Measuring loneliness: a head-to-head psychometric comparison of the 3- and 20-item UCLA Loneliness Scales.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Corentin J Gosling, Romain Colle, Ariane Cartigny, Fabrice Jollant, Emmanuelle Corruble, Ariel Frajerman
{"title":"Measuring loneliness: a head-to-head psychometric comparison of the 3- and 20-item UCLA Loneliness Scales.","authors":"Corentin J Gosling, Romain Colle, Ariane Cartigny, Fabrice Jollant, Emmanuelle Corruble, Ariel Frajerman","doi":"10.1017/S0033291724002083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the growing interest in the prevalence and consequences of loneliness, the way it is measured still raises a number of questions. In particular, few studies have directly compared the psychometric properties of very short measures of loneliness to standard measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a large epidemiological study of midwife students (<i>n</i> = 1742) and performed a head-to-head comparison of the psychometric properties of the standard (20 items) and short version (3 items) of the UCLA Loneliness Scales (UCLA-LS). All participants completed the UCLA-LS-20, UCLA-LS-3, as well as other measures of mental health, including anxiety and depression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First, as predicted, we found that the two loneliness scales were strongly associated with each other. Second, when using the dimensional scores of the scales, we showed that the internal reliability, convergent-, discriminant-, and known-groups validities were high and of similar magnitude between the UCLA-LS-20 and the UCLA-LS-3. Third, when the scales were dichotomized, the results were more mixed. The sensitivity and/or specificity of the UCLA-LS-3 against the UCLA-LS-20 were systematically below acceptable thresholds, regardless of the dichotomizing process used. In addition, the prevalence of loneliness was strikingly variable as a function of the cut-offs used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, we showed that the UCLA-LS-3 provided an adequate dimensional measure of loneliness that is very similar to the UCLA-LS-20. On the other hand, we were able to highlight more marked differences between the scales when their scores were dichotomized, which has important consequences for studies estimating, for example, the prevalence of loneliness.</p>","PeriodicalId":20891,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291724002083","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the growing interest in the prevalence and consequences of loneliness, the way it is measured still raises a number of questions. In particular, few studies have directly compared the psychometric properties of very short measures of loneliness to standard measures.

Methods: We conducted a large epidemiological study of midwife students (n = 1742) and performed a head-to-head comparison of the psychometric properties of the standard (20 items) and short version (3 items) of the UCLA Loneliness Scales (UCLA-LS). All participants completed the UCLA-LS-20, UCLA-LS-3, as well as other measures of mental health, including anxiety and depression.

Results: First, as predicted, we found that the two loneliness scales were strongly associated with each other. Second, when using the dimensional scores of the scales, we showed that the internal reliability, convergent-, discriminant-, and known-groups validities were high and of similar magnitude between the UCLA-LS-20 and the UCLA-LS-3. Third, when the scales were dichotomized, the results were more mixed. The sensitivity and/or specificity of the UCLA-LS-3 against the UCLA-LS-20 were systematically below acceptable thresholds, regardless of the dichotomizing process used. In addition, the prevalence of loneliness was strikingly variable as a function of the cut-offs used.

Conclusions: Overall, we showed that the UCLA-LS-3 provided an adequate dimensional measure of loneliness that is very similar to the UCLA-LS-20. On the other hand, we were able to highlight more marked differences between the scales when their scores were dichotomized, which has important consequences for studies estimating, for example, the prevalence of loneliness.

测量孤独感:3 项 UCLA 孤独感量表和 20 项 UCLA 孤独感量表的心理测量比较。
背景:尽管人们对孤独感的普遍性和后果越来越感兴趣,但孤独感的测量方法仍然引发了许多问题。特别是,很少有研究直接比较极简短的孤独感测量方法与标准测量方法的心理测量特性:我们对助产士学生(n = 1742)进行了一项大型流行病学研究,并对标准版(20 个项目)和简短版(3 个项目)的《加州大学洛杉矶分校孤独感量表》(UCLA-LS)的心理测量特性进行了正面比较。所有参与者都完成了《UCLA-LS-20》、《UCLA-LS-3》以及其他心理健康测量,包括焦虑和抑郁:首先,正如所预测的那样,我们发现两个孤独感量表之间存在密切联系。其次,在使用量表的维度分数时,我们发现 UCLA-LS-20 和 UCLA-LS-3 的内部信度、收敛效度、判别效度和已知群体效度都很高,而且程度相似。第三,当量表被二分法化时,结果就比较复杂了。无论采用哪种二分法,UCLA-LS-3 与 UCLA-LS-20 的灵敏度和/或特异度都低于可接受的临界值。此外,孤独感的发生率也因所使用的分界点不同而存在显著差异:总的来说,我们的研究表明,UCLA-LS-3 提供了一个衡量孤独感的适当维度,与 UCLA-LS-20 非常相似。另一方面,如果将量表的分数进行二分法处理,我们就能发现量表之间更明显的差异,这对研究孤独感的流行率等估算工作具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Medicine
Psychological Medicine 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
711
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Now in its fifth decade of publication, Psychological Medicine is a leading international journal in the fields of psychiatry, related aspects of psychology and basic sciences. From 2014, there are 16 issues a year, each featuring original articles reporting key research being undertaken worldwide, together with shorter editorials by distinguished scholars and an important book review section. The journal''s success is clearly demonstrated by a consistently high impact factor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信