Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34785877›Full record

ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2021

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

Sanaa A Alsubheen, Ana Oliveira, Razanne Habash, Roger Goldstein, Dina Brooks

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating the Co-Design and Implementation of a Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Communication in Aged Care: A Nested Process Evaluation Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Tackling Loneliness, Ineffective Social Support, and Mental Ill-Health Among People With Higher Weight.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sanaa A AlsubheenSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, IAHS Building Room 430, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9841-7522
Ana OliveiraSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, IAHS Building Room 430, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.
Razanne HabashDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, ON Canada.
Roger GoldsteinDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, ON Canada.
Dina BrooksSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, IAHS Building Room 430, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.
West Park Healthcare Centre · CAMcMaster University · CAToronto Rehabilitation Institute · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02494-w.

Indexed as

AdultsCross-cultural adaptationLonelinessPsychometric propertiesUCLA

Identifiers

PMID34785877
PMCPMC8586628
OpenAlexW3212147279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.