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. Julianne Holt-Lunstad & Timothy B Smith & J Bradley Layton, 2010. "Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-1, July.
    2. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    3. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    4. 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. 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.
    2. Jorge Sinval & M. Joseph Sirgy & Dong-Jin Lee & João Marôco, 2020. "The Quality of Work Life Scale: Validity Evidence from Brazil and Portugal," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1323-1351, November.
    3. Carlos Miguel Lemos & Ross Joseph Gore & Ivan Puga-Gonzalez & F LeRon Shults, 2019. "Dimensionality and factorial invariance of religiosity among Christians and the religiously unaffiliated: A cross-cultural analysis based on the International Social Survey Programme," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-36, May.
    4. Stewart I. Donaldson & Lawrence B. Chan & Jennifer Villalobos & Christopher L. Chen, 2020. "The Generalizability of HERO across 15 Nations: Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap) beyond the US and Other WEIRD Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Serwaah, Priscilla & Shneor, Rotem & Nyarko, Samuel Anokye & Nielsen, Kristian Roed, 2024. "Explaining gender differences in crowdfunding contribution intentions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    6. Thiago Medeiros Cavalcanti & Gabriel Lins Holanda Coelho & Alessandro Teixeira Rezende & Katia Correa Vione & Valdiney Veloso Gouveia, 2019. "Decisional and Emotional Forgiveness Scales: Psychometric Validity and Correlates with Personality and Vengeance," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(5), pages 1247-1264, November.
    7. Darío Moreno-Agostino & Francisco José Abad & Francisco Félix Caballero, 2022. "Evidence on the Bidirectional Relationship Between Health and Life Satisfaction in Older Adults," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1561-1577, April.
    8. Bence Csaba Farkas & Valérian Chambon & Pierre O. Jacquet, 2022. "Do perceived control and time orientation mediate the effect of early life adversity on reproductive behaviour and health status? Insights from the European Value Study and the European Social Survey," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Jorge J. Varela & Cristóbal Hernández & Rafael Miranda & Christopher P. Barlett & Matías E. Rodríguez-Rivas, 2022. "Victims of Cyberbullying: Feeling Loneliness and Depression among Youth and Adult Chileans during the Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Dwight C. K. Tse & Jeanne Nakamura & Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 2022. "Flow Experiences Across Adulthood: Preliminary Findings on the Continuity Hypothesis," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2517-2540, August.
    11. Burhan, Omar K. & van Leeuwen, Esther & Scheepers, Daan, 2020. "On the hiring of kin in organizations: Perceived nepotism and its implications for fairness perceptions and the willingness to join an organization," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 34-48.
    12. Pierre O. Jacquet & Farid Pazhoohi & Charles Findling & Hugo Mell & Coralie Chevallier & Nicolas Baumard, 2021. "Predictive modeling of religiosity, prosociality, and moralizing in 295,000 individuals from European and non-European populations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Bryan, Bridget T. & Thompson, Katherine N. & Goldman-Mellor, Sidra & Moffitt, Terrie E. & Odgers, Candice L. & So, Sincere Long Shin & Uddin Rahman, Momtahena & Wertz, Jasmin & Matthews, Timothy & Ars, 2024. "The socioeconomic consequences of loneliness: Evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal study of young adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    14. 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.
    15. repec:osf:osfxxx:fqmdu_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    17. Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis & Helder Fernando Pedrosa Sousa & Andreia de Moura & Lilian M. F. Viterbo & Ricardo J. Pinto, 2019. "Health Behaviors as a Mediator of the Association Between Interpersonal Relationships and Physical Health in a Workplace Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-9, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    20. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    21. Santini, Ziggi Ivan & Jose, Paul E. & Koyanagi, Ai & Meilstrup, Charlotte & Nielsen, Line & Madsen, Katrine R. & Koushede, Vibeke, 2020. "Formal social participation protects physical health through enhanced mental health: A longitudinal mediation analysis using three consecutive waves of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in E," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 251(C).

    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.