Index

Abstract

The present study demonstrated scale development of the social support (SS), whose measurement should be re-evaluated based on past studies findings. This study aimed for scale development and investigated the dimensionality of items measuring the SS construct. The validation for content and face validity used Modified Delphi Method with seven panelists, however the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) used questionnaires for construct validity and was administered on 100 students in 23 vocational high schools (VHS) as the sampling of this study. A total of 30 initial items were analyzed using Content Validity Index (CVI) that consisted of I-CVI and S-CVI, and was also analyzed with Fleiss Kappa Index (FKI). However, the 25 items were used to collect data in the study, which was then processed using SPSS version 24 on the EFA procedure. The SS-values instrument was found valid. This study's findings could serve as a basis for future research in this area as contribution reliable, and recommended in other relevant studies.

Keywords: Exploratory factor analysis, Modified delphi method, Reliability, Scale development, Social support, Validity, Vocational high school.

Received: 7 April 2022 / Revised: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 17 June 2022/ Published: 5 July 2022

Contribution/ Originality

This is one of the few studies to construct a social support measurement that is appropriate for vocational high school level. It made use of scale development and investigated the dimensionality of items used to measure the social support. The creation of a valid SS-value instrument is another contribution of this study.

1. INTRODUCTION

In social science, Malecki and Demaray (2002) state that social support plays an essential role in students' lives. Studying social support (SS) has long been a buzzword and has attracted interest. SS is the extent to which students receive help and attachment from the social group with whom he or she interacts directly or indirectly and whose members make that person feel cared for. SS refers to resources obtained from other individuals or organizations that are intended to aid in the completion of task especially in their tasks as students. SS, despite its widespread use and extensive growth, continues to arouse arguments over its definition and operationalization. A brief review of potential SS research directions continues. Despite the fact that SS is a sociological phenomena, epidemiologists, psychiatrists, and psychologists have dominated the extant literature on the subject. Academics also need to pay attention to this topic to be studied and researched (Song, Son and Lin, 2011).

In the past, many academics have focused exclusively on the emotional aspects of social support, ignoring other forms of support (Malecki & Demaray, 2002). Hence, in this present study, researchers also explored the other aspect in social support. To make it easier to read, the researchers used acronym SS for social support and VHS for vocational high school. This is a novel and research gap that could serve as a foundation for further research in this field. Students in the VHS environment were the focus of this study, which examined the development of the SS scale. There is an emphasis on determining the dimensionality of SS and scale development components in this research. When it comes to theoretical and operational terms, social support is depicted as a non-consensual, expansive, and diversified notion in the literature (Leme, Del Prette, & Coimbra, 2015).

Moreover, researchers' interest in the early measures of construct validity is growing as a result of EFA of the SS construct. Using the idea of blending and making the operationalization definition from that idea, the researchers created a new instrument for SS as a novelty in this work. In addition, the scale's development was found a good fit for students at VHS. Furthermore, results of past studies show that SS measurement must be revised and enhanced, in order to be appropriate with respondents (López & Cooper, 2011), especially for students in vocational high school (VHS) context. That's why researchers kept making their particular version of the student social support instrument. The overwhelming majority of instruments created in the past are insufficient for the needs of students at the VHS level.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

First step that the researchers found out from past studies’ keywords was that it could be used for scale development. SS mobilizes psychological resources, assists in the management of emotional pressures, and is the fundamental means of increasing one's own personal resources. People strive for SS in order to preserve and expand their resources, as well as to preserve their identity and cultural heritage (Gubbins, Harrington, & Hines, 2020). Furthermore, SS is defined as the resource that people accumulate via their social relationships and use when confronting difficult challenges in their life (Nielsen, 2020).

The first keyword associated with SS is the resources derived through social relationships. The term "social-emotional resource" refers to a human connection in which social-emotional resources, attachments, and intimacy are traded. People who believe they have received SS, emotionally feel relieved that they have been acknowledged, received recommendations, or conveyed positive thoughts for themselves (Marta & Kurniasari, 2019). It has been argued that SS is connected with good self-perception and psychological resources that has a direct and indirect influence on mental health outcomes. However, young people’s  perceptions of social bonds and support, may elicit a variety of distinct self-evaluations (Ioannou, Kassianos, & Symeou, 2019). SS is a specific relational content, it can be distinguished from the nature of its preceding social structures, such as those of social networks and social integration. It can also be distinguished from the tautological assumption that SS fosters activities (Antonucci, Lansford, & Ajrouch, 2007).  Receivers and providers communicate in a variety of ways to lessen confusion about the circumstances or their connection. SS also serves to increase a person's beliefs of personal control over his or her own experiences. SS takes place over the course of a conversation in the form of contact between people through words and comments (Ko, Wang, & Xu, 2013).

The second keyword that the researchers concluded is that SS also relates to human connections that they receive from others or that they have positive thoughts of themselves which fosters activities. In accordance with the earlier judgement, Sarafino (2002) states that SS is a term used to describe the assistance that someone has gotten from others. SS is resource support provided by people who have intimate social ties to the person who is receiving aid (Lestari, 2020). While, according to Rani (2012), SS is defined as aid from other people such as close friends, family and neighbors, coworkers, and other individuals. Thomas, Liu, and Umberson (2017), observes that support from family members, such as sympathy, advice, and care, is referred to as SS. The term "SS" refers to the sense of comfort and caring (Permatasari, Ashari, & Ismail, 2021). SS also may be defined as a feeling of joy, care, appreciation, or aid received by someone from another person or from his or her group that is viewed by the recipient as positively (Umayyah, 2018).

The third keyword suggests that SS is related to support or assistance or aid such as sympathy, advice, joy, comfort, and care from the closest environment, such as friends and family. Specific distinctions have been made by the Social Security Administration between emotional support, informational support, companionship support, and tangible/financial support (Neergaard, Shaw, & Carter, 2005). Sarafino (2002) stated that in addition to emotional support, rewards or self-esteem support, instrumental support, information support, and/or group support are also possible forms of social support. Meanwhile, it is possible to categorize functional SS into two categories: emotional support and instrumental (informational and tangible) support (Semmer et al., 2008).

Hastuti, Arlianty, and Simanjuntak (2021) have stated that SS may be defined as help (aid) received by individuals, and can be divided into three types: emotional, instrumental, and informational, each emerging as different concepts. The other three aspects that can be used to measure SS and those that fit with the characteristics of students in VHS level include emotional support, informational support, and tangible support was used. This suggests that SS is the amount to which an individual receives aid and attachment from the social group with which they engage indirectly or directly and who make that individual feel cared for.

Based on past expert judgments, the researchers can compare keywords and conclude that SS refers to resources gained from other persons or organizations that are supposed to support someone in carrying out their tasks using emotional, informational, and tangible support.

The next phase was a synthesis review of SS sub-constructs, which was completed by the researchers. In addition, the researchers discovered that there were studies that used sub-constructs built by previous researchers, studies that adapted existing sub-constructs, and there were studies that created their own custom sub-constructs.

Figure 1. Past studies review of SS Sub-constructs.

Figure 1 illustrates the process that the researchers used to develop the concepts of sub-constructs. The researchers used different concepts in terms of sub-constructs. The researchers explored sub-constructs from SS based from earlier studies. Studies like Nielsen (2020); Cacciotti et al. (2020); Yan and Zheng (2006); Wafa and Manolova (2012)  used sub-constructs in terms of support from family or parents, friends, social such as teachers and others. Another research by Antoxida and Sawitri (2020) and Nexus (2011) basically focus on social integration, relationship, communication, guidance, and opportunity to help. All these researchers have integrated the sub-constructs into three aspects. Guidance, relationship, and control. These three aspects can be combined in the aspect of emotional support. However, the researchers put other keywords to develop the emotional support aspect such as empathy, encouragement, care, thoughtfulness, and appreciation. Communication can be included in the aspect of informational support. However, the researchers put other keywords to develop the informational support aspect such as relevant, accurate, and helpful information. The researchers also added aspects of tangible support consisting of financial support and goods support. Other items used included support from relatives, friends, and others in asking aspects of emotional support, informational support, and tangible support. The researcher used the term relative not family because it accommodated the situation and conditions of respondents who did not have a nuclear family like their parents. The sub-constructs of SS were therefore emotional support, informational support, and tangible support. Prior research has encompassed a range of notions, resulting in the conceptual chasm. This served as a novelty in this study that can fill the existing gap in the literature.

3. RESEARCH METHODS

3.1. Data Collections

This present study was conducted online to obtain data due to the pandemic restrictions. This study's data was gathered to support practical research. The researchers created new scales using the Delphi Technique and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). New items were created using the Delphi method and EFA was used to examine suggested scales creation after a literature review, conceptual definition, exploratory methodological sub-constructs and items (Carpenter, 2018; Persai, Panda, & Kumar, 2016). According to David et al. (2016), the modified Delphi method begins with a carefully selected set of items, which can include a literature review synthesis. EFA is also appropriate for early instrument development (Jung & Lee, 2011; Knekta, Runyon, & Eddy, 2019). Google Form was used to distribute and collect completed questionnaires from respondents for EFA construct validity testing. Q&As were used. Researchers used online data from seven panelists for content and face validity.

3.2. Population and Sample of the Study

Students of grade 11 and 12 from Jakarta's twenty-three (23) Public VHS for the Entrepreneurship Development School program were the population of this study. Students in grades 11 and 12 were the focus of this study, with a sample size of 100. A sample size of at least 100 EFAs was recommended in the study (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999; Preacher & MacCallum, 2002). The researchers used multi stage sampling to select the samples. However, samples in EFA procedure were different with the field study.

3.3. Modified Delphi Method and Panelists

A total of 30 initial items in this study were given to seven panelists to check. As a part of the Delphi process, it was very important for panelists to stay anonymous (Colton & Hatcher, 2004). The face and content validity was done during this process. This modified Delphi method went through three rounds. This was consistent with McDonald, Bammer, and Deane (2009) who believed that three rounds of Delphi seemed to be very effective and useful. The content validity was done in the first and second rounds, and in the third round, the face validity was done. In the next step, the study moved on to the consensus process with the content validity index (CVI) and Fleiss Kappa Index (FKI). The items that met the criteria would not be taken away from the list. Polit, Beck, and Owen (2004) believed that if an item had an I-CVI of 0.78 or higher and an S-CVI of more than 0.800, it showed a lot of credibility. However, one of the seven panelists disagreed with this study when it used a CVI value of at least 0.857. In the third round, this study used FKI to make sure the consensus result looked real. The FKI is called "poor" when the agreement is k<0.40, then for the agreement 0.40<k<0.75 are called "good", and it is called "excellent" when the agreement is k>0.75. The formula for the Fleiss Kappa Index (FKI) is the following:

After the Delphi process, 30 initial items were modified, ending in a total of 25 items in EFA for SS when it was running.

3.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Sang et al. (2017) recommended that the initial stage in this investigation was to use factor analysis to see if the disparities created the construct. The second stage was to test the questions' stability and consistency. Hoque and Awang (2016) observes that the EFA investigates the links between items in each sub-construct, finding clusters of items with enough ordinary variation to qualify as factors. This present study used the KMO and Bartlett's test of sphericity to assess sample adequacy before estimating the particular scenario ratio. In this case, if the sphericity test is P<0.05, factor analysis should be utilized. According to Zainudin (2015), to reduce the number of things to a tolerable level before further study, the TVE was considered as an item extraction strategy. After examining a rotated component matrix, only components with factor loadings greater than 0.5 were selected.

3.5. Research Instrument for EFA

The present study was prepared as a scale development of SS, namely SSQ. According to this, twenty-five (25) items were analyzed using a 7-point interval scale, which was more powerful than any other scales used in educational and social research. It was found to be a good match for this study. Finstad (2010) recommended that seven-point items gave a more accurate indication of a participant's real opinion and were therefore more acceptable for use in usability surveys that were sent online and were otherwise not monitored. The 7-option scale may beat the five-point scale in terms of the consistency of participant answers in a survey because of the choice of responses on the survey's concept. People's objective reality will be better served by the seven-point scale because it offers more options. Furthermore, Russo, Tomei, Serra, and Sylvia (2021) found out that the advantages of using a 7-point scale are as follows: it is possible to acquire outcomes that are comparable; it is a decent compromise; the optimal scale point is located between 5 and 7 points on the scale; it is superior to 5, as it provides more information. According to Table 1, SS sub-constructs were defined in terms of operational terms, together with the keywords that were created. The operational definitions of the three sub-constructs of SS were used to develop the items.

Table 1. Operational definitions and distribution items of three sub-constructs of SS.
Operational Definition of SS sub-constructs
Items Label
Emotional support refers to positive feedback, such as empathy, encouragement, care, thoughtfulness, and appreciation.
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS5
SS7
SS9
SS11
SS13
SS15
SS17
SS19
SS21
SS23
SS24
SS25
Informational support refers to a type of support that focuses on providing the user with relevant, accurate, and helpful information.
SS4
SS6
SS8
SS10
SS12
Tangible support refers to all the people involved in providing financial and material help.
SS14
SS16
SS18
SS20
SS22

4. RESULTS

4.1. Demographic Profile of Samples

This part presents the demographic profile such as gender and level of class.

Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents (n=100).
Variables
Categorized
Frequency
Percent
Gender
Male
31
31%
Female
69
69%
Class
11
53
53%
12
47
47%
Total   
100%

Table 2 presents about the demographic profile of 100 respondents. A majority (69%) respondents were female, however, the rest were male (31%). A total of (53%) respondents were in 11th grade, however, the rest were in 12th grade (47%).

4.2. The Modified Delphi Results

According to the consensus of round 1, five items (SS16, SS17, SS21, SS28, and SS29) were removed from the SSQ since they did not meet the criteria of I-CVI and panelists had suggested changes to the SSQ. At this point, in round one, the S-CVI was 0.890 >0.800. In the first round, all panelists agreed and approved the consensus. The Round 2 began with the panelists being asked to respond to questions that had been changed. The consensus of round 2 were that certain elements needed to be revised, but the CVI were attained. The second round of consensus was unanimously accepted by the panelists. The FKI was utilized in round three, and the results were 0.432. It meant that the third round had come to a good agreement or satisfactory conclusion.

4.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results

One hundred (100) students participated in an EFA to find the underlying sub-constructs and items of the SS, as well as to validate the instrument's quality. Three sub-constructs and 25 newly created elements comprised the SS construct in this study. In total, there were 25 different sub-constructs items: 15 emotional support items, 5 informational support items, and 5 tangible support items. This is seen in Table 3 for the KMO and Bartlett's test results.

Table 3 exhibits a KMO score of 0.925, which exceeds optimum threshold of 0.06. This study relied heavily on Bartlett's Test, which demonstrated the applicability and validity of the respondents' answers to the question at hand. If Bartlett's Test results were less than 0.05, factor analysis was acceptable. 0.000 was less than the required significance value of 0.05 for Bartlett's Test in Table 3. This means that if the KMO and Bartlett's significance are close to zero, it means that the data is sufficient and appropriate to proceed with the reduction procedure, as stated by Zainudin. (2015). In the beginning, TVE is a way to reduce a vast number of items to a manageable quantity. Divides eigenvalues greater than 1.0 into separate sub-constructs in this manner (Zainudin, 2012).

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s Test for the items of SS.
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
0.925
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square
4322.095
df
300
Sig.
0.000

Table 4. TVE for SS.
Total Variance Explained
Component
Component
Component
Component
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1
16.659
66.635
66.635
16.659
66.635
66.635
9.027
36.106
36.106
2
1.972
7.888
74.523
1.972
7.888
74.523
6.693
26.771
62.877
3
1.606
6.423
80.947
1.606
6.423
80.947
4.517
18.069
80.947
4
0.992
3.970
84.916
5
0.764
3.058
87.974
6
0.591
2.364
90.339
7
0.554
2.216
92.555
8
0.470
1.879
94.434
9
0.260
1.040
95.474
10
0.185
0.740
96.214
11
0.172
0.689
96.903
12
0.145
0.580
97.483
13
0.127
0.506
97.989
14
0.099
0.396
98.386
15
0.090
0.359
98.744
16
0.068
0.273
99.017
17
0.049
0.195
99.212
18
0.046
0.184
99.396
19
0.037
0.150
99.545
20
0.029
0.117
99.663
21
0.026
0.104
99.766
22
0.023
0.092
99.858
23
0.016
0.062
99.920
24
0.011
0.043
99.963
25
0.009
0.037
100.000
Note: Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

There were three sub-constructs of the SS construct that had eigenvalues of 16.659, 1.972, and 1.606, as indicated in Table 4, as shown by the EFA results. Subsequent research will focus on the three sub-constructs that have been identified. Table 4 shows that TVE is also 80.947 percent.

Table 5. Rotated component matrix of SS.
Rotated Component Matrixa
 
Component
1
2
3
SS1
0.768
SS2
0.794
SS3
0.755
SS4
0.802
SS5
Deleted
SS6
0.637
SS7
Deleted
SS8
0.892
SS9
0.691
SS10
0.785
SS11
0.762
SS12
0.869
SS13
0.812
SS14
0.674
SS15
0.742
SS16
0.879
SS17
Deleted
SS18
Deleted
SS19
0.788
SS20
0.852
SS21
0.651
SS22
0.871
SS23
0.778
SS24
0.737
SS25
0.695
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalizationa
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

There were three sub-constructs retrieved utilizing the EFA approach as shown in Table 5. Components of each sub-construct have a factor loading assigned to them. As a result of this, only items with factor loadings greater than 0.5 for newly developed items were included  in this study (Zainudin, 2015). There could be no further study on item numbers 5, 7, 17, or 18 because of their high factor loadings or because they were found to be most heavily loaded on the wrong factor. Factor loadings greater than 0.5 were saved for future study (Zainudin, 2012) and items with the highest loading, but on the wrong factor, were eliminated (Churchill & Bygrave, 1989). 21 items have a loading larger than 0.50, so they will be considered for future investigation within the three sub-constructs of the SS.

4.4. Reliability Analysis

One method for determining the accuracy of a set of measuring instruments is reliability analysis. As a well-known number, Cronbach's Alpha assesses the trustworthiness of an item. Because of its high Cronbach's Alpha of 0.70, according to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2014), the instrument should be taken into account in this investigation.

Table 6. Reliability statistics for the three sub-constructs of SS.
Sub-construct
Number of items in a sub-construct
Cronbach's Alpha
Emotional support
12
0.971
Informational support
5
0.959
Tangible support
4
0.931

A high Cronbach's Alpha of 0.971 was found for the emotional support sub-construct, 0.959 for the informational sub-construct, and 0.931 for the tangible support sub-construct in Table 6. According to the findings, the dependability values for all three sub-constructs of the SS construct exceeded the required 0.7. This means that based on Table 6, the extracted component and its items are valid and trustworthy for assessing the SS construct, and those items can be used in the field study to collect data.

5. CONCLUSION

The present study developed a new social support (SS) scale which would add to the scaling up of the measurement of the SS construct, especially at the vocational high school level. Our best estimate is that this research adds to the scaling up of the measurement of the SS construct, especially at the vocational high school level. The novelty in this present study is scale development of SS, namely SSQ, that has a good fit for students at VHS. Many different concepts emerged during the stud including three aspects of SS. The novelty in this present study is to fill in the gap of social support measurement and fit with the characteristics of students in VHS level.  In addition, the research team's findings and conclusions are based solely on their own observations and hypotheses. Research gaps were discovered during the assessment process, and these gaps emerged as a result of previous investigations employing various ideas. A standard measurement equipment for SS was proposed by previous studies, although there are some disagreements over how to do it. A new notion that could fill in a literature gap can be developed by using this condition as the foundation of scale development. I-CVI, S-CVI, and FKI matched the criteria in the modified Delphi method results. A structure was created based on the EFA results of this study, and this structure yielded three SS sub-constructs in total, namely: Emotional support, informational support, and tangible support. Twenty-one new items produced for this study were used to gauge these sub-constructs. All samples on the new SS scale showed the same value on it, which meant they were reliable. This work would serve as a starting point for future research into the scale of SS and its sub-constructs. The use of the SSQ regarding social support in terms of 3 sub-constructs, namely emotional support, informational support, and tangible support from elements of relatives, friends, and others at the vocational high school level for policy implications are that it can be used especially for schools to analyze social support in academic activities and the current non-academic properties of their students. Researchers further used the instrument that was built on the entrepreneurial activities of vocational high school students. The schools can explore and analyze the results of the instrument which aspects and elements are lacking from the students so that the schools can use it as a basis for improvement or carry out activities that can improve the aspects and elements that are lacking. For example, aspects and elements of emotional support from relatives are lacking in entrepreneurship activities, so schools need to approach by carrying out activities that involve relatives in the hope that future outcomes can increase their support for students.

Funding: This research is supported by the Saudi Fund Development - Universitas Negeri Jakarta (Grant number: 66.a/UN39/KM.01.00/2020.).

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Antonucci, T. C., Lansford, J. E., & Ajrouch, K. J. (2007). Social support. In Encyclopedia of Stress (Issue September 2015).

Antoxida, R. B., & Sawitri, D. R. (2020). The relationship between parental social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the UNDIP young entrepreneur student group. Empathy Journal, 9(4), 320–326.

Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Allen, D. G. (2020). Entrepreneurial fear of failure: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(5), 106041.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106041.

Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583.

Churchill, N., & Bygrave, W. D. (1989). The entrepreneur ship paradigm (I): A philosophical look at its research methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7-26.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878901400102.

Colton, S., & Hatcher, T. (2004). The web-based delphi research technique as a method for content validation in HRD and adult education research. Paper presented at the The In Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference (AHRD).

David, E., Cohn, L. J., Havrilesky, K. O., Joseph, L., Susie, H., Joan, L., & Mukamel, L. W. (2016). Consensus in controversy: The modified delphi method applied to gynecologic oncology practice. Physiology & Behavior, 176(1), 100–106.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.07.014.Consensus.

Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104-110.

Gubbins, M., Harrington, D., & Hines, P. (2020). Social support for academic entrepreneurship: Definition and conceptual framework. The Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 619-643.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-11-2019-0456.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hastuti, D., Arlianty, L. S., & Simanjuntak, M. (2021). Children’s values, social support, mother’s roles, and psychosocial stimulation in boys and girls. Journal of Family Sciences, 6(1), 20-36.Available at: https://doi.org/10.29244/jfs.v6i1.35760.

Hoque, A. S. M. M., & Awang, Z. (2016). Exploratory factor analysis of entrepreneurial marketing: Scale development and validation in the SME context of Bangladesh. Paper presented at the The In H. M. M. K. Ahmad Puad Mat Som, Muhamad Fazil Ahmad (Ed.), The International Social Sciences and Tourism Research Conference 2016. Unisza.

Ioannou, M., Kassianos, A. P., & Symeou, M. (2019). Coping with depressive symptoms in young adults: Perceived social support protects against depressive symptoms only under moderate levels of stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–11.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02780.

Jung, S., & Lee, S. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis for small samples. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 701–709.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0077-9.

Knekta, E., Runyon, C., & Eddy, S. (2019). One size doesn’t fit all: Using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), 1-17.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-04-0064.

Ko, H.-C., Wang, L.-L., & Xu, Y.-T. (2013). Understanding the different types of social support offered by audience to A-list diary-like and informative bloggers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(3), 194-199.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0297.

Leme, V. B. R., Del Prette, Z. A. P., & Coimbra, S. (2015). Social skills, social support and well-being in adolescents of different family configurations. Paideia, 25(60), 9-17.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272560201503.

Lestari, H. D. (2020). Academic support, social support, environment support and e-entrepreneurship education as contextual factors. Management And Business Scientific Magazine, 17(1), 38–52.

López, M. L., & Cooper, L. (2011). Social support measures review. In Review Literature And Arts of the Americas (pp. 1–115). Los Angeles: First 5 LA: National Center for Latino Child & Family Research.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.

Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1–18.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10004.

Marta, M., & Kurniasari, D. (2019). The interaction of social support in the relationship of entrepreneurial education, self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. BENEFITS Journal of Management and Business, 4(1), 16-26.Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.23917/benefit.v4i1.7113.

McDonald, D., Bammer, G., & Deane, P. (2009). Research integration using dialogue methods. In Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods (pp. 1-175). Australia: ANU E Press- The Australian National University.

Neergaard, H., Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2005). The impact of gender, social capital and networks on business ownership: A research agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(5), 338-357.

Nexus. (2011). Linking health communication with social support (In I. Junk). United States: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co.

Nielsen, M. S. (2020). Passing on the good vibes: Entrepreneurs’ social support. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 21(1), 60-71.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750319842530.

Permatasari, N., Ashari, F. R., & Ismail, N. (2021). Contribution of perceived social support (peer, family, and teacher) to academic resilience during COVID-19. Golden Ratio of Social Science and Education, 1(1), 01-12.Available at: https://doi.org/10.52970/grsse.v1i1.94.

Persai, D., Panda, R., & Kumar, R. (2016). A Delphi study for setting up tobacco research and practice network in India. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 14(1), 1-7.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12971-016-0067-x.

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2004). Focus on research methods is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199.

Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32(2), 153-161.

Rani, S. H. B. A. (2012). A study of relationship between family support, role model and financial support towards entrepreneurial inclination among UUM non-business students. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia.  

Rebina Bilqis Antoxida, D. R. S. (2020). The relationship between parental social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the UNDIP young entrepreneur student group. Empathy Journal, 9(4), 320–326.

Russo, G., Tomei, P., Serra, B., & Sylvia, M. (2021). Differences in the use of 5- or 7-point likert scale: An application in food safety culture. Organizational Cultures: An International Journal, 21(2), 1-17.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-8013/CGP/v21i02/1-17.

Sang, L. T., Mail, R., Abd Karim, M. R., Ulum, Z. K. A. B., Mufli, M., & Lajuni, N. (2017). Pretesting and piloting the research instrument to examine the central roles of risk perception and attitude towards financial investment behavioural. Journal of the Asian Academy of Applied Business, 4, 97–108.

Sarafino, E. P. (2002). Health psychology biopsychosocial interactions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc,. Retrived from https://books.google.co.id/books?hl=id&lr=&id=ypODBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=Sarafino,+E.+P.+(2002).+Health+psychology+biopsychosocial+interactions.+United+State:+John+Wiley+%26+Sons,+Inc,.&ots=18jRnN1CcU&sig=coNmy8joGiUwbtHL8fZUuxOlIyo&redir_esc=y#v=onepa.

Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., Jacobshagen, N., Perrot, T., Beehr, T. A., & Boos, N. (2008). The emotional meaning of instrumental social support. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(3), 235–251.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.15.3.235.

Thomas, P. A., Liu, H., & Umberson, D. (2017). Family relationships and well-being. Innovation in Aging, 1(3), 1–111.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx025.

Umayyah, U. (2018). Social support as a mediator between social identity and college student’s stress. Psychological Research and Intervention, 1(1), 32-41.Available at: https://doi.org/10.21831/pri.v1i1.21196.

Wafa, A. N., & Manolova, T. S. (2012). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Entrepreneurial intentions among Saudi university students. African Journal of Business Management, 6(11), 4029-4040.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm11.1521.

Yan, B., & Zheng, X. (2006). Researches into relations among social-support, self-esteem and subjective well-being of college students. Psychological Development and Education, 3, 60-64.

Zainudin, H. A. (2012). Research methodology and data analysis: Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) Terengganu Malaysia.

Zainudin, A. (2015). SEM made simple: A gentle approach to learning structural equation modeling. Bangi: MPWS Rich Publication.

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.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Humanities and Social Sciences Letters shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.