An exploratory psychometric network analysis of loneliness scales in a sample of older adults

Current Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04697-9 An exploratory psychometric network analysis of loneliness scales in a sample of older adults Alexandra Thompson1 · Thomas V. Pollet1 Accepted: 21 April 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract To examine the relationships within and between commonly used measures of loneliness to determine the suitability of the measures in older adults. Further, to determine whether certain items in these measures are more psychometrically robust in terms of capturing different types of loneliness across this population. Data were obtained from 350 older adults via completion of an online survey. Four measures of loneliness were completed. These were the University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale 4 (Version 3), the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (Short Version) and a direct measure of loneliness. Analysis via a regularized partial correlation network and via clique percolation revealed that only the SELSA-S encompassed loneliness relating to deficits in social, family and romantic relationships. The remaining measures tapped mostly into social loneliness alone. The direct measure of loneliness had the strongest connection to the UCLA item-4 and the de Jong Gierveld item-1 exhibited the strongest bridge centrality, being a member of the most clusters. The results indicate that should researchers be interested in assessing loneliness resulting from specific relationships, then the SELSA-S would be the most suitable measure. Whereas the other measures are suitable for assessing loneliness more generally. The results further suggest that the de Jong Gierveld item-1 may be a more suitable direct measure of loneliness than that currently employed as it taps into a greater number of relationships. Keywords Loneliness · Friendships · Older Adults · Psychological Well-being Introduction Loneliness has been defined as an unpleasant or distressing experience resulting from a perceived qualitative or quantitative deficiency in one’s social relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982; Russell et al., 1980). Transient experiences of loneliness are believed to be adaptive in that they provide motivation to form and maintain social connections in order to promote the survival of genes (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009; Cacioppo et al., 2006; Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). However, sustained loneliness has been repeatedly linked to negative psychological and physiological health outcomes. In terms of psychological outcomes, these include but are not limited to anxiety and depression (Age Uk South Lakeland, 2018; Barg et al., 2006; Cacioppo et al., 2010), suicidality (Stravynski & Boyer, 2001; Van Orden et al., 2010), * Alexandra Thompson 1 Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK maladaptive stress responses (Adam et al., 2006; Steptoe et al., 2004), cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s Disease (Boss et al., 2015; Donovan et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2007). In terms of physiological outcomes, this includes cardiovascular disease (Momtaz et al., 2012; Valtorta et al., 2016, 2018), malnutrition (Ramic et al., 2011), sleep quality (Yu et al., 2018), functional decline (Perissinotto et al., 2012) as well as increased risk of mortality (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010, 2015). Although loneliness impacts individuals of all ages (Barreto et al., 2020; Pyle and Evans, 2018; Schultz and Moore, 1988), it is clear that loneliness is prevalent in older adults as well as younger age groups. For example, in excess of 1 million UK residents over the age of 50 report that they are chronically lonely (Abrahams, 2018). This figure is expected to increase to 2 million by 2025 (Abrahams, 2018). Additionally, the pooled prevalence of loneliness has been estimated to be at around 29% for adults aged 65 and over for 29 high income countries (Chawla et al., 2021). This is cause for concern given the vast array of negative outcomes associated with loneliness and the physiological vulnerability that 13 Vol.:(0123456789) Current Psychology many older adults experience (MacNee et al., 2014). As well as directly impacting the lived experiences of these older adults, there are implications in terms of increased health and social care service utilisation and associated economic costs. This potential for harm, coupled with the ageing population worldwide (UN DESA’s Population Division, 2019), suggests that it is important that loneliness in this age group is understood in order to develop strategies to counteract these negative impacts. The conceptualisation of loneliness When discussing loneliness and its negative impacts, it is important to note that although social isolation and loneliness are conceptually similar, they are separate constructs. Social isolation refers to an objectively measured shortfall in an individual’s social relationships such as few network ties and low frequency of contact with those ties (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Loneliness is a perceived deficit between actual and desired quality or quantity of relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). As such, individuals who are quantifiably socially isolated may not experience loneliness whereas those with many social connections can experience loneliness (Donovan & Blazer, 2020). The construct of loneliness has been conceptualised as both a unidimensional as well as a multidimensional construct. A seminal multidimensional model of loneliness was suggested by Weiss (1973). This model proposed that loneliness consisted of two dimensions: social and emotional loneliness. He suggested that loneliness in each of these dimensions resulted from a deficit in qualitatively different relationships: affiliations and attachments. Affiliations were suggested to be relationships such as friendships and work acquaintances. In contrast, attachments were suggested to be close, intimate relationships such as romantic relationships or parent–child bonds (Weiss, 1973). Later work in developing measurement instruments to assess loneliness has resulted in the creation of various constructs capturing differing facets of this experience which are discussed below. The measurement of loneliness Some of the most commonly employed measures of loneliness are the 11-item de Jong Gierveld Scale (dJG) (de Jong-Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985), the University of California, Los Angeles, Loneliness Scale-Version 3 (UCLA-3) (Russell, 1996), and the shortened version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale (SELSA-S) (DiTommaso et al., 2004). These measures have consistently been found to be reliable in a variety of populations (e.g., Adamczyk & DiTommaso, 2014; Buz et al., 2014; Russell, 1996) but differ in terms of dimensionality, length and response categories. 13 The 11‑item de Jong Gierveld loneliness scale The 11-item de Jong Gierveld Scale (dJG) (de Jong-Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985), aims to capture the multidimensional nature of loneliness as proposed (...truncated)