4.6 Review

Systematic review of psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation of the University of California and Los Angeles loneliness scale in adults

Journal

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 14, Pages 11819-11833

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-021-02494-w

Keywords

Adults; Cross-cultural adaptation; Loneliness; Psychometric properties; UCLA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review examines the psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptability of the University of California and Los Angeles Loneliness scale (UCLA-LS) in adults. The review found that the UCLA-LS has good validity and reliability when applied in various countries and societies.
This systematic review assessed the psychometric properties and the cross-cultural adaptation of the University of California and Los Angeles Loneliness scale (UCLA-LS) in adults. A systematic search of four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsycINFO) was conducted from inception until March 2021. We followed the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines for data extraction and evidence synthesis. Eighty-one studies assessed the validity and reliability of the UCLA-LS, translated into many languages, and applied across several countries/societies. Three versions of the 20-item and nine short versions of the UCLA-LS with 3 to 20 questions were identified. High-quality evidence supported the internal structure of the UCLAs: 4, 6, 7 and 10, while low-to moderate-quality evidence supported the construct validity of the UCLAs: 3, 4, 6, 8, 16 and 20. Moderate-quality evidence supported the test-retest reliability of version 3 UCLA-20 with excellent interclass coefficients values of 0.76-0.93. The UCLAs: 4, 6, 7 and 10 had the most robust internal structure and may therefore be the most useful for informing clinicians and social psychologists engaged in assisting those with loneliness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available