The Development of the Collective Loneliness Scale

Full text

HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
KASVATUSTIETEELLINEN TIEDEKUNTA
PEDAGOGISKA FAKULTETEN
FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
COLLECTIVE LONELINESS SCALE
BACKGROUND
Ever since the Silent Generation, social capital,
i.e., our social networks, trust, and norms of
reciprocity, have been on the decline in the
United States (Putnam, 2020). Sense of
belonging from groups and communities
decreased remarkably between those born
before 1946 and those born after 1964
(Putnam, 2020). This phenomenon may very
well occur in other countries. In Finland, time
spent alone has increased 124 minutes per day
from 1987 to 2010 with the sharpest increase
during leisure (Anttila et al., 2020). These
concerning societal changes are a call for us to
monitor their consequences on our sense of
loneliness. However, common measures of
loneliness are individualistic, rarely touching
more than the interpersonal level, and thereby
omit feeling lonely with regard to a group
(Maes et al., 2022).
AIM
Develop a collective loneliness scale.
Collective loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2015)
the ill-being that arises when there is a
deficiency in relationships with groups,
communities, or society
PROCEDURE
(Boateng et al., 2018; DeVellis, 2003)
I. Item Generation/Development
Literature review and consultation with
researchers
2 Focus group interviews with 5 people on
the concept in English
10 Interviews on experiences and the
concept in Finnish
Thematic analysis
II.Theoretical Analysis/
Scale Development
Objectives
Assess face validity, e.g., “completely,”
“somewhat,” or “not at all representative” of
the construct or facet of interest
Content validity (does it measure all aspects
or leave something out?)
Difficulty/interpretability/ambiguity (makes
sense)
Accuracy: social desirability/lack of
awareness/introspection (or any pressure to
answer a certain way or not give accurate
answers) of items
Use descriptive and reparative approaches
Methods
2 Focus group interviews with 5 people on
face and content validity, ambiguity,
interpretability
10 individual interviews to evaluate content
validity, social desirability, awareness, face
validity including:
Think aloud, retrospective probing for
response scale & items
Pretest/Expert feedback (N=48)
Rounds (mostly with different individuals)
Likert scale to assess face validity
(e.g., “completely,” “somewhat,” or “not at
all representative” of the construct or facet
of interest)
Open feedback to assess content validity and
ambiguity
Pilot (for reducing items; N=48)
Find items lacking variability or a good
distribution (range, variance, skewness and
kurtosis)
Reduce according to factor loading, low face
validity, & distinctiveness to UCLA scale
Final Expert Reviews: 114 items to 10 to 12
III. Scale Evaluation/
Psychometric Analysis
•Two samples:
•~245 adolescents
•~693 in mid-30s
RESULTS
The final items to be evaluated in a larger
sample psychometrically:
1. I feel close to the people in my groups.
2. I feel my communities would be there for
me in a time of need.
3. I feel like I fit in in society.
4. I feel I am a part of my groups.
5. I feel valued in my communities.
6. I feel liked in the groups I belong to.
7. I feel alone in society.
8. I feel lonely within my communities.
9. I feel like an outsider in society.
10. I wish I had a greater sense of community.
11. I wish I felt more fellowship, camaraderie,
or positive group vibe.
12. I wish I had a greater feeling of solidarity.
1. Disagree Strongly to 7. Agree Strongly
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the pilot data found only one factor
but due to the low sample size this result may
not hold. The collective loneliness scale
complements common loneliness scales, e.g.,
the UCLA scale, by expanding to three larger
levels: groups, communities, and society. In
addition, it encompasses the different aspects
of loneliness from in the literature review and
item generation process: disconnectedness,
need-frustration, otheredness, neededness,
isolation, and direct loneliness.
Marguerite Beattie1
Oona Kettunen1
Katja Upadyaya1
Anne-Elina Salo2,3
Noona Kiuru2
Anne Lakkavaara1
Junlin Yu1
Katariina Salmela-Aro1
Niina Junttila3
1University of Helsinki
2University of Jyväskylä
3University of Turku
Anttila, T., Selander, K., & Oinas, T. (2020). Disconnected Lives: Trends in Time Spent Alone in Finland. Social Indicators Research,150(2), 711–730.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02304-z
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral
Research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health,6(149), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Cacioppo, S., Grippo, A. J., London, S., Goossens, L., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2015). Loneliness: Clinical Import and Interventions. Perspectives on Psychological Science,10(2), 238–249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615570616
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed., Vol. 26). Sage publications.
Maes, M., Qualter, P., Lodder, G. M. A., & Mund, M. (2022). How (Not) to Measure Loneliness: A Review of the Eight Most Commonly Used Scales. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health,19(17), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710816
Putnam, R. D. (2020). Bowling Alone: Revised and Updated: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
Current stage