{"title":"Do middle-aged and older people underreport loneliness? experimental evidence from the Netherlands.","authors":"Thijs van den Broek, Jack Lam, Cecilia Potente","doi":"10.1007/s10433-024-00826-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the growing acknowledgment of the importance of loneliness among older individuals, questionnaire length constraints may hinder the inclusion of common multi-item loneliness scales in surveys. Direct, single-item loneliness measures are a practical alternative, but scholars have expressed concerns that such measures may lead to underreporting. Our aim was to test whether such reservations are justified. We conducted a preregistered list experiment among 2,553 people aged 50 + who participated in the Dutch Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel. The list experiment method has been developed to unobtrusively gather sensitive information. We compared the list experiment estimate of the prevalence of frequent loneliness with the corresponding direct question estimate to assess downward bias in the latter. Next to pooled models, we estimated models stratified by gender to assess whether loneliness underreporting differed between women and men. Relying on the direct question, we estimated that 5.9% of respondents frequently felt lonely. Our list experiment indicated that the prevalence of frequent loneliness was 13.1%. Although substantial in magnitude, the difference between both estimates was only marginally significant (Δb: 0.072, 95% CI: - 0.003;0.148, p = .06). No evidence of gender differences was found. Although we cannot be conclusive that loneliness estimates are biased downward when a direct question is used, our results call for caution with direct, single-item measures of loneliness if researchers want to avoid underreporting. Replications are needed to gain more precise insights into the extent to which direct, single-item loneliness measures are prone to downward reporting bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":47766,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ageing","volume":"21 1","pages":"29"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11456021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ageing","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-024-00826-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Despite the growing acknowledgment of the importance of loneliness among older individuals, questionnaire length constraints may hinder the inclusion of common multi-item loneliness scales in surveys. Direct, single-item loneliness measures are a practical alternative, but scholars have expressed concerns that such measures may lead to underreporting. Our aim was to test whether such reservations are justified. We conducted a preregistered list experiment among 2,553 people aged 50 + who participated in the Dutch Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel. The list experiment method has been developed to unobtrusively gather sensitive information. We compared the list experiment estimate of the prevalence of frequent loneliness with the corresponding direct question estimate to assess downward bias in the latter. Next to pooled models, we estimated models stratified by gender to assess whether loneliness underreporting differed between women and men. Relying on the direct question, we estimated that 5.9% of respondents frequently felt lonely. Our list experiment indicated that the prevalence of frequent loneliness was 13.1%. Although substantial in magnitude, the difference between both estimates was only marginally significant (Δb: 0.072, 95% CI: - 0.003;0.148, p = .06). No evidence of gender differences was found. Although we cannot be conclusive that loneliness estimates are biased downward when a direct question is used, our results call for caution with direct, single-item measures of loneliness if researchers want to avoid underreporting. Replications are needed to gain more precise insights into the extent to which direct, single-item loneliness measures are prone to downward reporting bias.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Ageing: Social, Behavioural and Health Perspectives is an interdisciplinary journal devoted to the understanding of ageing in European societies and the world over.
EJA publishes original articles on the social, behavioral and population health aspects of ageing and encourages an integrated approach between these aspects.
Emphasis is put on publishing empirical research (including meta-analyses), but conceptual papers (including narrative reviews) and methodological contributions will also be considered.
EJA welcomes expert opinions on critical issues in ageing.
By stimulating communication between researchers and those using research findings, it aims to contribute to the formulation of better policies and the development of better practice in serving older adults.
To further specify, with the term ''social'' is meant the full scope of social science of ageing related research from the micro to the macro level of analysis. With the term ''behavioural'' the full scope of psychological ageing research including life span approaches based on a range of age groups from young to old is envisaged. The term ''population health-related'' denotes social-epidemiological and public health oriented research including research on functional health in the widest possible sense.