Submit a report

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

495

A systematic review of social connection inventoriesuse asterix (*) to get italics
Bastien Paris, Debora Brickau, Tetiana Stoianova, Maike Luhmann, Christopher Mikton, Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Marlies Maes, Hans IJzermanPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2023
<p>Social connection is vital to health and longevity. To date, a plethora of instruments exists to measure social connection, assessing a variety of aspects of social connection like loneliness, social isolation, or social support. For comparability and consistency of the published literature and for policy recommendations, consolidation and evaluation of the quality of measures is crucial. To answer the call for comparability, in Study 1a, we conducted a systematic review to create a database of social connection measures (N=xx) for its structure (N=xx), function (N=xx), and quality components (N=xx), spanning [YEAR] to [YEAR]; after which, in Study 1b, we assessed the heterogeneity of these existing measures through an item-content analysis relying both on human coders, as well as ChatGPT. We identified a total of XX item categories (XX for structure, XX for function, and XX for quality components) with a Jaccard index of XX for structure, XX for function, and XX for quality components. To answer the call for quality assessment, in Study 2a, we conducted a second systematic review on the measures found in Study 1a, creating a database documenting overall validity evidence. In Study 2b, we then evaluated the measurement properties using the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement Instruments. We found the measurement properties to be [sufficient / insufficient / inconsistent / indeterminate], [sufficient / insufficient / inconsistent / indeterminate], and [sufficient / insufficient / inconsistent / indeterminate]; with [high/moderate/low/very low], [high/moderate/low/very low], and [high/moderate/low/very low] quality of evidence for the structure, function, and quality components, respectively. Finally, we identified the country of origin of the measures and the population groups with which they were developed, using data from Study 1a. Most of the measures were developed in [country name] (XX%) and for [add population characteristics] (XX%). [Overall conclusion].</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
measurement, social connection, social isolation, loneliness, social support, systematic review, quality assessment
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
2023-07-09 21:33:01
Dorothy Bishop
Richard James, Alexander Wilson, Jacek Buczny