De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale - Short Version: Validation for the Brazilian Context

Coelho, Gabriel Lins de Holanda; Fonsêca, Patrícia Nunes da; Gouveia, Valdiney Velôso; Wolf, Lukas J.; Vilar, Roosevelt

doi:10.1590/1982-4327e2805

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Response options are presented on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The original version’s Cronbach α was 0.76, which was consistent with many previous studies [ 55 , 56 ]. In the present study, the scale was translated from English to Arabic, and back-translated.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

Psychosocial effects of social media on the Saudi society during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

Hammad

Alqarni

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been posing a substantial challenge to human survival and well-being, which rely on the actions and behaviors of individuals. It is essential that accurate information is distributed; however, misinformation has been spread via social media. Consequently, the resulting panic has to be addressed while putting essential public health measures in place. It is also important to explore the link between the social media exposure and well-being. Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to identify the levels of anxiety, depression, and social isolation among individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we explored the relationship between exposure to misleading social media news and anxiety, depression, and social isolation. A cross sectional design was employed to collect data from 371 Saudi participants (aged 16–60 years), using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, and de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Results showed that the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and social isolation was 47.82%, 47.57%, and 46.42%, respectively. Further, more than 83% of the participants reported using social media frequently during the pandemic. We found that exposure to misinformation via social media has a significant positive relationship with anxiety, depression, and social isolation. However, Due to the cross-sectional nature of this study it cannot be determined whether social media causes negative mental health outcomes, or if individuals experiencing greater depression, anxiety and social isolation turn to social media more than others, or if some third variable might explain both. Based on our findings, we present specific suggestions related to the COVID-19 pandemic to the government of Saudi Arabia. Minoring and filtering out misleading information with the cooperation of the World Health Organization (WHO) can promote the spread of accurate news in Saudi Arabia.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

Psychosocial effects of social media on the Saudi society during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

Hammad

Alqarni

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Detailed results on the assessment of structural, construct, criterion, and cross-cultural validity are shown in Table S4, and the overall quality assessment is presented in Table 3. Based on the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), moderate to high-quality evidence supported a multidimensional scale (two-factor model) and confirmed sufficient structural validity of the DJGLS-11 (Buz et al, 2014; Caycho-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Grygiel et al., 2013; Hosseini et al, 2021; Penning et al, 2014; Tomás et al, 2017; Uysal-Bozkir et al, 2017) and DJGLS-6 (Caballer et al, 2022; Cheung et al, 2022; de Coelho et al, 2018; Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006, 2010; Hosseinabadi et al, 2020; Victor et al, 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A total of 144 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 46 studies met the inclusion criteria (Burholt et al, 2017; Buz et al, 2014, 2015; Buz & Pérez-Arechaederra, 2014; Caballer et al, 2022; Caycho-Rodríguez et al, 2021; Cheung et al, 2022; de Coelho et al, 2018; De Jong-Gierveld & Kamphuls, 1985; Dykstra & de Jong Gierveld, 2004; Fox et al, 2021; Fu & Ji, 2020; Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006, 2010; Golemis et al, 2022; Grygiel et al, 2013; Hajek & König, 2019, 2022; Han & Richardson, 2010; Hosseinabadi et al, 2020, 2021; Hosseini et al, 2021; Hyland et al, 2019; Iecovich, 2013; Jaafar et al, 2020; Kristensen et al, 2019a, 2019b, 2021; Leung et al, 2008; Monterrosa-Blanco et al, 2021; Moorer & Suurmeijer, 1993; Pan et al, 2019; Penning et al, 2014; Petersen et al, 2022; Rodríguez-Blázquez et al., 2021; Scharf & de Jong Gierveld, 2008; Tomás et al, 2017; Uysal-Bozkir et al, 2017; Van Baarsen et al, 2001; T. Van Tilburg et al, 2004; T.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the results of some studies concerning the construct validity and the cross-cultural adaption of the scale were ambiguous and inconsistent (Buz & Pérez-Arechaederra, 2014; Buz et al, 2014; Grygiel et al, 2013; Hosseinabadi et al, 2021; Hosseini et al, 2021; Uysal-Bozkir et al, 2017). For example, some studies showed strong correlations between the DJGLS and loneliness measures (Caballer et al, 2022; Grygiel et al, 2013; Leung et al, 2008), while others reported weak to moderate correlations (de Coelho et al, 2018; Hosseinabadi et al, 2021; Jaafar et al, 2020; Van Baarsen et al, 2001), indicating inconsistent results of the scale convergent validity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measurement Properties and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale in Adults

Alsubheen

Oliveira

Habash

et al. 2023

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review evaluated the measurement properties of the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGLS) in adults. A systematic search of four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsycINFO) was conducted from inception until December 2022. The COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) guidelines were used to assess the methodological quality and evidence synthesis of the included studies. Forty-six studies assessed the validity and reliability of the DJGLS-11 and its short version, the DJGLS-6. Very-low-quality evidence supported the content validity, moderate to high-quality evidence confirmed the structural validity and internal consistency, and low-quality evidence supported the construct validity of the two versions. Test-retest reliability was examined for the DJGLS-6 with low-quality evidence supporting excellent interclass coefficient values of 0.73–1.00. Both scales were cross-culturally adapted and translated into 18 languages across 12 countries. Although the structural validity and internal consistency of the DJGLS were supported by high-quality evidence, very-low to low-quality evidence was available for its other measurement properties. Future studies are needed to perform a more comprehensive assessment of the measurement properties of the DJGLS before fully recommending the scale to assess loneliness in adults.

show abstract

“…Regarding gender, no invariance could be established in a sample of Dutch older adults [ 87 ]. However, in other studies, scalar invariance across gender was established, including a sample of Belgian adolescents [ 59 ], Spanish community-dwelling adults [ 92 ], and, concerning the 6-item RTLS version, a sample of Brazilian students [ 95 ] and Dutch adolescents and adults [ 96 ]. Regarding age, scalar invariance has been established in a sample of Canadian adults [ 56 ], Spanish community-dwelling adults [ 92 ], and, for the 6-item version, a sample of German adults [ 97 ] and in a Dutch sample including participants from adolescence until old age [ 96 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How (Not) to Measure Loneliness: A Review of the Eight Most Commonly Used Scales

Maes

Qualter

Lodder

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loneliness affects well-being and has long-term negative impacts on physical and mental health, educational outcomes, and employability. Because of those current and long-term impacts, loneliness is a significant issue for which we need reliable and appropriate measurement scales. In the current paper, psychometric properties of the eight most commonly used loneliness scales are reviewed both descriptively and meta-analytically. Results suggest that for many of the scales, the psychometric properties are promising. However, for some psychometric features, especially test-retest reliability and measurement invariance, evidence is rather scarce. Most striking, however, is the fact that all of the scales included items that do not measure loneliness. Surprisingly, for many (sub)scales, this was even the case for about half of the items. Because our measures are the foundation of our research work, it is crucial to improve the way loneliness is being measured.

show abstract

De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale - Short Version: Validation for the Brazilian Context

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Psychosocial effects of social media on the Saudi society during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

Psychosocial effects of social media on the Saudi society during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

Measurement Properties and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale in Adults

How (Not) to Measure Loneliness: A Review of the Eight Most Commonly Used Scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About