4.2 Article

Measuring Loneliness in Different Age Groups: The Measurement Invariance of the UCLA Loneliness Scale

Journal

ASSESSMENT
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 1688-1715

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10731911221119533

Keywords

loneliness; University of California Loneliness Scale (UCLA-LS); measurement invariance; alignment; local structural equation modeling; age differences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the age measurement invariance of loneliness measures and found that many of the tested measures had poor or inconsistent structures. Although some structures achieved measurement invariance, it cannot be assumed that all loneliness measures have age measurement invariance.
Age differences in the prevalence of loneliness have been a key focus among researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. However, the degree to which those reflect genuine differences in the experience of loneliness or the way individuals understand and respond to loneliness measures is yet to be examined. The current study explored the age measurement invariance of the 20-item Revised University of California Los Angeles, Loneliness Scale (UCLA-LSR) and its shorter forms in a U.K. sample of adults aged 18 to 99 years (M = 50.6, SD = 19.7). The fit of different structures/versions was explored through multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; N = 4,375) and local structural equation modeling (N = 19,521). Results indicated a poor and/or inconsistent structure for the 20-item UCLA-LSR and many of its shorter forms. Of the structures considered, 12 showed acceptable model fit and received age measurement invariance testing through multigroup CFA and alignment; 10 of these achieved full, partial, or approximate measurement invariance. Our findings suggest that the age measurement invariance of loneliness measures should not be assumed, and crucially, this must be explored before accurate and meaningful age comparisons can be made. Implications for measurement research, and clinical and community practice, are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available