back home 1 2 3 4 5 6
66
58
Completely Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
My Closest Family Member . . . Completely Agree
19. asks me how I am handling stress 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. asks me about my academic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6
21. asks me about my grades 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. asks me how my relationship with my friends are 1 2 3 4 5 6
23. buys me groceries 1 2 3 4 5 6
24. asks me if I like my classes 1 2 3 4 5 6
25. supports my decision to attend college 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. treats me as an adult 1 2 3 4 5 6
27. gives me financial support when I need it 1 2 3 4 5 6
28. tells me that they love me 1 2 3 4 5 6
29. helps me pay for my school textbooks 1 2 3 4 5 6
30. asks me if I like my professors 1 2 3 4 5 6
31. buys me new clothes when I need them 1 2 3 4 5 6
32. asks me about what is going on in my life 1 2 3 4 5 6
33. helps me pay for my school expenses 1 2 3 4 5 6
34. asks me about my plans this weekend 1 2 3 4 5 6
35. talks with me about my future plans 1 2 3 4 5 6
36. pays for my school supplies 1 2 3 4 5 6
37. sends me messages to cheer me up 1 2 3 4 5 6
38. asks me if I am communicating with people at home 1 2 3 4 5 6
39. puts money in my bank account 1 2 3 4 5 6
40. asks me if I have been taking care of myself 1 2 3 4 5 6
41. asks me if I am dating anyone 1 2 3 4 5 6
42. asks me about any upcoming tests 1 2 3 4 5 6
43. is someone who I always look to for advice 1 2 3 4 5 6
44. tells me I am smart when I’m struggling with classes 1 2 3 4 5 6
45. asks me if my classes interests me 1 2 3 4 5 6
46. asks me for my opinion on different issues 1 2 3 4 5 6
47. gives me money so I can go out with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 6
48. asks me about my future exams 1 2 3 4 5 6
49. asks me what events I am going/have gone to 1 2 3 4 5 6
50. helps me pay for transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6
51. offers a shoulder for me to cry on 1 2 3 4 5 6
Note. Personal Issues: Relationships (1, 22, 41), Respect (11, 26, 46), Gives Advice (2, 16, 43), Communication (17,
18, 38), Support (3, 10, 51), Love/Care (4, 28, 37), Inquires about life outside of school (32, 34, 49), Physical/Mental
Health (9, 19, 40); Financial Issues: School Expenses (29, 33, 36), Gas/Groceries/Bills (12, 23, 50), Need for Money
(5, 27, 39), Personal Items (13, 31, 47); Academic Issues: Inquiry about Progress (15, 21, 42), Shows Support (8, 25,
44), Class Satisfaction (24, 30,45), Workload (6, 14, 48), Future Goals (7, 20, 35).
59
67

NSSQ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSSQ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing a Social Support Measurement Instrument: A Methodological Approach to

Measuring Undergraduate Perceptions of Social Support

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Sarah Nadel, B.S.

Graduate Program in Educational Studies

The Ohio State University

P. Cristian Gugiu, Ph.D., Advisor

Dorinda Gallant, Ph.D.

The level of perceived social support in higher education continues to be a field of

and 43 males) from a large Midwestern university. In order to characterize their

used to identify the themes undergraduate students perceived as indicators of social

perspective on my thesis project and her advice throughout my tenure in my Masters

2011................................................................B.S. Psychology, Northern Kentucky

2012 to present ..............................................Graduate Administrative Associate, Office

of Enrollment, Analysis, and Reporting, and

Office of First Year Studies, The Ohio State

2013 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Office of

Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio

Major Field: Educational Studies

Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii

Appendix A: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support ................................. 41

Appendix B: Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire ....................................................... 42

Appendix C: Perceived Social Support Scale - Family Version....................................... 43

Appendix D: Perceived Social Support Scale - Friend Version ....................................... 45

Appendix E: Social Provisions Scale ................................................................................ 46

Appendix G: Thesis Research Survey .............................................................................. 54

Appendix H: Undergraduate Family Social Support Scale .............................................. 58

Figure 1: Jaccard's Similarity Dendogram: Manual Coding ............................................. 18

Figure 2: Jaccard's Similarity Dendogram: Semi-Automated Coding.............................. 23

Table 1: Cluster Definitions by Theme ............................................................................. 15

Table 2: Jaccard's Coefficient Similarity Matrix: Independent Analysis ......................... 17

Table 3: WordStat Content Analysis: Keyword Frequency ............................................ 20

Table 4: WordStat Content Analysis: Keyword Revisions............................................... 21

Table 5: Jaccard's Similarity Matrix: Semi-Automated Analysis .................................... 22

Table 6: Crosstab Frequency Between Clusters and Keywords ...................................... 24

Table 7: Cluster Analysis Theme and Cluster Frequencies .............................................. 27

Table 8: Demographic Cluster Percentage by Respondent............................................... 28

Table 9: Social Support Instrument Cluster Comparison ................................................. 30

directly linked to students obtaining a bachelor’s degree (Greenstone, Looney, Patashnik,

investigated to determine strategies to help students reach graduation.

Research continues to be conducted to identify key factors that affect academic

persistence and academic motivation (Nicpon et al., 2006, 2007).

Academic persistence is a positive predictor of retention in higher education

Academic motivation is another factor influenced by levels of social support. It has

retention (Alfaro, Umaña-Taylor, & Bámaca, 2006).

promote self-confidence, academic motivation, and school connectedness. However,

Current Social Support Instruments

Several instruments have been developed to measure family social support,

including the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (Zimet,

based on lower levels of social support.

Appendix B) is a 6-item instrument, based on Kahn’s (1979) definition of perceived social

Paunonen-Ilmonen, Tarkka, & Laippala, 2002).

The PSSS-FR/FA is a 40-item instrument that consists of two subscales—one

friends (see Appendix D)—measured by 20 questions per subscale. The PSSS-FR/FA

factors based on Weiss’s (1974) model: attachment, social integration, reassurance of

important dimensions of social support.

representing the detected themes were written and organized as an instrument.

Grounded Theory Approach

Grounded theory is an exploratory technique developed by Glaser and Strauss

Myers, 2010). In contrast to other research techniques such as ethnography,