The UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-20) and its short version (ULS-8) are widely used to measure loneliness. However, the question remains whether or not previous studies using the scale to measure loneliness are measuring the construct equally across countries. The present study examined the measurement invariance (MI) of both scales in Germany, Indonesia, and the United States (N = 2350). The one-, two-, and three-factor structure of the ULS-20 did not meet the model fit cut-off criteria in the total sample. The ULS-8 met the model fit cut-off criteria and has configural, but not metric invariance because two items unrelated to social isolation were not MI. The final six items (ULS-6) exclusively related to social isolation had complete MI. Participants from the United States scored highest in the ULS-6, followed by participants from Germany and then Indonesia. We conclude that the ULS-6 is an appropriate measure for cross-cultural studies on loneliness.
BarretoM.VictorC.HammondC.EcclesA.RichinsM. T.QualterP. (2021). Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 169(February), Article 110066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066
3.
BeutelM. E.KleinE. M.BrählerE.ReinerI.JüngerC.MichalM.WiltinkJ.WildP. S.MünzelT.LacknerK. J.TibubosA. N. (2017). Loneliness in the general population: Prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1262-x
4.
BossL.KangD. H.BransonS. (2015). Loneliness and cognitive function in the older adult: A systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics, 27(4), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610214002749
5.
ByrneB. M.Van de VijverF. J. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 107-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305051003637306
6.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
7.
de Jong GierveldJ. (1998). A review of loneliness: concept and definitions, determinants and consequences. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 8(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259898008090
8.
DodeenH. (2015). The effects of positively and negatively worded items on the factor structure of the UCLA loneliness scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914548325
9.
DurakM.Senol-DurakE. (2010). Psychometric qualities of the UCLA loneliness scale-version 3 as applied in a Turkish culture. Educational Gerontology, 36(10-11), 988-1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601271003756628
10.
DussaultM.FernetC.AustinS.LerouxM. (2009). Revisiting the factorial validity of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: A test of competing models in a sample of teachers. Psychological Reports, 105(3), 849-856. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.3.849-856
Gerst-EmersonK.JayawardhanaJ. (2015). Loneliness as a public health issue: The impact of loneliness on health care utilization among older adults. American Journal of Public Health, 105(5), 1013-1019. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302427
13.
GollwitzerA.WilczynskaM.JayaE. S. (2018). Targeting the link between loneliness and paranoia via an interventionist-causal model framework. Psychiatry Research, 263(May), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.02.050
14.
HartshorneT. S. (1993). Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(1), 182-195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6101_14
HawkleyL. C.CacioppoJ. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8
Holt-LunstadJ.SmithT. B.BakerM.HarrisT.StephensonD. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
19.
HornJ. L.McArdleJ. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916
20.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
21.
HughesM. E.WaiteL. J.HawkleyL. C.CacioppoJ. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574
22.
JayaE. S. (2017). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Indonesian version of community assessment of psychic experiences. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 21(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v21i1.3495
23.
JayaE. S.AsconeL.LincolnT. M. (2017). Social adversity and psychosis: The mediating role of cognitive vulnerability. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 43(3), 557-565. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw104
24.
JayaE. S.AsconeL.LincolnT. M. (2018). A longitudinal mediation analysis of the effect of negative-self-schemas on positive symptoms via negative affect. Psychological Medicine, 48(8), 1299-1307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171700277X
25.
JayaE. S.LincolnT. M. (2016). Social adversities and psychotic symptoms: A test of predictions derived from the social defeat hypothesis. Psychiatry Research, 245(November), 466-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.09.002
26.
JayaE. S.WüstenC.AlizadehB. Z.van AmelsvoortT.Bartels-VelthuisA. A.van BeverenN. J.BruggemanR.CahnW.de HaanL.DelespaulP.LuykxJ. J.Myin-GermeysI.KahnR. S.SchirmbeckF.SimonsC. J. P.van HarenN. E.van OsJ.van WinkelR.Fonseca-PedreroE.. . . LuykxJ. J. (2020). Comparing psychotic experiences in low-and-middle-income-countries and high-income-countries with a focus on measurement invariance. Psychological Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720003323
KwiatkowskaM. M.RogozaR.KwiatkowskaK. (2017). Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale in a Polish adolescent sample. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 3(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m6udc
29.
LykesV. A.KemmelmeierM. (2014). What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(3), 468-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113509881
30.
MarshH. W.HauK. T.WenZ. (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. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
PeltzerK.PengpidS. (2019). Loneliness correlates and associations with health variables in the general population in Indonesia. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 13(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-019-0281-z
33.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41(September), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
34.
RobertsR. E.LewinsohnP. M.SeeleyJ. R. (1993). A brief measure of loneliness suitable for use with adolescents. Psychological Reports, 72(3 Suppl.), 1379-1391. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.72.3c.1379
35.
RokachA. (1998). The relation of cultural background to the causes of loneliness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17(1), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1998.17.1.75
36.
RokachA.OrzeckT.CrippsJ.Lackovic-GrginK.PenezicZ. (2001). The effects of culture on the meaning of loneliness. Social Indicators Research, 53(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007183101458
37.
RussellD. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20-40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2
38.
RussellD. W.PeplauL. A.CutronaC. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472
39.
RussellD. W.PeplauL. A.FergusonM. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290-294. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4203_11
40.
SchmittT. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653
41.
SeepersadS.ChoiM. K.ShinN. (2008). How does culture influence the degree of romantic loneliness and closeness?Journal of Psychology, 142(2), 209-220. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.142.2.209-220
42.
ShevlinM.MurphyS.MurphyJ. (2015). The latent structure of loneliness: Testing competing factor models of the UCLA Loneliness Scale in a large adolescent sample. Assessment, 22(2), 208-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114542596
43.
SteenkampJ. B. E.BaumgartnerH. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
44.
StickleyA.KoyanagiA.KoposovR.Schwab-StoneM.RuchkinV. (2014). Loneliness and health risk behaviours among Russian and U.S. adolescents: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14(1), Article 366. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-366
45.
StricklandB. (2017). Language reflects “core” cognition: A new theory about the origin of cross-linguistic regularities. Cognitive Science, 41(1), 70-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12332
46.
SundströmG.FranssonE.MalmbergB.DaveyA. (2009). Loneliness among older Europeans. European Journal of Ageing, 6(4), Article 267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-009-0134-8
47.
SwamiV. (2009). Psychometric analysis of the Malay version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8) and a comparison of loneliness among sojourning and non-sojourning Malaysian students. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health, 2(1), 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/17542860802560397
48.
TarkaP. (2017). The comparison of estimation methods on the parameter estimates and fit indices in SEM model under 7-point Likert scale. Archives of Data Science: Series A2 (1), 1-16.
49.
TsukamotoS.HollandE.HaslamN.KarasawaM.KashimaY. (2015). Cultural differences in perceived coherence of the self and ingroup: A Japan–Australia comparison. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12090
50.
van OverveldM.de JongP. J.PetersM. L.SchoutenE. (2011). The Disgust Scale-R: A valid and reliable index to investigate separate disgust domains?Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 325-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.023
WilsonD.CuttsJ.LeesI.MapungwanaS.MaunganidzeL. (1992). Psychometric properties of the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale and two short-form measures of loneliness in Zimbabwe. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59(1), 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5901_7
53.
WuC. H.YaoG. (2008). Psychometric analysis of the short-form UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8) in Taiwanese undergraduate students. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(8), 1762-1771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.003
54.
YildizM. A.DuyB. (2014). Adaptation of the short-form of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8) to Turkish for the Adolescents. Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 27, 194-203. https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2014270302
55.
YuC. Y.MuthenB. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
56.
ZareiS.MemariA. H.MoshayediP.ShayestehfarM. (2016). Validity and reliability of the UCLA loneliness scale version 3 in Farsi. Educational Gerontology, 42(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2015.1065688
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
