are plenty of people I can rely on when I have problems
7. There are many people I can trust completely
9. I miss having people around me
8. There are enough people I feel close to
10. I often feel rejected
Whether to use the 11-item version or the shortened 6-item version of the
loneliness scale is not a neutral decision. Whereas studies detailing the
prevalence of loneliness, or in-depth studies of loneliness among certain
individuals, as well as research into the changing nature and impact of
loneliness after specific life events may benefit from using the 11-item scale,
the use of the shortened 6-item loneliness 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. ADDIN EN.CITE
<EndNote><Cite><Author>Grygiel</Author><Year>2013</Year><RecNum>7368</RecNum><DisplayText>(Grygiel
et al.,
2013)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>7368</rec-number><foreign-keys><key
app="EN" db-id="tpx9f0rf1vwwsaefwrp5z2toxs5azvzv502p"
timestamp="1479983628">7368</key></foreign-keys><ref-type
name="Journal
Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Grygiel,
P.</author><author>Humenny, G</author><author>Rebisz,
S.</author><author>Switaj,
P.</author><author>Sikorska-Grygiel,
J.</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>Validating
the Polish adaptation of the 11-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness
Scale</title><secondary-title>European Journal of Psychological
Assessment</secondary-title></titles><periodical><full-title>European
Journal of Psychological
Assessment</full-title></periodical><pages>129-139</pages><volume>29</volume><keywords><keyword>loneliness</keyword><keyword>Translation</keyword><keyword>cross
cultural</keyword><keyword>UCLA</keyword><keyword>depression</keyword></keywords><dates><year>2013</year></dates><label>7798</label><urls></urls><electronic-resource-num>10.1027/1015-5759/a000130</electronic-resource-num></record></Cite></EndNote>(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. Manual of the Loneliness Scale Jenny de Jong Gierveld & Theo van Tilburg 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
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.
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 unsta
(Updated from the printed version: 24-2-2022)
Vrije Universiteit, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100660082
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 Sudman and Bradburn (1974) that, compared with interviews, the more anonymous and private setting
in which mail surveys are completed, reduces the tendency of respondents to
present themselves in a favorable light.
Unidimensionality. As reported above, the homogeneity of the scale is not very strong.
When searching for more homogeneous subscales, two factors emerge (de Jong Gierveld & van Tilburg,
1991; van Baarsen et al., 2001; van Tilburg et al., 2004). The first, most homogeneous factor is the subscale of the negative
items, the second is the subscale of the positive items. A subscale consisting
of only negatively, or only positively formulated items may elicit response
bias via either nay saying or yeah saying of the respondents. However, it may
also be argued that these two factors reflect the dimensions of emotional and
social loneliness, respectively, as suggested by Weiss (1973). In a study conducted by de Jong Gierveld and van Tilburg (1999), the subscales were used. They conclude that "the 11-item scale, a
combination of the positive and negative subscales, has been frequently used in
survey research and has been tested for response bias and controlled for unidimensionality and homogeneity of the total set of
items. Depending on the research question of the study under consideration, we
recommend the selection of either the positive and negative subscales
separately, or the use of the 11-item loneliness scale."
Dichotomizing the item scores. The scale of answers we use is in principle dichotomous. We do not use
a scale of answers with frequency or seriousness of feelings. In developing the
scale, item response models like Rasch and Mokken
(MSP) were applied to evaluate the homogeneity of the scale. In view of the
available computer programs we had to dichotomize the item scores. It is
assumed that the middle category 'more or less' indicates loneliness (de Jong Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985). New releases of the computer programs allow multi-categorical item
scores. However, the results of an analysis based on the data of 4,045 older
adults, collected within the LSN research program using face-to-face
interviews, showed that the scale scores (range 0-11) based on dichotomized
item scores and the scale scores (range 11-33) computed as the sum of the
three-category item scores correlated very strongly (r = 0.97).
Furthermore, the results of an analysis based on the data of 2,976 adults aged
18 and older, also collected within the LSN research program but using
self-administered questionnaires, showed that the scale scores (range 0-11)
based on dichotomized item scores and the scale scores (range 11-55) computed
as the sum of the five-category item scores correlated strongly (r =
0.87). We prefer the scale score based on dichotomous item scores, which
facilitates comparison of the results with those of earlier studies.
Comparison with the UCLA-loneliness scale. de Jong Gierveld and van Tilburg (1991,
1992) have conducted a study among Dutch older adults in which the scores on
the Loneliness Scale were compared with the UCLA-loneliness scale (Russell, 1996). The results showed that the Loneliness Scale was sufficiently
reliable, but insufficiently homogeneous (see above), while the UCLA-loneliness
scale did not prove to be a scale. The positive subscale of the Loneliness
Scale correlated strongly with a 7-item subscale of the UCLA-loneliness scale.
The negative subscale of the Loneliness Scale correlated relatively strongly
with direct measures of loneliness, while the positive subscale of the
Loneliness Scale and a 7-item subscale of the UCLA-loneliness scale correlated
moderately with the direct measures. In a study by Gerritsen (1997) among Dutch young adults, a strong correlation was observed between the
Loneliness Scale and the UCLA-loneliness scale. Both correlated more or less
equally with two single, direct questions on loneliness.
Manually
By using the statistical package SPSS
Processing the scale
data manually
Step 1
Count the neutral and positive answers ("more or less",
"yes", or "yes!") on items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10. This is the emotional
loneliness score.
Count the missing values (i.e., no answer) on items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10. This is
the missing emotional loneliness score.
Count the neutral and negative ("no!", "no", or "more
or less") answers on items 1, 4, 7, 8, 11. This is the social
loneliness score.
Count the missing values (i.e., no answer) on items 1, 4, 7, 8, 11. This is the
missing social loneliness score.
Step 2
Compute the total loneliness score by taking the sum of the emotional
loneliness score and the social loneliness score.
Step 3
The emotional loneliness score is valid only if the missing emotional
loneliness score equals 0.
The social loneliness score is valid only if the missing social
loneliness score equals 0.
The total loneliness score is valid only if the sum of the missing
emotional loneliness score and the missing social loneliness score
equals 0 or 1.
Step 4
If desired, the total loneliness score can be categorized into four
levels: not lonely (score 0, 1 or 2), moderate lonely (score 3
through 8), severe lonely (score 9 or 10), and very severe lonely (score
11). This is discussed below.
Processing the scale
data by using the statistical package SPSS
The following SPSS syntax commands serve as an illustration (comments are added
in italics):
Reading the raw data:
data list file= 'lonely.dat' free / lone1 lone2 lone3 lone4 lone5 lone6 lone7
lone8 lone9 lone10 lone11.
variable labels
lone1 'There is always someone I can
talk to about my day-to-day problems / Er is altijd wel iemand in mijn
omgeving bij wie ik met mijn
dagelijkse probleempjes terecht kan'/
lone2 'I miss having a really close
friend / Ik mis een echt goede vriend
of vriendin'/
lone3 'I experience a general sense of
emptiness / Ik ervaar een leegte om me heen'/
lone4 'There are plenty of people I can
lean on when I have problems / Er zijn genoeg mensen op wie ik in geval
van narigheid kan terugvallen'/
lone5 'I miss the pleasure of the
company of others / Ik mis gezelligheid
om me heen'/
lone6 'I find my circle of friends and
acquaintances too limited / Ik vind
mijn kring van kennissen te beperkt'
lone7 'There are many people I can trust
completely / Ik heb veel mensen op wie ik volledig
kan vertrouwen'/
lone8 'There are enough people I feel
close to / Er zijn voldoende
mensen met wie ik me nauw verbonden
voel'/
lone9 'I miss having people around me / Ik mis mensen om me heen'/
lone10 'I often feel rejected / Vaak voel ik me in de steek gelaten'/
lone11 'I can call on my friends
whenever I need them / Wanneer ik
daar behoefte aan heb kan
ik altijd bij mijn vrienden
terecht'/.
formats lone1 to lone11 (f2).
If a respondent has scored two or more missing values,
the particular case has to be deleted from the analysis:
count nmissing=lone1 to lone11 (-1).
select if (nmissing lt 2).
For five-category responses and scale scores based on
dichotomized item scores:
value labels lone1 to lone11 5 'yes!' 4 'yes' 3 'more or less' 2 'no' 1 'no!'
-1 'no answer'.
The five-category responses must be transformed into dichotomous responses.
Responses indicating a (certain) feeling of loneliness are assigned a score of
one loneliness point. That is, if the response "more or less",
"yes", or "yes!" is given to a negatively formulated item
(item numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10) or if the response "no!",
"no", or "more or less" is given to a positively formulated
item (item numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 11), a scale point is assigned. Under this procedure,
the "more or less" answers are not considered to be neutral answers,
but indicators of loneliness. The other answers are assigned a zero score.
Thus, in the case of extreme loneliness, a respondent can score a total of 11
loneliness points. The minimum score is 0. If a respondent has scored one and
only one missing value, the response is not considered to be a loneliness
indicator; thus no scale point is given for the item.
count lone=lone1 lone4 lone7 lone8 lone11 (1,2,3) lone2 lone3 lone5 lone6 lone9
lone10 (3,4,5).
variable label lone 'loneliness <Scale de Jong Gierveld>'.
value labels lone 0'no loneliness' 11'severe loneliness'.
formats lone (f2).
For three-category responses and scale scores based on
dichotomized item scores:
value labels lone1 to lone11 3 'yes' 2 'more or less' 1 'no' -1 'no answer'.
count lone = lone1 lone4 lone7 lone8 lone11 (1,2) lone2 lone3 lone5 lone6 lone9
lone10 (2,3).
variable label lone 'loneliness <Scale de Jong Gierveld>'.
value labels lone 0'no loneliness' 11'severe loneliness'.
formats lone (f2).
For three-category responses and scale scores based on
dichotomized item scores, and if emotional and social loneliness are studied as
subdimensions of loneliness.
value labels lone1 to lone11 3 'yes' 2'more or less' 1'no' -1'no answer'.
count loneemo = lone2 lone3 lone5 lone6 lone9 lone10
(2,3).
count lonesoc = lone1 lone4 lone7 lone8 lone11 (1,2).
value labels loneemo 0'no loneliness' 6'severe
loneliness' -1'missing'.
value labels lonesoc 0'no loneliness' 5'severe
loneliness' -1'missing'.
To enhance the comparability of the scale scores, the ranges might be
transformed to 0-10:
compute loneemo= truncate(100*(loneemo/6))/10.
compute lonesoc= truncate(100*(lonesoc/5))/10.
value labels loneemo lonesoc
0'no loneliness' 10'severe loneliness' -1'missing'.
A missing value is assigned to the scales if one of the items has a missing
value:
count misemo = lone2 lone3 lone5 lone6 lone9 lone10
(-1).
count missoc = lone1 lone4 lone7 lone8 lone11 (-1).
if (misemo>0)loneemo=-1.
if (missoc>0)lonesoc=-1.
variable labels loneemo 'emotional loneliness
<Scale de Jong Gierveld>' / lonesoc 'social
loneliness <Scale de Jong Gierveld>'.
missing values loneemo lonesoc
(-1).
formats loneemo lonesoc
(f2).
For five-category responses and scale scores based on
multi-category item scores:
value labels lone1 to lone11 5 'yes!' 4 'yes' 3 'more or less' 2 'no' 1 'no!'
-1 'no answer'.
missing values lone1 to lone11 (-1).
The remaining missing values are replaced by the sample mean:
rmv /lone1=smean(lone1) /lone2=smean(lone2) /lone3=smean(lone3)
/lone4=smean(lone4) /lone5=smean(lone5)
/lone6=smean(lone6) /lone7=smean(lone7)
/lone8=smean(lone8) /lone9=smean(lone9)
/lone10=smean(lone10) /lone11=smean(lone11).
By subtracting the scores on positive items from 6, the scores are reversed:
compute lone=
6–lone1+lone2+lone3+6–lone4+lone5+lone6+6–lone7+6–lone8+lone9+lone10+6–lone11.
variable label lone 'loneliness <Scale de Jong Gierveld>'.
value labels lone 11'no loneliness' 55'severe loneliness'.
formats lone (f4.1).
For three-category responses and scale scores based on
multi-category item scores:
value labels lone1 to lone11 3 'yes' 2 'more or less' 1 'no' -1 'no answer'.
missing values lone1 to lone11 (-1).
rmv /lone1=smean(lone1)
/lone2=smean(lone2) /lone3=smean(lone3)
/lone4=smean(lone4) /lone5=smean(lone5)
/lone6=smean(lone6) /lone7=smean(lone7)
/lone8=smean(lone8) /lone9=smean(lone9)
/lone10=smean(lone10) /lone11=smean(lone11).
compute lone= 4–lone1+lone2+lone3+4–lone4+lone5+lone6+4–lone7+4–lone8+lone9+lone10+4–lone11.
variable label lone 'loneliness <Scale de Jong Gierveld>'.
value labels lone 11'no loneliness' 33'severe loneliness'.
formats lone (f4.1).
For scale scores based on three-category dichotomized
item scores, one might use a further categorization of the scale scores, based
on cut-off points proposed by Van Tilburg & De Jong Gierveld (1999):
recode lone (0 thru 2=0)(3 thru 8=1)(9,10=2)(11=3) into lonecat.
variable label lonecat '4 categories of loneliness'.
value labels lonecat 0 'not (0-2)' 1 'moderate (3-8)'
2 'severe (9-10)' 3 'very severe (11)'.
formats lonecat (f1).
recode loneemo (0 thru 2=0)(3 thru 6=1) into loneemocat.
recode lonesoc (0 thru 2=0)(3 thru 5=1) into lonesoccat.
formats loneemocat lonesoccat
(f1).
variable label loneemocat 'categories of emotional
loneliness' / lonesoccat 'categories of social
loneliness'.
value labels loneemocat 0 'not lonely (0-2)' 1
'lonely (2-6)'.
value labels lonesoccat 0 'not lonely (0-2)' 1
'lonely (3-5)'.
A 6-item version for overall, emotional and social
loneliness has been developed because the length of the 11-item version has
sometimes rendered it difficult to use the scale in large surveys. The
construction and empirically testing is reported in De Jong Gierveld & Van
Tilburg (2006). The selected items are:
3. I experience a general sense of emptiness
4. Therees/image002.jpg"
alt="A picture containing text, clipart
Description automatically generated"
v:shapes="Picture_x0020_4">
Contents
1 Preliminary remarks
2 The scale items
3 Loneliness model
4 Development of the scale
5 Psychometric properties
6 Methodological and substantial concerns
7 Processing the scale data
8 A short scale
9 Cut-off points
10 Reviews
11 References
© Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Updated from the printed version: de Jong
Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T.G. (1999). Manual of the loneliness scale. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Social Research
Methodology (ISBN 90-9012523-X). http://hdl.handle.net/1871/18954
Acknowledgement
The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports financially supported the revision
of this manual in 1999.
Correspondence
address
Prof. dr. J. de Jong Gierveld, Prof. dr. T.G. van Tilburg
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Faculty of Social Sciences
De Boelelaan 1105, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
Phone (van Tilburg): (+31) 20 598 6870
E-mail: Gierveld at nidi.nl, Theo.van.Tilburg at
vu.nl
The Loneliness Scale
was developed by De Jong Gierveld and colleagues. See for a program overview de Jong Gierveld
(1985, 1989). The scale is available for
scientific research programs, under the following conditions:
a. The source of the scale should be mentioned, i.e. this manual, or de
Jong Gierveld and Kamphuis (1985) for the 11-tem version; de
Jong Gierveld and van Tilburg (2006) for the 6-item version; or van
Tilburg and de Jong Gierveld (1999) for the cut-off points in the
11-item scale.
b. The scale may be used in survey research (by means of face-to-face
interviews, telephone interviews, self-administered (mail) questionnaires, as
well as in electronic data collection).
c. The scale was developed for use in scientifically based survey research. For
example, the use of the scores in this type of research is aimed at calculating
an average score across hundreds or thousands of interviewees. Although the
instruments have been carefully designed and much research has been done on
their usefulness, it is not known whether they are also applicable for
determining whether or not individuals are lonely. Therefore, it is not
permissible to use these instruments for such an application without
consultation.
The scale may be used
in face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, self-administered (mail)
questionnaires, as well as in electronic data collection. We recommend that the
scale be presented somewhere in the middle of the interview or questionnaire;
that is, at a moment when a considerable degree of self-disclosure from the
respondents may be expected. Ideally, questions about characteristics of the
respondents' networks of social relationships should precede the scale items.
The scale consists of
eleven items; six are formulated negatively and five are formulated positively.
English |
Dutch |
|
|
Please indicate for
each of the 11 statements, the extent to which they apply to your situation,
the way you feel now. Please, circle the appropriate answer. |
Wilt u van elk van de volgende uitspraken aangeven in
hoeverre die op u, zoals u de laatste tijd bent, van toepassing is? Omcirkel het antwoord
dat op u van toepassing
is. |
1 |
There is always
someone I can talk to about my day-to-day problems |
Er is altijd wel iemand in mijn omgeving bij wie ik met
mijn dagelijkse probleempjes terecht kan |
2 |
I miss having a
really close friend |
Ik mis een echt goede vriend of vriendin |
3 |
I experience a
general sense of emptiness |
Ik ervaar een leegte om me heen |
4 |
There are plenty of
people I can lean on when I have problems |
Er zijn genoeg mensen op wie ik in geval van narigheid
kan terugvallen |
5 |
I miss the pleasure
of the company of others |
Ik mis gezelligheid om me heen |
6 |
I find my circle of
friends and acquaintances too limited |
Ik vind mijn kring van kennissen te beperkt |
7 |
There are many
people I can trust completely |
Ik heb veel mensen op wie ik volledig kan vertrouwen |
8 |
There are enough
people I feel close to |
Er zijn voldoende mensen met wie ik me nauw verbonden
voel |
9 |
I miss having
people around me |
Ik mis mensen om me heen |
10 |
I often feel
rejected |
Vaak voel ik me in de steek gelaten |
11 |
I can call on my
friends whenever I need them |
Wanneer ik daar behoefte aan heb kan ik altijd bij mijn
vrienden terecht |
French |
Italian |
|
|
Sono finite le domande
sul suo passato. Ora seguono 11 affermazioni sulle sue attuali esigenze. Vuole dirmi, per ognuna di queste, se la condivide e quanto? Può rispondere solo con 'no' 'più o meno' o 'si'. |
|
1 |
Il y a toujours quelqu’un autour de moi avec qui je peux causer de mes petits problèmes. |
Quando ho un problema
c'è sempre un vicino con
cui posso parlarne |
2 |
Je n’ai pas de véritable ami(e) et ça me manqué |
Mi manca un buon amico o una buona
amica |
3 |
J’éprouve un sentiment général de vide |
Mi sento solo |
4 |
Je peux m’appuyer
sur suffisamment de personnes
en cas de problème |
Ci sono diverse persone a cui posso rivolgermi in caso di necessità |
5 |
Je n’ai pas de
compagnie agréable autour
de moi et ça me manqué |
Mi manca un'atmosfera calda ed accogliente |
6 |
Je trouve que le cercle de mes
relations est trop limité |
Penso di avere
pochi conoscenti |
7 |
Il y a beaucoup de personnes sur lesquelles je peux vraiment compter |
Ci sono tante persone
di cui mi posso fidare completamente |
8 |
Il y a suffisamment de personnes dont je me sens proche |
Ci sono diverse persone a cui mi sento legato |
9 |
Je regrette de ne pas avoir plus de monde autour de moi |
Mi manca la presenza di altre persone intorno a me |
10 |
J’ai souvent
l’impression d’être tenu(e)
à l’écart |
Spesso mi sento
abbandonato |
11 |
En cas de besoin, je peux toujours compter sur mes amis |
Posso andare
dai miei amici ogni volta che voglio |
German |
Polish |