Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805754›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Psychometric Evaluation of Three Versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Full, Eight-Item, and Three-Item Versions) among Sexual Minority Men in Taiwan.

Chung-Ying Lin, Ching-Shu Tsai, Chia-Wei Fan, Mark D Griffiths, Chih-Cheng Chang, Cheng-Fang Yen, Amir H Pakpour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chung-Ying LinInstitute of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-2129-4242
Ching-Shu TsaiDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical Center, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-7371-1757
Chia-Wei FanDepartment of Occupational Therapy, AdventHealth University, Orlando, FL 32803, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8534-4934
Mark D GriffithsInternational Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4FQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8880-6524
Chih-Cheng ChangDepartment of Psychiatry, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan 70246, Taiwan.
Cheng-Fang YenDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1156-4939
Amir H PakpourDepartment of Nursing, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8798-5345

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The UCLA Loneliness Scale, with different short versions, is widely used to assess levels of loneliness. However, whether the scale is valid in assessing loneliness among sexual-minority men is unknown. Additionally, it is unclear whether the 8-item and 3-item short versions are comparable to the full 20-item version. The present study compared the validity of the three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (i.e., 20-item, 8-item, and 3-item versions) among gay and bisexual men in Taiwan. The participants comprised 400 gay and bisexual men in Taiwan who completed a cross-sectional online survey, which included the UCLA Loneliness Scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate factorial validity. Convergent validity was examined between the three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the CES-D and STAI. Known-group validity was investigated with participants' sexual orientation and educational levels. The unidimensional construct was supported in all three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale tested in the present study. Convergent validity was supported as the level of loneliness was correlated with the level of depression and anxiety for all three versions. There were no significant differences between gay and bisexual men, although significant differences were found across different educational levels. The study confirmed that all three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale were comparable with satisfactory reliability and validity in Taiwanese sexual-minority men.

Indexed as

LonelinessSexual and Gender MinoritiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsTaiwanbisexualgayhomosexuallonelinesspsychological well-beingpsychometric propertiesUCLA Loneliness Scale

Identifiers

PMID35805754
PMCPMC9265606

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.