IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are we measuring loneliness in the same way in men and women in the general population and in the older population? Two studies of measurement equivalence

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas V Pollet
  • Alexandra Thompson
  • Connor Malcolm
  • Kristofor McCarty
  • Tamsin K Saxton
  • Sam G B Roberts

Abstract

Background: High levels of loneliness are associated with negative health outcomes and there are several different types of interventions targeted at reducing feelings of loneliness. It is therefore important to accurately measure loneliness. A key unresolved debate in the conceptualisation and measurement of loneliness is whether it has a unidimensional or multidimensional structure. The aim of this study was to examine the dimensional structure of the widely used UCLA Loneliness Scale and establish whether this factorial structure is equivalent in men and women. Methods and sample: Two online UK-based samples were recruited using Prolific. The participants in Study 1 were 492 adults, selected to be nationally representative by age and gender, whilst the participants in Study 2 were 290 older adults aged over 64. In both studies, participants completed the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3) as part of a larger project. Results: In both studies, the best fitting model was one with three factors corresponding to ‘Isolation,’ ‘Relational Connectedness,’ and ‘Collective Connectedness.’ A unidimensional single factor model was a substantially worse fit in both studies. In both studies, there were no meaningful differences between men and women in any of the three factors, suggesting measurement invariance across genders. Conclusion: These results are consistent with previous research in supporting a multidimensional, three factor structure to the UCLA scale, rather than a unidimensional structure. Further, the measurement invariance across genders suggests that the UCLA scale can be used to compare levels of loneliness across men and women. Overall the results suggest that loneliness has different facets and thus future research should consider treating the UCLA loneliness scale as a multidimensional scale, or using other scales which are designed to measure the different aspects of loneliness.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas V Pollet & Alexandra Thompson & Connor Malcolm & Kristofor McCarty & Tamsin K Saxton & Sam G B Roberts, 2022. "Are we measuring loneliness in the same way in men and women in the general population and in the older population? Two studies of measurement equivalence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266167
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266167
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266167&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    2. Margaret Penning & Guiping Liu & Pak Chou, 2014. "Measuring Loneliness Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults: The UCLA and de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scales," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 1147-1166, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sonia Nawrocka & Hans De Witte & Margherita Pasini & Margherita Brondino, 2023. "A Person-Centered Approach to Job Insecurity: Is There a Reciprocal Relationship between the Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Job Insecurity?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(7), pages 1-27, March.
    2. Md. Mominur Rahman & Bilkis Akhter, 2021. "The impact of investment in human capital on bank performance: evidence from Bangladesh," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Masashi Soga & Kevin J. Gaston & Yuichi Yamaura & Kiyo Kurisu & Keisuke Hanaki, 2016. "Both Direct and Vicarious Experiences of Nature Affect Children’s Willingness to Conserve Biodiversity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, May.
    4. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Nathaniel Oliver Iotti & Damiano Menin & Tomas Jungert, 2022. "Early Adolescents’ Motivations to Defend Victims of Cyberbullying," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-9, July.
    6. AJ Golio, 2024. "Whose Neighborhood Now? Gentrification and Community Life in Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods," Working Papers 24-29, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. Peter Tavel & Bibiana Jozefiakova & Peter Telicak & Jana Furstova & Michal Puza & Natalia Kascakova, 2022. "Psychometric Analysis of the Shortened Version of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale on the Slovak Population (SWBS-Sk)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, January.
    8. Allen, Jaime & Eboli, Laura & Forciniti, Carmen & Mazzulla, Gabriella & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2019. "The role of critical incidents and involvement in transit satisfaction and loyalty," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 57-69.
    9. Katharina Groskurth & Constanze Beierlein & Désirée Nießen & Anna Baumert & Beatrice Rammstedt & Clemens M Lechner, 2023. "An English-Language adaptation and validation of the Justice Sensitivity Short Scales–8 (JSS-8)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Christoph Dworschak, 2024. "Bias mitigation in empirical peace and conflict studies: A short primer on posttreatment variables," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(3), pages 462-476, May.
    11. Andreea-Ionela Puiu & Anca Monica Ardeleanu & Camelia Cojocaru & Anca Bratu, 2021. "Exploring the Effect of Status Quo, Innovativeness, and Involvement Tendencies on Luxury Fashion Innovations: The Mediation Role of Status Consumption," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Slupphaug, KJell & Mehmetoglu, Mehmet & Mittner, Matthias, 2024. "modsem: An R package for estimating latent interactions and quadratic effects," OSF Preprints h3rpw, Center for Open Science.
    13. Andres Trujillo-Barrera & Joost M. E. Pennings & Dianne Hofenk, 2016. "Understanding producers' motives for adopting sustainable practices: the role of expected rewards, risk perception and risk tolerance," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(3), pages 359-382.
    14. Daria J. Kuss & Lydia Harkin & Eiman Kanjo & Joel Billieux, 2018. "Problematic Smartphone Use: Investigating Contemporary Experiences Using a Convergent Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Allen, Jaime & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2019. "On evasion behaviour in public transport: Dissatisfaction or contagion?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 626-651.
    16. Cloarec, Julien, 2022. "Privacy controls as an information source to reduce data poisoning in artificial intelligence-powered personalization," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 144-153.
    17. Merkle, Edgar C. & Steyvers, Mark & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip E., 2017. "A neglected dimension of good forecasting judgment: The questions we choose also matter," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 817-832.
    18. Sai-fu Fung & Esther Oi-wah Chow & Chau-kiu Cheung, 2020. "Development and Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of a Brief Wisdom Development Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-14, April.
    19. André Hajek & Benedikt Kretzler & Hans-Helmut König, 2020. "Multimorbidity, Loneliness, and Social Isolation. A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-12, November.
    20. repec:plo:pone00:0205222 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Goran Calic & Moren Lévesque & Anton Shevchenko, 2024. "On why women-owned businesses take more time to secure microloans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 917-938, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.