Skip to main content
Log in

Validity of the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale in Spanish older population: competitive structural models and item response theory

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
European Journal of Ageing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Loneliness is a subjective measure of one’s state of mind and the negative feelings about one’s level of social contact, which usually involves an unwanted discrepancy between existing and desired relationships. It is measured through self-reported questionnaires, among which a widely used one is the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGLS). Although it has been previously tested and proven to be a reliable tool for measuring loneliness of Spanish older people, some relevant research questions remain unsolved. Therefore, this article aims to present a validity study of the Spanish version of the DJGLS for its use with older people, by establishing its factorial validity; studying the adequateness of a Rasch model underlying participants’ responses; offering evidence of its reliability; and testing for convergent and discriminant validity. Data were obtained in a survey conducted with older adults attending Lifelong Learning programs in Valencia (Spain). The sample consisted of 335 people aged 55 years or older. Sociodemographic data were collected, and loneliness was measured with the DJGLS and the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Results have supported a unidimensional substantive structure, but with minor method effects associated with negatively worded items. In terms of multidimensional IRT analysis, the 2 Parameters Logistic Model fitted the data well and offered better information functions than the Rasch model. Reliability and criterion-related validity estimates were adequate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the shake of parsimony, both the UCLA-3 and Duke’s scale have been modeled with five and four item parcels, respectively.

References

  • Bellón JA, Delgado A, Luna J, Lardelli P (1996) Validez y fiabilidad del cuestionario de apoyo social funcional Duke-UNC-11. Aten Primaria 18:153–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondevik M, Skogstad A (1998) The oldest old, ADL, social network, and loneliness. West J Nurs Res 20(3):325–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadhead WE, Gehlbach SH, Degruy FV, Kaplan BH (1988) The Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire: measurement for social support in family medicine patients. Med Care 26(7):709–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buz J, Pérez-Arrechaederra D (2014) Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Spanish version of the 11-item De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale. Int Psychogeriatr 26:1553–1564. doi:10.1017/S1041610214000507

    Google Scholar 

  • Buz J, Prieto G (2013) Análisis de la Escala de Soledad de De Jong Gierveld mediante el modelo de Rasch. Univ Psychol 12:971–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buz J, Urchaga D, Polo ME (2014) Factor structure of the de Jong Gierveld loneliness scale in Spanish elderly adults. An Psicol 30:588–596. doi:10.6018/analesps.30.2.148371

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai L, Maydeu-Olivares A, Coffman DL, Thissen D (2006) Limited-information goodness- of-fit testing of item response theory models for sparse 2p tables. Br J Math Stat Psychol 59:173–194. doi:10.1348/000711005X66419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai L, Thissen D, du Toit SHC (2011) IRTPRO for windows. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalal DK, Carter NT (2015) Negatively worded items negatively impact survey research. In: Lance CE, Vandenberg RJ (eds) More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong Gierveld J, Kamphuis FH (1985) The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale. Appl Psychol Meas 9:289–299. doi:10.1177/014662168500900307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong Gierveld J, Tesch-Römer C (2012) Loneliness in old age in Eastern and Western European societies: theoretical perspectives. Eur J Ageing 9:285–295. doi:10.1007/s10433-012-0248-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong Gierveld J, van Tilburg T (2006) A six-item scale for overall, emotional and social loneliness: confirmatory tests on survey data. Res Aging Bimon Aging Life Course 28:582–598

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong Gierveld J, van Tilburg T (2010) The de Jong Gierveld short scale for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys. Eur J Ageing 7:121–130. doi:10.1007/s10433-010-0144-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dykstra PA (2009) Older adult loneliness: myths and realities. Eur J Ageing 6:91–100. doi:10.1007/s10433-009-0110-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embretson SE, Reise S (2000) Item response theory for psychologists. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Grygiel P, Humenny G, Rebisz S, Switaj P, Sikorska J (2012) Validating the Polish adaptation of the 11-item de Jong Gierveld loneliness scale. Eur J Psychol Assess 29:129–139. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkley LC, Browne MW, Cacioppo JT (2005) How can I connect with thee? Let me count the ways. Psychol Sci 16(10):798–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim LL, Kua E (2011) Living alone, loneliness, and psychological well-being of older persons in Singapore. Curr Gerontol Geriatrics Res. doi:10.1155/2011/673181

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z (2004) In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct Equ Model 11:320–341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorer P, Suurmeijer TP (1993) Unidimensionality and cumulativeness of the loneliness scale using Mokken scale analysis for polychotomous items. Psychol Rep 73:1324–1326. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.73.3f.1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2007) Mplus user’s guide, 6th edn. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Penning MJ, Liu G, Chou PHB (2014) Measuring loneliness among middle-aged and older adults: the UCLA and de Jong Gierveld Loneliness scales. Soc Indicators Res 118:1147–1166. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0461-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlman D, Peplau LA (1981) Towards a social psychology of loneliness. In: Duck SW, Gilmour R (eds) Personal relationships in disorder. Academic Press, London, pp 21–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinquart M, Sörensen S (2003) Risk factors for loneliness in adulthood and old age. A meta-analysis. In: Shohov S (ed) Advances in psychology research. Nova Science, Hauppauge, pp 111–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Raykov T (2001) Bias of coefficient alfa for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Appl Psychol Meas 25:69–76. doi:10.1177/01466216010251005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov T, Marcoulides GA (2011) Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Routasalo PE, Savikko N, Tilvis RS, Strandberg TE, Pitkälä KH (2006) Social contacts and their relationship to loneliness among aged people. A population-based study. Gerontology 52(3):181–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell DW (1996) UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Personal Assess 66(1):20–40. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Rodríguez MM (2009) Determinantes sociales de la soledad en las personas mayores españolas: Dar y recibir apoyo en el proceso de envejecer (PhD Thesis). University of Salamanca, Spain

  • Sansoni J, Marosszeky N, Sansoni E (2010) Final report: effective assessment of social isolation. Centre for Health Service Development: University of Wollongong, Wollongong

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vijver FJR, Hambleton RK (1996) Translating tests: some practical guidelines. Eur Psychol 1:89–99. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Tilburg TG, Leeuw ED (1991) Stability of scale quality under different data collection procedures: a mode of comparison on the de Jong Gierveld loneliness scale. Int J Public Opin Res 3:69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Tilburg T, Havens B, de Jong Gierveld J (2004) Loneliness among older adults in the Netherlands, Italy and Canada: a multifaceted comparison. Can J Aging 23:169–180. doi:10.1353/cja.2004.0026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks DJ (1994) A review of loneliness concepts, with particular reference to old age. Int J Geriatric Psychiatry 9:345–355. doi:10.1002/gps.930090502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss RS (1973) Loneliness: the experience of emotional and social isolation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zickar MJ, Broadfoot AA (2009) The partial revival of a dead horse? Comparing classical test theory and item response theory. In: Lance CE, Vandenberg RJ (eds) Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Project PSI2014-53280-R from Spanish National Program for R+D+i. Special thanks to the Extended Education and Community Engagement Program at University of Valencia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose M. Tomás.

Additional information

Responsible editor: H.-W. Wahl.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Original English and Spanish translated items of the DJGLS used in this research

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tomás, J.M., Pinazo-Hernandis, S., Donio-Bellegarde, M. et al. Validity of the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale in Spanish older population: competitive structural models and item response theory. Eur J Ageing 14, 429–437 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-017-0417-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-017-0417-4

Keywords

Navigation