







































Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal  
Vol. 21 (2), August 2024, 100-117 

ISSN:  2598-6368(online); 1693-7236(print)                                                                 

       humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id             http://journal1.uad.ac.id/index.php/Humanitas                     https://10.26555/humanitas.v21i2.637 

The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-

short form (ISEL-16) on College Students 

Septian Wahyu Rahmanto  
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia 
Corresponding author: swr620@ums.ac.id 
 

 

This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license. 

 

Introduction  

Social support encompasses a range of resources provided through interpersonal 

relationships. It is refers to the assistance individuals receive from their social networks 

(Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). Another scholar, Uchino (2004) defines it as the comfort, care, 

or assistance available from others, while Gottlieb and Bergen (2010) describe it as social 

resources offered by non-professionals within both formal support groups and informal 

settings. The American Psychological Association (2018) characterizes social support as 

providing assistance or comfort to others, typically to help them manage biological, 

psychological, or social stress. Collectively, these definitions highlight that social support 

serves as a crucial resource in interpersonal relationships, aiding individuals in coping with 

stress. 

Research has consistently demonstrated the positive impact of social support on coping 

strategies. For instance, social support is associated with higher levels of gratitude, which 

can lead to positive life evaluations (Yunanto, 2020). It also encourages the adoption of 

ARTICLE  INFO  

 

ABST RACT  

 

Article history 

Received December 30, 2023 

Revised August 20, 2024 

Accepted August 24, 2024 

 The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) is an instrument for 
assessing perceived social support. It exists in both full and short forms, 
with the short version (ISEL-16) offering practical advantages in terms 
of efficiency for assessments and research. To date, there is no adapted 
version of the ISEL-16 available in Indonesian. This study aimed to 
adapt and validate the ISEL-16 for use in Indonesia through 
psychometric analysis. The adaptation process followed ITC 
guidelines, including obtaining permission, conducting back-to-back 
translations, evaluating language comparability and interpretability, 
and testing the instrument on a sample population.  292 active students 
were recruited using quota sampling. Validity and reliability were 
assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in AMOS 23. 
Results indicated that the ISEL-16 exhibits a good model fit with four 
factors: appraisal, tangible assets, belonging, and self-esteem. The 
findings confirm that the Indonesian version of the ISEL-16 is a valid 
and reliable measure of perceived students’ social support. 
Theoretically, the adaptation reinforces the four-dimensional structure 
of social support previously established. Practically, it can be used to 
predict stress-related outcomes, such as crisis-related and academic 
stress, and is recommended for time- and resource-constrained research 
scenarios as well as for classical tests or exploratory studies. 

    

 

Keywords 

Adaptation scale  

Interpersonal support 

Isel-16 

Perceived social support 

 

 

mailto:humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id
http://journal1.uad.ac.id/index.php/Humanitas
https://10.0.103.187/humanitas.v21i2.637
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 101 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

appropriate coping strategies (Widyasrini & Lestari, 2020) and positively influences self-

esteem (Lestari & Fajar, 2020). Among individuals aged 15-25, higher perceived social 

support correlates with a greater tendency to engage in active coping strategies, as opposed 

to negative coping strategies (Mai et al., 2021). Conversely, the lack of social support is 

linked to adverse outcomes, including negative emotions, health issues, and symptoms of 

mental disorders. Research has shown that social support negatively correlates with 

stress (Ramania et al., 2019), depression (Grey et al., 2020; Qing & Li, 2021), loneliness 

(Zhang & Dong, 2022), poor sleep quality (Grey et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2022). Therefore, 

understanding individual perceptions of social support is essential for predicting their 

capacity to manage crises or stressors. 

In educational settings, social support serves as a protective factor for students during 

times of crisis. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, higher levels of perceived 

social support were associated with lower anxiety levels and reduced impacts of the 

pandemic among participants aged 15-25 (Mai et al., 2021). Social support also mitigates 

the negative effects of other significant life stressors, such as divorce, bereavement, chronic 

illness, pregnancy, job loss, and excessive workload (Buchwald, 2017). Thus, social support 

provides substantial health and mental health benefits during periods of high stress. 

Perceived social support during the early stages of university life is particularly 

beneficial for students' overall well-being and mental health (Adyani et al., 2019; Cobo-

Rendón et al., 2020). College students with higher levels of social support are reported to 

have lower stress levels (McLean et al., 2022). Furthermore, Cage et al. (2021) found that 

perceptions of social support positively influence students' mental health during transitional 

periods in university life, such as entering college, adapting to new academic years, and 

preparing to leave the university environment. 

Various instruments have been developed to measure social support, with the 

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) being particularly prominent due to its 

comprehensive representation of social support dimensions. Nick et al. (2018) identified four 

subtypes of social support—self-esteem or emotional support, social companionship, 

informational support, and instrumental support—that align closely with the subtypes 

proposed by (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Table 1 provides a comparison of available instruments 

for assessing perceptions of social support. 

Table 1 

Development of An Instrument for Perceptions of Social Support 

No. Instruments Dimension Psychometric Evidence  

1 Social Support 

Questionnaire (SSQ) 

 (Sarason et al., 1983) 

Two parts: a list of people they can 

contact and rely on in certain situations 

and how satisfied they are with that 

social support 

The internal reliability alpha 

coefficient α=0.97 

2 Perceived Social Support 

Inventory 

(Procidano & Heller, 

1983) 

Support, information, and feedback The internal reliability alpha 

coefficient α=0.90 

3 Interpersonal Support 

Evaluation List 

(Cohen & Hoberman, 

1983) 

Appraisal, tangible, belonging, dan 

self-esteem 

Total scale reliability ISEL-

48 α=0.77 (appraisal 

α=0.77, tangible α=0.71, 

belonging α=0.75, dan self-

esteem α =0.60) 

4 Multidimensional Scale of 

Perceived Social Support 

(Zimet et al., 1988) 

Multidimensional measurement of 

perceived social support from three 

main sources, family, friends, and 

significant other 

Total scale reliability 

α=0.88. Significant Other 

α=0.91; Family α=0.87; and 

Friends α=0.85  



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 102 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Table 1 

(Continued) 

No. Instruments Dimension Psychometric Evidence  

5 Interview Schedule for 

Social Interaction 

(Undén & Orth-Gomér, 

1989) 

Availability of social integration 

(AVSI); Adequacy of social integration 

(ADSI); Availability of attachment 

(AVAT); Adequacy of attachment 

(ADAT) 

Reliabilitas: AVSI (α=0.77), 

ADSI (α=0.86), AVAT 

(α=0.80), and ADAT 

(α=0.94) 

6 Social Support Scale 

(Peeters et al., 1995) 

Instrumental support, intimate support, 

dan rewarding companionship 

Reliability of Instrumental 

α=0.80; Intimate α=0.77; 

and Rewarding α =0.76 

The ISEL, originally developed by Cohen and Hoberman (1983) with an initial total 

of 48 items. , is widely used to measure perceptions of social support. The ISEL-48, the full 

version of the scale, consists of four dimensions: appraisal (perceived availability of 

someone to talk to), tangible (availability of material assistance), self-esteem (favorable self-

comparison), and belonging (availability of people to engage with). The total scale reliability 

for ISEL-48 is 0.77, with subscale reliabilities ranging from 0.60 to 0.77. 

ISEL has been used in research in various settings in Indonesia. The use of ISEL in 

various settings, for example, in health settings with tuberculosis patient participants 

(Saraswati & Purwandari, 2023); in forensic settings with child prisoner participants (Sukma 

& Panjaitan, 2019); in educational settings with participants from undergraduate nursing 

study program students (Aeni et al., 2023) and student members of student and student 

associations (Akerina & Wibowo, 2022); and in workplace settings with contract employee 

participant (Atmaja & Chusairi, 2022). Despite its broad applicability, the short version of 

ISEL (ISEL-16), which maintains the four-dimensional structure, has not been adapted or 

validated in the Indonesian context. 

The ISEL-16, a shortened version used in large epidemiological studies such as the 

Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, includes social, psychological, and 

health assessment instruments (ARIC Investigators, 1989). The ISEL-SF was administered 

to 14,348 participants at visit two inspections in 1990-1993 (Payne et al., 2012). The shorter 

instrument was selected from the original ISEL instrument to reduce the survey time burden 

and practical management considerations for ARIC study participants.  

The ISEL-SF consists of 16 items taken from the full ISEL scale. The items selected 

were those with the highest factor loadings in each of the four subscales from the original 

analysis of the complete ISEL instrument (Brookings & Bolton, 1988). Given the importance 

of assessing social support efficiently, the ISEL-16 offers a valuable tool for settings where 

time and resources are limited. 

No studies have empirically evaluated the psychometric properties of the ISEL-16 in 

the Indonesian context, creating a critical gap in the availability of validated tools for 

assessing perceptions of social support in this population. Addressing this gap is essential, 

particularly for applications in educational and crisis settings, where efficient and reliable 

assessments of social support are needed.  

This study seeks to adapt and validate the ISEL-16 for use in Indonesia, drawing on 

previous psychometric evidence established with European American and African American 

participants (Payne et al., 2012). this research aims to provide a validated, efficient scale that 

enhances the assessment of social support, thereby contributing to the broader field of 

psychometrics. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 103 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Method 

Participants 

The study involved active students enrolled in Diploma and Bachelor programs across 

various majors in Central Java. The total student population in this region is 

644,683 (Pusdatin Kemenristekdikti, 2019). Based on Isaac and Michael's table  (Sugiyono, 

2011), a sample size of 270 students was determined as appropriate for this population. A 

convenience sampling technique was employed due to its practicality, allowing researchers 

to access participants easily (Golzar et al., 2022).  

Participants were recruited through known contacts who had access to potential 

subjects and were reached via WhatsApp and Instagram. The data collection process utilized 

online questionnaires shared through these platforms. A total of 292 students participated, 

aged between 17 and 29 years (M = 20.33, SD = 1.61). Participant ages were categorized 

into two groups based on Santrock (2019) theory adolescence (17-21 years) and early 

adulthood (22-29 years). Table 2 provides detailed demographic information about the 

respondents. 

 

Table 2  

Participant Demographic Data 
Category Frequency (N=292) Percentage 

Gender 

Man 

Woman 

 

43 

249 

 

14.7% 

85.3% 

Age 

17-21 

22-29 

 

230 

62 

 

78.8% 

21.2% 

Campus cluster 

SU (State university) 

PU (Private university) 

CU (Civil service university) 

 

122 

160 

10 

 

41.8% 

54.8% 

3.4% 

Educational level 

Diploma 

Bachelor 

 

90 

202 

 

69.2% 

30.8% 

Instrument 

The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL-16) was used to assess participants' 

perceptions of social support (Payne et al., 2012). ISEL-16 used in this study (Payne et al., 

2012) is an abbreviated version of ISEL 48 developed by (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983), 

comprises 16 items and demonstrates a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.83. ISEL-16 evaluates 

four domains: appraisal, tangible assets, belonging, and self-esteem (Brookings & Bolton, 

1988; Cohen & Hoberman, 1983; Payne et al., 2012). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert 

scale: 0 = "definitely not appropriate," 1 = "likely not appropriate," 2 = "likely appropriate," 

and 3 = "definitely appropriate." Table 3 outlines the measurement scale and indicators used 

in the analysis before conducting the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). ISEL-16 consists 

of 4 factors with 16 items before CFA analysis. Table 3 shows the blueprint of the 

measurement scale and explanation of indicators (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983; Cohen & 

Wills, 1985; Nick et al., 2018; Payne et al., 2012). 

 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 104 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Table 3 

Blueprint of ISEL-16 Before CFA 
Factors Indicators Original Items* 

Appraisal 

(AP) 

Perceived willingness to 

discuss personal concerns or 

interests. Assistance in 

offering advice, sharing 

information or perspectives, 

and giving advice. 

There really is no one who can give me an objective view 

of how I’m handling my problems (UF) 

When I need suggestions on how to deal with a personal 

problem, I know someone I can turn to (F) 

There is really no one I can trust to give me good financial 

advice (UF) 

There is at least one person I know whose advice I really 

trust (F) 

Tangible 

Assets 

(TA) 

Perceptions of the availability 

of material assistance. 

Examples include assistance 

with needed services, 

completing required tasks, and 

assistance with material 

resources. 

6 (UF) If I were sick and needed someone (friend, family 

member, or acquaintance) to take me to the doctor, I 

would have trouble finding someone (UF) 

If I were sick, I could easily find someone to help me with 

my daily chores (F) 

If I had to go out of town for a few weeks, it would be 

difficult to find someone who would look after my house 

or apartment (the plants, pets, garden, etc.) (UF) 

It would be difficult to find someone who would lend me 

their car for a few hours (UF) 

Belonging 

(BE) 

Perceived availability to 

interact socially. Doing 

something or spending time 

with other people or 

expressions of inclusiveness. 

When I feel lonely, there are several people I can talk to 

(F) 

I often meet or talk with family or friends (F) 

I feel like I am not always included by my circle of friends 

(UF) 

I don’t often get invited to do things with others (UF) 

Self-esteem 

(SE) 

The perceived availability of 

others is in the form of positive 

feedback, with which the 

individual feels he is being 

compared well so that the 

individual can compare 

himself positively with others. 

Most of my friends are more interesting than I am (UF) 

Most of my friends are more successful at making changes 

in their lives than I am (UF) 

I am more satisfied with my life than most people are with 

theirs (F) 

I have a hard time keeping pace with my friends (UF) 

Note: *F=Favourable, UF=Unfavourable 

Procedure 

The adaptation process followed the International Test Commission (ITC) guidelines for 

translating and adapting tests (ITC, 2017). The stages included: (1) obtaining permission 

from the ISEL-16 developer, Thomas H. Mosley, via email; (2) ensuring adaptation 

considers linguistic, psychological, and cultural differences by selecting translators with 

relevant expertise; (3) forward translation (FT) was conducted by three independent 

translators, who were academics in psychology with experience living in countries where 

the instrument's original language is spoken.  

The first two translators independently translated the instrument, and the third 

translator synthesized their versions into a final FT; (4) back translation (BT) involved three 

independent translators with qualifications in academia or professional experience, with 

English language certification and familiarity with the instrument's original language. The 

translators performed the BT independently, with the final BT being reviewed by an expert 

panel; (5) the final BT was reviewed by three English language experts to ensure linguistic 

comparabilityand interpretative equivalence (Sperber, 2004); and (6) conducting a large-

scale field test to gather psychometric evidence. 

 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 105 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Data Analysis 

Psychometric evidence was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the 

internal structure. CFA was conducted to confirm the theoretical measurement model, 

examining how well the observed variables represented the underlying constructs (Hair et 

al., 2014). The model fit was evaluated using single equation modeling and global fit indices, 

including the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit Index 

(GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Parsimonious Normal 

Fit Index (PNFI). These indices provide a comprehensive assessment of absolute fit, 

incremental fit, and parsimony fit  (Ingarianti et al., 2019). Criteria for a good fit included 

GFI and CFI values greater than 0.9 and RMSEA values less than 0.08 (Schoot et al., 2012; 

Schreiber et al., 2006; Kline, 2023). TLI and PNFI range from 0 to 1, but models with a good 

fit have values closer to 1 (Hair et al., 2014; Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). The CFA was 

performed using AMOS 23 software. 

Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and construct reliability (CR). 

Cronbach’s alpha values between 0.70 and 0.90 indicate high reliability (Cohen et al., 2013; 

Hinton et al., 2004), with values above 0.70 considered acceptable (Bland & Altman, 1997). 

Reliability tests were conducted using IBM SPSS version 25. Construct reliability was 

calculated using the formula involving factor loadings and measurement error (Ghozali & 

Fuad, 2005): 

Construct Reliability =
(∑Standardized Loading)²

(∑Standardized Loading)2 + (∑Measurement Error)
 

 

Results 

In the initial stage, the researcher asked permission from the ISEL-16 developer, Thomas H. 

Mosley, via email (tmosley@umc.edu) to adapt ISEL-16. The researcher received a reply to 

use the ISEL-16 instrument. In the second stage, the researcher looked for a forward-

translation (FT) translator and FT synthesis as well as a back-translation (BT) translator and 

BT synthesis according to the specified criteria. The results of the FT translator search show 

the researcher got two FT translators, namely AKP as FT1 (a psychology academic with an 

IELTS score of 8 and experience living in Australia and England) and SR as FT2 (an 

academic, TOEFL score of 100, and experience living in the United States). FT synthesis 

was carried out by a psychology academic who had experience living in England.  

The results of the search for BT translators, the researcher got two translators, namely 

AFS as BT1 (TOEFL score 80, institution Universiti Sains Malaysia, and experience living 

in Australia and Malaysia) and GA as BT2 (TOEFL score 110, institution International 

Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and experience living in 

Singapore and the Netherlands). The BT synthesis translator is RK, who has an IELTS score 

of 8.9 and has experience living in Australia, the United States, England, and New Zealand. 

The BT synthesis results are reviewed by three experts in English, each with a 

TOEFL/IELTS score and experience living in the United States, England, and Australia. 

The third stage is the forward translation (FT) process. The translation results of 

forward translation (FT) on several items were translated differently by the FT1 translator 

and the FT2 translator. For example, the original item “How to deal with a personal 

problem” is translated as “cara mengatasi permasalahan personal” and “jalan keluar 

masalah pribadi saya”. The synthesis discussion decided to use the sentence “bagaimana 

menyelesaikan masalah pribadi saya” so that it is not different from the original item. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 106 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Original item “I would have trouble finding someone” was translated by both FT 

translators and placed at the beginning of the sentence, although there is no difference, but 

the synthesis discussion placed it at the end of the sentence like the original item. The 

original item “Most of my friends” is translated as “Sebagian besar teman” and 

“Kebanyakan teman”, but the word “kebanyakan” is more appropriate because it is in 

accordance with the Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI). 

 

Table 4 

Forward Translation Synthesis 
Item 

number 
Original item FT1 translator FT2 translator FT synthesis 

AP1 There really is no one 

who can give me an 

objective view of how 

I’m handling my 

problems. 

Tidak ada seorang 

pun yang dapat 

memberikan 

pandangan objektif 

mengenai 

bagaimana saya 

mengatasi masalah. 

Tidak ada seorang 

pun yang dapat 

memberikan 

pandangan objektif  

tentang bagaimana 

saya mengatasi 

masalah. 

Tidak ada seorang pun 

yang dapat memberikan 

pandangan objektif  

tentang bagaimana saya 

mengatasi masalah. 

AP2 When I need 

suggestions on how to 

deal with a personal 

problem, I know 

someone I can turn to. 

Ketika saya 

membutuhkan saran 

mengenai cara 

mengatasi 

permasalahan 

personal, saya tahu 

siapa yang dapat 

saya hubungi. 

Ketika saya 

membutuhkan saran 

tentang jalan keluar 

masalah pribadi 

saya, saya tahu siapa 

yang harus saya 

hubungi. 

Ketika saya 

membutuhkan saran 

tentang bagaimana 

menyelesaikan 

masalah pribadi saya, 

saya tahu siapa yang 

harus saya hubungi. 

TA1 If I were sick and 

needed someone 

(friend, family 

member, or 

acquaintance) to take 

me to the doctor, I 

would have trouble 

finding someone. 

Jika saya sakit, saya 

akan kesulitan 

untuk menemukan 

seseorang (teman, 

anggota keluarga, 

atau kenalan) yang 

bisa membawa saya 

ke dokter. 

Jika saya sakit, saya 

akan kesulitan 

menemukan orang 

lain (teman, anggota 

keluarga, atau 

kenalan) yang bisa 

membawa saya ke 

dokter. 

Jika saya sakit dan 

memerlukan orang lain 

(teman, anggota 

keluarga, atau kenalan) 

untuk mengantarkan 

saya ke dokter, saya 

kesulitan untuk 

menemukannya 

TA2 If I were sick, I could 

easily find someone to 

help me with my daily 

chores. 

Jika saya sakit, saya 

dapat dengan 

mudah menemukan 

seseorang yang 

dapat membantu 

saya melakukan 

tugas sehari-hari. 

Jika saya sakit, saya 

dapat dengan mudah 

menemukan 

seseorang untuk 

membantu saya 

melakukan tugas 

sehari-hari. 

Jika saya sakit, dengan 

mudah saya dapat 

menemukan seseorang 

untuk membantu saya 

melakukan tugas 

sehari-hari. 

BE1 When I feel lonely, 

there are several 

people I can talk to. 

Ketika saya merasa 

kesepian, terdapat 

beberapa orang 

yang bisa saya ajak 

bicara. 

Jika saya merasa 

kesepian, ada 

beberapa orang yang 

bisa saya ajak bicara. 

Jika saya merasa 

kesepian, ada beberapa 

orang yang bisa saya 

ajak bicara. 

BE2 I often meet or talk 

with family or friends. 

Saya sering bertemu 

atau berbicara 

dengan keluarga 

atau teman. 

Saya sering bertemu 

atau berbicara dengan 

keluarga atau teman. 

Saya sering bertemu 

atau berbicara dengan 

keluarga atau teman. 

SE1 Most of my friends 

are more interesting 

than I am. 

Sebagian besar 

teman saya lebih 

menarik 

dibandingkan saya. 

Kebanyakan teman 

saya lebih menarik 

daripada saya. 

Kebanyakan teman 

saya lebih menarik 

daripada saya. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 107 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Table 4 

(Continued) 
Item 

number 
Original item FT1 translator FT2 translator FT synthesis 

SE2 Most of my friends are 

more successful at 

making changes in 

their lives than I am. 

Sebagian besar 

teman saya lebih 

sukses dalam 

melakukan 

perubahan dalam 

hidup mereka 

dibandingkan saya. 

Sebagian besar teman 

saya lebih sukses 

membuat perubahan 

dalam hidup mereka 

ketimbang saya. 

Sebagian besar teman 

saya lebih sukses dalam 

melakukan perubahan 

dalam hidup mereka 

dibandingkan saya. 

The fourth stage is the back translation (BT) translation process. The results of the FT 

synthesis process are translated back into English (back translation). Translators BT1 and 

BT2 translate the back translation (BT) results, which translator BT3 then reviews. The 

results of the back translation (BT) synthesis are relatively the same between translators BT1 

and BT2, so the BT synthesis translator also does not experience any obstacles. An example 

of BT results can be seen in Table 4. 

Table 5  

Back Translation Synthesis 
Item 

number 

FT synthesis BT1 translator BT2 translator BT synthesis 

AP3 Tidak ada seorang pun 

yang dapat saya percaya 

untuk memberikan 

nasihat yang baik terkait 

keuangan. 

There is no one I can 

trust to give good 

financial advice 

I cannot trust 

anyone to give a 

good financial 

advice 

There is no one I can 

trust to give good 

financial advice 

AP4 Setidaknya ada satu 

orang yang saya kenal 

yang nasihatnya dapat 

saya percaya. 

I know at least one 

person whose 

advice I can trust 

I know at least one 

person whose 

advice I can trust 

I know at least one 

person whose advice I 

can trust 

TA3 Jika saya harus keluar 

kota selama beberapa 

minggu, saya akan 

kesulitan untuk 

menemukan seseorang 

untuk menjaga rumah 

atau apartemen saya 

(seperti mengurus 

tanaman, hewan 

peliharaan, taman, dll). 

If I were to go out of 

town for weeks, it 

will be hard for me 

to to find someone 

to look after my 

house or apartment 

(such as tend the 

plants, pets, garden, 

etc) 

If I have to go out of 

town for several 

weeks, it will be 

difficult for me to 

find someone to 

look for my house 

or apartment (i.e. 

taking care of my 

plants, pets, garden, 

etc.) 

If I have to be out of 

town for a few weeks, it 

will be difficult for me 

to find someone to look 

after my house or 

apartment (such as 

taking care of plants, 

pets, gardens, etc.) 

TA4 Akan sulit bagi saya 

untuk menemukan 

seseorang yang mau 

meminjamkan 

mobilnya kepada saya 

selama beberapa jam. 

It will be difficult 

for me to to find 

someone who could 

lend me their car for 

a few hours 

It will be difficult 

for me to find 

someone willing to 

lend me h/er car for 

several hours 

It would be difficult for 

me to find someone 

who would lend me 

their car for a few hours 

BE3 Saya merasa tidak selalu 

dimasukkan dalam 

lingkaran teman-teman 

saya. 

Sometimes I feel 

excluded from my 

friendship circles 

Sometimes I feel 

excluded from my 

friendship circles 

Sometimes I feel 

excluded from my 

friendship circles 

BE4 Saya jarang dilibatkan 

untuk melakukan 

sesuatu dengan orang 

lain. 

I'm rarely involved 

in doing things with 

other people 

 

I am rarely involved 

to do something 

with other people 

I am rarely involved to 

do something with 

other people 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 108 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Table 5  

(Continued) 
Item 

number 

FT synthesis BT1 translator BT2 translator BT synthesis 

SE3 Saya lebih puas dengan 

kehidupan saya 

daripada kebanyakan 

orang dengan 

kehidupan mereka. 

I am more satisfied 

with my life than 

others with theirs 

I am more satisfied 

with my life than 

others with theirs 

I am more satisfied with 

my life than most 

people with theirs 

SE4 Saya kesulitan 

mengimbangi teman-

teman saya. 

I find it hard to keep 

up with my friends 

I find it hard to 

balance my friends 

I have a hard time 

keeping up with my 

friends 

The fifth stage is the process of reviewing the BT synthesis results. The BT synthesis 

results were compared with the original version of ISEL-16 in English by reviewing 

language comparability and interpretability similarity. In this process, the BT synthesis items 

were then reviewed by the ISEL-16 instrument developers and experts in the field of English. 

The average value of language comparability ranged from 1 to 2.67, and the average value 

of interpretability similarity ranged from 1 to 3, based on Sperber (2004), the value is stated 

as acceptable. 

The sixth stage is psychometric testing on a large sample. The results of a large-scale 

study with 292 respondents showed that the BE dimension had the highest average (7.68) in 

general for all categories, followed by the TA (5.92), AP (4.23), and SE (4.20) dimensions 

(see Table 5). The same pattern also occurs in sub-categories, where the BE dimension has 

the highest average among all sub-categories, such as in the gender sub-category, namely 

men and women, the age sub-category, namely teenagers and early adults, etc. The AP 

dimension has the lowest average for male participants, while the SE dimension has the 

lowest average for female participants. In adolescent participants, the AP dimension had the 

lowest average, while in early-adulthood participants, the initial SE dimension had the 

lowest average. 

Table 6 

Mean (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the ISEL-16 

Category 
AP TA BE SE 

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) 

All 4.23 (1.54) 5.92 (2.10) 7.68 (2.64) 4.20 (2.02) 

Gender 

Man 

Woman 

 

3.62 (1.36) 

4.34 (1.55) 

 

5.88 (2.04) 

5.92 (2.11) 

 

7.25 (2.47) 

7.75 (2.67) 

 

4.07 (1.84) 

4.22 (2.05) 

Age 

17-21 (Adolescent) 

22-29 (early-adulthood) 

 

4.30 (1.47) 

4.00 (1.76) 

 

5.84 (2.04) 

6.19 (2.28) 

 

7.74 (2.62) 

7.46 (2.76) 

 

4.32 (2.06) 

3.77 (1.78) 

Campus cluster 

SU (State university) 

PU (Private university) 

CU (Civil service university) 

 

4.22 (1.54) 

4.23 (1.57) 

4.50 (1.08) 

 

5.91 (2.04) 

5.89 (2.15) 

6.40 (2.01) 

 

7.63 (2.45) 

7.68 (2.77) 

8.30 (3.12) 

 

4.34 (1.94) 

4.06 (2.06) 

4.70 (2.21) 

Educational level 

Diploma 

Bachelor 

 

4.35 (1.53) 

4.18 (1.54) 

 

5.84 (2.18) 

5.95 (2.06) 

 

7.77 (2.51) 

7.64 (2.71) 

 

4.51 (2.01) 

4.06 (2.01) 

 

The results of the initial CFA analysis before modification (Figure 1.) showed that 

there were items with factor loadings (FL) values below 0.5, so these items had to be deleted 

(Hair et al., 2014). The items are AP1 and AP3 (appraisal), TA2 (tangible assets), and SE3 

(self-esteem). Items with an FL value close to 0.5 are not deleted first, namely AP4 items 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 109 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

with consideration; if rounded up, the result is 0.5. The parameters for the accuracy of the 

ISEL-16 model, namely RMSEA, GFI, CFI, and TLI, and only PNFI was fit (0.577).  

After that, a second CFA analysis was carried out, namely modification by deleting 

items with FL <0.5. The result is an FL value of 0.5, except for the TA1 item. The TA1 item 

was not deleted because FL with a value of ±0.30 to ±0.40 was considered to meet the 

minimum level for structural interpretation (Hair et al., 2014). The parameters for the 

accuracy of the ISEL-16 model are also not fit, namely RMSEA, GFI, CFI, TLI, and only 

PNFI fit (0.597). However, the result is fit if the GFI and CFI values are rounded. 
 
Figure 1       Figure 2 
Model CFA Before Modification    Model CFA Final 

 

 
  

  

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

The researcher then carried out a third CFA analysis, namely carrying out covariance 

(correlation) between errors according to the suggested modifications (modification indices), 

namely at e9<->e10, e11<->e12, and e13<->e16. After the third CFA analysis, the ISEL-16 

fit model accuracy parameters are fit, namely RMSEA=0.077, GFI=0.937, CFI=0.917, 

TLI=0.879, and PNFI=0.599 (Figure 2, Table 6). 

 

Table 7  

Parameter Fit 
Fit Categories Parameters fit Output Criteria Notes 

Absolute fit 
Root means square error of 

approximation (RMSEA) 

0.077 ≤0.08 

 

fit 

 Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.937 ≥0.9 fit 

Incremental fit Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.917 ≥0.9 fit 

 Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.879 0-1 fit 

Parsimony fit Parsimonious normal fit index (PNFI) 0.599 0-1 fit 

Calculate estimated reliability in general with Cronbach's alpha and for each manifest 

variable using Construct Reliability (CR). Cronbach's alpha value for all items is α = 0.81 

(Table 7). The manifest variables have their respective CR values as follows: AP = 0.66; TA 

= 0.63; BE = 0.73; SE = 0.74 (Table 8). 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 110 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Table 8  

Total Reliability Estimation 

Estimate Cronbach’s (α) Average interitem correlation 

Point estimate 0.81 0.27 

95% CI lower bound 0.78 0.23 

95% CI upper bound 0.84 0.32 

 

Table 9  

Construct Reliability (CR) 

Variables and Indicators *FL FL² Error **CR 

Appraisal     

AP2 0.82 0.67 0.33 

0.66 AP4 0.57 0.32 0.68 

Total 1.39 0.99 1.01 

Tangible Assets     

TA1 0.49 0.24 0.76 

0.63 
TA3 0.68 0.46 0.54 

TA4 0.64 0.41 0.59 

Total 1.81 1.11 1.89 

Belonging     

BE1 0.55 0.3 0.7 

0.73 

BE2 0.54 0.29 0.71 

BE3 0.7 0.49 0.51 

BE4 0.76 0.58 0.42 

Total 2.55 1.66 2.34 

Self-Esteem     

SE1 0.74 0.55 0.45 

0.74 
SE2 0.73 0.53 0.47 

SE4 0.62 0.38 0.62 

Total 2.09 1.46 1.54 

Note: *FL= factor loading, **CR= construct reliability 

ISEL-16 consists of 4 factors with 12 items after CFA analysis. Table 7 shows the 

blueprint of the measurement scale. 

 

Table 10 

Blueprint of ISEL-16 After Final CFA 
Factors Items* 

Appraisal (AP) 8 (F), 15 (F) 

Tangible Assets (TA) 6 (UF), 11 (UF), 14 (UF) 

Belonging (BE) 2 (F), 3 (F), 4 (UF), 9 (UF) 

Self-esteem (SE) 1 (UF), 10 (UF), 16 (UF) 

Note: *F=Favourable, UF=Unfavourable 

Discussion 

This study aims to adapt the Indonesian version of the ISEL-16 instrument (short form) to 

be used in Indonesia. The Indonesian version of the ISEL-16 factor structure test found that 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 111 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

the four-factor hierarchical model had model fit and factor loading. The fit value shows that 

the proposed model is suitable, meaning that the ISEL-16 measurement, whose structure is 

supported by these four dimensions, is valid according to empirical data (Azwar, 2019). 

These results align with previous research supporting a four-factor structure for the ISEL-16 

(Chen et al.,2020; Payne et al., 2012; Porricelli et al., 2024; Ranjbaran et al., 2015). Research 

by Chen et al. (2020) also supports a factor structure with four dimensions, and the ISEL-16 

instrument with four factors is also supported in several studies . 

While the ISEL-16 demonstrated a good overall model fit, four items (AP1, AP3, TA2, 

and SE3) had factor loadings below the recommended threshold of 0.5 and were therefore 

excluded. The Appraisal (AP) dimension now comprises only two indicators. According to 

Hair et al. (2014) a minimum of three indicators per factor is preferable for comprehensive 

coverage of the construct. Although this represents a limitation of the current study Kline 

(2016) suggests that a model with at least two indicators per factor can still be considered 

identified if it includes multiple factors. This finding contrasts with Payne et al. (2012), 

where each manifest variable included four indicators. 

Researchers conduct covariance (correlation) between errors according to 

modification indices. Sometimes, some measurement errors of one indicator are partially 

correlated with measurement errors of other indicators, the possible causes being the 

presence of items that have similar wording and response bias caused by participants' 

agreement with the attitude statement, regardless of the content of the statement (Brown, 

2015). Covariance between errors can be done as long as they are in the same dimension. 

The covariance between errors is intended to improve the model's fit (Uyun et al., 2021). 

Internal consistency analysis using Cronbach's alpha and Construct Reliability (CR) 

showed an overall reliability coefficient of α = 0.813, indicating consistent reflections of 

social support perceptions across items. This value is comparable to the original instrument's 

α = 0.83 (Payne et al., 2012). Furthermore, the CR value for each manifest variable 

(indicator) is AP = 0.66; TA = 0.63; BE = 0.73; SE = 0.74. CR values above 0.7 are indicated 

by the dimensions of Belonging (CR=0.73) and Self-esteem (CR=0.74). CR indicates 

internal consistency, meaning all measures represent the same latent construct. The rule of 

thumb for reliability estimation is 0.7 or higher, thus indicating good reliability (Hair et al., 

2014). Two dimensions, the Appraisal dimension (CR = 0.66) and the Tangible Assets 

dimension (TA = 0.63), have CRs below 0.7. However, a value of 0.6 to 0.7 is acceptable, 

provided that the indicators of the other construct validity models are good (Hair et al., 2014). 

Issues related to translation, literacy, and cultural differences, such as the 

representation of functional social support, were observed as potential factors influencing 

lower reliability (Merz et al., 2014). For example, AP1 “Tidak ada seorang pun yang dapat 

memberikan pandangan objektif tentang bagaimana saya mengatasi masalah,” and AP3 

“Tidak ada seorang pun yang dapat saya percaya untuk memberikan nasihat yang baik terkait 

keuangan.” These two items did not adequately represent perceptions of social support in 

the context of Indonesian students, so they were removed from the instrument. The AP1 and 

AP3 factors were removed, resulting in a minimal number of items, namely two items, which 

allows for a low AP construct reliability value of CR=0.66. The various results of 

psychometric properties show that local cultural influences and research samples greatly 

influence the adaptation of the instrument and are related to the cultural and socio-cultural 

context in which they live so that the response is also inseparable from local cultural 

influences (Rahmawati et al., 2022). Nevertheless, the psychometric results can provide 

initial evidence that the ISEL-16 overall social support score can be applied to Indonesian 

society with student samples. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 112 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

The BE dimension generally has the highest average (7.68) for all categories, while 

the SE dimension has the lowest average (4.20). This is in contrast to the theory of "Social 

Supports as Buffers of Life Change Stress" by (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983), the need for 

positive feedback (self-esteem) is the best predictor of overall life stress levels, while 

appraisal and tangible assets contribute little to the explanation of variations in life stress 

(Ghesquiere et al., 2017). These findings also explain that the COVID-19 pandemic, which 

is a stress trigger, has produced a need to overcome problems, which is best met through 

togetherness support or social interaction (BE). 

Age-related trends show that social support for interaction (BE) is highest among 

students aged 17-21(Adolescents)  and 22-29 (early adulthood), aligning with Romeo et al. 

(2024) findings on the importance of emotional support in academic settings. Maluenda-

Albornoz et al. (2023) also emphasized that first-year students who feel more support from 

peers and lecturers, where this support also makes them feel a greater sense of belonging to 

their educational community, will contribute to students showing cognitive progress (more 

effort and intellectual engagement), affective (enjoyment, positive attitudes, etc.), and 

behavior (participation, compliance, etc.). 

Differences in perceptions of social support between genders also emerged, and some 

were consistent with previous research. The differences in subscales show that women and 

men prefer to get support from parties willing to interact socially (BE) and prefer support 

from parties with the necessary resources (TA). This finding is different from the research 

of Payne et al. (2012), who found that women prefer support from individuals who provide 

both trust and social interaction, while men value support related to self-esteem and tangible 

assets. These differences underscore the need for tailored support interventions. 

Although this study contributes to evaluating the psychometric properties of the 

Indonesian version of the ISEL-16, there are several limitations. First, several items (AP1, 

AP3, TA2, and SE3) are still not appropriate to the participants' context so that future 

research can modify the four items according to the participants' context. Second, this 

research does not contain convergent validity, which is evidence-based on relationships with 

other variables, namely the relationship between instruments and other theoretically related 

constructs (Foster & Cone, 1995; Groth-Marnat, 2009) such as the social support scale 

(Lestari et al., 2023), grief complicated (Ghesquiere et al., 2017), social network integration, 

perceived stress, anxiety, depression, and life engagement (Merz et al., 2014). Third, the 

imbalance in the number of male and female participants calls for future research to address 

this issue.  

Conclusion 

The adaptation of the ISEL-16 for Indonesian students successfully demonstrates that the 

instrument measures students' perceptions of social support across four dimensions: 

Appraisal (AP), Tangible Assets (TA), Belonging (BE), and Self-esteem (SE). Confirmatory 

Factor Analysis (CFA) confirms that these dimensions exhibit good construct validity with 

adequate factor loadings and fit parameters. Reliability analysis, including Cronbach's alpha 

and construct reliability (CR), supports the instrument's robustness, with values indicating 

satisfactory reliability. Theoretical implications of this adaptation include enhancing the 

psychometric evidence for the ISEL-16 and refining the understanding of social support 

dimensions within the Indonesian context. Practically, the adapted ISEL-16 provides 

valuable insights for education, psychology, and higher education policy, facilitating the 

development of targeted interventions and support programs tailored to students' needs. 

Additionally, the Indonesian ISEL-16 is a recommended instrument for research in 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 113 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

conditions where costs and time are limited. Future research should explore convergent 

validity to further validate the Indonesian ISEL-16 and consider modifications to better align 

with the participants' context. Expanding research to include diverse and broader samples 

beyond students is also recommended to strengthen the instrument's applicability and 

generalizability. 

 

Acknowledgment 

The author would like to thank the participants in this research 

 

Declarations  

Author contribution. SWR, as the single author, established the research topic, collected 
data, analyzed data samples, produced the report, and editing. 
Funding statement. This research used independent funding. 
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest. 
Additional information. If readers need information regarding the ISEL-16 instrument, they 
can contact the researcher via email. 
 

References 
 

Adyani, L., Suzanna, E., Safuwan, & Muryali. (2019). Perceived social support and 

psychological well-being among interstate students at Malikussaleh university. 

Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi, 3(2), 98–104. 

https://doi.org/10.23917/indigenous.v3i2.6591 

Aeni, R. N., Heri Susanti, I., & Sekar Siwi, A. (2023). The effect of social support on 

academic burnout of final year students of the undergraduate nursing study program 

at Harapan Bangsa university. PROMOTOR: Jurnal Mahasiswa Kesehatan 

Masyarakat, 6(5), 522–525. https://doi.org/10.32832/pro.v6i5.433 

Akerina, J. R., & Wibowo, D. H. (2022). Hubungan antara dukungan sosial teman sebaya 

dan prokrastinasi akademik pada mahasiswa, 3(1), 1-14.  

https://doi.org/10.51667/jph.v3i1.863 

American Psychological Association. (2018). APA dictionary of psychology. Social Support. 

ARIC Investigators. (1989). The atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study: Design 

and objectives. American Journal of Epidemiology, 129(4), 687–702. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115184 

Atmaja, J. J. A., & Chusairi, A. (2022). Hubungan antara dukungan sosial dengan tingkat 

stres pada karyawan kontrak di masa pandemi covid-19. ULIL ALBAB: Jurnal Ilmiah 

Multidisiplin, 1(6), 1588–1597. 

Azwar, S. (2019). Reliabilitas dan validitas (4th ed.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. 

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes cronbach’s alpha. BJM, 314(7080), 

572–572. https://doi.org/10.1136bmj.314.7080.572 

Brookings, J. B., & Bolton, B. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of the interpersonal 

support evaluation list. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(1), 137–147. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00906076 

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford 

Press. 

https://doi.org/10.51667/jph.v3i1.863


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 114 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Buchwald, P. (2017). Social support. In Reference Module in Neuroscience and 

Biobehavioral Psychology (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-

5.05719-9 

Cage, E., Jones, E., Ryan, G., Hughes, G., & Spanner, L. (2021). Student mental health and 

transitions into, through and out of university: Student and staff perspectives. Journal 

of Further and Higher Education, 45(8), 1076–1089. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1875203 

Chen, S.-L., Chang, S.-M., Kuo, P.-L., & Chen, C.-H. (2020). Stress, anxiety and depression 

perceived by couples with recurrent miscarriage. International Journal of Nursing 

Practice, 26(2), e12796. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12796 

Cobo-Rendón, R., López-Angulo2, Y., Pérez-Villalobos, M. V., & Díaz-Mujica, A. (2020). 

Perceived social support and its effects on changes in the affective and eudaimonic 

well-being of chilean university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(590513), 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590513 

Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and 

assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York: McGraw 

Hill. 

Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life 

change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 99–125. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb02325.x 

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. 

Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 

Foster, S. L., & Cone, J. D. (1995). Validity issues in clinical assessment. Psychological 

Assessment, 7(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.248 

Ghesquiere, A., Schwartz, T., Wang, Y., Mauro, C., Skritskaya, N., & Shear, M. K. (2017). 

Performance and psychometric properties of the interpersonal support evaluation List 

(isel) in older adults with complicated grief. Journal of Affective Disorders, 218(4), 

388–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.05.004 

Ghozali, I., & Fuad. (2005). Structural equation modeling, teori, konsep & aplikasi dengan 

program LISREL 8.54. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. 

Golzar, J., Noor, S., & Tajik, O. (2022). Convenience sampling. International Journal of 

Education Language Studies, 1(2), 72-77. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijels.2022.162981 

Gottlieb, B. H., & Bergen, A. E. (2010). Social support concepts and measures. Journal of 

Psychosomatic Research, 69, 511–520. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.001 

Grey, I., Arora, T., Thomas, J., Saneh, A., Tohme, P., & Abi-Habiba, R. (2020). The role of 

perceived social support on depression and sleep during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Psychiatry Research, 298(113452), 1–6. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113452 

Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment (5th ed.). United 

Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Guo, T., Zhang, Z., Taylor, A., Hall, D. L., Yeung, A. S., Kramer, A. F., & Zou, L. (2022). 

Association of social support with negative emotions among Chinese adolescents 

during omicron-related lockdown of shenzhen city: The roles of rumination and sleep 

quality. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13(957382), 1–7. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.957382 

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis 

(7th ed.). UK: Pearson Education Limited. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 115 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Hinton, P. R., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2004). PSS explained (1st ed.). London: 

Routledge. 

Ingarianti, T. M., Fajrianthi, F., & Purwono, U. (2019). Adaptasi instrumen komitmen karier. 

Jurnal Psikologi, 18(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.14710/jp.18.2.199-217 

ITC. (2017). Itc guidelines for translating and adapting tests (second edition). International 

Journal of Testing, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166 

Kline, R. B. (2016). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural 

equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press. 

Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). New 

York: Guilford Press. 

Lestari, R., & Fajar, M. (2020). Social support and self-esteem in people with physical 

disabilities. Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi, 5(2), 207–217. 

https://doi.org/10.23917/indigenous.v5i2.11408 

Lestari, S., Nurani, G. A., & Hertinjung, W. S. (2023). Psychometric analysis of the social 

support scale among indonesian academicians. European Journal of Educational 

Research, 12(2), 977–989. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.977 

Mai, Y., Wu, Y. J., & Huang, Y. (2021). What type of social support is important for student 

resilience during covid-19? A latent profile analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 

12(646145), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646145 

Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Berríos-Riquelme, J., Infante-Villagrán, V., & Lobos-Peña, K. 

(2023). Perceived Social Support and Engagement in First-Year Students: The 

Mediating Role of Belonging during COVID-19. Sustainability, 15(1), Article 1. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010597 

McLean, L., Gaul, D., & Penco, R. (2022). Perceived social support and stress: A study of 

1st year students in ireland. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–

21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-021-00710-z 

Merz, E. L., Roesch, S. C., Malcarne, V. L., Penedo, F. J., Llabre, M. M., Weitzman, O. B., 

Navas-Nacher, E. L., Perreira, K. M., Gonzalez, F., Ponguta, L. A., Johnson, T. P., & 

Gallo, L. C. (2014). Validation of interpersonal support evaluation list-12 (isel-12) 

scores among english- and spanish-speaking hispanics/latinos from the hchs/sol 

sociocultural ancillary study. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 384–394. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035248 

Müller-Bloch, C., & Kranz, J. (2015). A framework for rigorously identifying research gaps 

in qualitative literature reviews. In The Thirty Sixth International Conference on 

Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 (pp. 1–19). 

Nick, E. A., Cole, D. A., Cho, S.-J., Smith, D. K., Carter, T. G., & Zelkowitz, R. L. (2018). 

The online social support scale: Measure development and validation. Psychological 

Assessment, 30(9), 1127–1143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000558 

Payne, T. J., Andrew, M., Butler, K. R., Wyatt, S. B., Dubbert, P. M., & Mosley, T. H. 

(2012). Psychometric evaluation of the interpersonal support evaluation list–short 

form in the aric study cohort. SAGE Open, 1–8. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012461923 

Peeters, M. C. W., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). Social interactions, stressful 

events and negative affect at work: A micro‐analytic approach. European Journal of 

Social Psychology, 25(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250404 

Porricelli, D., Happé, F., & Zahn, R. (2024). Individual differences in autonomy and 

sociotropy in relation to autistic traits, camouflaging and interpersonal functioning. 

Personality and Individual Differences, 227, 112715. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112715 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 116 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00898416 

Pusdatin Kemenristekdikti. (2019). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Indonesia 2019. Jakarta: 

Pusdatin Iptek Dikti, Setjen, Kemenristekdikti. 

Qing, H., & Li, S. (2021). The relationship between social support and depression in 

university students: The meaning in life as mediation. SHS Web of Conferences, 

123(1012), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112301012 

Rahmawati, A., Fajrianthi, F., & Purwono, U. (2022). The psychometric properties of 

parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire-short form in Indonesia. International 

Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 11(1), 42–50. 

https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i1.21650 

Ramania, B. P., Andayani, T. R., & Saniatuzzulfa, R. (2019). Peran dukungan sosial pada 

stres akulturatif mahasiswa asing di universitas sebelas maret. Indigenous: Jurnal 

Ilmiah Psikolog, 4(2), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.23917/indigenous.v4i2.6530 

Ranjbaran, S., Dehdari, T., Sadeghniiat-Haghighi, K., & Majdabadi, M. M. (2015). Poor 

sleep quality in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: An intervention 

study using the PRECEDE-PROCEED model. The Journal of Tehran University 

Heart Center, 10(1), 1–8. 

Romeo, I., Stanislaw, H., McCreary, J., & Hawley, M. (2024). The importance of belonging 

for well-being in college students. PLOS Mental Health, 1(1), e0000057. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmen.0000057 

Santrock, J. W. (2019). A topical approach to life-span development (10th ed.). New York: 

McGraw-Hill Education. 

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127 

Saraswati, D. R., & Purwandari, E. (2023). Psychological well-being, self-efficacy, social 

support and anxiety in tuberculosis patients during Covid-19 pandemic. Jurnal 

Kesehatan, 14(2), 334-344. https://doi.org/10.26630/jk.v14i2.3820 

Schoot, R. van de, Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement 

invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740 

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural 

equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of 

Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation 

modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 

Sperber, A. D. (2004). Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural 

research. Gastroenterology, 126(1), 124–128. 

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016 

Sugiyono. (2011). Metode penelitian, kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Penerbit 

Alfabeta. 

Sukma, F. M., & Panjaitan, R. U. (2019). Dukungan sosial dan hubungannya dengan tingkat 

depresi pada narapidana anak. Jurnal Keperawatan Jiwa, 6(2), 83-90. 

https://doi.org/10.26714/jkj.6.2.2018.83-90 

Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health 

consequences of relationship. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 117 
 

Rahmanto (The psychometric properties of interpersonal support evaluation list-short form (ISEL-16) on College Students)  

Undén, A.-L., & Orth-Gomér, K. (1989). Development of a social support instrument for 

use in population surveys. Social Science & Medicine, 29(12), 1387–1392. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(89)90240-2 

Uyun, M., Eva, N., & Yoseanto, B. L. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis untuk penelitian 

psikologi dengan amos dan smartpls. Tangerang: PT Human Persona Indonesia. 

Widyasrini, J. U. S., & Lestari, S. (2020). Dual role conflict, coping stress, and social support 

as nurses well-being predictor. Jurnal Psikologi, 19(2), 174–187. 

https://doi.org/10.14710/jp.19.2.174-187 

Yunanto, T. A. R. (2020). The power of positivity: The roles of prosocial behavior and social 

support toward gratitude. Jurnal Psikologi Ulayat, 7(1), 57–68. 

https://doi.org/10.24854/jpu02020-277 

Zhang, X., & Dong, S. (2022). The relationships between social support and loneliness: A 

meta-analysis and review. Acta Psychol (Amst), 227(103616), 1–11. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103616 

Zimet, G., 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. 

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa52012 

 


