Skip to main content
Log in

Which One is the Best for Evaluating the Multidimensional Structure of Meaning in Life Among Chinese: A Comparison of Three Multidimensional Scales

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Meaning in life (MIL) plays a critical role in promoting physical and mental health. Given the multidimensional nature of MIL, further research is needed to distinguish between different MIL components. The present study focused on three similar but distinct multidimensional measures (the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale, MEMS; the Multidimensional MIL Scale, MMILS; the Quadripartite Existential Meaning Scale, QEMS), aiming to validate the Chinese versions of these measures and to compare their predictive effects on subjective well-being, indicated by positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Data were collected from two Chinese samples. Sample 1 (N = 393) was used for factor analysis, while Sample 2 (N = 447) was used for the evaluation of measurement invariance, reliability, and predictive relationships of different MIL measures on subjective well-being. Results showed that all three MIL measurements (MEMS, QEMS, and modified MMILS) demonstrated good reliability and validity and positively predicted subjective well-being. Moreover, QEMS showed significant incremental validity in predicting both positive affect and negative affect when controlling for the effects of the other MIL measures. These findings suggest that compared with MEMS and MMILS, QEMS may be a more suitable multidimensional MIL measure in the Chinese context. Further research is needed to examine these findings in other cultural contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets used in the current study are available at https://osf.io/5sgd7/.

Notes

  1. The findings remained consistent for both the T1 and T2 data. Therefore, we reported only the results from the T1 data.

References

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant Number: 22CSH046).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miao Miao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 375 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, Z., Qi, W., He, Q. et al. Which One is the Best for Evaluating the Multidimensional Structure of Meaning in Life Among Chinese: A Comparison of Three Multidimensional Scales. Applied Research Quality Life (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-024-10307-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-024-10307-y

Keywords

Navigation