Reassessing Social Connectedness: Empirical Evaluation of WHO's Theoretical Model and a Model based on Social Capital.

Background: Social connectedness is a key social determinant of health, influencing morbidity, mortality, and well-being. The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a framework defining social connectedness across three dimensions: structure, function, and quality. This framework operates at a higher conceptual level than traditional social capital approaches, which emphasize social ties and access to resources. Empirical comparisons of these frameworks remain limited. This study examines whether the WHO framework is supported by empirical data in a sample of Asian Americans and compares it with established social capital-based dimensions. Given Asian Americans' distinct histories of immigration, discrimination, cultural norms, and the limited existing research, this study provides a foundation for measuring social connectedness in this population. Methods: Data were drawn from 779 Asian American adults participating in the first wave of the DREAMS study (2022-2026). Survey items were mapped onto two frameworks: (1) a social capital-based model including social strain, social support, bridging and bonding social connections, and neighborhood social cohesion; and (2) the WHO social connectedness model including quality, functional, and structural dimensions. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to evaluate measurement models. Indicator selection was based on statistical performance and conceptual alignment. Model fit was assessed using CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Results: Both frameworks demonstrated good model fit after removing poorly performing indicators. In the social capital-based model, four dimensions were retained with moderate to strong factor loadings and good fit (CFI = .991; RMSEA = .058). In the WHO model, three dimensions were retained, with strong loadings and good fit (CFI = .990; RMSEA = .071). Across both frameworks, latent factor correlations were small, indicating distinct but related dimensions. Higher-order and bi-factor models did not converge, supporting a multidimensional structure. Conclusions: Findings support both the WHO and social capital frameworks as multidimensional representations of social connectedness. The choice of framework should be guided by research objectives: social capital models may be preferable for examining inequality and resource-based mechanisms, whereas the WHO model may be advantageous for population monitoring and intervention design. Preserving dimensional specificity can strengthen measurement and improve understanding of how social connectedness influences health outcomes.