Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU) Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Not true at all
- Slightly true
- Moderately true
- Largely true
- Almost completely true
- Not true at all
- Somewhat true
- Moderately true
- Largely true
- Almost completely true
- Not at all true
- Slightly true
- Moderately true
- Largely true
- Almost completely true
Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU) Test - Description and methodology of the test
People who want a clearer picture of how available and dependable their relationships feel may find the Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU) Test useful. This social support assessment focuses on perceived resources rather than counting contacts, helping a respondent consider whether others offer acceptance, closeness, practical help, information, and a sense of belonging. It is suited to personal reflection about everyday support.
What This Assessment Explores
The items treat support as an experience within relationships, covering acceptance, trust, listening, affection, inclusion, information, practical help, and access during distress. Questions about wanting more attention or security also allow unmet needs to appear.
Five displayed dimensions organize the results of this social support questionnaire:
- Satisfaction With Support (0-10) reflects relationship stability and confidence: Low satisfaction 0-3; Moderate satisfaction 4-9; High satisfaction 10-10.
- Social Integration (7-35) reflects network inclusion and shared values: Low integration 7-19; Moderate integration 20-31; High integration 32-35.
- Instrumental Support (4-20) reflects practical help, resources, information, or relief from burdens: Low 4-11; Moderate 12-20.
- Emotional Support (9-45) reflects closeness, trust, and belonging: Low 9-23; Moderate 24-45.
- Overall Social Support (22-110) reflects perceived help across life situations: Low support 22-59; Moderate support 60-97; High support 98-110.
Methodology and Evidence Base
Each item presents a statement with five graded options, from minimal truth or applicability to near-complete truth. Some wording asks about available support, while other items ask about wanting more closeness or attention. The result presents separate scores for the displayed dimensions, offering a profile rather than one yes/no judgment.
Viewed as a perceived social support scale, the questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the related SOZU-K-22 measure evaluated by Dunkel et al. (2005), so its findings are conceptually relevant rather than evidence that this questionnaire is the same version. The F-SozU manual by Fydrich, Sommer, and Brähler (2007), together with Fydrich et al. (1999), documents the broader instrument’s framework and representative-sample reference data. The online questionnaire is conceptually consistent with this evidence, but that does not establish a direct adaptation with identical norms.
Interpret each band as a descriptive indication of the level shown. The ranges describe output categories, but do not explain causes or guarantee that people with the same result have identical relationships. Because responses are self-reported, current circumstances, expectations, memory, and self-awareness can influence them; broader context is needed before drawing a clinical conclusion.
- Dunkel, Dirk, Elfi Antretter, Sabine Fröhlich-Walser, and Christian Haring. "Evaluation of the Short Form of the Social Support Questionnaire (SOZU-K-22) in Clinical and Non-Clinical Samples." Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, Medical Psychology 55, no. 5 (2005): 266-277. 10.1055/s-2004-834746
- Fydrich, Thomas, Gert Sommer, and Elmar Brähler. "Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU): Manual." Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2007.
- Fydrich, Thomas, Michael Geyer, Aike Hessel, Gert Sommer, and Elmar Brähler. "Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU): Standardization on a Representative Sample." Diagnostica 45, no. 4 (1999): 212-216. 10.1026//0012-1924.45.4.212
Updated: