The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and validation of a 6‐item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (RULS‐6) using Rasch analysis
Abstract
Objective: The UCLA Loneliness Scale, containing 20 items, is one of the commonly used loneliness scales. Some shorter versions have been developed using factor analysis. The study aimed to shorten the UCLA Loneliness Scale using Rasch and factor analysis methods and test the psychometric properties of the new scale. Methods: The full sample of the study included 719 respondents, divided into three subsamples (205, 324, and 190 for samples 1–3, respectively). The original, 20‐item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (R‐ULS) was shortened using 205 students (sample 1); the shortened scale was then validated for construct and concurrent validity with 324 students (sample 2) and 190 clinical participants (sample 3). Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used for construct validity. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity were assessed by exploring the correlation with other psychological measurements. Results: In sample 1, the R‐ULS was shortened to a 6‐item scale (RULS‐6) that fits the Rasch model. The RULS‐6 met the criteria of unidimensionality and local independence without differential item functioning due to age and sex, and good targeting the clinical sample. Person Separation Index (PSI) reflected that reliability from the Rasch perspective was acceptable. However, collapsing categories 2 (sometime) and 3 (rarely) may be required in a clinical sample. When tested in samples 2 and 3, the RULS‐6 fits the Rasch measurement model. Convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated with interpersonal problems and attachment scales. As expected, a positive correlation was found between RULS‐6 and anxiety, depression subscale, interpersonal difficulties, and somatization subscales denoting concurrent validity. Cronbach’s alpha of the RULS‐6 was good (.83). Conclusion: Using Rasch analysis, the proposed RULS‐6 constituted a 70% reduction of the number of original items, yet preserved the psychometric properties in independent samples of students and psychiatric outpatients. Statement of contribution: What is already known on this subject? The UCLA Loneliness Scale is a common instrument used to gauge loneliness levels. The 20‐item revised scale (R‐ULS) has acceptable psychometric properties but its construct varies. Due to the length of the questionnaire, administration of R‐ULS is not always practical. Short versions vary in items and were developed with classic test theory (e.g., factor analysis). Rasch analysis – providing more accuracy based on measurement theory – could be used instead. What does this study add? Using a Rasch analysis approach, a 6‐item scale of loneliness (RULS‐6) was created. The RULS‐6 was tested in student and clinical samples, meeting Rasch measurement model criteria. The RULS‐6 showed promising psychometrics to be used in both non‐clinical and clinical samples.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Loneliness was measured using the six-item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Wongpakaran et al. 2020), a Rasch-validated short form retaining the measurement precision of the 20-item instrument.”
From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Wongpakaran et al. 2020
Citations
Cites
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 · Cited by 5,925
UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure
Russell, D. W. (1996) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2 · Cited by 5,800
The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472 · Cited by 5,173
A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies
Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004) · Research on Aging · doi:10.1177/0164027504268574 · Cited by 4,781
New Effect Size Rules of Thumb
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009) · Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1257035100 · Cited by 3,254
Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women
Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P., & Wardle, J. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1219686110 · Cited by 2,503
Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W. (2017) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035 · Cited by 2,158
Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults
Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.1177/002214650905000103 · Cited by 2,027
Influences on Loneliness in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis
Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2001) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2304_2 · Cited by 1,036
Older adult loneliness: myths and realities
Dykstra, P. A. (2009) · European Journal of Ageing · doi:10.1007/s10433-009-0110-3 · Cited by 632
Research works printed but not linked: 59
- 10.1177/0013164411432166 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.mlr.0000103528.48582.7c · DOI
- 10.1177/0013164412450877 · DOI
- Andrich D., 2004, Final report on the psychometric analysis of the Early Development Instrument (EDI) using the Rasch model: A technical paper commissioned for the development of the Australian Early Development Instrument (AEDI)
- 10.4324/9781315814698 · DOI
- 10.1177/0049124192021002005 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.erap.2008.09.006 · DOI
- 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.559 · DOI
- 10.1089/jpm.2013.0555 · DOI
- Cho Y. R., 2004, A study on a model for internet addiction of adolescents, Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi, 34, 541
- 10.1002/9781118574454.ch3 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 · DOI · Paper page
- COSMIN, 2005, COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments
- 10.1080/03601271003756628 · DOI
- 10.1037/10519-153 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5334/pb.ae · DOI
- 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181bab10c · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.007 · DOI
- 10.1186/1752-4458-8-34 · DOI
- Hinz A., 2007, The acquiescence effect in responding to a questionnaire, GMS Psycho‐Social Medicine, 4, Doc07
- 10.1037/0022-006X.47.4.762 · DOI
- 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00223980.2013.825229 · DOI
- 10.1186/s40359-019-0285-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.anr.2017.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.013 · DOI
- 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.379 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jagp.2017.06.004 · DOI
- 10.1002/1097-4679(196701)23:1<84::AID-JCLP2270230123>3.0.CO;2-2 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.02.020 · DOI
- Linacre J., 1994, Sample size and item calibration [or Person Measure] stability
- Linacre J. M., 1999, Category disordering vs. step disordering, Rasch Measurement Transactions, 13, 675
- Linacre J. M., 2006, Data variance explained by measures, Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20, 1045
- Linacre J. M., 2017, Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program User's Guide
- Lotrakul M., 1999, Development of the Thai depression inventory, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 82, 1200
- 10.1177/0164027504268574 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/BF02296272 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2522/ptj.20150423 · DOI
- Muthén L. K., 2015, Mplus User’s Guide
- 10.1207/s15327841mpee1004_1 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10433-014-0312-1 · DOI
- Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory
- 10.1159/000441651 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1745691615568999 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.035 · DOI
- 10.2466/pr0.1993.72.3c.1379 · DOI
- Schumacker R., 1996, Disattenuating correlation coefficients. Rasch Measurement Transactions, Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10, 479
- 10.4103/0972-6748.57861 · DOI
- Smith E. V., 2002, Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals, Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205
- 10.1002/art.23108 · DOI
- 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181b40efc · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10433-017-0417-4 · DOI
- 10.1186/1751-0759-4-6 · DOI
- 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39434 · DOI
- 10.4306/pi.2012.9.1.54 · DOI
- Wongpakaran T., 2012, Interpersonal problems among psychiatric outpatients and non‐clinical samples, Singapore Medical Journal, 53, 481
- Wright B. D., 1996, Reliability and separation, Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9, 472
- 10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.003 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0157795 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cauberghe, V., Van Wesenbeeck, I., De Jans, S., Hudders, L., & Ponnet, K. (2021) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0478 · Cited by 564
Cao, C.-H., Liao, X.-L., Jiang, X.-Y., Li, X.-D., Chen, I.-H., & Lin, C.-Y. (2023) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-023-01242-y · Cited by 113
Wongpakaran, N., DeMaranville, J., & Wongpakaran, T. (2021) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare9091174 · Cited by 33
Self-citationNot a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions
Ciriello, R., Gal, U., & Turel, O. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12476 · Cited by 4
Resilience, Loneliness, and Mental Well-Being in the UK Farming Community
Kyle, S. N., Dunne, S., & Barkus, E. (2026) · Journal of Agromedicine · doi:10.1080/1059924x.2025.2583409 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Wongpakaran, N., Wongpakaran, T., Pinyopornpanish, M., Simcharoen, S., Suradom, C., Varnado, P., & Kuntawong, P.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychiatry Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai University Thailand
- Jittavej Nakhon Sawan Ratchanakarin Hospital Nakhon Sawan Thailand
- Venue
- British Journal of Health Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-01-30
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 233-256
- ISSN
- 1359-107X
- 2044-8287
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 12
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review