Psychol Med. 2024 Oct 31:1-7. doi: 10.1017/S0033291724002083. Online ahead of print.
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.
PMID:39479755 | DOI:10.1017/S0033291724002083
