荷兰的实验证据:中老年人是否少报了孤独感?

IF 3.7 2区 社会学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY European Journal of Ageing Pub Date : 2024-10-05 DOI:10.1007/s10433-024-00826-w
Thijs van den Broek, Jack Lam, Cecilia Potente
{"title":"荷兰的实验证据:中老年人是否少报了孤独感?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

尽管越来越多的人认识到孤独感在老年人中的重要性,但问卷长度的限制可能会妨碍将常见的多项目孤独感量表纳入调查。直接的单项孤独感测量是一种实用的替代方法,但有学者担心这种测量可能会导致报告不足。我们的目的是检验这种保留意见是否合理。我们对参加荷兰社会科学纵向互联网研究(LISS)小组的 2553 名 50 岁以上的人进行了预先登记的名单实验。名单实验法是为了不露痕迹地收集敏感信息而开发的。我们将列表实验对经常性孤独感发生率的估计值与相应的直接问题估计值进行了比较,以评估后者的向下偏差。除了汇总模型外,我们还估算了按性别分层的模型,以评估女性和男性的孤独感漏报率是否存在差异。根据直接提问,我们估计有 5.9% 的受访者经常感到孤独。我们的列表实验表明,经常感到孤独的比例为 13.1%。尽管两者的估计值相差很大,但差异却很小(Δb:0.072,95% CI:- 0.003;0.148,p = .06)。没有发现性别差异的证据。虽然我们不能断定使用直接问题时孤独感的估计值会向下偏移,但如果研究人员想避免少报,我们的结果要求谨慎使用直接的、单项的孤独感测量方法。要想更准确地了解直接的、单一项目的孤独感测量方法在多大程度上容易产生向下报告偏差,还需要进行重复研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do middle-aged and older people underreport loneliness? experimental evidence from the Netherlands.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
7.90%
发文量
72
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.
期刊最新文献
Cohort and gender differences in the association between childlessness and social exclusion in old age. Prevention of frailty in relation with social out-of-home activities in older adults: results from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe. Aging in place or aging out of place? Family caregivers' perspectives on care for older Pakistani migrants in Norway. Job satisfaction declines before retirement in Germany. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the digital fall preventive intervention Safe Step among community-dwelling older people aged 70 and older.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1