Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)

Abstract

The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) is a widely used psychological scale designed to measure an individual’s perceived availability of social support. Developed by Cohen, Memelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberman in 1985, the ISEL focuses on the functional rather than the structural aspects of support networks. The College Version, specifically tailored for university populations, consists of 48 items distributed across four distinct subscales: Tangible, Belonging, Appraisal, and Self-Esteem. It utilizes a simple dichotomous response format (Probably True/Probably False) and is instrumental in research examining the protective effects of perceived support against stress and illness.

Keywords

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, ISEL, social support, perceived support, Tangible support, Belonging, Appraisal support, Self-Esteem, College Version, psychological measurement.

Authors

Cohen, S., Memelstein, R., Kamarck, T., Hoberman, H.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the ISEL is to provide a reliable and comprehensive measure of perceived social support. Unlike measures that simply count the number of social ties (structural measures), the ISEL assesses the respondent’s subjective perception that various types of supportive resources are available to them should they need them. This perceived availability is often considered a critical buffer against the negative impacts of life stress and psychological distress.

The scale is specifically designed to differentiate between four hypothesized functional components of support, allowing researchers to determine which types of support (e.g., material aid vs. emotional validation) are most salient in particular contexts or for specific demographic groups. This focus on functionality makes the ISEL a valuable tool in both clinical and academic research settings, particularly those involving students facing transitional stress.

Construct

The ISEL measures the construct of perceived social support, conceptualized as the individual’s cognitive appraisal that help and resources are accessible within their social network. The 48-item scale operationalizes this construct through four distinct functional subscales, each representing a different facet of support availability:

• Tangible Support: Measures the perceived availability of material aid and behavioral assistance (e.g., financial help, transportation, or physical goods).
• Belonging Support: Measures the perceived availability of companions for social activities and a sense of integration into a social group or network, combating feelings of loneliness.
• Appraisal Support: Measures the perceived availability of someone to talk to for self-evaluative feedback, advice, and guidance, helping to make problems clearer or easier to understand.
• Self-Esteem Support: Measures the perceived availability of positive comparisons and positive regard from others, which enhances the individual’s sense of competence and self-worth.

Validity

Initial studies establishing the ISEL demonstrated strong evidence for its construct validity. The differentiation into four subscales supports the theoretical model of social support being multidimensional rather than unitary. Criterion validity has been established through correlations with measures of psychological distress; specifically, higher ISEL scores (indicating greater perceived support) consistently correlate negatively with reported stress, depression, and anxiety.

Furthermore, the ISEL has shown predictive validity, often demonstrating that perceived support is a significant mediator between stressful life events and subsequent health outcomes. The independence of the four subscales, particularly the Self-Esteem component which measures feelings of competence and comparison, suggests that the ISEL effectively captures unique and critical aspects of perceived resource availability.

Reliability

The ISEL exhibits good internal consistency, which is typically reported through Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients. Across various studies, the full 48-item scale often yields reliability coefficients in the range of .90 or higher, indicating a high degree of coherence among the items measuring perceived support. The individual 12-item subscales also generally show acceptable reliability, with coefficients usually ranging between .70 and .85.

Test-retest reliability is also a key feature of the ISEL, demonstrating its stability over time. Studies involving college populations have shown consistent scores when the instrument is administered several weeks apart, confirming that the measure captures a relatively stable perception of one’s social environment rather than temporary mood fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

The development of the ISEL utilized Factor Analysis to confirm the hypothesized four-factor structure. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses generally support the division of the 48 items into the four distinct, yet moderately correlated, subscales: Tangible, Belonging, Appraisal, and Self-Esteem. This statistical validation confirmed that the items are indeed clustering around the intended functional components of support, reinforcing the theoretical foundation of the instrument.

While the four-factor model is strongly supported, some subsequent research utilizing the ISEL has explored alternative structures, occasionally finding evidence for a higher-order factor representing general perceived availability of support. However, the primary use of the ISEL remains focused on analyzing the scores of the four distinct functional components, as originally validated by Cohen and colleagues through rigorous factor analysis.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale.

Format: 48 items utilizing a dichotomous response format (Probably True/Probably False).

Language Available: Primarily English; translated versions are available for research use in numerous languages.

Population Group: General population; the version detailed here is specifically the College Version.

Age Group: Adolescents and young adults (typically 18-25) enrolled in higher education settings.

Population Details: Suitable for individuals capable of reading and understanding complex social statements; the items are contextually relevant to university students (e.g., tuition, campus life, study breaks).

Test Methodology: The scale is administered either via paper-and-pencil or digitally. Respondents are instructed to choose the alternative that is most descriptive of them, even if the statement is neither clearly true nor clearly false. Scoring involves assigning 1 point for a supportive response and 0 points for a non-supportive response. For items 7-12 in each subscale, the scores must be reversed (i.e., “Probably False” scores 1) before summation to obtain subscale and total scores.

Keywords

Functional support, social network, psychological distress, college students, perceived availability, measurement, Cohen 1985, factor structure.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence is typically directed to the lead author, Sheldon Cohen, at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The ISEL was first published in 1985. The scale is widely used in academic research and is often available for non-commercial research use, though researchers should verify current permission requirements directly with the primary author, Sheldon Cohen, or the publisher of the foundational reference. The original source for the College Version of the ISEL is maintained online at CMU, suggesting broad accessibility for academic purposes. The online source is available here: http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~scohen/ISEL-college.html

Reference’s

• Cohen, S., Memelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In I.G. Sarason & B. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and application (pp.73-94). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Items of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Tangible scale

1. I know someone who would loan me $50 so I could go away for the weekend.
2. I know someone who would give me some old dishes if I moved into my own apartment.
3. I know someone who would loan me $100 to help pay my tuition.
4. If I needed it‚ my family would provide me with an allowance and spending money.
5. If I wanted a date for a party next weekend‚ I know someone at school or in town who would fix me up.
6. I know someone at school or in town who would bring my meals to my room or apartment if I were sick.
7. I don’t know anyone who would loan me several hundred dollars to pay a doctor bill or dental bill.
8. I don’t know anyone who would give me some old furniture if I moved into my own apartment.
9. Even if I needed it m family would (or could) not give me money for tuition and books.
10. I don’t know anyone at school or in town who would help me study for an exam by spending several hours reading me questions.
11. I don’t know anyone at school or in town who would loan me their car for a couple of hours.
12. I don’t know anyone at school or in town who would get assignments for me from my teachers if I was sick.

Belonging scale

1. There are people at school or in town who I regularly run with‚ exercise with‚ or play sports with.
2. I hang out in a friend’s room or apartment quite a lot.
3. I can get a date who I enjoy spending time with whenever I want.
4. If I decided at dinner time to take a study break this evening and go to a movie‚ I could easily find someone to go with me.
5. People hang out in my room or apartment during the day or in the evening.
6. I belong to a group at school or in town that meets regularly or does things together regularly.
7. I am not a member of any social groups (such as church groups‚ clubs‚ teams‚ etc.)
8. Lately‚ I often feel lonely‚ like I don’t have anyone to reach out to.
9. I don’t have friends at school or in town who would comfort me by showing some physical affection.
10. I don’t often get invited to do things with other people.
11. I don’t talk to a member of my family at least once a week.
12. I don’t usually spend two evenings on the weekend doing something with others.

Appraisal Scale

1. I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about problems I might have budgeting my time between school and my social life.
2. I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have adjusting to college life.
3. I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about sexually transmitted diseases.
4. I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have meeting people.
5. I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable discussing any sexual problems I might have.
6. I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have with drugs.
7. There isn’t anyone at school or in town with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have with making friends.
8. There isn’t anyone at school or in town with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have getting along with my parents.
9. There isn’t anyone at school or in town with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about difficulties with my social life.
10. There isn’t anyone at school or in town with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about my feelings of loneliness and depression.
11. I don’t know anyone at school or in town who makes my problems clearer and easier to understand.
12. Lately‚ when I’ve been troubled‚ I keep things to myself.

Self Esteem Scale

1. Most people who know me well think highly of me.
2. Most of my friends think that I’m smart.
3. Most of my friends don’t do as well as I do in school.
4. I will have a better future than most other people will.
5. Most of my friends have not adjusted to college as easily as I have.
6. Most people think I have a good sense of humor.
7. I don’t feel friendly with any teaching assistants‚ professors‚ campus or student officials.
8. Most of my friends are more satisfied or happier with themselves than I am.
9. Most of my friend are more popular than I am.
10. Most of my friends are more interesting than I am.
11. Most of my friends have more control over what happens to them than I.
12. Most people are more attractive than I am.