oneliness scale may be sufficient in other
studies. In both cases, however, the researcher has a reliable and valid
measuring instrument at hand, which can be used as a unidimensional overall
loneliness measure as well as provide information about the emotional and/or
social loneliness situation of respondents.
The SPSS-syntax is:
count lones= lone3 lone9 lone10 (2,3) lone4 lone7
lone8 (1,2).
count mlones= lone3 lone9 lone10 lone4 lone7 lone8 (sys,lo thru -1).
if (mlones>1)lones=-1.
count lonesocs= lone4 lone7 lone8 (1,2).
count mlones= lone4 lone7 lone8 (sys,lo
thru -1).
if (mlones>0)lonesocs=-1.
count loneemos= lone3 lone9 lone10 (2,3).
count mlones= lone3 lone9 lone10 (sys,lo
thru -1).
if (mlones>0)loneemos=-1.
missing values lones loneemos
lonesocs (-1).
formats lones loneemos lonesocs (f2).
variable labels lones 'short loneliness scale (6
items)' / lonesocs 'short social loneliness scale (3
items)' / loneemos 'short emotional loneliness scale
(3 items)'.
value labels lones loneemos
lonesocs -1'missing'0'no loneliness (low score)'.
add value labels lones 6'severe loneliness (high
score)'.
add value labels loneemos lonesocs
3'severe loneliness (high score)'.
recode lones (0 thru 1=0)(2 thru 4=1)(5,6=2) into lonescat.
variable labels lonescat 'categories of loneliness
based on six-item scale'.
value labels lonescat 0 'not lonely (0-1)' 1
'moderate lonely (2-4)'2 'severe lonely (5-6)'.
formats lonescat (f2).
recode loneemos (0=0)(1,2,3=1) into loneemoscat.
recode lonesocs (0=0)(1,2,3=1) into lonesocscat.
formats loneemoscat lonesocscat
(f1).
variable label loneemoscat 'categories of emotional
loneliness' / lonesocscat 'categories of social
loneliness'.
value labels loneemoscat 0 'not lonely (0)' 1 'lonely
(1-3)'.
value labels lonesocscat 0 'not lonely (0)' 1 'lonely
(1-3)'.
The loneliness scale was developed by De Jong Gierveld
in order to have a valid instrument in survey research to measure variations in
intensity of feelings of deprivation, i.e., the missing of social
relationships. The scale score is used to compare the interviewees by giving them
a position on an underlying continuum of not to very strong loneliness. In the
presentation of research results, there is sometimes a need to display the
scale score in categories, such as not and lonely, or not, moderate, strong and
very strong lonely. In this note, cut-off points are proposed to arrive at
these categories.
The 11-item scale
In a study by van Tilburg and de Jong Gierveld (1999), cut-off points for the oral data on the loneliness scale were based on
the individuals' self-assessed levels of loneliness. More than would be the
case with arbitrary cut-off points, this is in keeping with the individuals'
own perceptions. The rationale behind the method used is that a categorization
of the scale score should lead to an equal proportion (moderate or strong) of
the population (or in the population from which the sample has been drawn) as
the proportion of lonely people that appears from the answers to the direct
question of loneliness: "If we were to classify people into not lonely,
moderately lonely, strongly lonely, very strongly lonely, where would you now
attribute yourself? Answers: not lonely, moderately lonely, strongly lonely,
very strongly lonely". We call this the prevalence criterion.
Because of the much better psychometric properties (including reliability and
validity), use of the scale score for loneliness is preferable to using the
answers to the direct question of loneliness. Based on cut-off points of 3 (to
distinguish between lonely people and not lonely people), 9 (between severely
or quite lonely people and others) and 11 (between severely lonely people and
others), the figures showed that 68% of the elderly in the Netherlands are not
lonely, 28% are moderately lonely, 3% are quite lonely and 1% are extremely
lonely. The proposed cut-off points are tentative ones. This classification has
yet to prove its worth in actual practice. In addition, cut-off points are
related to the specific culture and point in time.
Subscales for emotional and social loneliness
Application of the prevalence criterion to
the subscales poses problems:
-
The two
subscales for emotional and social loneliness contain six and five items
respectively, so that there is no mutual symmetry.
-
An equal
cut-off point for both subscales can never result in a comparable score on the
11-item scale. The prevalence criterion may work for each of the subscales
separately, but not very well combined.
-
With the same
system as used for the 11-item scale, there is the problem that the direct
measurement of loneliness is better related (i.e., has a higher correlation) to
the score for emotional loneliness than to that for social loneliness (van Tilburg, 2021). It is therefore less justifiable to use the
prevalence criterion method to establish a cut-off point for social loneliness.
-
Based on the
prevalence criterion, we choose scores 0-2 as indicative for not emotionally
lonely, and scores 3-6 as indicative for emotionally lonely. We do not make a
distinction here between moderate and strongly emotionally lonely. Arbitrarily,
we opt for a similar cut-off point for social loneliness: we consider the
scores 0-2 as not socially lonely, and the scores 3-5 as socially lonely.
-
With these
cut-off points a higher threshold is used on the subscales than on the total
scale; after all, an interviewee is 'only' socially and emotionally lonely with
scores equivalent to the score of 4 (and not 3) or higher on the 11-item scale.
The shortened scale of six items
If the same system is used as for the
11-item scale, then the cut-off point for the six-item scale is: 0-1 = not
lonely; 2-6 = lonely.
There are two short scales for emotional
and social loneliness. Each scale has three items, and both scales have a range
0-3. Again, there is the problem that the scale for emotional loneliness is
more closely related to the direct question of loneliness than the scale for
social loneliness. Also applies that an equal cut-off point for both subscales
does not result in a similar score on the shortened scale. Application of the
prevalence criterion gives a dichotomy of 0 = not lonely and 1-3 = lonely for
both short scales for emotional and social loneliness.
Other considerations
-
Using the
scale score for emotional and social loneliness (in any version) as an ordinal
or continue measurement is often better than using a scale score in two, three
or four categories.
-
The proposed
cut-offs were developed in data collections since 1992 among adults 55 years
and older. They were interviewed orally (computer assisted personal
interviewing; CAPI). Three response alternatives were presented. Application in
research with a different design or sample may give discrepancies.
-
It cannot be
ruled out that the determination of cut-off points on the basis of the
prevalence criteria is sensitive to external influence, for example through the
presence of an interviewer, and social developments in the field of loneliness
as a taboo.
Summary Table
Scale |
# items |
Range |
Cut-off |
De Jong Gierveld
loneliness scale |
11 |
0-11 |
0-2 not lonely 3-8 moderately lonely 9-11 strongly lonely |
Subscale for emotional
loneliness |
6 |
0-6 |
0-2 not emotionally
lonely 3-6 emotionally lonely |
Subscale for social
loneliness |
5 |
0-5 |
0-2 not socially lonely 3-5 socially lonely |
Short scale (6 items) |
6 |
0-6 |
0-1 not lonely 2-6 lonely |
Short scale for emotional
loneliness |
3 |
0-3 |
0 not emotionally lonely 1-3 emotionally lonely |
Short scale for social
loneliness |
3 |
0-3 |
0 not socially lonely 1-3 socially lonely |
The Committee Test Affairs (Commissie Testaangelegendheden Nederland; COTAN) of the Netherlands
Institute of Psychologists (Nederlands Instituut van Psychologen; NIP)
assessed the quality of the Loneliness Scale on April 18, 2000 as follows (Documentatie van Tests en Testresearch
in Nederland, 2000):
I. Basic assumptions of test
construction: |
good |
IIa. Quality of the test material: |
sufficient |
IIb. Quality of the manual: |
sufficient |
III. Norms: |
sufficient |
IV. Reliability: |
good |
Va. Content validity: |
sufficient |
Vb. Criterium validity: |
insufficient due to absence of research |
The Dutch GGD’s (regional health services) have the
Loneliness Scale adopted (October 2, 2006) as one of their standard assessments
of social functioning of older adults. See www.ggdkennisnet.nl.
The UCLA and De Jong Gierveld scales were compared in
a study by Penning et al. (2014).
11 References
de Jong
Gierveld, J. (1984). Eenzaamheid: Een
meersporig onderzoek [Loneliness: A multimethod approach]. Van Loghum
Slaterus. http://hdl.handle.net/1871/49185
de Jong
Gierveld, J. (1985). Begripsvorming in symbolisch-interactionistisch
perspectief: De ontwikkeling van een operationele definitie van eenzaamheid. In
W. A. Arts, H. W. A. Hilhorst, & F. Wester (Eds.), Betekenis en interactie: Symbolisch interactionisme als
onderzoeksperspectief (pp. 98-112). Van Loghum Slaterus.
de Jong Gierveld, J. (1987). Developing and testing a model of
loneliness. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 53, 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.119
de Jong Gierveld, J. (1989). Personal relationships, social support, and
loneliness. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 6, 197-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540758900600204
de Jong Gierveld, J., & Kamphuis, F. H. (1985). The development of a
Rasch-type loneliness-scale. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 9, 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900307
de Jong Gierveld, J., & Raadschelders, J. (1982). Types of
loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy
(pp. 105-119). Wiley.
de Jong
Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. G. (1987). Het meten van persoonlijke ervaringen
en gevoelens in vragenlijst-onderzoek: Een studie naar het functioneren van de
eenzaamheidsschaal in verschillende onderzoekingen [Measuring personal
experiences and emotions with questionnaires: A study of the properties of the
Loneliness-scale in different research projects]. In J. de Jong Gierveld &
J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), De vragenlijst
in sociaal onderzoek: Een confrontatie van onderzoekspraktijk en -methodiek
(pp. 67-83). Van Loghum Slaterus.
de Jong
Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. G. (1991). Kwaliteitsbepaling van
meetinstrumenten via triangulatie. In P. G. Swanborn, J. de Jong Gierveld, T.
G. van Tilburg, A. E. Bronner, & G. W. Meijnen (Eds.), Aspecten van onderzoek: Theorie, variabelen en praktijk (pp.
29-64). Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, Vakgroepen Planning, Organisatie en Beleid
& Empirisch Theoretische Sociologie.
de Jong
Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. G. (1992). Triangulatie in
operationaliseringsmethoden [Triangulation in operationalisation methods]. In
G. J. N. Bruinsma & M. A. Zwanenburg (Eds.), Methodologie voor bestuurskundigen: Stromingen en methoden (pp.
273-298). Coutinho.
de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. G. (1999). Living
arrangements of older adults in the Netherlands and Italy: Coresidence values
and behaviour and their consequences for loneliness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 14, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100660082
de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. G. (2006). A 6-item scale
for overall, emotional, and social loneliness: Confirmatory tests on survey
data. Research on Aging, 28(5), 582-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027506289723
(Grygiel
et al., 2013)
1
Es gibt immer jemanden
in meiner Umgebung, mit dem ich die alltäglichen Probleme besprechen kann
Zawsze jest ktoś z kim mogę porozmawiać o codziennych problemach
2
Mir fehlt eine richtig
gute Freundin / ein richtig guter Freund
Brak mi naprawdę
bliskiego przyjaciela
3
Ich fühle eine
allgemeine Leere
Doświadczam ogólnej
pustki
4
Es gibt genug Menschen,
auf die ich mich bei Problemen stützen kann
Jest wiele osób, na których mogę polegać gdy mam problemy
5
Ich vermisse
Geborgenheit und Wärme
Brak mi towarzystwa
innych ludzi
6
Ich finde, daß mein Freundes- und Bekanntenkreis zu klein ist
Czuję, że
mam zbyt ograniczony krąg przyjaciół i znajomych
7
Ich kenne viele
Menschen, auf die ich mich wirklich verlassen kann
Jest wiele osób, którym mogę całkowicie zaufać
8
Es gibt genügend
Menschen, mit denen ich mich eng verbunden fühle
Jest wystarczająco
dużo osób, z którymi czuję się blisko związany
9
Ich vermisse Menschen
um mich herum
Brakuje ludzi
wokół mnie
10
Ich fühle mich oft im
Stich gelassen
Często czuję
się odrzucony
11
Wenn ich es brauche, sind
meine Freunde immer für mich da
Mogę liczyć
na przyjaciół gdy tylko tego potrzebuję
Possible answers are
"yes!", "yes", "more or less", "no",
"no!" ( "ja!", "ja",
"min-of-meer", "nee", "nee!"). When face-to-face interviews or
telephone interviews are conducted, it may be sufficient to offer the
respondents only the answers "yes", "more or less" and
"no".
The development and
testing of an explanatory loneliness model were described in de
Jong Gierveld (1987); see also de
Jong Gierveld et al. (2018). The model is based on the
so-called cognitive theoretical approach to loneliness. Characteristic of this
approach to loneliness is the emphasis on the discrepancy between what one
wants in terms of interpersonal affection and intimacy, and what one has; the
greater the discrepancy, the greater the loneliness. Background characteristics
(such as marital status, sex and living arrangements), descriptive
characteristics of the social network, number and frequency of contacts with network
members, and personality and health were identified as important
loneliness-provoking factors. Other factors were found to be of crucial
importance as well, such as social norms and values, expectations of support
associated with certain relationships, and the positive or negative evaluation
of the network of relationships-as-realized.
The conceptualization
of loneliness drew upon the cognitive approach to loneliness. In this approach,
loneliness is seen as a subjective experience and is, as such, not directly
related to situational factors. Loneliness, or subjective social isolation, is
defined as a situation experienced by the participant as one where there is an
unpleasant or inadmissible lack of (quality of) certain relationships. The
importance of social perceptions and evaluations of one's personal
relationships is emphasized. Loneliness includes situations where the number of
existing relationships is smaller than desirable or acceptable, as well as
situations where the intimacy wished for has not been realized (de
Jong Gierveld et al., 2018).
Originally, a 34-item multidimensional scale of loneliness was developed (de
Jong Gierveld, 1984; de Jong Gierveld & Raadschelders, 1982). In developing the scale, the
researchers started with a content analysis of accounts written by 114 lonely
people about their experiences. Next, items derived from the accounts were
tested in a pilot investigation under 59 women and men. A revised set of items
was included in a questionnaire which was administered by means of
semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 556 women and men. Because this
34-item scale was found to primarily measure severe feelings of loneliness,
changes were made. An 11-item unidimensional scale was developed on the basis
of 30 items, using data of unemployed, disabled, and employed men and women.
The data were gathered by a self-administered questionnaire given to the
respondents at the end of a face-to-face interview. The scale: (1) assessed
severe feelings of loneliness as well as less intense loneliness feelings; (2)
consisted of negative as well as positive items; and (3) represented a latent
continuum of deprivation. In addition, the scale met the criteria of the
dichotomous logistic Rasch model (de
Jong Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985).
Typically, a scale
reliability in the 0.80 to 0.90 range is observed (Cronbach's alpha, KR-20 or
rho). The homogeneity of the scale varies across studies, with Loevingers' H typically in the 0.30 to 0.50 range
(higher when mail questionnaires were applied than in face-to-face
interviewing), which is sufficient, but not very strong. The scale is discussed
in Shaver
and Brennan (1991).
6 Methodological and substantial
concerns
Differential item
functioning (DIF,
also referred to as robustness). The results of a study by de
Jong Gierveld and van Tilburg (1987) showed that the reliability and
construct validity of the scale were sufficient in five research projects
(using self-administered paper questionnaires as well as face-to-face
interviews). Though not analyzed systematically, the different modes of data
collection did not seem to influence the mean score of the scale. Striking
similarities in mean scale scores (theoretical range 0-11) were found among
people in comparable population categories. For example, among those who
nominated their partners as their primary confidant and rated the relationship
with that person as very intimate, the mean scale scores ranged from 1.9 to 2.1.
The differences across the studies were not significant. Among those whose
partner relationship did not meet the intimacy criteria, the mean scale scores
ranged from 2.8 to 3.4. Again, the differences across the studies were not
significant. Comparisons within each of the studies showed significant
differences based on the intimacy of the partner relationship. Among those
without a partner (who were either living on their own or were heads of
single-parent households) the mean scale scores ranged from 3.2 to 4.1. For
these respondents a number of significant differences were found across the
various studies. The observed differences are probably attributable to the
large degree of heterogeneity within that population category. Within each of
the studies, the mean scale score of the respondents without a partner was
significantly higher than that of the respondents with a partner, regardless of
the reported intimacy of the relationship.
Data on the scale were re-analyzed to investigate the robustness of the scale
(defined as invariance of item non-response, inter-item (scale) homogeneity,
person scalability, item p-values and scale means) (van
Tilburg & de Leeuw, 1991). The data were taken from six
surveys. Variegated data collection procedures were used: three surveys with
self-administered paper questionnaires, two surveys with face-to-face
interviews, and one survey with so-called teleinterviews.
In order to compare the properties of the loneliness scale, a relatively
homogeneous category of respondents was selected: women between the ages of 25
and 65, who were living without a partner. An examination of the scale with regard
to robustness showed that it was not robust for all five aspects. No evidence
was found for the assumption that the use of a self-administered questionnaire
would lead to high item non-response, higher than when using other data
collection procedures. It was also assumed that in self-administered
questionnaires or teleinterviews a better inter-item
homogeneity and a better person scalability would be found than in studies with
face-to-face interviews. The results were in line with this assumption. Further,
it was believed that the absence of an interviewer would result in greater
self-disclosure by the respondents and therefore in higher scale means. No
supporting evidence was found for this assumption. In general, the results
showed that the loneliness scale met the psychometric requirements of item
non-response, scale homogeneity and person scalability.
In a study by de
Leeuw (1992), three methods of survey
research –face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews and mail
questionnaires– were compared. Adjusted for a number of factors, the highest
mean score was observed for the mail questionnaires (3.4), which differed from
the mean scores for the face-to-face and telephone interviews (2.6 and 2.7,
respectively). The explained variance was only .014.
In the previous studies, data collected with
self-administered questionnaires and with face-to-face interviews were compared
among different respondents. In the research programs "Living arrangements and social networks of older adults"
(LSN) (Knipscheer et al., 1995) and "Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam"
(LASA) (Deeg et al., 1993) different types of data collection were conducted among a subsample of
333 respondents. Three answering categories were applied in the face-to-face
interviews. In the self-administered questionnaires, five answering categories
were applied. For most of the respondents (n = 281), the sequence of the types
of data collection was face-to-face, self-administered, face-to-face,
self-administered, face-to-face, which seems to be an ideal design for
comparing the two modes. In a multilevel regression analysis, controlling for
the effect of time, the unstandardized regression coefficient (B) for the mode
was 0.77 with a standard error of 0.08, indicating that there was a significantly
higher loneliness score when self-administered questionnaires were used.
We may conclude that different modes of data collection, including a different
number of answering categories, influence the mean score of the scale. This is
in line with the observation by
Manual of the Loneliness Scale
(Updated from the printed version: 24-2-2022)
Jenny de Jong Gierveld & Theo van Tilburg
Vrije Universiteit, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology
de Jong
Gierveld, J., van Tilburg, T. G., & Dykstra, P. A. (2018). New ways of theorizing and conducting research in the field of
loneliness and social isolation. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal
relationships (pp. 391-404). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.031
de Leeuw, E. D. (1992). Data
quality in mail, telephone, and face to face surveys. PhD
Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Deeg, D. J. H.,
Jonker, C., Launer, L. J., Schellevis, F. G., Smits, C. H. M., van Tilburg, T.
G., Knipscheer, C. P. M., & van Tilburg, W. (1993). Change in autonomy and well-being: Background and preliminary proposal
for the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. In D. J. H. Deeg, C. P. M.
Knipscheer, & W. van Tilburg (Eds.), Autonomy
and well-being in the aging population: Concepts and design of the Longitudinal
Aging Study Amsterdam (pp. 19-87). NIG.
Gerritsen, L.
(1997). Meten met twee maten: Het meten
van eenzaamheid en relatieverbrekingen bij jong-volwassenen. Dissertatie
Vrije Universiteit.
Grygiel, P.,
Humenny, G., Rebisz, S., Switaj, P., & Sikorska-Grygiel, J. (2013). Validating the Polish adaptation of the 11-item De Jong Gierveld
Loneliness Scale. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000130
Knipscheer, C.
P. M., de Jong Gierveld, J., van Tilburg, T. G., & Dykstra, P. A. (1995). Living arrangements
and social networks of older adults. VU University Press. http://hdl.handle.net/1871/49185
Penning, M. J., Liu, G., & Chou, P. H. B. (2014). Measuring
loneliness among middle-aged and older adults: The UCLA and de Jong Gierveld
loneliness scales. Social Indicators
Research, 118(3), 1147-1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0461-1
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1991). Measures of depression and
loneliness. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (pp. 197-289). Academic.
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1974). Response effects in surveys: A review and synthesis. Aldine.
van Baarsen,
B., Snijders, T. A. B., Smit, J. H., & van Duijn, M. A. J. (2001). Lonely but not alone: Emotional isolation and social isolation as two
distinct dimensions of loneliness in older people. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971103
van Tilburg, T. G. (2021). Social, emotional, and existential loneliness:
A test of the multidimensional concept. The
Gerontologist, 61(7), e335-e344. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa082
van Tilburg, T.
G., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (1999). Cesuurbepaling van de eenzaamheidsschaal
[Cut-off points on the loneliness scale]. Tijdschrift
voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie, 30, 158-163. http://hdl.handle.net/1871/39713
van Tilburg, T.
G., & de Leeuw, E. D. (1991). Stability of scale
quality under different data collection procedures: A mode comparison on the
'de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale'. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3, 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/3.1.69
van Tilburg, T. G., Havens, B., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (2004).
Loneliness among older adults in the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada: A
multifaceted comparison. Canadian Journal
on Aging, 23, 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1353/cja.2004.0026
Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness:
The experience of emotional and social isolation. MIT Press.