van den Broek Thijs, Lam Jack, Potente Cecilia
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Discipline of Sociology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Eur J Ageing. 2024 Oct 5;21(1):29. doi: 10.1007/s10433-024-00826-w.
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.
尽管老年人孤独感的重要性越来越受到认可,但问卷长度限制可能会阻碍在调查中纳入常见的多项目孤独感量表。直接的单项目孤独感测量是一种切实可行的替代方法,但学者们担心这种测量方法可能导致报告不足。我们的目的是检验这些保留意见是否合理。我们对2553名年龄在50岁及以上、参与荷兰社会科学纵向互联网研究(LISS)小组的人进行了一项预先注册的列表实验。列表实验方法旨在不引人注目地收集敏感信息。我们将频繁孤独感患病率的列表实验估计值与相应的直接问题估计值进行比较,以评估后者的向下偏差。除了汇总模型,我们还估计了按性别分层的模型,以评估女性和男性在孤独感报告不足方面是否存在差异。根据直接问题,我们估计5.9%的受访者经常感到孤独。我们的列表实验表明,频繁孤独感的患病率为13.1%。尽管两者估计值的差异幅度很大,但仅略微显著(Δb:0.072,95%置信区间:-0.003;0.148,p = 0.06)。未发现性别差异的证据。虽然我们不能确定使用直接问题时孤独感估计值是否存在向下偏差,但如果研究人员想避免报告不足,我们的结果提醒在使用直接的单项目孤独感测量时要谨慎。需要进行重复研究,以更精确地了解直接的单项目孤独感测量在多大程度上容易出现向下报告偏差。