The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factor structure of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale and examine possible wording effects on a sample of 1,429 students from the United Arab Emirates University. Correlated traits-correlated uniqueness as well as correlated traits-correlated methods were used to examine the scale’s eight-factor models. The results of confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation indicated two models provided the best fit. The first, a one-dimensional model, assumes the correlation of the standard errors in the positive items. The second assumes a one-dimensional model and two method factors that correspond to the negative and positive items.
AustinB. A. (1983). Factorial structure of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Psychological Reports, 53, 883-889.
2.
BarnetteJ. J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 361-370.
3.
BentlerP. M.BonnettD. G. (1980). Significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
4.
BulmerM. G. (1979). Principles of statistics. New York, NY: Dover.
ForsterleeR.HoR. (1999). An examination of the short form of the need for cognition scale applied in an Australian sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 471-480.
7.
GreenK.FrantomC. (2002, November). Survey development and validation with the Rash model. Paper presented at the International Conference on Questionnaire Development, Evaluation, and Testing, Charleston, SC.
8.
HawkleyL.BrowneM.CacioppoJ. (2005). How can I connect with thee? Let me count the ways. Psychological Science, 16, 798-804.
9.
KnightR. G.ChisholmB. J.MarshN. V.GodfreyH. D. (1988). Some normative, reliability, and factor analytic data for the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 203-206.
10.
LasgaardM. (2007). Reliability and validity of the Danish version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1359-1366.
11.
LykesV.KemmelmeierM. (2014). What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between indivi-dualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 468-490.
12.
MarshH.GraysonD. (1995). Latent variable models of multitrait–multimethod data. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 177-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Martín-AlboJ.NúñezJ.NavarroJ.GrijalvoF. (2007). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Transla-tion and validation in university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 458-467.
14.
McWhirterB. T. (1990). Factor analysis of the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. Current Psychology, 9, 56-68.
15.
NunnallyF.BernsteinI. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
16.
PilotteW. J.GableR. K. (1990). The impact of positive and negative item stems on the validity of a computer anxiety scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 603-610.
17.
PretoirusT. B. (1993). The metric equivalence of the UCLA Loneliness Scale for a sample of South Afri-can students. Educational and Psychosocial Measurement, 53, 233-239.
18.
RokachA.BacanliH. (2001). Perceived causes of loneliness: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 29, 169-182.
19.
RokachA.OrzeckT.NetoF. (2004). Coping with loneliness in old age: A cross-cultural com-parison. Current Psychology, 23, 124-137.
20.
RussellD. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.
21.
SauroJ.LewisJ. (2011, May). When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be positive?Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System, Vancouver, Bri-tish Columbia, Canada.
22.
SchmittN.StuitsD. M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of careless res-pondents?Applied Psycho-logical Measurement, 9, 367-373.
23.
SchriesheimC.EisenbachR. (1995). An exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic investigation of item wording effects on the obtained factor structures of survey questionnaire measures. Journal of Management, 21, 1177-1193.
24.
SooK. (1997). Korean version of the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Reliability and validity test. Jour-nal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 27, 953-960.
25.
UrbanR.SzigetiR.KökönyeiG.DemetrovicsZ. (2014). Global self-esteem and method effects: Competing factor structures, longitudinal invariance, and response styles in adolescents. Behavior Research Method, 46, 488-498. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0391-5
26.
WoutersE.BooysenF. L.PonnetK.Van LoonF. B. (2012). Wording effects and the factor structure of the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale in HIV/AIDS patients on antiretroviral treatment in South Africa. PLoS One, 7, e34881.
