Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:10:23.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Spanish version of the 11-item De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2014

José Buz Open the ORCID record for José Buz [Opens in a new window]  and
Diana Pérez-Arechaederra
José Buz*
Affiliation:
Fac. de Educación, Universidad de Salamanca, Paseo de Canalejas 169, 37008 Salamanca, Spain
Diana Pérez-Arechaederra
Affiliation:
CENTRUM Católica Business School, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Jr. Daniel Alomía Robles 125, Surco, Lima, Peru
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: José Buz, Fac. de Educación, Universidad de Salamanca, Paseo de Canalejas 169, 37008 Salamanca, Spain. Phone: +34 923 294500. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Loneliness has been associated with physical and mental health problems. It has also been considered a serious social problem that increases the use and costs of health services. The most widely used instrument in Europe for measuring loneliness is the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGLS). The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the 11-item DJGLS by means of the Rasch model, and its convergent and discriminant validity.

Methods:

Participants were a representative sample of Spanish community-dwelling adults aged 60 and older. We evaluated sociodemographic variables, health, social support, social activity, and subjective well-being measures.

Results:

Person and item fit statistics, and standardized residual principal component analysis revealed that the DJGLS was essentially unidimensional. However, we found DIF across marital status and living arrangements. Moderate to high associations were found between loneliness and depression, self-rated loneliness, positive and negative emotions, and satisfaction with life. The DJGLS differentiated between well known-groups according to gender, marital status, living arrangements, health, structural and functional aspects of social networks, and social activity.

Conclusions:

The DJGLS is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring loneliness in Spanish older adults. The addition of a few items in order to improve the measurement range is strongly recommended. Our findings are consistent with previous research indicating that loneliness is an important aspect of mental health and subjective well-being, and support the use of the scale to detect vulnerable population in old age.

Keywords

lonelinessrasch analysismental healthsubjective well-beinghealth servicesSpain
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 26 , Issue 9 , September 2014 , pp. 1553 - 1564
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayala, A. et al. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Functional Social Support Questionnaire and the Loneliness Scale in non-institutionalized older adults in Spain. Gaceta Sanitaria, 26, 317–24. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.08.009.Google Scholar
Buz, J. (1996). Mini-GDS 8: una nueva versión breve para ancianos institucionalizados [Mini-GDS 8: A new, short-form version for institutionalized, elderly adults]. Geriátrika, 12, 41–45.Google Scholar
Buz, J. and Prieto, G. (2013). Análisis de la escala de soledad de de Jong Gierveld mediante el modelo de Rasch [Analysis of the de Jong Gierveld loneliness scale using the Rasch model]. Universitas Psychologica, 12 (3). doi:10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY12–3.aesd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buz, J., Urchaga, D. and Polo, M. E. (in press). Factor structure of the de Jong Gierveld loneliness scale in Spanish elderly adults. Anales de Psicología. doi:10.6018/analesps.30.2.148371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Mansfield, J. and Parpura-Gill, A. (2007). Loneliness in older persons: a theoretical model and empirical findings. International Psychogeriatrics, 19, 279–294.Google Scholar
Cukrowicz, K. C., Cheavens, J. S., Van Orden, K. A., Ragain, R. M. and Cook, R. L. (2011). Perceived burdensomeness and suicide ideation in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 26, 331–338. doi:10.1037/a0021836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong Gierveld, J. and Kamphuis, F. H. (1985). The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 289–299. doi:10.1177/014662168500900307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong Gierveld, J. and Van Tilburg, T. G. (2010). The de Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys. European Journal on Ageing, 7, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong Gierveld, J. and Van Tilburg, T. G. (2011). Manual of the Loneliness Scale 1999. Available at: http://home.fsw.vu.nl/TG.van.Tilburg/manual_loneliness_scale_1999.html; last accessed 9 December 2011.Google Scholar
Deeg, D. J. H., Beekman, A. T. F., Kriegsman, D. M. W. and Westendorp-de Serière, M. (eds.), (1998). Autonomy and Well-Being in the Aging Population II: Report from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, 1992–1996 (Vol. II). Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU University Press.Google Scholar
Diener, E. (2009). SWLS Translations. Urbana Champagne: University of Illinois. Available at: http://s.psych.uiuc.edu/*ediener/SWLS.html; last accessed 12 February 2009.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Emmons, R. a, Larsen, R. J. and Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.Google Scholar
Grygiel, P., Humenny, G., Rebisz Switaj, P. and Sikorska, J. (2012). Validating the Polish adaptation of the 11-item De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000130.Google Scholar
Hawkley, L. C., Thisted, R. A., Masi, C. M. and Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness predicts increased blood pressure: five-year cross-lagged analyses in middle-aged and older adults. Psychology & Aging, 25, 132–141.Google Scholar
Holwerda, T. J., Deeg, D. J. H., Beekman, A. T. F., van Tilburg, T. G., Stek, M. L., Jonker, C. and Schoevers, R. A. (2012). Feelings of loneliness, but not social isolation, predict dementia onset: Results from the Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-302755.Google Scholar
Jaremka, L. M., Fagundes, C. P., Glaser, R., Bennett, J. M., Malarkey, W. B. and Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2012). Loneliness predicts pain, depression, and fatigue: understanding the role of immune dysregulation. Psychoneuroendocrinology. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.11.016 Google ScholarPubMed
Linacre, J. M. (2011). A User's Guide to WINSTEPS & MINISTEPS: Rasch Model Computer Programs. Chicago: Winsteps.com.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U. and Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: a computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 38, 88–91.Google Scholar
Losada, A., Márquez-González, M., García-Ortíz, L., Gómez-Marcos, M. A., Fernández-Fernández, V. and Rodríguez-Sánchez, E. (2012). Loneliness and mental health in a representative sample of community-dwelling Spanish older adults. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 146, 277–292.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., Hawkley, L. C., Waite, L. J. and Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: a national longitudinal study. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 907–914. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.028.Google Scholar
Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S. (2001). Influences on loneliness in older adults: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 245–246.Google Scholar
Pitkala, K. H., Routasalo, P., Kautiainen, H. and Tilvis, R. S. (2009). Effects of psychosocial group rehabilitation on health, use of health care services, and mortality of older persons suffering from loneliness: a randomized, controlled trial. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 64A, 792–800. doi:10.1093/gerona/glp011.Google Scholar
Prieto-Flores, M. E., Forjaz, M. J., Fernandez-Mayoralas, G., Rojo-Perez, F. and Martinez-Martin, P. (2011). Factors associated with loneliness of noninstitutionalized and institutionalized older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 23, 177–194. doi:10.1177/0898264310382658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Ready, R. E., Vaidya, J. G., Watson, D., Latzman, R. D., Koffel, E. A. and Clark, L. A. (2011). Age-group differences in facets of positive and negative affect. Aging & Mental Health, 15, 784–795.Google Scholar
Sánchez, M. M., de Jong Gierveld, J. and Buz, J. (2012). Loneliness and the exchange of social support among older adults in Spain and the Netherlands. Ageing and Society. doi:10.1017/S0144686X12000839 Google Scholar
van Baarsen, B., Snijders, T. A., Smit, J. and Van Duijn, M. A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanderWeele, T. J., Hawkley, L. C. and Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). On the reciprocal association between loneliness and subjective well-being. American Journal of Epidemiology, 176, 777–784.Google Scholar
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., Rose, T. L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M. and Leirer, V. O. (1983). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17, 37–39.Google Scholar