Purpose: This study sought to validate the psychometric properties of the Network Composition Survey (NCS), a multi-dimensional conceptualization of social support for individuals who are incarcerated. Methods: Data included 1,539 individuals recruited in 50 prisons across four states to participate in the pilot trial of a prison reentry program. Exploratory factor analysis using the first support person data identified a factor structure, and confirmatory factor analysis verified that structure using the second and third support person data conducted with Mplus 8.2. Results: Two of the hypothesized dimensions, informational and emotional support, were confirmed, and a third factor of companionship was identified. Conclusion: The reduced NCS is a reliable and valid measure of multi-dimensional social support for individuals during incarceration. The NCS reflects a more nuanced assessment of the complexities of interpersonal dynamics with support figures. The NCS also provides utility services targeted for social support during reentry.
AndersenT. S. (2018). Social support and one-year outcomes for women participating in prison-based substance abuse treatment programming. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1396218
2.
AsbergK.RenkK. (2014). Perceived stress, external locus of control, and social support as predictors of psychological adjustment among female inmates with or without a history of sexual abuse. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12461477
3.
BakerT.MitchellM. M.GordonJ. A. (2021). Prison visitation and concerns about reentry: Variations in frequency and quality of visits are associated with reentry concerns among people incarcerated in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(12), 1263–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211013516
4.
BaresK. J.MowenT. J. (2020). Examining the parole officer as a mechanism of social support during reentry from prison. Crime & Delinquency, 66(6–7), 1023–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719881599
5.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (Vol. 210). John Wiley & Sons.
6.
BrosensD.De DonderL.VanwingT.DuryS.VertéD. (2014). Lifelong learning programs in prison: Influence of social networks on participation. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 518–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.251
7.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.
8.
BuiH. N.MorashM. (2010). The impact of network relationships, prison experiences, and internal transformation on women’s success after prison release. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670903435381
9.
ButlerH. D. (2022). Understanding how in-prison experiences influence female offenders’ maladjustment to prison. Justice Quarterly, 39(1), 174–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1703026
10.
Caravaca-SánchezF.FearnN. E.VidovicK. R.VaughnM. G. (2019). Female prisoners in Spain: Adverse childhood experiences, negative emotional states, and social support. Health & Social Work, 44(3), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlz013
11.
Caravaca-SánchezF.WolffN. (2020). Predictors of substance use among male prisoners in Spain: The role of childhood abuse and social support. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 11(2), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/709752
12.
CiminoA. N.KillianM. O.Von EndeA. K.SegalE. A. (2020). Measurement models in social work research: A data-based illustration of four confirmatory factor models and their conceptual application. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(1), 282–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcz164
13.
CloneS.DeHartD. (2014). Social support networks of incarcerated women: Types of support, sources of support, and implications for reentry. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(7), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.944742
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
16.
DrawbridgeD. C.TruongD.NguyenN. T.LorentiV. L.VincentG. M. (2021). Risk–need–responsivity: Evaluating need-to-service matching with reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 39(1), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2502
17.
EnggistS.MøllerL.GaleaG.UdesenC. (2014). Prisons and health. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe.
18.
EppersonM. W.WilsonA. B.FedockG. (2021). The promise of research to advance smart decarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820977587
19.
FalzaranoF.MoxleyJ.PillemerK.CzajaS. J. (2021). Family matters: Cross-cultural differences in familism and caregiving outcomes. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 77(7), 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbab160lee
20.
FavrilL.YuR.HawtonK.FazelS. (2020). Risk factors for self-harm in prison: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(8), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30190-5
21.
GouldR.SchultzP. W. (2021). Challenges to understanding non-material dimensions of human-nature connections, and how to address them. Ecology and Society, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12604-260314
HeardEMMutchAFitzgeraldLPensalfiniR (2013). Shakespeare in prison: Affecting health and wellbeing. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 9(3), 111–123.
24.
HobbsG. S.DearG. E. (2008). Prisoners’ perceptions of prison officers as sources of support. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31(1–2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v31n01_09
25.
HowardM. C.CrayneM. P. (2019). Persistence: Defining the multi-dimensional construct and creating a measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.005
26.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
27.
HughesT.WilsonD. J. (2002). Reentry trends in the United States (pp. 1–31). Bureau of Justice Statistics.
28.
JacobsA. Z.WallachH. (2021). Measurement and fairness. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 375–385). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445901
29.
Kang-BrownJ.MontagnetC.HeissJ. (2021). People in jail and prison in 2020 (p. 28). Vera Institute of Justice.
30.
KjellstrandJ.ClarkM.CafferyC.SmithJ.EddyJ. M. (2021). Reentering the community after prison: Perspectives on the role and importance of social support. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(2), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09596-4
31.
KjellstrandJ. M.ClarkM. G.MannanI. A.LoanC. M. (2022). Social support during incarceration: Predictors of external social support for incarcerated individuals. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(5), 1183–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09685-6
32.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Vol. 14, pp. 1497–1513). Guilford.
33.
LeeL. M. (2019). Far from home and all alone: The impact of prison visitation on recidivism. American Law and Economics Review, 21(2), 431–481. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahz011
34.
LesterM.BatastiniA.DavisR.BourgonG. (2020). Is risk-need-responsivity enough? Examining differences in treatment response among male incarcerated persons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(7), 829–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820915740
35.
LeverentzA.ChenE. Y.ChristianJ. (2020). Social support in daily life at reentry. In Beyond recidivism: New approaches to research on prisoner reentry and reintegration. NYU Press.
36.
LiA.WilliamsB.BarryL. C. (2022). Mental and physical health of older incarcerated persons who have aged in place in prison. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 41(4), 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648211030069
37.
MaltbyJ.HuntS. A.OhinataA.PalmerE.ConroyS. (2020). Frailty and social isolation: Comparing the relationship between frailty and unidimensional and multifactorial models of social isolation. Journal of Aging and Health, 32(10), 1297–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264320923245
MeyersT. J.WrightK. A.YoungJ. T. N.TascaM. (2017). Social support from outside the walls: Examining the role of relationship dynamics among inmates and visitors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.07.012
40.
MitchellM. M.SpoonerK.JiaD.ZhangY. (2016). The effect of prison visitation on reentry success: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.07.006
MowenT. J.StansfieldR.BomanJ. H. (2019). Family matters: Moving beyond “if” family support matters to “why” family support matters during reentry from prison. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(4), 483–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818820902
43.
NelsonM. K. (2013). Fictive kin, families we choose, and voluntary kin: What does the discourse tell us?Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12019
44.
PerrettiJ. (2023). Supporting reentry at the egocentric level: Investigating the role of social networks play post incarceration [Master’s thesis]. California State University. Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 1703. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/1703
45.
PerryB. L.FelixE.BoltonM.PullenE. L.PescosolidoB. A. (2022). Public stigma and personal networks: Confronting the limitations of unidimensional measures of social contact. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 63(3), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465211072311
46.
PettusC. (2021). Smart Decarceration. In Encyclopedia of Social Work.
47.
PettusC.VeehC. A.RennT. R.KennedyS. C. (2021). The wellbeing development model: A theoretical model to improve outcomes among criminal justice system–involved individuals. Social Service Review, 95(3), 413–468. https://doi.org/10.1086/715852
48.
Pettus-DavisC.DohertyE. E.VeehC.DrymonC. (2017). Deterioration of postincarceration social support for emerging adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(10), 1317–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817721936
49.
Pettus-DavisC.RennT.VeehC.EikenberryJ. (2019). Intervention development study of the five-key model for reentry: An evidence-driven prisoner reentry intervention. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(7), 614–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1635242
50.
Pettus-DavisC.VeehC. A.DavisM.TripodiS. (2018). Gender differences in experiences of social support among men and women releasing from prison. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(9), 1161–1182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517705492
PolitesG.RobertsN.ThatcherJ. (2012). Conceptualizing models using multi-dimensional constructs: A review and guidelines for their use. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 22–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.10
53.
PorterB.KolajaC. A.PowellT. M.PfliegerJ. C.StanderV. A.ArmentaR. F. (2019). Multi-dimensional scale of perceived social support—Reduced version. https://doi.org/10.1037/t74432-000
RamezaniN.BhatiA.MurphyA.RouthD.TaxmanF. S. (2022). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) program tool. Health & Justice, 10(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00182-w
56.
RichieF. J.BonnerJ.WittenbornA.WeinstockL. M.ZlotnickC.JohnsonJ. E. (2019). Social support and suicidal ideation among prisoners with major depressive disorder. Archives of Suicide Research, 25(1), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2019.1649773
57.
SimpsonS.-A.SteilJ.MehtaA. (2020). Planning beyond mass incarceration. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(2), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20915505
58.
SteersM.-L. N.ChenT.-A.NeislerJ.ObasiE. M.McNeillL. H.ReitzelL. R. (2019). The buffering effect of social support on the relationship between discrimination and psychological distress among church-going African-American adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 115, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.10.008
59.
VerhofstadtL. L.BuysseA.RosseelY.PeeneO. J. (2006). Confirming the three-factor structure of the quality of relationships inventory within couples. Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.15
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
