4.6 Article

Equivalence of chatbot and paper-and-pencil versions of the De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale

Journal

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 9, Pages 6225-6232

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-020-01117-0

Keywords

Chabot; Loneliness scale; Quantitative equivalence; Dimensionality; Undergraduate university students

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Innovation
  2. Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) [FCT-18-13677]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to examine the quantitative equivalence of paper-and-pencil and voice-based conversational assistant (chatbot) in administering tests and assess loneliness in university students. The results indicated that the chatbot demonstrated validity and internal consistency for loneliness assessment, supporting its feasibility for future use in undergraduate students and other populations.
Technological progress provides health professionals with an excellent opportunity to take advantage of these developments and contribute to the development of efficient ways of diagnosing, monitoring, treating and assisting users. The purpose of this work is to present the results of a study conducted to examine the quantitative equivalence of paper-and-pencil and a voice-based conversational assistant, popularly known as a chatbot, as means to administer tests. One hundred and eight undergraduate university students completed both versions of the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. The interval between the first and second administration was set at four days. Validity, internal structure, internal consistency and equivalence of chatbot administration mode were assessed. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the factor structure and provided a two-factor structure. Validity and internal consistency are adequate. These results support the feasibility of using chatbots for loneliness assessment in a sample of undergraduate university students and other populations in future.

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