Cited by 192Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth disparities and outcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Would the Real Loneliness Please Stand Up? The Validity of Loneliness Scores and the Reliability of Single-Item Scores

Open access
Mund, Marcus, Maes, Marlies, Drewke, Pia M., Gutzeit, Antonia, Jaki, Isabel, Qualter, Pamela·2023·Assessment

Abstract

Several measures that assess loneliness have been developed for adults. Across three studies, we investigated psychometric features of scores of different versions of the Rasch-Type Loneliness Scale, the University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale, and three single-item measures. In Study 1 ( N = 697 self-ratings, N = 282 informant-ratings of 160 targets) and Study 2 ( N = 1,216 individuals from 608 couples), we investigated convergent validity, self-informant agreement, and nomological nets of the item scores using correlates related to demographic aspects, personality, satisfaction, and network characteristics. In Study 3 ( N = 411), we estimated a reliability of r x x > . 70 for scores of three single-item measures of loneliness. Overall, scores of all measures and their nomological nets were highly correlated within and across studies, indicating that the scores of the included measures are all reliable and valid. Recommendations for choosing a loneliness measure are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10731911221077227

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Self-reported measures of loneliness have been shown to be equally reliable and valid as other forms of assessment.

    “Nevertheless, self-reported measures of loneliness have been shown to be equally reliable and valid as other forms of assessment [101].”

    From The prospective association of adolescent loneliness and low resilience with anxiety and depression in young adulthood: The HUNT study (2025) · cites this paper as [101]

    Study 1’s Results and Discussion report high agreement between self-ratings and informant-ratings and conclude that the instruments studied can assess loneliness from either perspective. Study 2 also describes the included measures as valid and reliable in adults, but the paper does not establish that self-reports are equally reliable and valid as all other forms of assessment; it notes an exception for one measure’s partner-ratings. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The single-item loneliness measure has high correlations with multiple-item loneliness measures.

    “this single-item loneliness measure has high correlations with multiple-item loneliness measures [24]”
  • Loneliness was measured at ages 10, 12, 14, and 16 using a single item from the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, and this single-item measure correlates well with multi-item measures such as the University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale.

    “Loneliness was measured at ages 10, 12, 14, and 16 years using a single item from the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire.”
  • The single-item measure of loneliness correlates well with multi-item scales, such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale.

    “However, this single-item measure correlates well with multi-item scales, such as the University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale [25, 26].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rubenstein C. M. Shaver P. (1980). Loneliness in two northeastern cities. In Hartog J. Audy R. (Eds.), The anatomy of loneliness (pp. 319– 337). International University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mund, M., Maes, M., Drewke, P. M., Gutzeit, A., Jaki, I., & Qualter, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Klagenfurt (AT)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Mund, Marcus
Venue
Assessment
Published
2022-03-04
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
1226-1248
ISSN
  • 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3489
OpenAlex
W4220804356
Cited by
192
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 9
FWCI
21.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Common Library Network (Der Gemeinsame Bibliotheksverbund) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (MU 4338/1-1)
  • Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (DRM/2017-06)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
loneliness, loneliness measurement, UCLA Loneliness Scale, convergent validity, nomological network, reliability statistics, personality, social networks, couples
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Loneliness, Personality, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review