Differential Loneliness Scale
There also happens to be another short version available it consists only of 20- items, measuring loneliness as well but used more so with ages of school age children,(6-11) adolescents and the traditional college student(s) ages ranging from 18-24. In this particular version measures four types of relationships, namely romantic/ sexual relationships (R/S), friendships (Fr) relationships with family (Fam) and relationships with large groups (Gr).
Although both versions measures loneliness that we all, sometimes it raises its head / making it difficult to engage in social / communicative levels cannot cope without havedividual decides whether the question describes your situation or not. Presumably, if the question posed seems to describe your situation, either you mark true or false, or if it’s not applicable to you then you would mark that particular question false. Scoring on the scale is actually determined in the following way: For items with no asterisk next to the item number, each marking of T (True) is given one point.
Differential Loneliness Scale Essay Example
For items with an asterisk, each marking of F (False) is given one point. (Schmidt, & Sermat, 1983). PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT Loneliness is a negative emotion that comes about through a discrepancy between you and the environment, child hood, and non-existing family interactions relations. (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Thus, the present study examined the separate and combined effects of interventions focused on intimate and social loneliness. Although conceptual statements abound, empirical research on this phenomenon remains limited (McWhirter, 1990b).
The study conducted by Schmidt, Sermat, 1983) composed a test that was already in effect. In fact, the UCLA Loneliness Scale is the most widely used test for loneliness. Although there have been several successful attempts cognitive- behavioral interventions does it: (1) correlate with different cognitive- behavioral interventions does it: (1) correlates with different methods for measuring the same construct (loneliness) and (2) does it fail to correlate with similar methods for measuring different constructs of loneliness.
In other words, the manipulated variables should produce theoretically consistent changes on measures that they are supposed to influence and the developed interventions to enhance the lives of those who are lonely. Schmidt, Sermat, 1983; Austin, 1983; Hojat, 1982; & Santos, 1985). Participants were selected after intake interviews and then randomly assigned to one of the four treatments and control conditions-thus administering the 20 or 60 item instrument test.
The journal article describes the construction and preliminary validation of the Differential Loneliness Scale (DLS), is a measure that differs from previous loneliness scales- the scale asked respondents to evaluate the quality and the quantity of their interactions in specific kinds of relationships. During the teat construction item analyses was undertaken to lessen context that could play a factor such as: depression, anxiety, and self- esteem and to help minimize the response – style bias (is) of social desirability. DESCRIPTION OF THE POPULATION THAT USES THE ASSESSMENT
The population that used the scale from previous studies of the Differential Loneliness Scale, was stemmed to begin from the crib (the need of contact may not of been given. (Fromm-Reichmann’s, 1959). The differential loneliness scale itself is just as descriptive, the used instrument may have its limitations there- no other information found as it relates to the Differential Loneliness Scale for Non-student Populations if Schmidt & Sermat, 1983) crossed barriers, other than children 6-11 years old, adolescents 12-17, non-students 18-34+.
Definitely male / female ratio was used; inferring different ethnicities. Therapeutic Uses of the ASSESSMENT Screened participants were assessed on general on a general outcome battery as well as on measures varying in theoretical relevance to the treatment conditions. The intimate treatment failed to demonstrate any positive posttest positive effects. The social factor treatment favor, on the other hand, produced, produced a relatively consistent pattern of benefits across a wide array of devices reflecting the full syndrome of loneliness. Schmidt, & Sermat, 1983) NORMING POPULATION OF THE ASSESSMENT The norming group refers to the group of individuals, who have taken the same instrument. The term “norm” also refers to the group of individual who also has taken the same instrument; to which other’s score(s) are being compared to and established standard. (Whiston, 2009). TRAINING NEEDED TO GIVE THE ASSESSMENT AS A COUNSELOR Although it was not justified by Schmidt& Sermat, 1983 the credentials needed to perform the test (in which I did not buy the journal), this information may exist.
However through our reading- no test should be administered without the proper knowledge to provide the information to the client / individual(s) after r clarifying results from given instrument. Interpreting the wrong results could be damaging to the client. TIME ALLOTTED FOR ASSESSMENT As for the allotted time utilized to perform the Differential Loneliness Scale for Non- student Populations- that information was not provided. However, I shall infer that any allotted time given may have gained some negative results.
Taken into consideration these individuals are already experiencing these feelings of loneliness- I would say it would have adverse effects on Schmidt, & Sermat, 1983 research study. Counselors are inscribed not too infer-without prior knowledge of particular affect. SCORING INSTRUCTIONS The scoring instructions given are printed on the instrument as: for items with no asterisk next to the item number, each marking of T (TRUE) is given one point. For items with an asterisk, each marking of F (FALSE) is given one point.
The scale measures loneliness in four types of relationships, namely romantic/sexual relationships (R/S), friendships (Fr), relationships with family (Fam), and relationships with larger groups (Gr). (Schmidt, & Sermat, 1983). DESCRIPTION OF HOW TO PROVIDE RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENTS TO CLIENTS Screened participants were assessed on general outcome battery as well as measures varying in theoretical relevance to the treatment. Follow-up was performed two months later and feedback / interventions provided- it was discovered that participants did not erode- participants in the social factor cell continued show improvement.
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT The reliability of the scale is high, with Kuder- Richardson 20 coefficients ranging from . 90 to . 92 and test-retest coefficients 0f . 85 and . 97 for males and females respectively over one month. The journal article describes the construction and preliminary validation of the Differential Loneliness Scale (DLS), is a measure that differs from previous scales- the scale asked respondents to evaluate the quality and the quantity of their interactions on specific kinds of relationships.
During the test construction, item analyses was undertaken to lessen content that could play a factor- such as: depression, anxiety, and self –esteem and to help minimize the response- style bias (is) of social desirability. As for validity- preliminary results (evidence) suggests that the 60 item scale has concurrent validity against several criterion. Moreover, the principle component analyses indicated the Differential Loneliness Scale (DLS), has substantive structural validity. The scale has student and non-students versions.
It may be of value in the differential prediction of loneliness in specific kinds of relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record(c) 2012 APA) References (DLS; Schmidt & Sermat. (1983,) doi: 10. 1037/0022-3514. 44. 5. 1038 Kuder, G. F. ; M. K. Richardson. (1937). the theory of estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151-60. Russell, D. , Peplau, L. A. & Cutron, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale; Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472-480.
Schmidt, N. & Sermat, V. (1983). Differential Loneliness Scale for No-student Populations (Non-student Version). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1038-1047. http://dx. doi. org/www. yorku. ca/rokada/ psyctest. pdf Schmidt, & Sermat, V. (1983). Measuring loneliness in different relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44(5), 1038-1047. Whiston, S. C. (2009). Principles and applications of assessment in counseling (3rd ed. ). Belmont, CA: Brooks / Cole, Cengage Learning.