KSOEM
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Ann Occup Environ Med > Volume 38; 2026 > Article
- Original Article Psychometric validation of brief scales for loneliness at work in Korea: the Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-3) and Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-1)
-
Ganguk Lee1
, Chunhui Suh1,*, Seongdong Lee1, Norito Kawakami2 -
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2026;38:e33.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2026.38.e33
Published online: July 24, 2026
1Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Institute of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
2Department of Digital Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Japan
- *Corresponding author: Chunhui Suh Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Institute of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 75 Bokji‑ro, Busanjin‑gu, Busan 47392, Korea E-mail: chsuh@paik.ac.kr
• Received: April 20, 2026 • Revised: July 9, 2026 • Accepted: July 15, 2026
© 2026 Korean Society of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 1,119 Views
- 54 Download
Abstract
-
Background Workplace loneliness is an emerging psychosocial risk factor in the occupational health context, but comprehensive assessment instruments are often impractical if large workforce surveys are planned. This study evaluated the measurement properties of two brief workplace loneliness indicators: the Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-1) and the Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-3).
-
Methods Data were obtained from a nationwide online survey of Korean employees (n = 1,000), with proportional sampling by sex, age, and occupation. A subsample (n = 200) underwent 4-week follow-up to assess test–retest reliability. Internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis were examined for SLAW-3, whereas test–retest reliability was assessed for SLAW-1. Criterion validity was tested against a single-item measure of general loneliness. Convergent validity was examined by deriving correlations with occupational stress and psychological distress, work performance, work engagement, and well-being.
-
Results SLAW-3 demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.883) and was consistent with a single-factor interpretation. SLAW-1 exhibited moderate 4-week test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.603). Both scales were associated with workplace loneliness and related psychological and occupational variables, in the expected directions. SLAW-1 was more strongly related to general loneliness, whereas SLAW-3 evidenced stronger associations with workplace loneliness.
-
Conclusions SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 appear to be practical brief indicators of workplace loneliness. SLAW-1 may be appropriate for rapid screening, whereas SLAW-3 offers a more context-specific assessment in terms of occupational health research and monitoring.
BACKGROUND
Workplace loneliness refers to “the distress caused by the perceived lack of good quality interpersonal relationships between employees in a work environment.”1 Empirical evidence implies that such loneliness is linked to poor mental health, including burnout.2 Workplace loneliness is also associated with poorer job performance and diminished interpersonal effectiveness, underscoring the relevance thereof to organizational outcomes.3 Measuring workplace loneliness is important when planning organizational interventions and for early identification of lonely employees.
During large-scale workforce surveys and repeated assessments focused on psychosocial risk monitoring, measurement feasibility is a critical methodological issue because an excessive response burden can undermine both data quality and the participation rate, particularly in applied and longitudinal research settings.4 To date, quantitative research on workplace loneliness has primarily relied on validated self-report instruments, most commonly the Loneliness at Work Scale (LAWS) and adapted versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale.5,6 The methodological literature suggests that, in large-scale surveys where administrative time and respondent burdens constrain questionnaire lengths, brief indicators such as single-item measures with well-defined constructs may be appropriate for screening or monitoring.7 Specifically, a validation study using representative population samples found that a single-item loneliness question may serve as a brief screening measure for population-based assessments, supporting the construct validity thereof via the expected associations with mental health outcomes and sociodemographic risk factors.8 Nevertheless, accepted methodological guidelines advise that single-item measures might not perform as well as multi-item scales in various empirical contexts, emphasizing the necessity for rigorous validation when using concise measures.9
Despite the practical appeal of brief scales, evidence on the psychometric performance of such scales in working populations remains comparatively limited, particularly in large-scale survey settings. Therefore, further validation studies are needed to determine whether brief workplace loneliness measures can serve as useful tools for occupational health surveillance and repeated monitoring. With a focus on this gap, the present study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of brief workplace loneliness measures in a nationwide sample of Korean employees. Specifically, we examined the Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-1) and the Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-3) that were originally developed in Japan.10 We evaluated the reliability and validity thereof in large-scale and repeated occupational surveys.
METHODS
This psychometric analysis used data from a nationwide online survey of workplace loneliness in Korea. The study design and the procedures used have been previously documented by the team who validated the Korean version of the Loneliness at Work Scale (LAWS-K).11 Baseline data were collected in November 2024 from full-time employees aged 18–59 years who had been employed for a minimum of 1 year and worked over 35 hours per week. Individuals who were unemployed, self-employed, on military service, or on parental or sick leave were excluded. Participants were proportionally allocated by sex, age group, and occupational type, resulting in a final sample of 1,000 respondents. A random subsample of 200 participants completed a follow-up survey 4 weeks later to evaluate test–retest reliability.
This study concentrated on two brief measures of workplace loneliness: the SLAW-1 and the SLAW-3.10 SLAW-1 directly evaluated workplace loneliness via a single question “How often do you feel lonely while you are at work?” This question was adapted from a general loneliness item12 by adding the phrase “at work.”10 SLAW-3 comprised three items that assessed three fundamental aspects of loneliness: perceived lack of companionship, feelings of alienation, and a sense of social isolation. These items were derived from the Three-Item Loneliness Scale13 and were tailored to fit the workplace setting.10 Participants responded using a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) never, (2) hardly ever, (3) occasionally, (4) some of the time, and (5) always/often. The total score was calculated by adding each item’s score, which was assigned according to frequency. For both SLAW-1 and SLAW-3, higher scores indicated greater workplace loneliness.
When developing the Korean version of SLAW-3, our research team reviewed the Korean wording of the UCLA-based items used in three previous Korean studies that employed the UCLA Loneliness Scale version 3,14 the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale,15 and a Korean short-form loneliness measure based on the UCLA loneliness items.16 Although these studies did not directly validate the identicality of the Korean workplace-adapted SLAW-3, they did include conceptually corresponding items. The Korean version of SLAW-1 was a direct translation of the original English SLAW-1 version because no Korean validation of the identical, direct, single-item loneliness measure was available. The final Korean language items were chosen via discussion among researchers. It was sought to both ensure semantic consistency with the original items and contextual appropriateness for Korean employees.
The internal consistency of SLAW-3 was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and item–total correlations, whereas the test–retest reliability of SLAW-1 was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the unidimensional structure of SLAW-3. Given that the one-factor model with three indicators is just-identified, global goodness-of-fit indices were not informative.17 Consequently, interpretation of the CFA results was mainly based on the magnitude and statistical significance of the standardized factor loadings.
Criterion validity was examined using the LAWS-K, a previously validated multi-item measure of workplace loneliness,11 as well as a single-item measure of general loneliness in a non-workplace context.12 For these measures, higher scores indicate greater loneliness. To assess convergent validity, additional constructs theoretically related to workplace loneliness—occupational stress and psychological distress, work performance, work engagement, and well-being—were evaluated using the Korean Occupational Stress Scale (KOSS®19),18 Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6),19 World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (WHO-HPQ),20 Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES),21 and WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5)22 instruments. Higher scores on the KOSS®19 and K6 indicate greater occupational stress and psychological distress, respectively, whereas elevated scores on the WHO-HPQ, UWES, and WHO-5 indicate more favorable states (i.e., better work performance, higher work engagement, and greater well-being). Criterion and convergent validity were assessed by deriving Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Subgroup analyses were conducted by sex and age. SLAW-3 and SLAW-1 descriptive statistics, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients between these parameters and the validation measures were calculated separately for each subgroup. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.0.2.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Inje University Busan Paik Hospital (approval no. BPIRB 2024-10-062), including a waiver of informed consent. Participants were informed of the study purpose and of the voluntary, anonymous nature of their involvement. Only those who agreed to participate proceeded to the online questionnaire.
RESULTS
In total, 1,000 participants were included in the baseline survey, and 200 completed the follow-up survey. The sex distribution was balanced at baseline (50.0% male, 50.0% female) and was similar in the follow-up group (48.5% male, 51.5% female). The mean age was 39.75 years (standard deviation [SD]: 10.52) at baseline and 42.65 years (SD: 10.24) at follow-up. At baseline, service workers constituted the largest occupational group (22.7%), followed by clerks (13.7%), and professionals and related workers (12.9%). In the follow-up sample, professionals and related workers accounted for the largest proportion (21.0%). Most participants lived with others (73.4%), and nearly half were married (47.6%) (Table 1).
The SLAW-3 demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.883. The item means ranged from 2.43 to 2.82 on a five-point scale, with a total scale mean of 7.75 (SD: 2.80). Item-level analysis indicated that Cronbach’s alpha increased slightly when the SLAW-3-1 item was deleted (Table 2).
The test–retest reliability of the SLAW-1 was examined among 200 participants. The mean score increased slightly from 2.57 (SD: 1.00) at baseline to 2.71 (SD: 0.98) at follow-up. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.603 (95% confidence interval: 0.506–0.684), indicating moderate temporal stability (Table 3).
CFA was performed to assess the factor structure of SLAW-3. The standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.718 to 0.983, with all three items loading onto a single latent factor indicative of workplace loneliness. These loadings were statistically significant (Table 4). As the model was just-identified (df = 0), global fit indices were not informative and are therefore not reported.
In a previous study,11 the correlations between both the SLAW-3 and SLAW-1 results and those of LAWS-K were moderately positive, with coefficients of r = 0.682 (p < 0.01) and r = 0.612 (p < 0.01), respectively. As these correlations were those of a LAWS-K validation study, they should be interpreted as parameters indicative of overlapping criterion-related evidence, not the independent validation offered by the present study. In terms of general loneliness, the SLAW-1 scores exhibited a stronger correlation (r = 0.705, p < 0.01) than did those of SLAW-3 (r = 0.444, p < 0.01) (Table 5).
Both the SLAW-3 and SLAW-1 scores were significantly (and positively) correlated with occupational stress (KOSS®19; r = 0.460 and r = 0.447, respectively, both p < 0.01) and psychological distress (K6; r = 0.440 and r = 0.522, respectively, both p < 0.01) (Table 6). In contrast, both measures were significantly (and negatively) correlated with work performance (WHO-HPQ; r = −0.279 and r = −0.236, both p < 0.01), work engagement (UWES; r = −0.331 and r = −0.285, both p < 0.01), and well-being (WHO-5; r = −0.352 and r = −0.385, both p < 0.01).
The SLAW-3 and SLAW-1 descriptive statistics by sex and age group are presented in Supplementary Table 1. The mean SLAW-3 and SLAW-1 scores were broadly comparable across the groups. The subgroup correlation analyses by sex and age group are listed in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3. In general, the correlations between SLAW-3 and SLAW-1 scores, and the validation measures, were consistent across the subgroups: higher scores on both measures were associated with more occupational and psychological distress, poorer work performance, less work engagement, and suboptimal well-being.
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated the psychometric properties of two brief measures of workplace loneliness (the SLAW-1 and SLAW-3) in a large, nationally representative sample of Korean employees. The findings reveal that both the SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 exhibited acceptable reliability and validity.
The SLAW-3 demonstrated psychometric properties consistent with a single-factor structure of workplace loneliness. The minimal change in internal consistency when individual items were deleted supports the retention of all items to preserve adequate content coverage, particularly given the brevity of the scale. These findings are consistent with the original Japanese validation study,10 which likewise reported strong internal consistency and a unidimensional structure of the SLAW-3.
The observed moderate test–retest reliability over a 4-week interval for SLAW-1 was acceptable. This suggests that workplace loneliness, as captured by a single-item indicator, is sufficiently stable while remaining responsive to short-term changes in workplace social experiences. While the original study examined only the cross-sectional construct validity of the SLAW-1,10 the present findings extend this by offering evidence of temporal stability.
To assess criterion validity, this study examined the correlations of the SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 scores with general loneliness, building on the work of a previous study11 that reported correlations with workplace-specific loneliness (LAWS-K). This allowed a more direct comparison of how the two brief measures related to both general and workplace-specific loneliness. The SLAW-1 scores correlated more strongly with general loneliness, likely reflecting the similarities in the construct focus and measurement formats of the two measures. In contrast, the SLAW-3 scores correlated more strongly with the LAWS-K, which may reflect their shared emphasis on workplace-specific relational experiences. In a study conducted in Japan, both SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 exhibited strong correlations (r = 0.75) with general loneliness. However, SLAW-3 demonstrated a more pronounced association with social companionship, one component of workplace-specific loneliness.
Recent evidence suggests a low concordance between workplace and non-workplace loneliness (κ = 0.36), indicating that loneliness experienced in the workplace may constitute a distinct contextual construct.23 This broader context supports the interpretation that the two brief measures may differ in the extent to which they reflect general versus workplace-specific loneliness. Accordingly, brief workplace loneliness indicators should not be considered interchangeable, but rather understood as instruments that capture different aspects of loneliness.
In terms of convergent validity, the correlations of SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 with psychological distress and well-being were consistent with those reported in the original study,10 thereby supporting the stability of these relationships across different samples. Furthermore, the overall pattern of correlations—including with occupational stress, psychological distress, work performance, work engagement, and well-being—was very similar to that observed for LAWS-K.11 Although the magnitudes were generally smaller than those of the multi-item scale, this would be anticipated given the narrower content coverage of brief measures. Collectively, our findings endorse the use of SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 as effective indicators of workplace loneliness when comprehensive assessment is not feasible. The subgroup analyses supported the robustness of these findings. Although an earlier Japanese study10 evaluated validity across an entire sample, our present work revealed generally consistent correlations across various sex and age groups, thereby extending the prior evidence on the applicability of SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 to major demographic subgroups.
Notably, SLAW-3 was initially adapted from the three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale by contextualizing the items for the workplace environment. A previous validation study of UCLA-3 established a methodological precedent. Brief unidimensional measures of loneliness maintain meaningful associations with related constructs.13 Building on this, the current findings offer empirical evidence that such measures effectively evaluate loneliness in the workplace.
This study had several strengths. First, it included a relatively large baseline sample of workers across diverse occupational groups. Second, both reliability and multiple forms of validity were examined, including internal consistency; test–retest reliability; and construct, criterion, and convergent validity. Third, the study evaluated both a short multi-item scale and a single-item measure, thereby offering flexible options for different research and surveillance contexts. However, several limitations should be noted. First, the dataset was that of the prior LAWS-K validation study.11 Consequently, the correlations between the LAWS-K and SLAW-1/SLAW-3 findings lack novelty. However, the shared LAWS-K correlations aside, the present study offers psychometric evidence that is applicable only to SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 data. This is relevant in terms of internal consistency, the item-level properties, test–retest reliability, factor loadings, and associations between general loneliness and occupational or psychological variables. Future studies using independent samples are required to further confirm the reliability and validity of the SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 measures. Second, all measures were derived from self-reported data collected via an online panel, which may have introduced common method bias,24 and thus restricted generalizability to employees underrepresented in online survey panels. Third, criterion validity was (in part) assessed using conceptually related loneliness measures, including a single-item indicator of general loneliness, potentially introducing some degree of conceptual overlap in the observed associations. Fourth, a fully standardized translation and cultural adaptation process was not performed, which may have influenced construct interpretation. Fifth, although SLAW-1 demonstrated moderate test–retest reliability and acceptable validity, single-item indicators are inherently limited in terms of content coverage and may capture a construct less comprehensively than do multi-item scales.9 Furthermore, the observed differences between the associations of the SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 scores with general and workplace-specific loneliness should be interpreted with caution, as the indicators differ in terms of both item content and measurement format (single- vs. multi-item), which may have partially influenced the observed patterns. Finally, the test–retest analysis was conducted on only a subsample of participants for the SLAW-1, and further studies with larger longitudinal samples would be beneficial to confirm the temporal stability of these brief measures across different occupational groups and organizational settings.
The choice between SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 involves a trade-off between measurement robustness and survey feasibility. The advantages of SLAW-1 include brevity, a low respondent burden, and simplicity when engaging in large-scale occupational health surveys or workplace screening. However, SLAW-1 is a single-item measure that does not allow assessment of internal consistency and may be less comprehensive than SLAW-3 when evaluating loneliness at work. SLAW-3 offers a broader construct coverage and enables evaluation of internal consistency, but both the survey space and the respondent effort increase to some extent. In short, SLAW-1 may be preferable when feasibility is the primary concern, but SLAW-3 may be better when a more robust psychometric assessment is required.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the SLAW-1 and the SLAW-3 showed acceptable reliability and validity. The SLAW-1 was more closely aligned with general loneliness and the SLAW-3 with workplace-specific loneliness, indicating that the two measures are complementary rather than interchangeable. These brief indicators provide feasible options for workplace loneliness screening and repeated occupational health monitoring in Korea, pending further validation in independent samples.
Abbreviations
CFA
confirmatory factor analysis
KOSS®19
Korean Occupational Stress Scale
K6
Kessler Psychological Distress Scale
LAWS
Loneliness at Work Scale
LAWS-K
Korean version of the Loneliness at Work Scale
SD
standard deviation
SLAW-1
Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work
SLAW-3
Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work
UWES
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
WHO-HPQ
World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire
WHO-5
WHO-5 Well-Being Index
-
Competing interests
Chunhui Suh, a contributing editor of the Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was not involved in the editorial evaluation or decision to publish this article. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
-
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Suh C, Kawakami N. Data curation: Lee G. Formal analysis: Lee G, Lee S. Funding acquisition: Kawakami N. Writing - original draft: Lee G, Lee S. Writing - review & editing: Suh C, Kawakami N.
-
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a grant from the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society (RISTEX) (Grant Number JPMJRS22K1). The authors declare no involvement from the funding agency in any part of preparing, conducting, writing, and submitting the manuscript.
NOTES
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplementary Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of SLAW-3 and SLAW-1 by sex and age group.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of study subjects
Table 2.
Mean scores and Cronbach’s alpha of the SLAW-3 (n = 1,000)
| Item | Baseline | Cronbach's alpha | Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted |
|---|---|---|---|
| SLAW-3 | 7.75 ± 2.80 | 0.883** | |
| SLAW-3-1 | 2.82 ± 0.99 | 0.934 | |
| SLAW-3-2 | 2.50 ± 1.06 | 0.765 | |
| SLAW-3-3 | 2.43 ± 1.06 | 0.781 |
Table 3.
Mean scores and test-retest reliability of the SLAW-1 (baseline n = 1,000; follow-up n = 200)
| Item | Baseline | Follow-up | Intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SLAW-1 | 2.57 ± 1.00 | 2.71 ± 0.98 | 0.603 (0.506–0.684) |
Table 4.
Standardized factor loading of the SLAW-3
| Item | Factor loading (λ) |
|---|---|
| SLAW-3-1 | 0.718 |
| SLAW-3-2 | 0.983 |
| SLAW-3-3 | 0.947 |
Table 5.
Criterion validity
| Criterion measures | SLAW-3 | SLAW-1 |
|---|---|---|
| Single-Item Scale for General Loneliness | 0.444 | 0.705 |
Table 6.
Convergent validity
| Variables | SLAW-3 | SLAW-1 |
|---|---|---|
| KOSS®19 | 0.460 | 0.447 |
| K6 | 0.440 | 0.522 |
| WHO-HPQ | –0.279 | –0.236 |
| UWES | –0.331 | –0.285 |
| WHO-5 | –0.352 | –0.385 |
Values are Pearson’s correlation coefficients. All correlations were statistically significant at p < 0.01.
SLAW-3: Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work; SLAW-1: Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work; KOSS®19: Korean Occupational Stress Scale; K6: Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; WHO-HPQ: WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire; UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; WHO-5: WHO-5 Well-Being Index.
- 1. Wright SL, Burt CD, Strongman KT. Loneliness in the workplace: construct definition and scale development. NZ J Psychol 2006;35(2):59–68.
- 2. Bryan BT, Andrews G, Thompson KN, Qualter P, Matthews T, Arseneault L. Loneliness in the workplace: a mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Med (Lond) 2023;73(9):557–67.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 3. Ozcelik H, Barsade SG. No employee an island: workplace loneliness and job performance. Acad Manage J 2018;61(6):2343–66.Article
- 4. Galesic M, Bosnjak M. Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opin Q 2009;73(2):349–60.Article
- 5. Cenkci AT, Downing MS, Bircan T, Perham-Lippman K. Overcoming Workplace Loneliness: Cultivating Belonging for a Remote Workforce. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.; 2023.
- 6. McCarthy JM, Erdogan B, Bauer TN, Kudret S, Campion E. All the lonely people: an integrated review and research agenda on work and loneliness. J Manage 2026;52(1):283–330.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 7. Allen MS, Iliescu D, Greiff S. Single item measures in psychological science: a call to action. Eur J Psychol Assess 2022;38(1):1–5.Article
- 8. Reinwarth AC, Ernst M, Krakau L, Brahler E, Beutel ME. Screening for loneliness in representative population samples: validation of a single-item measure. PLoS One 2023;18(3):e0279701.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 9. Diamantopoulos A, Sarstedt M, Fuchs C, Wilczynski P, Kaiser S. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci 2012;40(3):434–49.Article
- 10. Ayase I, Shimazu A, Tokita M, Sakamaki K, Kawakami N. Development and validation of brief measures of workplace loneliness. J Occup Health 2026;68(1):uiaf068.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 11. Lee G, Suh C, Kim J, Kawakami N, Wright S. Korean translation and validation of the loneliness at work scale. Saf Health Work 2026;17(1):112–8.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 12. Office for National Statistics. Measuring Loneliness: Guidance for Use of the National Indicators on Surveys. Newport, UK: Office for National Statistics; 2018.
- 13. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies. Res Aging 2004;26(6):655–72.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 14. Jin E, Hwang SS. The validity of the Korean-UCLA Loneliness Scale version 3. Korean J Youth Stud 2019;26(10):53–80.Article
- 15. Kim OS. Korean version of the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: reliability and validity test. J Nurs Acad Soc 1997;27(4):871–9.ArticlePDF
- 16. Lee YS, Min WJ, Cho MH, Park HM. The development of Korean short-form measure of loneliness for social survey. Surv Res 2022;23(4):83–103.Article
- 17. Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2015.
- 18. Song H, Kim HR, Kim I, Yoon JH, Koh SB, Oh SS, et al. Occupational stress (KOSS(R)19): scale development and validation in the Korean context. Ann Occup Environ Med 2025;37:e12.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 19. Min JW, Lee SH. Validation of the K6/K10 scales of psychological distress and their optimal cutoff scores for older Koreans. Int J Aging Hum Dev 2015;80(3):264–82.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 20. Kim W, Hwang TY, Ham BJ, Lee JS, Choi BH, Kim SJ, et al. The impact of major depressive disorder on productivity in workers: a preliminary study using WHO-HPQ (Health and Work Performance Questionnaire). J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc 2007;46(6):587–95.
- 21. Kim WH, Park JG, Kwon B. Work engagement in South Korea. Psychol Rep 2017;120(3):561–78.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 22. Kim HJ, Moon YS, Son BK, Lee SK, Rho HJ, Kim DH. The utility of Korean version of the WHO Five Well-Being Index in evaluating depressive symptoms and quality of life in the aged dwelling in community. J Korean Geriatr Psychiatry 2010;14(2):90–6.
- 23. Domenech-Abella J, Mundo J, Haro JM, Muntaner C. Workplace and non-workplace loneliness: a cross-sectional comparative study on risk factors and impacts on absenteeism and mental health among employees in Spain. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2025;60(10):2289–99.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 24. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003;88(5):879–903.ArticlePubMedPMC
REFERENCES
Figure & Data
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
Cite
XML DownloadPsychometric validation of brief scales for loneliness at work in Korea: the Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-3) and Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-1)
Psychometric validation of brief scales for loneliness at work in Korea: the Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-3) and Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-1)
| Baseline survey (n = 1,000) | Follow-up survey (n = 200) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 500 (50.0) | 97 (48.5) |
| Female | 500 (50.0) | 103 (51.5) |
| Age (years) | 39.75 ± 10.52 | 42.65 ± 10.24 |
| Occupation type | ||
| Managers | 68 (6.8) | 15 (7.5) |
| Professionals and related workers | 129 (12.9) | 42 (21.0) |
| Clerks | 137 (13.7) | 33 (16.5) |
| Service workers | 227 (22.7) | 31 (15.5) |
| Sales workers | 106 (10.6) | 16 (8.0) |
| Craft and related trades workers | 108 (10.8) | 11 (5.5) |
| Plant and machine operators and assemblers | 105 (10.5) | 20 (10.0) |
| Elementary workers | 120 (12.0) | 32 (16.0) |
| Marital status | ||
| Unmarried | 468 (46.8) | 72 (36.0) |
| Married/cohabiting | 476 (47.6) | 113 (56.5) |
| Divorced/widowed | 56 (5.6) | 15 (7.5) |
| Living arrangement | ||
| Living alone | 266 (26.6) | 54 (27.0) |
| Living with others | 734 (73.4) | 146 (73.0) |
| Item | Baseline | Cronbach's alpha | Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted |
|---|---|---|---|
| SLAW-3 | 7.75 ± 2.80 | 0.883 |
|
| SLAW-3-1 | 2.82 ± 0.99 | 0.934 | |
| SLAW-3-2 | 2.50 ± 1.06 | 0.765 | |
| SLAW-3-3 | 2.43 ± 1.06 | 0.781 |
| Item | Baseline | Follow-up | Intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SLAW-1 | 2.57 ± 1.00 | 2.71 ± 0.98 | 0.603 (0.506–0.684) |
| Item | Factor loading (λ) |
|---|---|
| SLAW-3-1 | 0.718 |
| SLAW-3-2 | 0.983 |
| SLAW-3-3 | 0.947 |
| Criterion measures | SLAW-3 | SLAW-1 |
|---|---|---|
| Single-Item Scale for General Loneliness | 0.444 | 0.705 |
| Variables | SLAW-3 | SLAW-1 |
|---|---|---|
| KOSS®19 | 0.460 | 0.447 |
| K6 | 0.440 | 0.522 |
| WHO-HPQ | –0.279 | –0.236 |
| UWES | –0.331 | –0.285 |
| WHO-5 | –0.352 | –0.385 |
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of study subjects
Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.
Table 2. Mean scores and Cronbach’s alpha of the SLAW-3 (n = 1,000)
Min-max: 1–5. SLAW-3: Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work.
Table 3. Mean scores and test-retest reliability of the SLAW-1 (baseline n = 1,000; follow-up n = 200)
Min-Max: 1–5. SLAW-1: Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work; CI: confidence interval.
Table 4. Standardized factor loading of the SLAW-3
SLAW-3: Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work.
Table 5. Criterion validity
Values are Pearson’s correlation coefficients. All correlations were statistically significant at SLAW-3: Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work; SLAW-1: Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work.
Table 6. Convergent validity
Values are Pearson’s correlation coefficients. All correlations were statistically significant at SLAW-3: Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work; SLAW-1: Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work; KOSS®19: Korean Occupational Stress Scale; K6: Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; WHO-HPQ: WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire; UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; WHO-5: WHO-5 Well-Being Index.
