Psychometric Properties of the Peruvian Version of the MOS Scale for Social Support in Cancer Patients and Convergent Network with Quality of Life

Figures & data

Table 1 Description of Sociodemographic Data (n = 499)

	f	%
Distribution of patients by gender
Female	335	67.1
Male	164	32.9
Distribution by place of origin
Metropolitan Lima	144	28.9
Provinces**	355	71.1
Distribution of patients according to the level of education
None	8	1.6
Complete primary	43	8.6
Incomplete primary	67	13.4
Complete secondary	157	31.5
Incomplete secondary	59	11.8
Complete Technical	48	9.6
Incomplete Technical	17	3.4
Complete superior	55	11
Incomplete superior	45	9
Distribution of patients according to the economic situation
Good	33	6.6
Regular	258	51.7
Bad	208	41.7
Distribution of patients by the medical oncology department
Oncological medicine	131	26.3
Breast and soft tissue	112	22.4
Abdomen	78	15.6
Gynecology	78	15.6
Head and Neck	30	6
Urology	22	4.4
Neurosurgery	18	3.6
Thorax	16	3.2
Orthopedics	14	2.8
Distribution of patients according to clinical stage
I	29	5.8
II	99	19.8
III	137	27.5
IV	67	13.4
No registration	167	34

Note: **Others patients from other departments in Peru.

Table 2 Table of Original and Adapted Items

Original Items	Adapted Items
2. Someone to help you when you have to be in bed?	2. Someone to help you when you have to rest in bed because of your condition?
9. Someone to trust or to talk to about yourself and your concerns?	9. Someone you can trust or talk to about yourself and your concerns?
16. Someone to share your most intimate fears and problems with?	16. Someone with whom you can share your fears and problems?
17. Someone to advise you on how to solve your problems?	17. Someone to advise you on how to solve your problems?

Note: Modified Items: 2, 9 16, and 17.

Table 3 Factorial Weights for Each Estimated Model of the MOS (n = 499)

Domains	Four Factor Model	Second Order Model	Bifactor Model
Emotional Support (ES)		SF	SF	GF
A3	0.737	0.737	0.150	0.771
A4	0.774	0.774	0.056	0.785
A8	0.716	0.716	0.061	0.727
A9	0.826	0.826	0.196	0.798
A13	0.817	0.817	0.135	0.807
A16	0.850	0.850	0.545	0.742
A17	0.866	0.866	0.538	0.762
A19	0.834	0.834	0.244	0.791
Tangible Support (TS)
A2	0.674	0.670	0.452	0.477
A5	0.616	0.607	0.363	0.465
A12	0.754	0.760	0.667	0.444
A15	0.781	0.786	0.610	0.497
Positive Interaction (PI)
A7	0.731	0.733	0.191	0.707
A11	0.841	0.840	0.411	0.752
A14	0.829	0.829	0.154	0.813
A18	0.873	0.872	0.455	0.781
Affective Support (AS)
A6	0.720	0.712	0.435	0.585
A10	0.771	0.783	0.423	0.628
A20	0.686	0.682	0.436	0.542
ECV	–	–	0.760
PUC	–	–	0.749
ωH	–	–	0.900
HH			0.953
ω	0.960	–	–

Note: Second order model (GF and specific latent factors loadings with ES, TS, PI, and AS were 0.926, 0.657, 0.954 and 0.811, respectively).

Abbreviations: SF, specific factors; GF, general factor; ECV, explained common variance; PUC, percentage of uncontaminated correlations; ω_H, hierarchical omega reliability coefficient; H_H, hierarchical factor loading; ω, four factor model omega reliability coefficient.

Table 4 Fit Indices of Factor Models and Invariance of the MOS Scale

Model	SB-X^2/df	CFI	RMSEA	∆CFI	∆RMSEA
M1: Four-factor model	2.67	0.932	0.061
M2: Second order model	2.19	0.966	0.059
M3: Bifactor model	1.94	0.966	0.058
Factorial Invariance of the MOS- Scale
M3- Configural	1.55	0.963	0.062	-	-
M3- Metric	1.51	0.961	0.046	0.002	0.013
M3- Scalar	1.48	0.963	0.055	0.002	0.009

Note: M3 configural, metric and scalar: configural, metric and scalar invariance of the bifactor model. p-value: models comparison.

Figure 1 Network analysis of social support, quality of life measure and gender.

Note: The blue lines represent positive relationships, and the red lines are negative associations.

Abbreviations: GND, gender (male=1, female=2); QOL, quality of life; ES, emotional support; TS, tangible support; PI, positive interactions; AS, affective support.

Figure 2 Expected influence of social support dimensions, quality of life measures and gender.

Note: The closer to the value of 1, the more influence it has on other variables in the network.