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.