How (Not) to Measure Loneliness: A Review of the Eight Most Commonly Used Scales

Abstract

Loneliness affects well-being and has long-term negative impacts on physical and mental health, educational outcomes, and employability. Because of those current and long-term impacts, loneliness is a significant issue for which we need reliable and appropriate measurement scales. In the current paper, psychometric properties of the eight most commonly used loneliness scales are reviewed both descriptively and meta-analytically. Results suggest that for many of the scales, the psychometric properties are promising. However, for some psychometric features, especially test-retest reliability and measurement invariance, evidence is rather scarce. Most striking, however, is the fact that all of the scales included items that do not measure loneliness. Surprisingly, for many (sub)scales, this was even the case for about half of the items. Because our measures are the foundation of our research work, it is crucial to improve the way loneliness is being measured.

Navigating the theoretical landscape of loneliness research: How interdisciplinary synergy contributes to further conceptualizations

“…However, loneliness measures have been insufficiently capable of capturing the distinction between chronic and situational loneliness, and they are more likely to measure chronic forms of loneliness, and because of this, research on situational loneliness is partially overshadowed (Marangoni & Ickes, 1989). The same goes for existential loneliness, because it has rarely been considered in the development of loneliness scales (Maes et al, 2022).…”

“…Advances in artificial intelligence, genetics, and molecular biology in the latter half of the 20th century have moved the research direction from the study of lived experiences to the development of reliable loneliness measures (Buss, 1995). Even though correlational research has provided fundamental insights about the etiology of loneliness, its causal mechanisms, and its long‐term consequences (Sønderby & Wagoner, 2013), loneliness measures generally fall short of capturing the distinction between chronic and situational loneliness and still contain items that do not accurately reflect the subjective nature of loneliness (Bandari et al, 2019; Maes et al, 2022). In addition, they seem to favor the measurement of chronic over situational loneliness and rarely assess the dimension of existential loneliness (Maes et al, 2022).…”

“…Even though correlational research has provided fundamental insights about the etiology of loneliness, its causal mechanisms, and its long‐term consequences (Sønderby & Wagoner, 2013), loneliness measures generally fall short of capturing the distinction between chronic and situational loneliness and still contain items that do not accurately reflect the subjective nature of loneliness (Bandari et al, 2019; Maes et al, 2022). In addition, they seem to favor the measurement of chronic over situational loneliness and rarely assess the dimension of existential loneliness (Maes et al, 2022). Hence, current knowledge about the concomitants of loneliness is largely confined to persistent types of loneliness stemming from relational deficits in intimacy or social integration (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006).…”

“…First, attempts to conceptualize loneliness seem to have stagnated. Although loneliness has often been regarded as a matter of perception, the way in which it has thus far been approached theoretically does not reflect this notion of subjectivity, despite its incorporation in many definitions of loneliness (Maes et al, 2022; Sønderby & Wagoner, 2013). A large number of theoretical frameworks on loneliness contain merely an identification of the phenomenon and the causal mechanisms behind it (Svendsen, 2017).…”

Loneliness status and associated factors among rural left-behind children in China: a cross-sectional study

“…The ller items were designed to help children relax while completing the scale. The CLS items have a 5-point response option ranging from"Not true at all"to "Always true" [ 23] . According to the provisions of the original scale, ≤27 is classi ed as low loneliness, 28-36 as middle loneliness, 37-45 as high loneliness, and ≥46 as severe loneliness.…”