ArticleNursing open2022
Development and psychometric evaluation of the loneliness inventory for older adults (Lonely): A mixed-methods study.
Article in Nursing open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Exploration of subgroups and predictors of loneliness among older adults in rural China: A latent profile analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the loneliness inventory for older adults (Lonely): A mixed-methods study.Nursing open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo develop and initially validate the Loneliness Inventory for Older Adults.
designScale development and evaluation.
methodsThis was a two-phase study. In phase 1, the initial items pool (126 items) was generated based on the concept analysis and literature review. Moreover, content validity was established by geriatric and psychometric experts. Phase 2 evaluated structural validity by performing item analysis, exploratory factor analysis and convergent validity. Reliability was evaluated by examining internal consistency, stability (ICC) and absolute reliability.
resultsFollowing the development process, 94 items were removed and a provisional version of the questionnaire with 32 items was subjected to psychometric evaluation. Three hundred and seventy older adults completed the questionnaire. After performing factor analysis, overall 3 items were removed due to low loading, and the questionnaire was reduced to 29 items tapping into five factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the instrument was 0.94, and the ICC value was 0.97.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.