Objectives There are several direct single-item and indirect multi-item measures of loneliness. This study compared four measures of loneliness in a sample of older adults, how they operated across subgroups, and their associations with health and psychosocial variables.Methods Participants in a Swedish national survey (ages 77+, N = 1599) completed a questionnaire containing two single-item measures of the frequency of a) “feeling lonely” and b) being “bothered by loneliness”, two versions of the 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale, and seven health and psychosocial variables.Results More participants were categorised at low levels of loneliness by the single items (≈70%) than the UCLA scale (≈60%). The measures were strongly correlated, and had consistent associations across subgroups. Compared to the UCLA, the single items had low sensitivity (43-47%) for detecting loneliness. All measures were significantly correlated with all health and psychosocial variables (r = 0.14 to 0.46); even participants who responded Hardly ever feeling lonely had significantly poorer outcomes than those responding Never.Conclusion Single- and multi-item measures are not equivalent and are optimally used in combination. If this is not feasible, multi-item measures are preferred due to their greater capacity to distinguish degrees of loneliness. Measures are needed that can better discriminate between low levels of loneliness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dahlberg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: