Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36078540›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

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

Marlies Maes, Pamela Qualter, Gerine M A Lodder, Marcus Mund

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marlies MaesInterdisciplinary Social Science: Youth Studies, Utrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1710-5728
Pamela QualterManchester Institute of Education, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6114-3820
Gerine M A LodderDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Marcus MundPersonality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Klagenfurt University, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

LonelinessEducational StatusPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairesfactor structurelonelinessloneliness typesmeasurementmeasurement invariancepsychometricsreliability

Identifiers

PMID36078540
PMCPMC9518421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.