OBJECTIVES: To examine the psychometric properties of the Social Support Questionnaire Duke-UNC (DUFSS) and the De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale in a sample of non-institutionalized older adults. METHODS: The sample consisted of 1,106 non-institutionalized older adults included in a national survey on quality of life. Both scales were analyzed according to classical test theory (acceptability, internal consistency, internal validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and accuracy) and Rasch analysis. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation scores were 44.95 ± 8.9 for the DUFSS and 1.92 ± 1.83 for the Loneliness Scale. Cronbach's alpha was 0.94 for the DUFSS and 0.77 for the Loneliness Scale. Factor analysis identified two factors in each scale (explained variance: 73.8% for the DUFSS and 67.7% for the Loneliness Scale). The instruments showed a correlation of -0.59 with each other. Rasch analysis of the DUFSS identified two dimensions with a good model fit, whereas the Loneliness Scale did not fit the Rasch model. CONCLUSIONS: The DUFSS, with some modifications, meets the Rasch assumptions and provides linear measures. However, more Rasch analysis studies are needed for the Loneliness Scale. According to classical test theory, the DUFSS has good internal consistency for comparisons among people and the Loneliness Scale for comparisons among groups. Both scales have satisfactory construct validity.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the psychometric properties of the Social Support Questionnaire Duke-UNC (DUFSS) and the De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale in a sample of non-institutionalized older adults. METHODS: The sample consisted of 1,106 non-institutionalized older adults included in a national survey on quality of life. Both scales were analyzed according to classical test theory (acceptability, internal consistency, internal validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and accuracy) and Rasch analysis. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation scores were 44.95 ± 8.9 for the DUFSS and 1.92 ± 1.83 for the Loneliness Scale. Cronbach's alpha was 0.94 for the DUFSS and 0.77 for the Loneliness Scale. Factor analysis identified two factors in each scale (explained variance: 73.8% for the DUFSS and 67.7% for the Loneliness Scale). The instruments showed a correlation of -0.59 with each other. Rasch analysis of the DUFSS identified two dimensions with a good model fit, whereas the Loneliness Scale did not fit the Rasch model. CONCLUSIONS: The DUFSS, with some modifications, meets the Rasch assumptions and provides linear measures. However, more Rasch analysis studies are needed for the Loneliness Scale. According to classical test theory, the DUFSS has good internal consistency for comparisons among people and the Loneliness Scale for comparisons among groups. Both scales have satisfactory construct validity.
Authors: Andrés Cabrera-León; Miguel Ángel Cantero-Braojos; Llenalia Garcia-Fernandez; Juan Antonio Guerra de Hoyos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Pablo Ruisoto; Marina Ramírez; Belén Paladines-Costa; Silvia Vaca; Vicente Javier Clemente-Suárez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Leire Ambrosio; David Perez-Manchon; Gloria Carvajal-Carrascal; Alejandra Fuentes-Ramirez; Neus Caparros; Manuel Ignacio Ruiz de Ocenda; Eva Timonet; Maria Victoria Navarta-Sanchez; Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jorge Caro-Bautista; Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez; David Perez-Manchon; Eva Timonet-Andreu; Gloria Carvajal-Carrascal; Alejandra Fuentes-Ramírez; Silvia Corchon; Marta Aranda-Gallardo; Leire Ambrosio Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Silvia Corchon; Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez; Gloria Carvajal-Carrascal; Alejandra Fuentes-Ramirez; Manuel Ignacio Ruiz de Ocenda; Neus Caparros; Eva Timonet-Andreu; Maria Victoria Navarta-Sanchez; Leire Ambrosio Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Leire Ambrosio; Mari Carmen Portillo; Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez; Mayela Rodriguez-Violante; Juan Carlos Martínez Castrillo; Víctor Campos Arillo; Nélida Susana Garretto; Tomoko Arakaki; Marcos Serrano Dueñas; Mario Álvarez; Ivonne Pedroso Ibáñez; Ana Carvajal; Pablo Martínez-Martín Journal: NPJ Parkinsons Dis Date: 2016-10-20