Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)

Abstract

The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL), developed initially by Sheldon Cohen and Robin Mermelstein in 1983 and formalized by Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberman in 1985, represents one of the most widely employed psychometric instruments for assessing the perceived availability of functional social support. Rooted in the stress-buffering model of social resources, the instrument was designed to capture distinct, functionally differentiated dimensions of social assistance rather than structural network characteristics (such as marital status or network density). The original instrument consists of 40 self-report items spanning four distinct subscales: Appraisal Support (the perceived availability of someone with whom one can discuss personal problems and obtain advice), Belonging Support (the perceived availability of companions for leisure and social activities), Tangible Support (the perceived availability of instrumental, material, or practical physical assistance), and Self-Esteem Support (the perceived availability of positive social comparison and validation). To reduce respondent burden in epidemiological surveys and clinical trials, Cohen and colleagues derived a shortened 12-item inventory (ISEL-12), which retains three core functional dimensions—Appraisal, Belonging, and Tangible support—across four items per subscale, while omitting the Self-Esteem dimension due to its substantial psychometric overlap with generalized self-esteem inventories such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

The ISEL-12 employs a 4-point response format ranging from 0 (“Definitely False”) to 3 (“Definitely True”), yielding subscale scores between 0 and 12 and an overall perceived functional support score between 0 and 36. Psychometric evaluations across diverse community, clinical, and college student cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely ranging from .77 to .90 across subscales and total scores), high test-retest reliability over intervals spanning six months, and strong convergent validity against related instruments, including the Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB) and measures of relationship adjustment. Furthermore, structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have confirmed both a three-factor oblique model and a hierarchical bifactor structure representing a dominant general perceived social support factor alongside distinct residual functional subcomponents. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical origins, psychometric properties, structural validity, scoring protocols, and broad clinical and research applications of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List.

Keywords

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, ISEL, ISEL-12, perceived social support, stress-buffering hypothesis, appraisal support, belonging support, tangible support, psychometrics, health psychology, social epidemiology

Authors

The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List was conceptualized and developed by a prominent team of health psychologists and clinical researchers led by Sheldon Cohen, Ph.D., Robert E. Doherty University Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University (Department of Psychology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA). Dr. Cohen is internationally recognized for his pioneering investigations into the interplay between psychosocial stress, social network diversity, immune function, and host susceptibility to infectious disease.

Co-authors and primary collaborators on the foundational validation studies include:

• Robin J. Mermelstein, Ph.D. — Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at the University of Illinois Chicago, whose work focuses on behavioral epidemiology, health psychology, and substance use interventions.
• Thomas W. Kamarck, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, widely recognized for his research on ambulatory cardiovascular monitoring, psychosocial stress reactivity, and behavioral medicine.
• Harry M. Hoberman, Ph.D. — Clinical psychologist and researcher affiliated with the University of Minnesota Medical School, whose scholarship examines adolescent depression, suicide risk, and coping mechanisms.

Institutional Contact for Research Inquiries: Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. Scholarly archives, documentation, and digital instrument repositories are maintained under the research portfolio of Dr. Sheldon Cohen via Carnegie Mellon University web servers.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (both in its full 40-item form and its refined 12-item iteration) is to evaluate the perceived availability of functional interpersonal support resources. Historically, the sociological and epidemiological literature measured social relationships through structural indexes: whether an individual lived alone, marital status, club memberships, church attendance, or the aggregate number of social ties. However, empirical findings in behavioral medicine and clinical psychology repeatedly established that structural networks do not consistently predict psychological adjustment or health outcomes; rather, it is the subjective, qualitative belief that support will be responsive and available when stressful life circumstances occur that exerts the most profound protective effect.

Cohen and colleagues engineered the ISEL to address critical conceptual gaps in the literature by operationalizing social support as a multi-component construct. The purpose of differentiating these resources is grounded in both clinical and basic behavioral science:

• Distinguishing Functional Components: An individual might possess abundant recreational companions (high Belonging) yet lack a trusted confidant with whom to discuss an acute emotional crisis (low Appraisal). Conversely, an individual might have access to financial loans or practical caretaking during an illness (high Tangible) while experiencing severe social alienation and loneliness. The ISEL permits researchers and clinicians to identify specific resource deficits rather than relying on an undifferentiated, unitary aggregate.
• Testing the Stress-Buffering Hypothesis: The instrument was specifically designed to test the stress-buffering model—the hypothesis that social resources protect individuals against the pathogenic influences of high life stress, whereas in low-stress conditions, differences in support availability may have minimal effect. By isolating specific support functions, investigators can assess whether the particular support resource matches the demands of a given stressor (the “optimal matching hypothesis”).
• Epidemiological and Medical Research: In large-scale prospective cohort studies, such as the CARDIA study (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults) and the Pittsburgh Common Cold Studies, the ISEL-12 has served as an essential covariate and predictor. It is deployed to determine how interpersonal environments modulate neuroendocrine activity (e.g., cortisol rhythms), systemic inflammation (e.g., interleukin-6, C-reactive protein), cardiovascular reactivity, and clinical vulnerability to upper respiratory tract infections.
• Clinical and Psychotherapeutic Applications: In mental health settings, the ISEL provides actionable diagnostic baseline data. In treating major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, or adjustment disorders, identifying deficits in perceived tangible or appraisal support guides targeted behavioral activation, interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), and social skills training aimed at restructuring the client’s interpersonal network.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the ISEL is perceived functional social support. Perceived support refers to an individual’s cognitive appraisal and generalized confidence that members of their social sphere will provide assistance if needed. This stands in deliberate contrast to received social support (retrospective self-reports of actual supportive transactions occurring over a given timeframe) and structural network integration (the formal architecture of social relationships). Research has consistently shown that perceived support exhibits greater temporal stability, correlates more robustly with psychological well-being, and serves as a stronger buffer against psychological distress than received support, which often fluctuates in tandem with acute stressor severity.

In the ISEL-12, the overarching construct of perceived functional support is parsed into three conceptually discrete, interdependent subscales:

1. Appraisal Support (Information and Confiding)

Appraisal support represents the perceived availability of an empathetic, trustworthy confidant with whom an individual can share personal problems, vulnerabilities, and anxieties, and from whom one can obtain constructive cognitive guidance, perspective, or problem-solving advice. This dimension mirrors the construct of “informational support” and “emotional disclosure.” When individuals encounter complex or threatening life events—such as marital dissolution, academic failure, occupational termination, or chronic medical diagnoses—appraisal support facilitates cognitive reappraisal, dampens perceived threat, and prevents emotional catastrophizing. Items assessing this subscale probe whether the respondent knows someone who can offer suggestions regarding personal predicaments or serve as a sounding board during family crises.

2. Belonging Support (Companionship and Social Inclusion)

Belonging support denotes the perceived availability of people with whom one can engage in leisure activities, shared recreation, meals, and general social interaction. Often characterized as “companionship,” this dimension satisfies the fundamental human evolutionary drive to belong. It counteracts subjective social isolation, alienation, and dysphoria by fostering a sense of shared identity and group membership. Unlike appraisal support, which requires deep emotional intimacy and psychological disclosure, belonging support can be fulfilled by more distal friends, acquaintances, or recreational peers who are readily available to go to a movie, embark on a day trip, or share lunch.

3. Tangible Support (Instrumental and Practical Aid)

Tangible support (frequently labeled “instrumental support”) refers to the perceived availability of direct, material, behavioral, or physical assistance. It reflects the respondent’s confidence that if concrete adversity strikes, network members will step forward to provide practical aid. Examples include providing transportation when stranded, helping with household chores or caretaking during illness, assisting with moving to a new residence, or looking after property and pets during an absence. Tangible support directly mitigates the objective burden of environmental demands, freeing individual cognitive and physiological resources to cope with stressors.

The Omitted Self-Esteem Dimension

The original 40-item ISEL included a fourth subscale: Self-Esteem Support, defined as the perceived availability of someone with whom an individual compares themselves favorably or who provides validating interpersonal feedback confirming their self-worth. When developing the ISEL-12, psychometric analyses indicated that items on the Self-Esteem subscale demonstrated strong collinearity with individual-level self-esteem inventories (such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale). To prevent confounding an individual’s personal self-concept with interpersonal network resources, this dimension was deliberately excluded from the abbreviated instrument, yielding a purer operationalization of interpersonal assistance.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture supporting the ISEL is grounded within contemporary cognitive appraisal theories of stress and the foundational Stress-Buffering Model advanced by Cohen and Wills (1985), synthesized alongside the transactional model of stress developed by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984).

The Stress-Buffering Hypothesis vs. The Main-Effect Model

Psychosocial epidemiology posits two distinct models through which social ties influence health and emotional well-being:

1. The Main-Effect (Direct) Model: This perspective maintains that social integration and perceived support are universally beneficial, exerting a positive main effect on physical health and psychological vitality regardless of whether an individual is under acute stress. High social integration provides regular positive experiences, stable social roles, and social control mechanisms that discourage unhealthy behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, poor sleep hygiene) while encouraging adherence to medical regimens.
2. The Stress-Buffering Model: This perspective maintains that the primary pathogenic mechanism in stress-related illness is the sustained cognitive, emotional, and neuroendocrine activation triggered by unmitigated environmental threats. Under the stress-buffering model, interpersonal support functions as an intervening shield that alters the stress response at two distinct junctures:
   • Primary Appraisal Interception: When confronted with an environmental demand, the knowledge that others can provide resources (advice, companionship, material help) alters the primary appraisal of the situation. The event is less likely to be perceived as insurmountable, uncontrollable, or catastrophic, thereby reducing downstream autonomic and neuroendocrine arousal.
   • Secondary Appraisal and Coping Re-evaluation: If an event is initially appraised as highly stressful, perceived social support acts at the secondary appraisal stage by reinforcing the individual’s belief in their coping options. Tangible resources diminish practical obstacles, appraisal support fosters effective problem-solving strategies, and belonging support alleviates depressive paralysis and isolation.

The Optimal Matching Theory

A crucial theoretical implication highlighted by Cohen and colleagues is the matching hypothesis (later expanded by Cutrona and Russell). This principle posits that social support will effectively buffer stress only when the specific functional resource offered matches the precise adaptive demands elicited by the stressor. For instance, when dealing with an uncontrollable, emotionally devastating stressor (such as the death of a parent), instrumental/tangible aid alone cannot resolve the primary grief; appraisal and emotional support are theoretically required. Conversely, when confronting an acute, controllable practical crisis (such as car failure or temporary job loss requiring immediate financial bridge loans), tangible support matches the situational demand far more effectively than mere belonging companionship. The three-factor structure of the ISEL-12 was deliberately maintained to provide empirical researchers with the necessary granular variance to test this optimal matching paradigm across varied life contexts.

Validity

The validity of the ISEL and ISEL-12 has been extensively corroborated across four decades of psychometric, clinical, and epidemiological inquiry, encompassing construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive paradigms.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been evaluated through correlations with alternate social support batteries, relationship quality indexes, and structural network metrics:

• Alternate Support Inventories: The ISEL-12 total score and its functional subscales correlate moderately to strongly ($r = .50$ to $.70$) with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), the Social Provisions Scale (SPS), and the Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB). While the ISSB records frequency of received actions, the moderate association demonstrates that perceived support captures a related yet distinct cognitive appraisal of enduring network availability.
• Dyadic and Marital Adjustment: ISEL subscales correlate significantly ($r = .40$ to $.55$) with standardized marital and relationship functioning indexes, such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) and the Partner Adjustment Scale. Higher perceived support consistently reflects relational cohesion, warmth, and mutual reciprocity.
• Self-Disclosure and Social Skills: Cohen et al. (1985) demonstrated that the Appraisal subscale correlates specifically with validated measures of willingness to engage in interpersonal self-disclosure and emotional expressivity ($r = .35$ to $.45$).

Discriminant Validity

Crucial to establishing the construct validity of the ISEL was demonstrating that it does not simply mirror neuroticism, negative affectivity, or socially desirable responding:

• Differentiation from Negative Affectivity: Although perceived support is inversely linked to depressive symptomatology and trait anxiety ($r = -.30$ to $-.50$), partial correlation analyses consistently show that the relationship between ISEL scores and physical/mental health outcomes persists intact after statistically controlling for neuroticism, trait negative affectivity, and generalized distress.
• Separation from Personal Self-Esteem: The decision to drop the original Self-Esteem subscale when constructing the ISEL-12 successfully elevated the instrument’s discriminant validity. The ISEL-12 exhibits modest correlations with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ($r = .25$ to $.38$), proving that the abbreviated instrument measures social resources rather than the respondent’s intrapsychic self-regard.
• Social Desirability: Correlations between the ISEL and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale are uniformly negligible to low ($r < .18$), confirming that scores are not an artifact of impression management.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The ISEL exhibits remarkable predictive utility across behavioral, immunological, and somatic health domains:

• Immune Function and Infection Susceptibility: In Dr. Sheldon Cohen’s renowned Pittsburgh viral challenge paradigms, participants completed the ISEL prior to being experimentally exposed to rhinovirus or influenza virus in quarantine. Individuals reporting lower perceived social support on the ISEL displayed significantly impaired nasal mucosal mucociliary clearance, diminished antibody titers, heightened pro-inflammatory cytokine responses, and substantially higher rates of developing clinically verified respiratory illness.
• Cardiovascular and Neuroendocrine Regulation: Lower ISEL scores longitudinally predict elevated nocturnal ambulatory blood pressure, heightened systemic vascular resistance during psychological laboratory stress, blunted diurnal cortisol slope (a marker of HPA-axis dysregulation), and accelerated carotid artery intima-media thickness (a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis).
• Mortality and Morbidity in Clinical Cohorts: Prospective clinical epidemiological investigations (e.g., in cardiac post-infarction patients, end-stage renal disease cohorts, and oncology patients) demonstrate that low ISEL total scores independently predict elevated all-cause mortality, cardiovascular readmission, and poorer adherence to life-sustaining medical therapies over follow-up periods exceeding 5 to 10 years.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the ISEL-12 has been confirmed across diverse cultural contexts, age brackets, and socioeconomic strata.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates (evaluated via Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega $\omega$) demonstrate robust reliability for both the composite index and the specific functional subscales:

• Total Score Reliability: In broad adult general population samples, the Cronbach’s alpha for the overall 12-item scale consistently ranges from $\alpha = .88$ to $.90$. In undergraduate college cohorts, total scale alpha coefficients span from $\alpha = .77$ to $.86$.
• Appraisal Subscale (4 items): Alpha coefficients typically range between $\alpha = .75$ and $.84$, indicating solid item homogeneity despite the brief four-item breadth.
• Belonging Subscale (4 items): Alpha coefficients generally range from $\alpha = .73$ to $.82$.
• Tangible Subscale (4 items): Alpha coefficients range from $\alpha = .74$ to $.85$.

Because each subscale consists of only four items, alpha levels in the mid-.70s to low-.80s are psychometrically notable, reflecting strong average inter-item correlations without excessive semantic redundancy.

Test-Retest Stability

Perceived social support is theorized to behave as an enduring cognitive schema reflecting stable generalized expectations about interpersonal availability, rather than a volatile transient emotional state. Empirical test-retest investigations confirm this conceptualization:

• Short-Term Stability (2 to 6 Weeks): In non-clinical adult samples, test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) range from $.82$ to $.87$ for the overall scale and from $.76$ to $.83$ for individual subscales.
• Long-Term Stability (6 Months): Cohen et al. (1985) reported 6-month test-retest reliabilities of $.74$ for the composite score, confirming that perceived functional support remains relatively stable across prolonged spans in the absence of catastrophic life disruptions (e.g., bereavement, geographic relocation, divorce).

Factor Analysis

The underlying latent structure of both the original 40-item ISEL and the 12-item abbreviated version has been scrutinized through extensive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across international samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial development of the ISEL-12, Cohen and colleagues applied principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations to extract the highest-loading, conceptually pure items from the original 40-item matrix. For each of the three targeted functional dimensions—Appraisal, Belonging, and Tangible—the four items with the highest primary pattern loadings (consistently $> .60$) and the lowest cross-loadings (consistently $< .25$) were retained. This rigorous selection ensured that each subscale had equal balance: two positively keyed items (depicting presence of support) and two negatively keyed, reverse-scored items (depicting absence or deficit of support), thereby minimizing acquiescence response bias.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations (e.g., Merz et al., 2014; Brookings & Bolton, 1988) tested competing structural models using structural equation modeling. The empirical literature has contrasted several configurations:

1. Unidimensional One-Factor Model: Assumes all 12 items load directly onto a single, undifferentiated “Perceived Social Support” factor. This model routinely yields inadequate fit indices (e.g., $\chi^2/df > 4.5$, $text{CFI} < .88$,$text{TLI} < .85$,$text{RMSEA} > .085$), indicating that social support is multidimensional.
2. Three-Factor Oblique Model: Specifies Appraisal, Belonging, and Tangible as three distinct, intercorrelated latent factors. This model exhibits excellent goodness-of-fit indices across diverse populations:
   • Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $ge .95$
   • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) $ge .94$
   • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) $le .05$ to $.06$
   • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) $le .04$

   Inter-factor correlations in this oblique model typically range between $phi = .50$ and $.75$, demonstrating that while the dimensions share common variance as interpersonal assets, they retain significant unique variance.

3. Bifactor Model: A growing body of structural research supports a bifactor solution comprising a broad, general perceived support factor ($G$-factor) alongside three orthogonal group factors corresponding to Appraisal, Belonging, and Tangible support. In bifactor configurations, the general factor accounts for approximately $60\text{–}70%$ of the common variance, while the group factors account for the remaining variance. This supports the clinical and research practice of utilizing both the overall composite score (as a broad metric of supportive capital) and individual subscale profiles (for granular functional inquiry).

Measurement Invariance

Multiple-group CFA studies have established full metric (weak) and scalar (strong) invariance across sex (male vs. female), age cohorts (young adults vs. older adults), and broad racial/ethnic categories. This confirms that observed differences in ISEL-12 scores reflect true differences in perceived social support rather than differential item functioning or psychometric artifacts.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The standard technical and administration parameters for the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL-12) are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (Abbreviated 12-Item Version; ISEL-12)
• Author(s): Sheldon Cohen, Robin Mermelstein, Thomas Kamarck, and Harry Hoberman (1985)
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychological questionnaire / psychometric rating inventory
• Target Population: Adolescents, college students, community-dwelling adults, geriatric cohorts, and clinical patient populations
• Reading Level: Approximate 6th-grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid); straightforward language accessible across educational backgrounds
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete
• Administration Modes: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital web-based survey, or clinician-assisted interview
• Total Number of Items: 12 items
• Number of Subscales: 3 subscales (4 items each):
  • Appraisal Support Subscale: Items 2, 4, 6, 11
  • Belonging Support Subscale: Items 1, 5, 7, 9
  • Tangible Support Subscale: Items 3, 8, 10, 12
• Response Scale: 4-point forced-choice Likert-type response format:
  • 0 = Definitely False
  • 1 = Probably False
  • 2 = Probably True
  • 3 = Definitely True

  (Note: Historically, some early administrations utilized a 1 to 4 coding scheme; contemporary standard psychometric scoring adheres to the 0 to 3 metric).

• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Reverse Scoring: To protect against acquiescence response sets, exactly half of the items are phrased negatively (indicating absence of support) and must be reverse-coded prior to subscale computation:
    • Items requiring reverse coding: 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12
    • Reverse formula: $\text{New Score} = 3 – \text{Raw Score}$ (i.e., $0 \rightarrow 3$, $1 \rightarrow 2$, $2 \rightarrow 1$, $3 \rightarrow 0$).
  • Appraisal Subscale Score: Sum of items 2R + 4 + 6 + 11R (Score range: 0 to 12).
  • Belonging Subscale Score: Sum of items 1R + 5 + 7R + 9 (Score range: 0 to 12).
  • Tangible Subscale Score: Sum of items 3 + 8R + 10 + 12R (Score range: 0 to 12).
  • Overall Support Score: Sum of all three subscales (Score range: 0 to 36). Higher values represent greater perceived availability of functional social support.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Initial Publication Year: The 40-item ISEL was developed in 1983 and formally published in 1985 (Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985). The streamlined ISEL-12 was formulated subsequently by Cohen and colleagues to facilitate large-scale epidemiological and biomedical studies.

Licensing and Accessibility: The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List is placed in the public domain for scholarly, academic, scientific, and non-commercial clinical research purposes. In accordance with Dr. Sheldon Cohen’s open-science commitment, researchers and healthcare professionals are permitted to administer, reproduce, score, and translate the ISEL and ISEL-12 without paying licensing fees or seeking formal prior copyright permission, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors in all publications, clinical reports, or presentations.

Commercial Use: Any commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, or commercial publication must obtain explicit consent from the copyright holders and Dr. Sheldon Cohen via the Department of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.

References

• 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
• 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
• Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. M. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and application (pp. 73–94). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5116-7_5
• Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Skoner, D. P., Rabin, B. S., & Gwaltney, J. M., Jr. (1997). Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA, 277(24), 1940–1944. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540480040036
• Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). John Wiley & Sons.
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Merz, E. L., Roesch, S. C., Malcarne, V. L., Penedo, F. J., Llabre, M. M., Weitzman, O. B., Navas-Nacher, E. L., Perera, M. J., Levenson, M. R., & Gallo, L. C. (2014). Validation of Interpersonal Support Evaluation List-12 (ISEL-12) scores among English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos in the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035248
• Rosengren, A., Orth-Gomér, K., Wedel, H., & Wilhelmsen, L. (1993). Stressful life events, social support, and mortality in men born in 1933. BMJ, 307(6912), 1102–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6912.1102

Items of the Scale