To examine the relationships within and between commonly used measures of loneliness to determine the suitability of the measures in older adults. Further, to determine whether certain items in these measures are more psychometrically robust in terms of capturing different types of loneliness across this population. Data were obtained from 350 older adults via completion of an online survey. Four measures of loneliness were completed. These were the University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale 4 (Version 3), the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (Short Version) and a direct measure of loneliness. Analysis via a regularized partial correlation network and via clique percolation revealed that only the SELSA-S encompassed loneliness relating to deficits in social, family and romantic relationships. The remaining measures tapped mostly into social loneliness alone. The direct measure of loneliness had the strongest connection to the UCLA item-4 and the de Jong Gierveld item-1 exhibited the strongest bridge centrality, being a member of the most clusters. The results indicate that should researchers be interested in assessing loneliness resulting from specific relationships, then the SELSA-S would be the most suitable measure. Whereas the other measures are suitable for assessing loneliness more generally. The results further suggest that the de Jong Gierveld item-1 may be a more suitable direct measure of loneliness than that currently employed as it taps into a greater number of relationships.

检查常用的孤独感测量方法内部和之间的关系，以确定这些测量方法对老年人的适用性。此外，为了确定这些措施中的某些项目在捕捉该人群不同类型的孤独感方面是否在心理测量上更稳健。数据是通过完成在线调查从 350 名老年人那里获得的。完成了四项孤独感测量。这些是加州大学洛杉矶分校孤独量表 4（第 3 版）、de Jong Gierveld 孤独量表、成人社交和情感孤独量表（简短版）和直接测量孤独感的量表。通过正则化偏相关网络和派系渗透进行的分析表明，只有 SELSA-S 包含与社交、家庭和浪漫关系缺陷相关的孤独感。其余措施主要针对社交孤独感。孤独感的直接测量与 UCLA item-4 的联系最强，而 de Jong Gierveld item-1 表现出最强的桥梁中心性，是最多集群的成员。结果表明，如果研究人员有兴趣评估特定关系导致的孤独感，那么 SELSA-S 将是最合适的衡量标准。而其他措施适合更广泛地评估孤独感。结果进一步表明，de Jong Gierveld item-1 可能是比目前使用的更合适的孤独感直接衡量标准，因为它利用了更多的关系。