


































GSJP Volume 16 final


Graduate Student Journal of  Psychology
2015, Vol. 16

Copyright 2015 by the Department of  Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University

5

Measuring Purpose in Life: A Review

Danielle Schultz
Teachers College, Columbia University

Human beings are said to be unique in that we are the only meaning-making species. While purpose in life has long 
EHHQ�D�VRXUFH�RI �LQTXLU\�E\�UHOLJLRXV�ÀJXUHV��SKLORVRSKHUV��DQG�VFKRODUV�DOLNH��LW�KDV�EHFRPH�DQ�LQFUHDVLQJO\�VLJQLÀFDQW�
focus of  psychological research, which has suggested that an individual’s sense of  purpose in life affects their men-
tal health in a variety of  ways. With the recent emergence of  the positive psychology movement, a renewed interest 
in the subject of  purpose in life has resulted in a rapidly growing body of  literature on the topic. However, purpose 
LQ�OLIH�KDV�EHHQ�GHÀQHG�DQG�FRQFHSWXDOL]HG�LQ�PDQ\�GLIIHUHQW�ZD\V³�JLYLQJ�ULVH�WR�D�ODUJH�EUHDGWK�RI �LQVWUXPHQWV�
seeking to measure the concept. This article is intended to provide a comprehensive guide to a wide and diverse 
array of  measures to assist beginning researchers seeking to assess purpose in life and related constructs. Although 
WKHVH�VFDOHV�FDQ�EH�HDVLO\�ORFDWHG�LQ�WKH�OLWHUDWXUH��GXH�WR�GLIIHUHQFHV�LQ�PHWKRGRORJ\��FRQVWUXFW��DQG�GHÀQLQJ�RI �
purpose in life, this review is the only article that attempts to review all these measurements in one place for the ease 
of  accessibility. Furthermore, few resources exist outlining the science and measurement underlying the concept. 
An extensive review of  26 measures of  purpose in life and related constructs was completed.  Careful exploration 
UHYHDOHG�WKDW�DOWKRXJK�FXUUHQW�PHDVXUHV�KDYH�PDGH�VLJQLÀFDQW�FRQWULEXWLRQV�WR�WKH�H[WDQW�OLWHUDWXUH��PDQ\�RI �WKHVH�
LQVWUXPHQWV�VXIIHU�IURP�GLVFUHSDQFLHV�LQ�KRZ�SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH�LV�EHLQJ�GHÀQHG��PDNLQJ�LW�GLIÀFXOW�WR�FDSWXUH�WKH�IXOO�
breadth and nuances of  the purpose in life construct and potentially hampering research on mental health outcomes. 
Suggestions for further research and different methodological approaches to measurement construction are made.   

� 7KH�SXUVXLW�RI �SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH�LV�D�GHÀQLQJ�DQG�
universal feature of  the human experience, regardless 
of  age, gender, social-cultural background, econom-
ic status, or geographic location. It has long been a 
VRXUFH�RI � LQTXLU\�E\�UHOLJLRXV�ÀJXUHV��SKLORVRSKHUV��
and scholars alike and has gained increasing clinical 
UHOHYDQFH� LQ� WKH�ÀHOG�RI �SV\FKRORJ\��ZKLFK�KDV� LP-
plicated the concept in the etiology of  various psy-
chological disorders such as depression, anxiety, and 
addiction(s) (Bronk, 2014; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 
1964; Edwards & Holden, 2001; Harlow, Newcomb, 
& Bentler, 1986; Kleftaras & Psarra, 2012; Padel-
ford, 1974; Phillips, 1980; Schulenberg, Schnetzer, 
& Buchanan, 2011; Shek, 1992).  Psychological re-
VHDUFK� KDV� DOVR� LGHQWLÀHG� SXUSRVH� LQ� OLIH� DV� DQ� HV-
sential component of  well-being and optimal hu-
man functioning, linking the concept to higher life 
satisfaction, improved physical health, and overall 
greater happiness (Bronk, 2014; Keyes, 2002; King, 
Hicks, Krull, & Gaiso, 2006; Ryff, 1995; Ryff  & 
Singer, 2008; Schulenberg, Hutzell, Nassif, & Rogi-
na, 2008; Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). More recent-
ly, purpose in life has begun to emerge in popular 
culture such as nationally recognized books (Warren, 
2002), seminars, and topics of  discussion on talk 

shows and news broadcasts, resulting in a rapidly 
growing purpose-seeking industry (Bronk, 2014). 
 While the concept has been attracting more at-
tention, very few resources exist that outline the 
science behind the concept, particularly in terms of  
measurement. This article is an attempt to provide 
researchers with a comprehensive and nuanced un-
derstanding of  purpose in life and how it is being 
measured. It is in large part a review of  instruments 
measuring purpose, beginning with a brief  explo-
ration of  the history of  the concept, followed by 
a thorough examination of  instruments that mea-
sure purpose in life and related constructs.  Sug-
gestions for future directions in research are made.

(YROXWLRQ�RI �WKH�3XUSRVH�&RQVWUXFW��'HÀQLQJ�
Purpose in Life and Theoretical Foundations
 Western concepts of  purpose in life draw much 
from early Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato, 
and Aristotle (Bronk, 2014; MacDonald, Wong, & 
Gringas, 2012; Reker, Peacock, & Wong, 1987). Oth-
er early conceptualizations are mostly rooted in re-
OLJLRQ��ZLWK�SXUSRVH� IXQFWLRQLQJ� DV� D� IXOÀOOPHQW�RI �
God’s will, supernatural forces providing a sense of  
meaning to one’s life, or that God is serving as the 
provider of  sources through which one can derive 
meaning and purpose, such as relationships, work, 
or other activities (Bronk, 2014; Nozick, 1981).  

Keywords: purpose in life, meaning in life, measure-
ment, review, scale development, existential psycholo-
gy, logotherapy, goals, commitment, self-transcendence



6

� ,Q� WKH� ÀHOG� RI � SV\FKRORJ\�� WKH� EHJLQQLQJV� RI �
the purpose in life concept  can be credited to ex-
istentialists such as Viktor Frankl, Salvatore Maddi, 
and Irvin Yalom, all of  whom who believed that 
ÀQGLQJ�D�VHQVH�RI �SXUSRVH� LQ� OLIH�ZDV�PDQ·V�SULPD-
ry motivational force (Frankl, 1959) and an “ulti-
mate concern” of  existence (Yalom, 1980) that, if  
OHIW� XQIXOÀOOHG�� FRXOG� UHVXOW� LQ� VLJQLÀFDQW�� QHJDWLYH�
psychological consequences such as suicide (Ya-
lom, 1970), or syndromes characterized by anxiety, 
depression, hopelessness, and boredom (Auhagen, 
2000; Bronk, 2014; Frankl, 1959; Maddi, 1957; Re-
ker et al., 1987; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). 
� 'LYHUVH�SHUVSHFWLYHV� DQG� WKHRULHV�PDNH� LW�GLIÀ-
cult to operationalize purpose in life, giving rise to 
QXPHURXV� DQG� HYROYLQJ� GHÀQLWLRQV� RI � WKH� FRQFHSW�
DPRQJ� UHVHDUFKHUV�� 7KH� EURDGHVW� GHÀQLWLRQV� LP-
ply that purpose in life is the recognition of  goals 
or reasons for the process of  living (Auhagen, 2000; 
Baumeister, 1991; Steger et al., 2006).  One compli-
cation lies in distinguishing between purpose in life 
and the close-related concept, meaning in life. While 
some theorists have simply equated purpose with 
meaning (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Frankl, 
1959), others have delineated purpose as one com-
ponent of  a larger meaning construct (Baumeister 
& Vohs, 2002; Bronk, 2014; Emmons, 2003; Makola 
& Berg, 2008; Reker & Wong, 1988). Other scholars 
give primacy to purpose as the larger concept sub-
VXPLQJ�PHDQLQJ�� GHÀQLQJ� SXUSRVH� DV� D� FHQWUDO� OLIH�
DLP� WKDW� IXHOV� JRDOV�� LQÁXHQFHV� EHKDYLRUV�� DQG�SUR-
vides a sense of  meaning (McKnight and Kashdan; 
2009). For the purposes of  this review, we discuss 
purpose as a separate construct. As Bronk (2014) 
and Makola and Berg (2008) point out, the two con-
structs are inextricably related, if  not synonymous. 
 Perhaps the clearest description of  purpose 
comes from Bronk (2014), who notes three core 
elements present in both historical and modern 
GHÀQLWLRQV�� JRDO�GLUHFWHGQHVV�� FRPPLWPHQW�� DQG�
personal meaningfulness. Each of  these core el-
ements is marked by a fourth element, self-tran-
scendence. Each concept will be discussed in turn.
 The presence of  personal goals is seen as an 
important source of  purpose in life, acting as in-
centives that govern behavior and daily functioning 

(Emmons, 2003; Klinger, 1977; Pinquart, Silberei-
sen, & Fröhlich, 2009).  Emmons (2003) emphasiz-
es goal-directedness as an essential component of  
purpose in life, arguing that “goals are signals that 
orient a person to what is valuable, meaningful, and 
purposeful” (p.107). Purpose serves as a motivational 
IUDPHZRUN�� LQÁXHQFLQJ� ERWK� ORQJ�WHUP� DQG� VKRUW�
term goals. Bronk (2014) uses the following exam-
ple to illustrate this point: “studying hard to get into 
medical school may represent a worthwhile short-
term goal for an individual pursuing a long-term 
purpose of  providing high quality healthcare” (p. 5). 
$�VHQVH�RI �PHDQLQJIXOQHVV�DQG�SXUSRVH�LV�UHÁHFWHG�
LQ� WKH� DFWLYH� SXUVXLW� DQG� IXOÀOOPHQW� RI � WKHVH� JRDOV������
 Commitment is another common element found 
LQ�GHÀQLWLRQV�RI �WKH�SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH�FRQVWUXFW��%DWWLVWD�
& Almond, 1973). It has been noted that individuals 
often feel compelled or inspired by their life purpose, 
changing their behavior and directing their energy and 
resources to pursuing their own purpose. This is of-
ten accentuated by a strong sense of  motivation and 
active engagement in pursuing one’s goals (Bronk, 
2014). In many cases, this high level of  commitment 
manifests as one’s career. In this context, one’s career 
is referred to as a “calling,” or the sense of  purpose 
that their work is what they are meant to do (Hall & 
Chandler, 2005).  This calling need not be religious, but 
implies a commitment to a value that one believes in.   
 While an individual may have goals they are com-
PLWWHG�WR�IXOÀOOLQJ��WKH\�PD\�QRW�KDYH�DQ\�ORQJ�WHUP�
VLJQLÀFDQFH�IRU�PHDQLQJ�IRU�WKH�LQGLYLGXDO��(PPRQV��
2003). In the context of  purpose in life, a third com-
ponent of  the purpose construct – and perhaps most 
salient – is personal meaningfulness. In terms of  life 
purpose, meaning takes a central role to the individ-
XDO�� LQÁXHQFLQJ�WKRXJKWV��DFWLRQV��DFWLRQV��DQG�HPR-
tions in one’s life (Bronk, 2014; McKnight & Kash-
dan, 2009). Although what contributes to a personal 
sense of  meaning varies and isn’t necessarily straight-
IRUZDUG�� VWXGLHV� KDYH� LGHQWLÀHG� VHYHUDO� GRPDLQV� LQ�
which people strive for: work/achievements, relation-
ships/intimacy, religion/spirituality, and self-tran-
scendence/generativity (Emmons, 2003). While 
personal meaning is not limited to these domains, 
and sources of  meaning can change throughout the 
lifetime, many authors agree that personal meaning 

SCHULTZ



7

can be derived from anything that imbues life with 
SHUVRQDO�VLJQLÀFDQFH���2WKHU�UHVHDUFKHUV�H[SDQG�WKLV�
idea of  personal meaning to be an individually-con-
structing cognitive system consisting of  affective, 
motivational, cognitive, relational, and personal com-
ponents (MacDonald, Wong, & Gingras, 2012; Wong, 
1998).  Regardless, personal meaning appears to be a 
UHJXODU�FRPSRQHQW�LQ�GHÀQLWLRQV�RI �SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH����������
 Finally, self-transcendence is a feature of  all three 
core elements. While goals, commitments, and sourc-
es of  meaning vary between individuals, all of  these 
components are rooted in the idea of  self-transcen-
GHQFH�²�RULJLQDOO\�GHÀQHG�E\�9LFWRU�)UDQNO�DV�D�KXPDQ�
characteristic of  being directed or oriented some-
thing other than itself  (1966). Self-transcendence has 
been referred to as an expansion of  one’s personal 
boundaries beyond the self. Although the topic of  
self-transcendence is beyond the scope of  this pa-
per, concepts of  self-transcendence have emerged 
as a common theme in individual’s subjective sense 
of  purpose in life. This encompasses goals such as 
leaving a legacy, contributing to society, caring for 
others, etc. In many cases, self-transcendence in the 
context of  purpose in life involves a life goal of  con-
tributing something of  value to others (Bronk, 2014).  

Purpose in Life and Mental Health Outcomes
 Numerous studies have suggested that purpose 
DQG�PHDQLQJ�LQ�OLIH�FDQ�IXQFWLRQ�WR�LQÁXHQFH�PHQWDO�
health (Bronk, 2014; Reker et al., 1987; Zika & Cham-
berlain, 1992) and offer empirical support for earlier 
theories put forth by Frankl, Maddi, and Yalom. Pur-
poselessness has been associated with negative mood 
states and psychopathology such as boredom, de-
pression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and drug/alcohol 
use (Bronk, 2014; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Ed-
wards & Holden, 2001; Harlow, Newcomb, & Bentler, 
1986; Kleftaras & Psarra, 2012; Padelford, 1974; 
Phillips, 1980; Schulenberg et al., 2011; Shek, 1992). 
 Conversely, a sense of  purpose in life can help 
individuals cope with life challenges, fend off  neg-
ative states, and serve as a moderator of  stress ef-
fects (Krause, 2007), as well as protect against sui-
cidal ideation (Edwards & Holden, 2001; Heisel 
& Flett, 2004), help prevent illness (Shek, 1992), 
and contribute to the promotion of  health be-

havior (Garcini, Short, & Norwood, 2013).
 A more recent line of  research, growing out 
of  the positive psychology movement (Seligman & 
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), has found many positive 
associations to purpose and meaning in life beyond 
protective and mitigating factors. A growing body of  
OLWHUDWXUH�KDV�LGHQWLÀHG�PHDQLQJ�DQG�SXUSRVH�DV�YLWDO�
elements of  optimal human functioning and well-be-
ing (Bronk, 2014; Keyes, 2002; King, Hicks, Krull, 
& Gaiso, 2006; Ryff, 1995; Ryff  & Singer, 2008; 
Schulenberg et al., 2008; Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). 
Ryff  and Singer (2008) included purpose in life as 
a leading component in their eudaimonic model of  
SV\FKRORJLFDO�ZHOO�EHLQJ��0DUWLQ�6HOLJPDQ� LGHQWLÀHG�
meaning and purpose in life as a core component 
of  what constitutes a “balanced psychology and full 
life” and necessary for “authentic happiness” (Duck-
worth, Steen, & Seligman, 2005; Seligman, 2002). 
Seligman sees meaning and purpose as not just an 
indicator of  an individual’s well-being, but of  their 
ÁRXULVKLQJ� �6HOLJPDQ�� �������2WKHU� VFKRODUV� LQ� WKLV�
tradition have linked life purpose to life satisfaction, 
quality of  life, and subjective well-being, positive af-
fect and happiness (Hughes, 2006; Keyes, Shmotkin, 
& Ryff, 2002; Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005). 
 Purpose in life has also been associated with nu-
PHURXV�SK\VLFDO�KHDOWK�EHQHÀWV��VXFK�DV� ORZHU�UDWHV�
of  Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impair-
ment (Boyle, Barnes, Buchman, & Bennett, 2010), 
better cardiovascular health, reduced risk of  mortality 
(Boyle et al., 2009), and less chronic pain (Kass, 1991).

The Present Study
 The premise of  this review stems from the lack 
of  literature synthesizing psychological theory and 
empirical research on the topic of  purpose in life, 
particularly in terms of  measurement. Given the ab-
stract, yet complex nature of  life purpose, measuring 
the construct presents a challenge. While attempts 
to study purpose in life are abundant, conceptualiza-
tions of  the subject are as numerous and varied, giv-
ing rise to over 25 different measures, ranging from 
self-report surveys and rankings, to interviews that 
seek to illicit one’s sense of  life purpose or lack there-
of. Despite the existence of  many diverse methodical 
approaches measuring purpose in life, most research 

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



8

on the topic has relied heavily on the Purpose in Life 
Test (PIL; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964), followed 
by Ryff ’s Scales of  Psychological Well-Being (RPWB) 
Purpose in Life Subscale (Ryff, 1989). Although the 
PIL has been found to be a reliable and valid measure 
of  life purpose (Bronk, 2014; Zika & Chamberlain, 
1988, 1992), it has been subject to numerous criti-
cisms related to its dimensionality, factor structure, 
and construct validity (Shek, 1988; Yalom 1980; Zika 
& Chamberlain, 1992). It has also been argued that 
the PIL has confounding and value-laden variables 
(Chamberlain & Zika, 1988), and thus does not accu-
rately or adequately measure the purpose in life con-
struct. Dyck (1987) suggested that the PIL is an indi-
rect measure of  depression. The RPWB has also been 
criticized in terms of  its dimensionality, with concep-
tual overlap being cited as a primary limitation of  the 
scale. The purpose in life subscale was also found 
to be not as closely tied to pre-existing measures of  
well-being (Dierendonck, 2004; Springer & Hauser, 
2006) and estimates of  internal consistency were low-
est in this subscale, suggesting that the full conceptual 
breadth of  the purpose construct is less developed or 
full represented in by the scale (Ryff  & Singer, 2006).
� 1HJOHFW�LQ�WKH�WDVN�RI �H[SOLFLWO\�GHÀQLQJ�SXUSRVH�
in life has resulted in discrepancies that are potentially 
hampering research on mental health outcomes. With-
RXW�D�FOHDU�GHÀQLWLRQ�RI �WKH�FRQVWUXFW��PHDVXUHV�ZLOO�
not identify accurate relationships between its com-
ponents or other constructs. In order to conduct fur-
ther research on life purpose, it is imperative that we 
look at the instruments that are being used to measure 
the concept. The following study is part of  a larger 
aim to highlight the need for better tools and meth-
RGV�WR�DVVHVV�SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH��6SHFLÀFDOO\��LW�LV�D�UHYLHZ�
of  current measures of  purpose in life and related 
constructs in an effort to provide researchers with an 
overview how the construct is being measured, sug-
gestions for future research, and to serve as a guide. 

Methods

Search Methods
 A literature search spanning 55 years (1959-2014) 
was conducted using Google Scholar and Clio because 
of  their function as large aggregates of  other major 

databases. The following search terms were used: 
purpose in life, meaning in life, measuring purpose in 
life, measuring meaning in life, meaning instruments, 
purpose in life instruments. Additional sources were 
obtained form reference lists of  retrieved articles.
Inclusion Criteria
 Papers were included if  they were a) published in 
English, b) discussed instruments to measure either 
purpose in life, meaning in life, or other constructs 
related to purpose in life and c) included at least 
some psychometrics of  the instrument discussed.  
Search Outcome
 One hundred and forty eight sources were 
found that contained information about instru-
ments measuring purpose in life, meaning in life, 
and related constructs. Articles were primarily sur-
YH\� VWXGLHV� VSDQQLQJ� WKH�ÀHOG� RI � SV\FKRORJLFDO� VFL-
ence and validation studies of  purpose and meaning 
in life measurements, along with a small number of  
books serving as literature reviews on meaning in 
life. Only one book was centered strictly on purpose 
in life. This resulted in in the retrieval of  26 mea-
sures: Nine instruments measuring purpose in life, 
three instruments measuring concepts similar to 
SXUSRVH� LQ� OLIH�� DQG�ÀIWHHQ� VFDOHV�PHDVXULQJ�PHDQ-
ing in life and constructs related to purpose in life.   
Review
 The instruments were reviewed by the author 
for operational congruence with the intended pur-
pose of  the instrument (how well the instrument 
measured the intended concept), factor structure, re-
liability and validity. If  a scale was cited in multiple 
articles, those articles were reviewed to gather addi-
tional information regarding the instrument, includ-
ing background information such as development 
of  the measure, psychometric properties, and other 
population samples to which it was administered. 
Data abstraction
 A summary overview is provided to orient the 
reader to the measures reviewed and to describe over-
DOO�ÀQGLQJV��REVHUYDWLRQV��WKHPHV��KRZ�SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH�
ZDV�GHÀQHG��HWF�����)ROORZLQJ�WKH�VXPPDU\�RYHUYLHZ��
a brief  description is provided for each measure, 
along with relevant background information. Each 
instrument is placed in a table according to the type 
RI �PHDVXUHPHQW�� DV� FODVVLÀHG� E\� WKH� DXWKRU� �GLUHFW�

SCHULTZ



9

measures of  purpose in life, measures of  meaning 
in life and other life purpose-related constructs, and 
indirect measures of  purpose in life). Data includes 
name of  instrument, a brief  description, a sample 
item, the theoretical framework or conception of  pur-
pose or meaning of  life on which the scale is based, 
and common factor or dimensions that emerged.

Results
Summary
 Overall, as observed by the author, the measures 
reviewed appear to fall into three broad categories: 
direct measures of  purpose in life, measures of  
meaning in life and other life purpose-related con-
structs, and measures that indirectly measure pur-
pose in life via subscales that designate the concept 
as a component of  the construct being measured. 
Although purpose in life has been the subject of  
LQTXLU\� IRU� FHQWXULHV�� LW� FRQWLQXHV� WR� EH� GHÀQHG� LQ�
different ways and assessed through different means 
DQG�PRGDOLWLHV��PDNLQJ� LW�GLIÀFXOW�WR�DFKLHYH�D�FOHDU�
grasp on the concept. Consequently, these various 
FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQV�RI �SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH�DUH�UHÁHFWHG�LQ�
the instruments developed, potentially biasing results. 
For example, ten of  the instruments were composed 
RI �GRPDLQV�WKDW�WKH�DXWKRUV�EHOLHYH�UHÁHFW�WKH�WKHR-
rized phenomenology of  purpose and meaning in life 
constructs. Some measures, such as Personal Mean-
LQJ�3URÀOH��303��:RQJ���������WKH�0HDQLQJ�LQ�/LIH�
Measurement (MLM; Morgan & Farsides, 2009), and 
the Meaning in Life Measurement Tool (MLMT; Lee 
et al., 2002) appear to be more successful in identify-
ing domains in their scales that assess for concepts 
present in the extant literature. Even so, while multi-
dimensional scales offer the advantage of  evaluating 
different components of  purpose in life at the same 
time, they are limiting insofar as they only measure 
the dimensions designated in the instrument; the con-
FHSWV�EHFRPHV�GHÀQHG�E\�KRZ�LW�LV�PHDVXUHG��2WKHU�
measures with a more open-ended format, such as 
the Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE; 
Fegg, Kramer, L’hoste, & Borasio, 2008), Revised 
Youth Purpose Suvey (RYPS; Bundick et al., 2006), 
the Meaning Essay Document (MED; Ebersole & 
DeVogler, 1981), and the Meaning in Life Depth 
Instrument (MiLD; DeVogler & Ebersole, 1981), 

DOORZ� IRU� PRUH� ÁH[LELOLW\� LQ� VXEMHFW� UHVSRQVHV� DQG�
thus can give a more nuanced picture of  life purpose.
 Although the scope of  existing instruments is 
large and varied, many contain similar and sometimes 
overlapping dimensions, which identify different 
components of  the purpose in life construct. Most 
widely cited and intimately related to purpose in life 
is meaning. Virtually all purpose in life measures in-
clude meaning in life in some way, and all meaning 
in life instruments designate purpose as a factor, 
highlighting the centrality of  meaning in the pur-
pose in life. However, the relationship between the 
two components is not straightforward. Much like 
the proverbial chicken or the egg question (“which 
FRPHV�ÀUVW"µ���LW�LV�QRW�FOHDU�ZKHWKHU�SXUSRVH�FUHDWHV�
meaning, meaning contributes to purpose, or if  both 
conditions must be met. Also consistent with the 
pre-existing literature is the pursuit of  goals. Eleven 
instruments implicate or directly refer to goal-direct-
ness as a measurement domain or identify the pur-
suit of  goals as a factor that promotes purpose in 
life. Another observation that supports previous the-
oretical conceptualizations of  purpose in life is the 
frequent reference to self-transcendence. Nine scales 
HLWKHU� LGHQWLÀHG� VHOI�WUDQVFHQGHQFH� DV� D� GRPDLQ� RI �
purpose or meaning in life or incorporated transcen-
dent values such as religiosity, spirituality, altruism, 
service to others or dedication to a larger societal or 
political cause. Other overlapping, but less cited con-
cepts, include coherence, relationships, knowledge, 
and existential vacuum/meaninglessness. None of  
the survey measures contain all dimensions of  the 
purpose construct as delineated by Bronk (2014): 
goals, commitment, meaning, and self-transcendence.  
 The most promising measures related to purpose 
in life represent good methodological approaches to 
the development of  scales that assess the purpose 
construct. These include the Personal Meaning Pro-
ÀOH��303��:RQJ���������WKH�6FKHGXOH�IRU�0HDQLQJ�LQ�
Life Evaluation (SMiLE; Fegg et al., 2008), and the 
Meaning in Life Measurement Tool (MLMT; Lee et 
al., 2002). The PMP was constructed beginning with 
a bottom-up approach, in which lay-people’s concep-
tions of  the meaning in life construct was studied, 
allowing researchers to understand common beliefs 
DERXW�PHDQLQJ� LQ� OLIH�ZLWKRXW� LQÁXHQFHV� IURP� WKH-

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



10

oretical biases. Similarly, the SMiLE probes for im-
plicit theories of  meaning by allow respondents to 
identify areas of  their life that gives them meaning. 
Alternatively, the MLMT was created after an exten-
sive review of  meaning in life literature and inter-
views with professionals in psychology, philosophy, 
theology, and nursing. Given that purpose in life is 
a construct that spans many domains, this type of  
approach allows researchers to create measures that 
represent and capture and potentially measure a wid-
er breadth of  the concept. Other instruments, such 
as the Meaning Essay Document (MED; Ebersole & 
DeVogler, 1981), utilize a qualitative approach in the 
measurement of  meaning and purpose in life by ask-
ing participants to describe and rank their three most 
important sources from which they derive meaning. 
For each source of  meaning, they were then asked 
to describe a concrete experience associated with 
HDFK� RQH�� DOORZLQJ� IRU� PRUH� WKHRUHWLFDO� ÁH[LELOLW\���
 Review of  the measures also revealed that differ-
ent scales are suited to examining different conceptu-
al elements of  purpose and meaning in life. Surveys 
such as the Frankl Questionnaire (FQ; Frankl, 1959), 
the Purpose in Life Test (PIL; Crumbaugh & Mahol-
ick, 1964), The Life Purpose Questionnaire (LPQ; 
Hablas & Hutzell, 1982), the Life Engagement Test 
(LET; Scheier et al., 2006), the Existence of  Purpose 
in Life Scale (EPIL; Law, 2012), and Ryff ’s Scales of  
Psychological Well-being Purpose Subscale (RPWB; 
Ryff, 1989; Ryff  & Keyes, 1995) all assess the degree 
to which a sense of  purpose in life is present in an 
individual. Measures such as the Personal Meaning 
Index (PMI; Reker, 1992), the Personal Meaning Pro-
ÀOH� �303��:RQJ�� ������� WKH�0HDQLQJ� LQ� /LIH� 6FDOH�
(ML; Warner & Williams, 1987), the Meaning in Life 
Measurement Tool (MLMT; Lee et al., 2002), and 
the Meaningful Life Measure (MLM; Morgan & Far-
sides, 2009) assess the degree to which meaning is 
present in one’s life. These measures are appropri-
ate for those looking to simply evaluate the level of  
perceived purpose or meaning in one’s life. It should 
be noted that that although the MLM was designed 
to measure different components of  meaning, it 
appears to assess a construct that more closely re-
sembles purpose than meaning, given that the instru-
ment was derived from scales meant to measure pur-

pose in life (PIL, LAP-R, RPWB-purpose subscale). 
+HUH��LW�LV�HYLGHQW�KRZ�D�ODFN�LQ�FODULW\�LQ�WKH�GHÀQL-
WLRQ�RI �SXUSRVH� LQ� OLIH� FDQ� LQÁXHQFH�PHDVXUHPHQW���
 The Seeking of  Noetic Goals scale (SONG; 
Crumbaugh, 1997), takes a different approach in 
measurement by assessing the degree to which in-
dividuals are actively searching for purpose in their 
lives. However, according to Dyck (1987), the SONG 
is conceptually inconsistent with Frankl’s conceptual-
ization of  purpose in life and contains confounding 
variable that assess the cognitive components of  de-
pression. A recent factor analysis by Schulenberg et 
DO���������VKHGV�PRUH�OLJKW�RQ�'\FN·V�FULWLTXH��ÀQGLQJ�
that those items of  the SONG assessing search for 
meaning were psychometrically unrelated to either 
the Center for Epidemiologic Studies’ Depression 
Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), or the Meaning in Life 
Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 
2006). If  the search for meaning does not correlate 
with depression or perceived meaning in life, then 
evidence does not support Frankl’s assumption that 
people who achieve meaning will stop searching for 
it. The relationship between will to meaning and the 
motivation to discover meaning is more nuanced than 
logotherapy predicts (Schulenberg et al., 2014). We 
can imagine, for example, that those who experience 
life ad meaningful may simply have the desire to seek 
even deeper levels of  meaning. It should also be noted 
that, like the PIL, the SONG is based on the conceptu-
alization that purpose and meaning are synonymous.  
$GGLWLRQDOO\��)UDQNO�UHIHUUHG�WR�WKH�PRWLYDWLRQ�WR�ÀQG�
purpose as noetic, meaning spiritual.  While this term 
implies a focus on self-transcendence, items in the 
SONG do not appear to assess for this. This is anoth-
er example that calls attention to the need for devel-
RSLQJ�PHDVXUHV�WKDW�PRUH�FOHDUO\�UHÁHFW�WKH�SXUSRVH�
in life construct and differentiate it from meaning.  
 Other measurement tools such as the Meaning in 
Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006), assess-
es for the presence and search for meaning in indi-
viduals’ lives. The MLQ has been found to have high 
internal consistency and it has been suggested that 
WKH�0/4�6�VXEVFDOH�UHÁHFWV�)UDQNO·V�:LOO�WR�0HDQLQJ�
theory that the search for meanings is man’s greatest 
motivation (Frankl 1959; MacDonald et al., 2012). 
Additionally, the instrument is less likely to be con-

SCHULTZ



11

founded because it allows respondents to use their 
own criteria for what they considered meaningful, as 
opposed to what researchers decided is meaningful 
(MacDonald et al., 2012). Researchers have also sug-
gested that with MLQ, Steger et al. (2006) were able 
to disentangle the meaning in life construct from con-
founding factors such as depression, life satisfaction, 
anxiety, and religion (Bellin, 2012; Steger et al., 2006). 
The two-factor structure of  the MLQ also allows 
the search for and presence of  meaning to be mea-
sured independently, allowing for better exploration 
of  the relationship between the presence and search 
for meaning in life (Bellin, 2012; Steger & Kashdan, 
2007). The MLQ would be a good scale to administer 
in conjunction with measures of  purpose in life to ex-
plore the relationship between purpose and meaning.    
 The Daily Meaning Scale (DMS; Steger, Kas-
dan, & Oishi, 2008), like the MLQ, assesses the pres-
ence of  meaning, but differs in that it is designed to 
capture changes in meaning. Despite the small em-
pirical basis of  the DMS, scores have shown good 
daily reliability, convergent validity and high internal 
consistency. The instrument has also been highly 
correlated with the MLQ-Presence subscale (Steger, 
Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008). Consisting of  two items, 
the brevity of  the DMS enables it to be easily ad-
ministered via different modalities such as e-mail 
or text.  Given its psychometric soundness, low 
response burden and ease of  administration, the 
DMS would be ideal to use in longitudinal stud-
LHV� WKDW� LQYROYH� DVVHVVLQJ� ÁXFWXDWLRQV� LQ� PHDQLQJ�����
 Measurement tools such as Sources of  Meaning 
and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe; Schnell, 
������� WKH�6RXUFHV�RI �0HDQLQJ�3URÀOH� �6203��5H-
ker & Wong, 1988), the Schedule for Meaning in Life 
Evaluation (SMiLE; Fegg et al., 2008), the Mean-
ing Essay Document (MED; Ebersole & DeVogler, 
1981), and the Meaning in Life Depth Instrument 
(MiLD; DeVogler & Ebersole, 1981) are appropriate 
for those interested in exploring the sources from 
which individuals derive meaning. The SoMe was de-
veloped over four years of  quantitative and qualita-
tive research on meaning in life, undergoing several 
HYROXWLRQV� EHIRUH� LWV� ÀQDO� IRUP�� ,W� KDV� FRQVLVWHQWO\�
been found to be a reliable indicator of  where peo-
SOH�JHQHUDWH�DQG�ÀQG�PHDQLQJ�LQ�WKHLU�OLYHV��'DPjVLR�

et al., 2013b; Schnell, 2009). While the SoMe carries 
advantages over other measures of  meaning because 
it covers a wide breath of  meaning sources, purpose 
in life in life in not included in any of  the higher-or-
der dimensions that the scale evaluates. The SoMe 
could be useful in probing for dimensions of  pur-
pose in life and perhaps better elucidate the relation 
between purpose in meaning if  administered with 
a purpose in life measure.  Similar to the SoMe, the 
SOMP assesses the sources and degree of  meaning 
in one’s life by asking participants to rate how im-
portant each source of  meaning is to them. These 
items were selected based on an extensive review 
of  extant literature through which commonly cited 
VRXUFHV�RI �PHDQLQJ�ZHUH�LGHQWLÀHG��5HNHU��������LQ�
order to represent individuals’ implicit theories of  
what makes life meaningful in their daily lives under 
ideal circumstances. However, the SOMP has not 
been widely accepted in psychological circles, most 
likely due to the limited amount of  meaning domains 
�'DPjVLR�HW�DO�������E���7KRVH�ORRNLQJ�WR�SUREH�IRU�
more implicit theories of  meaning would be wise to 
utilize the scales like the SMiLE, MED, or the MiLD, 
all of  which require participants to list and rank ar-
eas that provide meaning to their lives. The SMiLE, 
a self-report measure, also asks participants to rate 
the importance and current level of  satisfaction with 
each meaning source and satisfaction. In scoring, lev-
els and weights are assigned independently of  each 
index. This allows for a nuanced understanding of  
the role sources of  meaning play in individuals’ lives. 
)RU�H[DPSOH��D�SHUVRQ�PD\�EH�VDWLVÀHG�LQ�D�SDUWLFX-
lar life meaning domain and assign little importance 
to it, while they may assign a lot of  importance and 
have high satisfaction in another area of  their life.  
Similarly, The MED and the MiLD ask participants 
to identify and rank sources of  meaning, but differ 
in that they are interview protocols that can pro-
vide richer data without the restrictions designated 
categories of  meaning via an open-ended format.  
 The remaining measures reviewed have different 
uses in terms of  investigating purpose and meaning 
in life. The Sense of  Coherence Scale (SOC; Anton-
ovsky, 1983, 1987), the Life Regard Index (LRI; Battis-
ta and Almond, 1973; Debats et al., 1995), and the Life 
$WWLWXGH�3URÀOH�²5HYLVHG��/$3�5��5HNHU��������PHD-

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



12

sure constructs similar to purpose in life and would 
be useful in evaluating the roles of  different compo-
nents of  purpose in life such as goals and meaning. 
Other scales such as the Constructed Meaning Scale 
(CMS; Fife, 1995) and the Meaning in Suffering Test 
�0L67��6WDUFN��������DVVHVV�PHDQLQJ�LQ�VSHFLÀF�FRQ-
texts such as individuals coping with serious illness. 
These scales would be useful in understanding how 
other factors such negative life circumstances affect 
one’s sense of  meaning in life. Although not a direct 
measure of  purpose in life, the Self-Transcendence 
Scale (STS; Reed, 1991) explores a concept that has 
been consistently implicated in the purpose construct. 
The STS has been used empirically in diverse popula-
tions, demonstrating widespread applicability. If  ad-
ministered with a measurement assessing purpose in 
life, the STS could provide more about the relation-
ship between self-transcendence and life purpose.

SCHULTZ



13

�
Table 1: Measures of Purpose in Life�

Instrument Name Description Sample Items Theoretical Framework Constructs Explored 
 

Frankl Questionnaire (FQ; 
1959) 

Self-report, 13 items, 3-point 
Likert scale; designed to 
assess the degree of presence 
of purpose among patients 
and to test the Will to 
Meaning Assumption 

“Do you feel like your life is 
without purpose?”: (1) no or 
very low level of purpose—(3) 
high purpose in life present 

Will to Meaning Assumption 
(1959) 

Purpose in life, meaning in 
life 

     Purpose in Life Test (PIL; 
Crumbaugh and Maholick 
1964) 

Self-report, 20 items, 7-point 
Likert scale; different 
response anchors for each 
item 

 

“My life is…”: (1) empty, 
only filled with despair— (7) 
running over with exciting 
things 

“In achieving life goals, I…”: 
(1) made no progress 
whatsoever— 

(7) progressed to complete 
fulfillment  

Will to Meaning Assumption  Quality of life, goals, death, 
choices, and retirement 
(Frankl, 1959) 

Purpose in life, goal seeking, 
goal achievement, 
contentedness with life, 
existential vacuum, search for 
adventure, futuristic 
aspirations, internal-external 
locus of control, self-
fulfillment, life view (Shek, 
1988) 

     Seeking of Noetic Goals 
(SONG; Crumaugh 1977) 

Self-report, 20-items, 7-point 
Likert scale; designed to be a 
unidimensional measure of 
motivation to find purpose in 
life 

 

“Over my lifetime I have felt 
a strong urge to find myself”: 
(1) never— (7) constantly 

“I seem to change my 
objective in life”: (1) never— 
(7) constantly 

Will to Meaning Assumption  Purpose in life, goal seeking, 
goal achievement, 
contentedness with life, 
existential vacuum, search for 
adventure, futuristic 
aspirations, internal-external 
locus of control, self-
fulfillment, life view (Frankl, 
1959) 

     Life Purpose Questionnaire 
(LPQ; Hablas & Hutzell, 
1982) 

Self-report, 20 items, 
dichotomous response format 
(agree/disagree); designed for 
geriatric, neuro-psychiatric 
patients, and special 
populations 

“I am not prepared for death”: 
agree— disagree 

“I have discovered many 
reasons why I was born”:  
agree— disagree 

Will to Meaning Assumption  Unidimensional measure of 
life purpose and meaning 

 

 

 

 

     Ryff’s Scales of 
Psychological Well-being 
Purpose Subscale (Ryff 1989; 
Ryff and Keyes 1995) 

Self-report, 20-,14-,9-, and 3-
items versions, 6-point Likert 
scale; measure of purpose in 
life representing one of six 
dimensions of psychological 
well-being 

“I enjoy making plans for the 
future and working to make 
them a reality”: (1) strongly 
disagree— (6) strongly agree 

Purpose in life – positive 
functioning with the presence 
of goals, intentions, and a 
sense of direction, all of 
which contribute to the 
feeling that life is meaningful 
(1989) 

Purpose in life 

     Purpose in Life Scale (PILS; 
Robbins & Francis, 2000) 

Self-report, 12 items, 5-point 
Likert response format  

 

“My life seems most 
worthwhile”: (1) agree 
strongly— (5) disagree 
strongly 

Will to Meaning Assumption  Purpose in life 

     Life Engagement Test (LET; 
Scheier et al., 2006) 

Self-report, 6 items (3 
positive, 3 negative), 5-point 
Likert scale 

 

“The is not enough purpose in 
my life”: (1) strongly 
disagree— (5) strongly agree 

Purpose in life – extent to 
which a person engages in 
activities that are personally 
valued (p.291) 

Purpose in life 

     Revised Youth Purpose 
Survey (RYPS; Bundick et 
al., 2006) 

Semi-structured interview 
protocol 

 

“What are some of the things 
that really matter to you? 
Imagine you’re 40 years of 
age, what will you be doing? 
What will be important to 
you? Why?” 

 

Purpose - “a stable and 
generalized intention to 
accomplish something that is 
at once meaningful to the self 
and leads to productive 
engagement with some aspect 
of the world beyond the self” 
(Damon et al., 2003) 

Values, beliefs, faith, career, 
service, family, 
political/social interests, other 
hobbies or leisure, country 

     Existence of Purpose in Life 
Subscale (EPIL; Law, 2012) 

7 items selected from the PIL 
based on relevance to lives of 
early adolescents 

“My life is…”: (1) empty, 
only filled with despair— (7) 
running over with exciting 
things 

Will to Meaning Assumption  Existence - whether life is 
perceived to be enthusiastic 
versus boring, exciting versus 
monotonous, or new versus 
unchanged 

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



14

 

 

Table 2: Measures of Constructs Similar to Purpose in Life 
Instrument Name Description Sample Items Theoretical Framework Constructs Explored 
 Sense of Coherence Scale 
(SOC; Antonvosky 1983, 
1987) 

29 and 13 item versions, 7-
point Likert scale, 3 
dimensions 

“When you think about your 
life, you very often…”: (1) feel 
how good it is to be alive— (7) 
Ask yourself why you exist at 
all 

 

“Do you have the feel that you 
are in an unfamiliar situation 
and don’t know what to do?”: 
(1) very often— (7) very 
seldom or never 

Sense of coherence – a global 
orientation that expresses the 
extent to which one has a 
pervasive, enduring though 
dynamic feeling of confidence 
that (1) the stimuli deriving 
from one’s internal and 
external environments in the 
course of living are structured, 
predictable, and explicable; (2) 
the resources are available to 
one to meet the demands posed 
by these stimuli; and (3) these 
demands are challenges, 
worthy of investment and 
engagement (p.19) 

comprehensibility, 
manageability, and meaning 

     
Life Regard Index (LRI; 
Battista and Almond 1973; 
Debats et al. 1995) 

28 items, 2 subscales:  
framework – measures 
presence of life goals, 
fulfillment subscale - measures 
progress towards life goals  

“I have a very clear idea of 
what I’d like to do with my 
life”: (1) disagree, (2) I have 
no option, (3) I agree 

“I don’t really value what I’m 
doing”: (1) disagree, (2) I have 
no option, (3) I agree 

Positive life regard - an 
individual’s belief that he is 
fulfilling a life-framework or 
life-goal that provides him 
with a highly valued 
understanding of his life  

framework – a meaningful life 
framework or goal by which 
people understand the purpose 
of their existence 

fulfillment – the sense of 
fulfillment that accompanies 
realizing framework 

     
Life Attitude Profile-Revised 
(LAP-R; Reker, 1992) 

48 items, 7-point Likert scale, 
yields 6 dimensions and 2 
composite scores 

“I have a mission in life that 
gives me a sense of direction”: 

(1) strongly disagree—
(7) strongly agree 

 

Will to Meaning Assumption  

 

 

purpose, coherence, choice/ 

responsibleness, goal seeking, 
death acceptance and 
existential vacuum  

SCHULTZ



15

Table 3: Measures of Meaning in Life 
Instrument Name Description Sample Items Theoretical Framework Constructs Explored 

      Meaning in Life Questionnaire 
(MLQ; Steger et al., 2006) 

10 items, 7-point Likert scale, 
2 subscales: presence of 
meaning (MLQ – P) & search 
for meaning (MLQ-S) 

“I am seeking a mission or 
purpose for my life:” (1) not at 
all— (7) absolutely 

“I understand my life’s 
meaning”: (1) not at all— (7) 
absolutely 

 

Meaning - the sense made of, 
and significance felt regarding, 
the nature of one’s being and 
existence (p. 81). 

Level of presence and search 
for meaning 

     
Daily Meaning Scale (DMS; 
Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 
2008) 

2-item and 4-item versions, 7-
point Likert scale, 2 subscales 
presence of meaning and 
search for meaning 

“How meaningful does your 
life feel?: (1) not at all— (7) 
absolutely” 

“How much do you feel like 
your life has purpose?”: (1) not 
at all— (7) absolutely” 

 

Meaning - the sense made of, 
and significance felt regarding, 
the nature of one’s being and 
existence  

level of presence and search 
for meaning 

     
Personal Meaning Index (PMI; 
Reker, 1992) 

16-items scale derived from 
the summation of the Purpose 
and Coherence dimensions of 
the LAP-R  

“I have a mission in life that 
gives me a sense of direction”: 
(1) strongly agree— (7) 
strongly disagree 

 

Meaning - the sense made of, 
and significance felt regarding, 
the nature of one’s being and 
existence  

sense of purpose and 
coherence 

     
Personal Meaning Profile 
(PMP; Wong 1998) 

57 items with 7 subscales, 
assesses one’s sense of 
personal meaning in their life 

“I engage in creative work: (1) 
not at all— (7) a great deal 

“I seek to glorify God”: (1) not 
at all— (7) a great deal 

 

meaning - cognizance of order, 

coherence and purpose in 
one’s existence, the pursuit and 
attainment of 

worthwhile goals, and an 
accompanying sense of 
fulfillment  

achievement, religion, self-
transcendence, relationship, 
intimacy, fairness, and self-
acceptance 

     Sources of Meaning and 
Meaning in Life Questionnaire 
(SoMe; Schnell, 2009)  

 

 

151 items measuring 26 
sources of meaning and 
Positive and negative 
dimensions of meaning: 1) 
meaningfulness, a sense of 
fulfillment, based on 
significance, coherence, and 
belonging, and 2) crisis of 
meaning, the view that life is 
empty and has no meaning; 4 
higher order dimensions, 6-
point Likert scale  

 

“I feel pain from finding no 
purpose in my life”: (1) totally 
disagree— (5) totally agree 

meaningfulness – a 
fundamental sense of meaning, 
Based on an appraisal of one’s 
life as coherent, significant, 
directed, and belonging  

self-transcendence: explicit 
religiosity, spirituality, unison 
with nature, social 
commitment, generativity, 
care, health; self-
actualisation:  individualism, 
challenge power, development, 
freedom, knowledge, 
achievement, creativity, self-
knowledge; order: reason, 
morality, tradition, practicality; 
well-being and communality: 
fun, wellness, harmony, 
attentiveness, love, community 

Sources of Meaning Profile 
(SOMP; Reker & Wong, 1988) 

17-items assessing the sources 
and degree of meaning in one’s 
life evaluating four different 
domains of meaning: self-
transcendence, collectivism, 
individualism, self-
preoccupation; 7-point Likert 
scale 

“Being of service to others”—
(1) not at all important—
(7) very important 
 
“Leaving a legacy for the next 
generation”—(1) not at all 
important—(7) very important 
 

 

Meaning as made through 
making choices, taking actions, 
and entering into relationships 

self-transcendence: sources that 
transcend the limits of the self, 
ultimately involving cosmic or 
ultimate meaning; collectivism: 
sources that focus on the 
betterment of the group, with an 
emphasis on service to others and 
dedication to a larger societal or 
political cause; individualism: 
sources that focus on self-growth, 
development, and the realization 
of one's potential; self-
preoccupation: sources that meet 
and satisfy the immediate needs of 
the respondent 

     
Schedule for Meaning in Life 
Evaluation (SMiLE; Fegg et 
al., 2008) 

Self-report measure that 
assesses individual meaning in 
life; three-part process: 1) asks 
participants to list three to 
seven areas that provide 
meaning to their lives, 2) rate 
the importance of each area on 
a 5-point Likert scale, 3) 
respondents indicate on a 7-
point Likert scale their current 

(1) somewhat important— (5) 
extremely important 

 

(-3) very unsatisfied— (+3) 
very satisfied 

 

Will to Meaning Assumption  

 

Meaning = cognizance of order, 
coherence and purpose in one’s 
existence, the pursuit and 
attainment of worthwhile goals, 
and an accompanying sense of 
fulfillment (Reker & Wong, 

Respondent-generated; family, 
leisure time, friends, partner, 
animals/nature, work, pleasure, 
spirituality, health, well-being, 
altruism, house/garden, finances, 
altruism, hedonism 

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE

level of satisfaction (3 
satisfaction indexes) 

1988, p. 221) 

     
Meaning in Suffering Test 
(MiST; Starck, 1983) 

Assesses  perception of the 
degree of meaning found in 
unavoidable experiences of 
suffering; 2 parts: 1) 20-item 
self-report measure, 7-point 
Likert scale, yielding 3 
subscale scores 2) open-ended 
response format    

“I believe suffering causes a 
person to find new and more 
worthwhile life goals”: (1) 
never— 

(7) constantly 

Will to Meaning Assumption  Subjective characteristics of 
suffering  

     
Constructed Meaning Scale 
(CMS; Fife, 1995)  

11 items related to impact of 
illness on respondents’ sense 
of identity, interpersonal 
relationships, and perceived 
future; 4-point Likert scale 

“I feel my experience with 
cancer has made me a better 
person”: (1) strongly agree— 
(4) strong disagree 

  

Will to Meaning Assumption 

Meaning - the individual’s 
perception of his/her ability to 
accomplish future goals, to 
maintain the viability of 
relationships, and to sustain a 
sense of personal vitality, 
competence, and power within 
the context of everyday living 
as it has been altered by 
occurrence of an event. 

  

Sense of identity, interpersonal 
relationships, perceived future 



16

Meaning in Life Measure 
(MLM; Morgan & Farsides, 
2009) 

23 items with 5 subscales 
encompassing cognitive, 
affective, and behavior 
components of the meaning in 
life concept; 7-point Likert 
scale 

“I find it satisfying to think 
about what I have 
accomplished in life”: (1) 
strongly disagree—(7) strongly 
agree 

“I really value my life”: (1) 
strongly disagree— (7) 
strongly agree 

 

Will to Meaning Assumption  

 

 

purposeful life: a sense of having 
clear goals, aims, and intentions; 
valued life: a sense of life’s 
inherent value; accomplished life: 
a sense that personal goals are 
being achieved or fulfilled; 
principled life: a sense of having 
a personal philosophy or 
framework through which to  
understand life; exciting life: an 
enthusiastic orientation that views 
life as exciting, interesting, or 
engaging 

     
Meaning in Life Scale (ML; 
Warner & Williams, 1987) 

15-items, self-report, 5-point 
Likert scale; interview 
consisting of life satisfaction 
and other life measures 

“Believing in God is...”: (1) 
not at all meaningful to me— 
(5) the most meaningful thing 
in my life 

Meaning in life - a sense of 
purpose, beliefs, and statements 
of faith enhanced through 
personal commitment and 
emotional support from others, 
religious affiliations, and/or 
purposeful activities in life  

believing in God, being around 
people, coming to terms with 
illness, looking forward to each 
new day, participating in religious 
activities, giving affection to loved 
ones, receiving love and support, 
life is useful and worthwhile, 
activities and hobbies, doing 
things for mvself, support from 
other- patients, life full of good 
times, setting daily and long-term 
goals, philosophy 

     
Meaning in Life Measurement 
Tool (MLMT; Lee et al., 2002)  

 

63-items, 4-point Likert scale; 
intended to measure meaning 
in life 

“I think I have more virtues 
than drawbacks”: 4 Likert 
points not labeled 

Will to Meaning Assumption  self-awareness, self-acceptance, 
futuristic aspiration, valuelessness, 
purpose in life, contentedness with 
life, role awareness, experience of 
love, love in family, commitment 
and self-transcendence             

     
Meaning Essay Document 
(Ebersole & DeVogler, 1981) 

Open-ended format, 
participants to describe and 
rank 3 most important sources 
of meaning, as well as to list 
experiences associated with 
each meaning source 

N/A No definition; instrument 
designed to clarify the meaning 
in life concept 

understanding: trying to gain 
more knowledge; relationship: an 
interpersonal orientation including 
family, friends, and romantic 
relationships; service: a helping, 
giving orientation dealing with 
people in the abstract); belief: 
Living according to one's beliefs— 

level of satisfaction (3 
satisfaction indexes) 

1988, p. 221) 

     
Meaning in Suffering Test 
(MiST; Starck, 1983) 

Assesses  perception of the 
degree of meaning found in 
unavoidable experiences of 
suffering; 2 parts: 1) 20-item 
self-report measure, 7-point 
Likert scale, yielding 3 
subscale scores 2) open-ended 
response format    

“I believe suffering causes a 
person to find new and more 
worthwhile life goals”: (1) 
never— 

(7) constantly 

Will to Meaning Assumption  Subjective characteristics of 
suffering  

     
Constructed Meaning Scale 
(CMS; Fife, 1995)  

11 items related to impact of 
illness on respondents’ sense 
of identity, interpersonal 
relationships, and perceived 
future; 4-point Likert scale 

“I feel my experience with 
cancer has made me a better 
person”: (1) strongly agree— 
(4) strong disagree 

  

Will to Meaning Assumption 

Meaning - the individual’s 
perception of his/her ability to 
accomplish future goals, to 
maintain the viability of 
relationships, and to sustain a 
sense of personal vitality, 
competence, and power within 
the context of everyday living 
as it has been altered by 
occurrence of an event. 

  

Sense of identity, interpersonal 
relationships, perceived future 

SCHULTZ

�

religious, political, or social; 
expression: expressions of self 
through such things as art, 
athletics. music, writing, etc.; 
obtaining: emphasizes obtaining 
possessions, respect, and 
responsibility; growth: 
emphasizes a striving towards 
developing potentials, obtaining 
goals; existential-hedonistic: 
includes general expressions that 
pleasure and daily life are most 
meaningful 

     
Meaning in Life Depth 
Instrument (DeVogler & 
Ebersole, 1981) 

Participants rank a list of 8 
commonly cited sources of 
meaning from most to least 
personal importance and write 
a brief essay about the level of 
significance of most 
importance meaning source 
has to them  

(1) “Write in detail about the 
thing that you find gives you 
greatest meaning in your life. 
Use the back of the page if 
necessary. Tell why this is 
meaningful to you and try to 
provide an example of it."  
(2) "Support to the best of your 
ability why you feel your 
meaning in life is deep or not 
deep. Use examples, tell how 
much you are involved (or 
not); in general, try to 
convince me that you know 
what you are talking about." 
 

 

No definition; instrument 
designed to clarify the meaning 
in life concepts 

5 levels of depth in meaning: 
highest, above average, average, 
below average, lowest 



17

�

religious, political, or social; 
expression: expressions of self 
through such things as art, 
athletics. music, writing, etc.; 
obtaining: emphasizes obtaining 
possessions, respect, and 
responsibility; growth: 
emphasizes a striving towards 
developing potentials, obtaining 
goals; existential-hedonistic: 
includes general expressions that 
pleasure and daily life are most 
meaningful 

     
Meaning in Life Depth 
Instrument (DeVogler & 
Ebersole, 1981) 

Participants rank a list of 8 
commonly cited sources of 
meaning from most to least 
personal importance and write 
a brief essay about the level of 
significance of most 
importance meaning source 
has to them  

(1) “Write in detail about the 
thing that you find gives you 
greatest meaning in your life. 
Use the back of the page if 
necessary. Tell why this is 
meaningful to you and try to 
provide an example of it."  
(2) "Support to the best of your 
ability why you feel your 
meaning in life is deep or not 
deep. Use examples, tell how 
much you are involved (or 
not); in general, try to 
convince me that you know 
what you are talking about." 
 

 

No definition; instrument 
designed to clarify the meaning 
in life concepts 

5 levels of depth in meaning: 
highest, above average, average, 
below average, lowest 

Discussion

� 7KH� ÀHOG� RI � SV\FKRORJ\� SURYLGHV� D� VWUXFWXUHG�
approach to studying the ambiguous and subjective 
concept of  purpose in life. Probing how purpose in 
life is measured through the exploration of  instru-
ments that seek to explore this construct may enhance 
our understanding.  Given the sheer volume of  scales 
and instruments developed to measure life purpose 
and related concepts, this review is a testament to 
the increasing focus on the topic in psychology and 
its relevance to physical and emotional well-being.

Limitations
 While these efforts to understand purpose in 
life have been numerous and comprehensive, there 
DUH� QHYHUWKHOHVV�PDQ\�ÁDZV� DQG� VKRUWFRPLQJV� WKDW�
PDNH� WKH� FRQVWUXFW� GLIÀFXOW� WR� IXOO\� FDSWXUH�� 6RPH�
researchers question the dimensionality of  cer-
tain scales, such as Ryff ’s Scales of  Psychological 
Well-Being (RPWB; Ryff, 1989), claiming that the 
GLPHQVLRQV� DUH� ÁDZHG� GXH� WR� FRQFHSWXDO� RYHUODS��
Other measures, such as the Purpose in Life Test 
(PIL; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964), have been crit-
icized for having confounding and value-laden vari-
ables. These and infrequent use of  some measures 
which could hinder generalizability to other popula-
tions, demonstrate the need for the development and 
thorough reconsideration of  how measures of  pur-
pose in life are constructed and how it is assessed.      

Implications
 The extant literature provides us with ample 
information concerning purpose in life and how it 

functions to affect mental health and its role in op-
timal human development. However, the discrepan-
cies in conceptual clarity and measurement of  de-
ÀQLQJ�SXUSRVH� LQ� OLIH� KROG� YDVW� LPSOLFDWLRQV��%HWWHU�
measurement tools could help parse out different 
dimensions of  the construct and potentially identi-
fy new ones. Enhanced measures could also enable 
researchers to better understand the relationships be-
tween these dimensions and the larger purpose con-
struct (e.g. meaning vs. purpose). More sophisticated 
tools could also perhaps differentiate between exter-
nal sources of  purpose and internally derived-sense 
of  purpose (created vs. found) or explore different 
types of  purpose such as career, familial, religious, 
or service-oriented purposes.  Obtaining a more nu-
anced understanding of  purpose in life would help 
better understand how it affects mental health. Giv-
HQ� WKH� LQFUHDVLQJ� FOLQLFDO� VLJQLÀFDQFH� RI � SXUSRVH�
in life, these implications should not be ignored.

Future Research
 Renewed interest in the topic of  purpose in life is 
certainly encouraging, especially given the substantial 
impact and role it plays in physical and mental well-
being. However, rapidly growing literature based on 
YDULRXV�GHÀQLWLRQV� DQG�PHDVXUHV�RI �SXUSRVH� LQ� OLIH�
can create more questions than answers. Given the 
GLVFUHSDQFLHV�LQ�KRZ�SXUSRVH�LQ�OLIH�LV�GHÀQHG��LW�FDQ�
leave one wondering how an ambiguous concept can 
be measured. First, it would be wise for researchers 
and theorists to work towards a consensus on a more 
VXFFLQFW� GHÀQLWLRQ� RI � SXUSRVH� DQG� OLIH� DQG� PHDQ-
ing in life to allow for better operationalization of  
the concept. Accordingly, more longitudinal studies 

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



18

should be conducted in order to develop better mod-
els of  purpose in life and how it potentially changes 
over time. While purpose in life has been studied in 
different age populations, such as children (Damon, 
2009), adolescents (e.g. Bronk 2011, 2012; Damon, 
2009; Francis & Burton, 1994), adults, the elderly (e.g. 
Boyle et al., 2009), and the oldest-old (e.g. Nygren et 
al., 2005), few longitudinal studies exist. As noted by 
Bronk (2014), these span only a few weeks or a few 
PRQWKV��7R�GDWH��RQO\�RQH�VWXG\�VSDQV�RYHU�ÀYH�\HDUV�
(Bronk 2011, 2012; Damon, 2009), which followed 
youth through adolescence to emerging adulthood. 
Additionally, as observed by the author, a majority of  
purpose in life research appears to have occurred in 
Western populations; purpose in life can be manifest-
ed much differently in Eastern cultures. Additional-
ly, while some instruments have been translated into 
different languages  (e.g. Brazilian Sources of  Mean-
ing in Life Questionnaire, SoMe-BR; Damásio et al., 
2013; Chinese Purpose in Life test, C-PIL; Shek et 
al. 1987), their administration has been minimal, ne-
cessitating further cross-cultural research to account 
for cultural differences. Additional directions for re-
search include further exploring the relationship be-
tween purpose and meaning in life, investigating the 
role of  life events and circumstances in the develop-
ment or change in purpose in life, or analyzing wheth-
er different items of  measurements load the compo-
nents of  purpose in life outlined by Bronk (2014). 
 While it should be noted that instruments suffer 
from discrepancies and lack of  clarity of  the purpose 
in life construct, improvements to measures can be 
made. The development of  measures of  purpose in 
OLIH� FRXOG� DOVR�EHQHÀW� IURP�D�PXOWLPRGDO� DSSURDFK�
in which both quantitative and qualitative method-
ologies are employed. This integration would allow 
for researchers to bridge the gap between theories of  
life purpose and the subjective, lived experiences of  
individuals. Additionally, more sophisticated scales 
that have the ability to capture more dimensions of  
purpose in life at the same time. This sentiment is 
echoed by Bronk (2014), who claims that while some 
existing survey measures assess for the meaning, 
commitment, and goal-pursuit dimensions of  pur-
pose in life, many leave out the self-transcendence 
component of  the construct because it can be dif-

ÀFXOW�WR�FDSWXUH��7KH�GHYHORSPHQW�RI �PHDVXUHV�WKDW�
include more dimensions of  purpose in life would 
give researchers further insight into the concept.    

Conclusion
 This review has several limitations. First, a for-
mal meta-analysis was not performed due to incon-
sistencies of  measurement and limited quantitative 
data. Additionally, the author was the sole reviewer of  
articles. Multiple reviewers may enhance the review 
by providing different perspective, enhancing the 
rigor of  the study, and establish inter-rater reliability. 
 The instruments reviewed represent a consider-
able effort to explore a complex topic that has been 
the source of  inquiry for centuries. While it is clear 
WKDW� WKDW�PRUH� UHVHDUFK�QHHGV� WR�EH�GRQH�� WKH�ÀHOG�
holds great promise. It is hoped that better and more 
FRQVLVWHQW�PHDVXUHPHQW�ZLOO� \LHOG�PRUH� VSHFLÀF� LQ-
formation on how purpose in life functions to im-
pact health and well-being, ultimately resulting in the 
development of  new mental health interventions.  

References

$ÁDNVHLU�� $EGXOD]L]�� �������� 5HOLJLRVLW\�� 3HUVRQDO�
Meaning, and Psychological Well-being:A Study 
among Muslim Students in England. Pakistan 
Journal of  Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 
27-31. 

Allport, Gordon. (1961). Pattern and growth in per-
sonality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 
Inc.

Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development 
of  meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36(4), 409-427. 

Bellin, Zvi. (2012). The Quest to Capture Personal 
Meaning in Psychology. International Journal of  
Existential Psychology & Psychotherapy, 4(1), 
4-30. 

Bellin, Zvi. (2009). Exploring a Holistic Content Ap-
proach to Personal Meaning. (Doctor of  Philso-
phy Dissertation), Loyola University.   

Bevvino, D. (2000). Divorce adjustment as a function 
of  gender, education level, personality, length of  
separation, disentanglement, initiator status and 
meaning. Dissertation Abstracts Internation-

SCHULTZ



19

al [Section] B: The Sciences & Engineering, 60, 
6353. 

Bonebright, Cynthia A, Clay, Daniel L, & Anken-
mann, Robert D. (2000). The relationship of  
ZRUNDKROLVP�ZLWK�ZRUN²OLIH�FRQÁLFW��OLIH�VDWLVIDF-
tion, and purpose in life. Journal of  Counseling 
Psychology, 47(4), 469. 

Boyle, P. A., Barnes, L. L., Buchman, A. S., & Ben-
nett, D. A. (2009). Purpose in life is associated 
with mortality among community-dwelling older 
persons. Psychosomatic medicine, 71(5), 574.

Braden, Abby L. (2012). Searching for Meaning: An 
Investigation of  Life Meaning in Depressed 
Adults. (Doctor of  Philosophy Dissertation), 
Case Western Reserve University.   

Bronk, Kendall Cotton. (2014). Purpose in Life:  A 
Critical Component of  Optimal Youth Develop-
ment. New York: Springer.

Bronk, Kendall Cotton, Finch, W. Holmes, & Talib, 
Tasneem L. (2010). Purpose in life among high 
ability adolescents. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 
133-145. 

Bronk, K. C. (2011). The role of  purpose in life in 
healthy identity formation: A grounded mod-
el. New directions for youth development, 
2011(132), 31-44.

Bundick, M., Andrews, M., Jones, A., Mariano, J. 
M., Bronk, K. C., & Damon, W. (2006). Revised 
youth purpose survey unpublished instrument. 
Stanford Center on Adolescence. Stanford, CA. 

Burnette, Katherine D., Swan, E. Stephen, Robinson, 
Kenneth D., Lester, Drew, & Little, Gregory L. 
(2003). Effects of  Moral Reconation Therapy on 
Male Felony Offenders in a Prison-based Ther-
apeutic Community Program. Cognitive Behav-
ioral Treatment Review, 12(3), 1-5. 

Burrow, Anthony L., Sumner, Rachel, & Ong, Antho-
ny D. (2014). Perceived Change in Life Satisfac-
tion and Daily Negative Affect: The Moderating 
Role of  Purpose in Life. Journal of  Happiness 
Studies, 15, 579–592. 

Chamberlain, Kerry, & Zika, Sheryl. (1988). Measur-
ing Meaning in Life: An Examination of  Three 
Scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 
9(3), 589-596. 

Coward, Doris D. (1996). Self-Transcendence and 

Correlates in a Healthy Population. Nursing Re-
search, 45(2), 116-121. 

Crumbaugh, J, & Maholick, L. (1967). An experimen-
tal study in existentialism: The psychometric ap-
proach to Frankl’s concept of  noogenic neurosis. 
. In V. E. Frankl (Ed.), Psychotherapy and Exis-
tentialism (pp. 183-197). New York: Washington 
Square Press.

Crumbaugh, James. (1968). Cross-validation of  Pur-
pose in Life test based on Frankl’s concepts. 
Journal of  Individual Psychology, 24, 74-81. 

Crumbaugh, James C. (1977). The Seeking of  Noetic 
Goals Test (SONG): A Complementary Scale to 
the Purpose in Life Test (PIL). Journal of  Clini-
cal Psychology, 33(3), 900-907. 

Crumbaugh, James, & Maholick, Leonard T. (1964). 
An Experimental Study in Existentialism: The 
Psychometric Approach to Frankl’s Concept of  
Noogenic Neurosis. Journal of  Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 20(2), 200-207. 

Damásio, Bruno Figueiredo, Koller, Sílvia Helena, 
& Schnell, Tatjana. (2013a). Sources of  Mean-
ing and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe): 
Psychometric Properties and Sociodemographic 
Findings in a Large Brazilian Sample. Acta de In-
vestigacion Psicologica, 3(3), 1205 – 1227.

Damásio, Bruno Figueiredo, Koller, Sílvia Helena, 
& Schnell, Tatjana. (2013b). Sources of  Mean-
ing and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe): 
Psychometric Properties and Sociodemographic 
Findings in a Large Brazilian Sample. Acta de In-
vestigacion Psicologica, 3(3), 1205-1227. 

Damon, William, Menon, Jenni, & Bronk, Kendall 
Cotton. (2003). The Development of  Purpose 
During Adolescence. Applied Developmental 
Science, 7(3), 119-128. 

Damon, W. (2009). The path to purpose: How young 
SHRSOH�ÀQG�WKHLU�FDOOLQJ�LQ�OLIH��6LPRQ�DQG�

 Schuster.
Debats, Dominique Louis, Drost, Joost, & Hansen, 

Prartho. (1995). Experiences of  meaning in life: 
A combined qualitative and quantitative ap-
proach. British Journal of  Psychology, 86, 359-
375. 

Debats, Dominique Louis, Lubbe, Petra M. Van 
Der, & Wezeman, Fimmy R.A. (1993). On the 

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



20

Pyschometric Properties of  the Life Regard In-
dex (LRI): A Meaure of  Meaningful Life - An 
Evaluation in Three Independent Samples Based 
on the Dutch Version. Personality and Individual 
Differences, 14(2), 337-345. 

DeVogler, Karen L., & Ebersole, Peter. (1980). Cate-
gorization of  College Students’ Meaning of  Life. 
Psychological Reports, 46, 387-390. 

DeVogler, Karen L., & Ebersole, Peter. (1981). 
Adults’ Meaning in Life. Psychological Reports, 
49, 87-90. 

DeVogler, Karen L., & Ebersole, Peter. (1983). Young 
Adolescents’ Meaning in Life. Psychological Re-
ports, 52, 427-431. 

Dierendonck, Dirk van. (2004). The construct validity 
of  Ryff ’s Scales of  Psychological Well-being and 
its extension with spiritual well-being. Personality 
and Individual Differences, 36(3), 629–643. 

Dyck, Murray J. (1987). Assessing Logotherapeutic 
Constructs: Conceptual and Pyschometic Status 
of  the Purpose in Life and Seeking of  Noetic 
Goals Tests. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 439-
447. 

Ebersole, Peter, & DePaola, Steve. (1989). Meaning 
in Life Depth in  the Active Married Elderly. The 
Journal of  Psychology, 123(2), 171-178. 

Ebersole, Peter, & DeVogler, Karen L. (1981). Mean-
ing in Life: Catergory Self-Ratings. The Journal 
of  Psychology, 107, 289-293. 

Ebersole, Peter, & Kobayakawa, Shari. (1989). Bias in 
Meaning in Life Ratings. Pyschological Reports, 
65, 911-914. 

Ebersole, Peter, & Quiring, Gogi. (1991). Meaning 
in Life Depth: The Mild. Journal of  Humanistic 
Psychology, 31(3), 113-124. 

Ebersole, Peter, & Sacco, John. (1983). Depth of  
Meaning in Life: A Preliminary Study. Psycho-
logical Reports, 53, 890. 

Emmons, Robert A. (2003). Personal Goals, Life 
Meaning, and Virtue: Wellsprings of  a Positive 
Life In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flour-
ishing : positive psychology and the life well-
lived (1st ed. ed., pp. 105-128). Washington DC: 
American Psychological Association.

Eriksson, Monica, & Lindstrom, Bengt. (2005). Va-
lidity of  Antonovsky’s sense of  coherence scale: 

a systematic review. Journal of  Epidemiology & 
Community Health, 59, 460-466. 

Fegg, Martin J., Kramer, Mechtild, L’hoste, Sibylle, & 
Borasio, Gian Domenico. (2008). The Schedule 
for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE): Valida-
tion of  a New Instrument for Meaning-in-Life 
Research. Journal of  Pain and Symptom Man-
agement, 35(4), 356-364. 

Fife, Betsy L. (1995). Measurement of  Meaning in Ill-
ness. Social Science & Medicine, 40(8), 

 1021-1028. 
Fife, Betsy L. (2005). The role of  constructed mean-

ing in adaptation to the onset of  life-threatening 
illness. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2132-2143. 

Fostner, JJ. (1997). The relationship between meaning 
of  illness and coping in HIV-positive patients. 
Dissertation Abstracts International [Section] B: 
The Sciences & Engineering, 58, 2673. 

)UDQFLV��/��-���	�%XUWRQ��/����������7KH�LQÁXHQFH�RI �
personal prayer on purpose in life among Cath-
olic adolescents. Journal of  Beliefs and Values, 
15(2), 6-9.

Frankl, Viktor. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. 
Boston: Beacon Press.

Frankl, Viktor. (1966). Self-transcendence as a human 
phenomenon. Journal of  Humanistic Psycholo-
gy. 

Garcini, Luz M., Short, Mary, & Norwood, William 
D. (2013). Affective and motivational predictors 
of  perceived meaning in life among  college stu-
dents. The Journal of  Happiness & Well-Being, 
1(2), 47-60. 

Hablas, R, & Hutzell, RR. (1982). The Life Purpose 
Questionnaire: An alternative to the Purpose-in-
Life test for geriatric, neuropsychiatric patients. 
Analecta Frankliana, 211-215. 

Hall, Douglas T., & Chandler, Dawn E. (2005). Psy-
chological Success: When the Career Is a Calling. 
Journal of  Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 155-
176. 

+LFNV��7HUHQFH����������$�3URÀOH�RI �&KRLFH�5HVSRQ-
sibleness and Goal- Seeking Attitudes among 
First-Generation and Non-First-Generation Col-
lege Students. The Journal of  College Orienta-
tion and Transition, 12(2), 40-53. 

Hutzell, Robert R, & Finck, Willis C. (1994). Adapt-

SCHULTZ



21

ing the Life Purpose questionnaire for use with 
adolescent populations. Paper presented at the 
The International Forum for Logotherapy.

Hutzell, RR, & Peterson, TJ. (1986). Use of  the Life 
Purpose Questionnaire with an alcoholic popula-
tion. Substance Use & Misuse, 21(1), 51-57. 

Jonsén, Elisabeth, Fagerström, Lisbeth, Lundman, 
Berit, Nygren, Björn, Vähäkangas, Magdalena, & 
Strandberg, Gunilla. (2010). Psychometric prop-
erties of  the Swedish version of  the Purpose in 
Life scale. Scandinavian Journal of  Caring Sci-
ences, 24(1), 41-48. 

Kim, Suk-Sun, Reed, Pamela G., Kang, Youngmi, & 
Oh, Jina. (2012). Translation and Psychometric 
Testing of  the Korean Versions of  the Spiritu-
al Perspective Scale and the Self-transcendence 
Scale in Korean Elders. Journal of  Korean Acad-
emy of  Nursing, 12, 974-983. 

Kish, George B, & Moody, David R. (1989). Psycho-
pathology and life purpose. Paper presented at 
the International Forum for Logotherapy.

Klinger, Eric. (1977). Meaning, Goals, and Action 
Meaning and Void : Inner Experience and the 
Incentives in People’s Lives (pp. 3-26). Minneap-
olis: University of  Minnesota Press.

Law, Ben M. F. (2012). Psychometric Properties of  
the Existence Subscale of  the Purpose in Life 
Questionnaire for Chinese Adolescents in Hong 
.RQJ��7KH�6FLHQWLÀF�:RUOG�-RXUQDO�������������

Lee, Jeong- Ji, Shin, Kyung-Il, Choi, Soon-Ock, & 
Kim, Sook-Nam. (2002). Development of  Mean-
ing in Life Measurement Tool. Journal of  Korean 
Academy of  Nursing, 32(7), 1039-1048. 

MacDonald, Marvin J., Wong, Paul T.P., & Gingras, 
Daniel T. (2012). Meaning-in-Life Measures and 
Development of  a Brief  Version of  the Personal 
0HDQLQJ�3URÀOH��,Q�3��7��3��:RQJ��(G����7KH�+X-
man Quest for Meaning: Theories, Research, and 
Applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.

Mascaro, Nathan, & Rosen, David H. (2005). Exis-
tential Meaning’s Role in the Enhancement of  
Hope and Prevention of  Depressive Symptoms. 
Journal of  Personality, 73(4), 985-1013. 

Mehnert, Anja, & Koch, Uwe. (2008). Psychometric 
evaluation of  the German version of  the Life 

$WWLWXGH� 3URÀOH²5HYLVHG� �/$3�5�� LQ� SURVWDWH�
cancer patients. Palliative and Supportive Care, 6, 
119-124. 

Melton, Amanda M.A., & Schulenberg, Stefan E. 
(2008). On the Measurement of  Meaning: Logo-
therapy’s Empirical Contributions to Humanistic 
Psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36, 
31-44. 

Morgan, Jessica, & Farsides, Tom. (2008). Measuring 
Meaning in Life. Journal of  Happiness Studies, 
10(2), 197-214. 

Morgan, Jessica, & Farsides, Tom. (2009). Psycho-
metric Evaluation of  the Meaningful Life Mea-
sure. Journal of  Happiness Studies, 10, 351–366. 

Nygren, B., Alex, L., Jonsen, E., Gustafson, Y., Nor-
berg, A., & Lundman, B. (2005). Resilience, sense 
of  coherence, purpose in life and self-transcen-
dence in relation to perceived physical and men-
tal health among the oldest old. Aging & Mental 
Health, 9(4), 354-362. 

Pearson, Elissa L., Windsor, Tim D., Crisp, Dimity 
A., Butterworth, Peter, Pilkington, Pamela D., & 
Anstey, Kaarin J. (2013). Normative data and lon-
gitudinal invariance of  the Life Engagement Test 
(LET) in a community sample of  older adults. 
Quality of  Life Research, 22, 327-331. 

Pinquart, Martin, Silbereisen, Rainer K., & Fröhlich, 
Cornelia. (2009). Life goals and purpose in life in 
cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 17, 
253–259. 

Prager, Edward. (1996a). Exploring Personal Mean-
ing in Age-Differentiated Australian Sample: 
$QRWKHU�/RRN�DW�WKH�6RXUFHV�RI �0HDQLQJ�3URÀOH�
(SOMP). Journal of  Aging Studies, 10(2), 117-
136. 

Prager, Edward. (1996b). Sources of  Present Mean-
ing in Life for Younger and Older Israelis and 
Canadians. Gerontology(74), 3-15. 

Prager, Edward. (1997). Sources of  personal mean-
ing for older and younger australian and israeli 
ZRPHQ�� 3URÀOHV� DQG� FRPSDULVRQV�� $JHLQJ� DQG�
Society, 17(2), 167-190. 

Prager, Edward. (1998). Observations of  personal 
meaning sources for Israeli age cohorts. Aging & 
Mental Health, 2(2), 128-136. 

Prager, Edward, Bar-Tur, Leora, & Abramowici, 

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



22

,ODQD�� �������� 7KH� 6RXUFHV� RI � 0HDQLQJ� 3URÀOH�
(SOMP) with Aged Subjects Exhibiting Depres-
sive Symptomatology. Clinical Gerontologist, 
17(3), 25-39. 

Ranst, Nancy Van, & Marcoen, Alfons. (1997). Mean-
ing in Life of  Young and Elderly Adults: An Ex-
amination of  the Factorial Validity and Invari-
ance of  the Life Regard Index. Personality and 
Individual Differences, 22(6), 877-884. 

Rathi, Neerpal, & Rastogi, Renu. (2007). Meaning in 
Life and Psychological Well-Being in Pre-Ado-
lescents and Adolescents. Journal of  the Indian 
Academy of  Applied Psychology, 33(1), 31-38. 

Reed, P. G. . (1991). Self-transcendence and mental 
health in the oldest-old adults. Nursing Research, 
40, 5–11. 

Reker, G. (1977). The Purpose in Life test in an in-
mate population: An empirical investigation. 
Journal of  Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 688-693. 

Reker, G. T. . (1996). Manual of  the Sources of  Mean-
LQJ� 3URÀOH�5HYLVHG� �6203�5��� 3HWHUERURXJK��
ON: Student Psychologists Press.

Reker, G.T. , & Wong, P. (1988). Aging as an Individu-
al Process: Toward a Theory of   Personal Mean-
ing   In J. Birren & V. L. Bengston. (Eds.), Emer-
gent Theories of  Aging. New York: Springer 

Reker, Gary T. (2000). Theoretical Perspective, Di-
mensions, and Measurement of  Existential 
Meaning. In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain 
(Eds.), Exploring Existential Meaning: Optimiz-
ing Human Development Across the Life Span 
(pp. 39-55): Sage Publications, Inc.

Reker, Gary T. (2005). Meaning in life of  young, mid-
dle-aged, and older adults: factorial validity, age, 
and gender invariance of  the Personal Meaning 
Index (PMI). Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 38, 71-85. 

Reker, Gary T., & Cousins, J.B. (1979). Factor Struc-
ture, Construct Validity and Reliability of  the 
Seeking of  Noetic Goals (SONG) and Purpose 
in Life Tests. Journal of  Clinical Psychology, 
35(1), 85-91. 

Reker, Gary T., & Fry, Prem S. (2003). Factor structure 
and invariance of  personal meaning measures in 
cohorts of  younger and older adults. Personality 
and Individual Differences, 35, 977-993. 

Reker, Gary T., & Peacock, Edward J. (1981). The 
/,IH�$WWLWXGH�3URÀOH� �/$3��$�PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO�
Instrument for assessing attitudes toward life. 
Canadian Journal of  Behavioural Science, 13(3), 
264-273. 

Reker, Gary T., Peacock, Edward J., & Wong, Paul 
T. P. (1987). Meaning and Purpose in Life and 
Well-Being: A Life-Span Perspective. Journal of  
Gerontology, 42(1), 44-49. 

5HNHU�� *7�� �������� /LIH� $WWLWXGH� 3URÀOH³5HYLVHG��
Student Psychologists Press, Peterborough, On-
tario, Canada.

Robbins, Mandy, & Francis, Leslie J. (2000). Religion, 
Personality, and Well-being: The Relationship 
Between Church Attendance and Purpose in Life

. Journal of  Research on Christian Education, 9(2), 
223-238. 

Ryff, Carol D. (1989). Happiness is Everything, Or Is 
,W"��([SORUDWLRQV�RQ�WKH�0HDQLQJ�RI �3V\FKRORJL-
cal Well-Being. Journal of  Personality and Social 
Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. 

Ryff, Carol D., & Keyes, Corey Lee M. (1995). The 
Structure of  Psychological Well-Being Revisited. 
Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 
69(4), 719-727. 

Ryff, Carol D., & Singer, Burton H. (2006). Best news 
yet on the six-factor model of  well-being. Social 
Science Research, 35, 1103-1119. 

Scheier, Michael F., Wrosch, Carsten, Baum, Andrew, 
Cohen, Sheldon, Martire, Lynn M., Matthews, 
Karen A., . . . Zdaniuk, Bozena. (2006). The Life 
Engagement Test: Assessing Purpose in Life. 
Journal of  Behavioral Medicine, 29(3), 291-298. 

Schnell, Tatjana. (2009). The Sources of  Meaning and 
Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe): Relations 
to demographics and well-being. The journal of  
Positive psychology, 4(6), 483 - 499. 

Schnell, Tatjana. (2011). Individual differences in 
meaning-making: Considering the variety of  
sources of  meaning, their density and diversity. 
Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 667-
673. 

Schnell, Tatjana, & Becker, Peter. (2006). Personality 
and meaning in life. Personality and Individual 
Differences, 41, 117-129. 

Schulenberg, Stefan , Gohm, Carol , & Anderson, 

SCHULTZ



23

Cahryn. (2006). The Meaning in Suffering Test 
�0,67���$�XQLWDU\�RU�PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO�PHDVXUH"�
Paper presented at the International Forum for 
Logotherapy.

Schulenberg, Stefan E. (2004). A Psychometric Inves-
tigation of  Logotherapy Measures and the Out-
come Questionnaire (OQ-45.2). North Ameri-
can Journal of  Psychology. 

Schulenberg, Stefan E, & Melton, Amanda MA. 
��������$�FRQÀUPDWRU\�IDFWRU�DQDO\WLF�HYDOXDWLRQ�
of  the purpose in life test: Preliminary psycho-
metric support for a replicable two-factor model. 
Journal of  Happiness Studies, 11(1), 95-111. 

Schulenberg, Stefan E., Baczwaski, Brandy J., & Bu-
chanan, Erin M. (2014). Measuring Search for 
Meaning: A Factor-Analytic Evaluation of  the 
Seeking of  Noetic Goals Test (SONG). Journal 
of  Happiness Studies, 15, 693-715. 

Schulenberg, Stefan E., Schnetzer, Lindsay W., & 
Buchanan, Erin M. (2011). The Purpose in Life 
Test-Short Form: Development and Psychomet-
ric Support. Journal of  Happiness Studies, 12, 
861-876. 

6KDUSQDFN��3DWULFLD�$���*ULIÀQ��0DU\�7��4XLQQ��%HQG-
ers, Alison M., & Fitzpatrick, Joyce J. (2011). 
Self-Transcendence and Spiritual Well-Being in 
the Amish. Journal of  Holistic Nursing, 29(2), 
91-97. 

Shek, Daniel. (1988). Reliability and factorial struc-
ture of  the Chinese version of  the Purpose in 
Life Questionnaire. Journal of  Clinical Psycholo-
gy, 44(3), 384-392. 

Shek, Daniel T. (1993). The Chinese Purpose-in-Life 
Test and psychological well-being in Chinese col-
lege students. Paper presented at the Internation-
al Forum for Logotherapy.

Shek, Daniel T.L. (1992). Meaning in life and psycho-
logical well-being: an empirical study using the 
Chinese version of  the Purpose in Life ques-
tionnaire. The Journal of  Genetic Psychology, 
152(2), 185-200. 

Springer, Kristen W., & Hauser, Robert M. (2006). 
An assessment of  the construct validity of  Ryff ’s 
Scales of  Psychological Well-Being: Method, 
mode, and measurement effects. Social Science 
Research, 35, 1080-1102. 

Starck, Patricia (1983). Patients’ perceptions of  the 
meaning of  suffering. Paper presented at the In-
ternational Forum for Logotherapy.

Starck, Patricia (1985). Guidelines-Meaning in Suf-
fering Test. Institute of  Logotherapy, Berkeley 
(CA). 

Steger, Michael F., Frazier, Patricia, Oishi, Shigehiro, 
& Kaler, Matthew. (2006). The Meaning in Life 
Questionnaire: Assessing the Presence of  and 
Search for Meaning in Life. Journal of  Counsel-
ing Psychology, 53(1), 80-93. 

Steger, Michael F., & Kashdan, Todd B. (2007). Sta-
ELOLW\�DQG�6SHFLÀFLW\�RI �0HDQLQJ�LQ�/LIH�DQG�/LIH�
Satisfaction Over One Year. Journal of  Happi-
ness Studies, 8, 161-179. 

Steger, Michael F., & Kashdan, Todd B. (2013). The 
unbearable lightness of  meaning: Well-being and 
unstable meaning in life. The journal of  Positive 
psychology, 8(2), 103 - 115. 

Steger, Michael F., Kashdan, Todd B., & Oishi, Shige-
hiro. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily 
eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of  
Research Personality, 42(22-42). 

Steger, Michael F., Kashdan, Todd B., Sullivan, Bran-
don A., & Lorentz, Danielle. (2008). Understand-
ing the Search for Meaning in Life: Personality, 
Cognitive Style, and the Dynamic Between Seek-
ing and Experiencing Meaning. Journal of  Per-
sonality, 76(2), 199-228. 

Stiefel, F., Krenz, S., Zdrojewski, C., Stagno, D., Fer-
nandez, M., Bauer, J., . . . Fegg, M. (2008). Mean-
ing in life assessed with the “Schedule for Mean-
ing in Life Evaluation” (SMiLE): a comparison 
between a cancer patient and student sample. 
Support Care Cancer, 16, 1151-1155. 

7KRPDV�� -HDQL� &��� %XUWRQ��0DWWLH��*ULIÀQ��0DU\� 7��
Quinn, & Fitzpatrick, Joyce J. (2010). Self-Tran-
scendence, Spiritual Well-Being, and Spiritual 
Practices of  Women With Breast Cancer. Journal 
of  Holistic Nursing, 28(2), 115-122. 

Tolle, Eckhart (2008). A New Earth: Awakening to 
Your Life’s Purpose. New York: Penguin Group. 

Warner, Stephanie, & Williams, J. (1987). The Mean-
ing in Life Scale: Determining the realiability and 
validity of  a measure. Journal of  Chronis Dis-
ease, 40(6), 503-512. 

MEASURING PURPOSE IN LIFE



24

Warren, Rick. (2002) The Purpose Driven Life: What 
RQ� (DUWK� $P� ,� +HUH� )RU"� *UDQG� 5DSLGV�� 0,��
Zondervan.  

White, Craig A. (2004). Meaning and Its Measure-
ment in Psychosocial Oncology. Psycho-Oncol-
ogy, 13, 468-481. 

Wong, P. . (1998). Implicit Theories of  Meaning-
ful Life and the Development of  the Person-
DO�0HDQLQJ�3URÀOH��,Q�3��:RQJ�	�3��)U\��(GV����
The human quest for meaning: a handbook of  
psychological research and clinical applications. . 
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, Paul T.P. (2014). Viktor Frankl’s Mean-
ing-Seeking Model and Positive Psychology. In 
A. Batthyany & P. Russo-Netzer (Eds.), Meaning 
in Positive and Existential Psychology (pp. 149-
184). New York: Springer. 

Wong, Paul TP. (1998). Implicit theories of  mean-
ingful life and the development of  the personal 
PHDQLQJ� SURÀOH�� /DZUHQFH� (UOEDXP�$VVRFLDWHV�
Publishers.

Yarnell, Thomas. (1972). Validation of  the Seeking of  
Noetic Goals Test with Schizophrenic and Nor-
mal SS. Psychological Reports, 30, 79-82. 

Yalom, Irvin D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. 
New York: Basic Books.   

Zika, Sheryl, & Chamberlain, Kerry. (1992). On the 
relation between meaning in life and psychologi-
cal well-being. British Journal of  Psychology, 83, 
133-145. 


