Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Evaluation of the Purpose in Life Test: Preliminary Psychometric Support for a Replicable Two-Factor Model

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study’s purpose was to use confirmatory factor analysis to compare published factor-analytic models of the 20-item Purpose in Life test (PIL) to identify the one that provides the best fit to the data. To date many different models have been described, with limited evidence to support whether they are replicable. This study utilized data from undergraduates (N = 620) from a medium-sized university located in the southern United States. Ten different PIL models were tested, with support found for the two-factor model (exciting life, purposeful life) of Morgan and Farsides. Recommendations and implications for research are provided.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some critics of the PIL have argued that certain items may be confounded too specifically with other constructs, such as depression (e.g., Dyck 1987; Steger 2006; Yalom 1980).

  2. Many authors, including Sato and Tanaka (1974), Reker and Cousins (1979), Harlow et al. (1987), and Chamberlain and Zika (1988), have reported PIL structures comprised of numerous (three or more) and varied factors, which is further evidence of how tangled this literature has become. These studies are problematic to interpret because they often report items patterning onto more than one factor (e.g., Sato and Tanaka 1974), or do not report how items pattern onto their respective factors (e.g., Harlow et al. 1987).

  3. Shek et al. (1987) conducted a similar factor-analytic study of the Chinese PIL with 480 students (ages 18–25), with differences in how items pattern onto factors evident when the results are compared across studies. The 1988 model is of interest in the current study given its subsequent use in 1992 and 1993 investigations.

  4. For a more in-depth discussion of the measures used with sample 1, including a description of their items, format, and psychometric properties, the reader is referred to Schulenberg (2004).

  5. For a more extensive description of the Boredom Proneness Scale and its psychometric properties, the reader is referred to Melton and Schulenberg (2007).

  6. For a thorough discussion of fit indices, the reader is referred to Hoyle (2000), Thompson (2004), Kline (2005), Hair et al. (2006), and Brown (2006).

  7. For further discussion on this topic relating to the PIL, the reader is referred to Steger (2006).

  8. Extrinsic convergent validity is the concept that measures “may be considered conceptually equivalent and empirically interchangeable if they display corresponding correlational profiles across a heterogeneous collection of external criteria” (Lubinski 2006, p. 109). Lubinski (2004) provided a specific example relating to different measures of verbal content.

References

  • Aiken, L. W., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2006). Psychological testing and assessment (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99–135). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Measuring meaning in life: An examination of three scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 589–596. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(88)90157-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crumbaugh, J. C. (1977a). Manual of instructions: The Seeking of Noetic Goals test (SONG). Abilene, TX: Viktor Frankl Institute of Logotherapy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crumbaugh, J. C. (1977b). The Seeking of Noetic Goals test (SONG): A complementary scale to the purpose in life test (PIL). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 900–907. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197707)33:3<900::AID-JCLP2270330362>3.0.CO;2-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crumbaugh, J. C., & Henrion, R. (1988). The PIL test: Administration, interpretation, uses, theory and critique. International Forum for Logotherapy, 11, 76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 200–207. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196404)20:2<200::AID-JCLP2270200203>3.0.CO;2-U.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1969). Manual of instructions for the Purpose in Life test. Abilene, TX: Viktor Frankl Institute of Logotherapy.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVogler, K. L., & Ebersole, P. (1980). Categorization of college students’ meaning of life. Psychological Reports, 46, 387–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufton, B. D., & Perlman, D. (1986). The association between religiosity and the purpose-in-life test: Does it reflect purpose or satisfaction? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 14, 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, M. J. (1987). Assessing logotherapeutic constructs: Conceptual and psychometric status of the purpose in life and seeking of noetic goals tests. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 439–447. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(87)90021-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness—The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4–17. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, D. W. (1971). Measuring the concepts of personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankl, V. E. (1959/1985). Man’s search for meaning (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Washington Square Press.

  • Frankl, V. E. (2004). On the theory and therapy of mental disorders: An introduction to logotherapy and existential analysis (J. M. DuBois, Trans.). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge (Original work, 8th ed., published 1999).

  • Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Steger, M. (2003). Assessing optimal human functioning. In W. B. Walsh (Ed.), Counseling psychology and optimal human functioning (pp. 251–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149–161. doi:10.1007/BF02289162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hablas, R., & Hutzell, R. (1982). The Life Purpose Questionnaire: An alternative to the Purpose-in-Life test for geriatric, neuropsychiatric patients. In S. A. Wawrytko (Ed.), Analecta Frankliana: The proceedings of the First World Congress of Logotherapy: 1980 (pp. 211–215). Berkeley, CA: Strawberry Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, L. L., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1987). Purpose in life test assessment using latent variable methods. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 235–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205. doi:10.1177/1094428104263675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2007). Meaning in life and seeing the big picture: Positive affect and global focus. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1577–1584. doi:10.1080/02699930701347304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2008). Religious commitment and positive mood as information about meaning in life. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 43–57. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness of fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11, 325–344. doi:10.1177/0049124183011003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465–497). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzell, R. R. (1988). A review of the Purpose in Life test. International Forum for Logotherapy, 11, 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutzell, R. R. (1989). Life Purpose Questionnaire overview sheet. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Logotherapy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: National Educational Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415. doi:10.1007/BF02291817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashdan, T. B., & Breen, W. E. (2007). Materialism and diminished well-being: Experiential avoidance as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 521–539. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.5.521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179–196. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. V., Umpress, V., Lunnen, K., Okiishi, J., Burlingame, G. M., et al. (1996). Administration and scoring manual for the OQ-45.2. Stephenson, MD: American Professional Credentialing Services LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty, W. H., Pringle-Nelson, C., Kelly, I. W., Miket, M. J., & Janzen, B. L. (2005). Expressions of life meaning among college students. Psychological Reports, 97, 945–954. doi:10.2466/PR0.97.7.945-954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “‘General intelligence’, objectively determined and measured”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96–111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, D. (2006). Ability tests. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 101–114). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, A., Smith, L., Piek, J., & Saunders, B. (2003). The purpose in life scale: Psychometric properties for social drinkers and drinkers in alcohol treatment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 859–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 494–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, A. M. A., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2007). On the relationship between meaning in life and boredom proneness: Examining a logotherapy postulate. Psychological Reports, 101, 1016–1022. doi:10.2466/PR0.101.7.1016-1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, A. M. A., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2008). On the measurement of meaning: Logotherapy’s empirical contributions to Humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36, 31–44. doi:10.1080/08873260701828870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molcar, C. C., & Stuempfig, D. W. (1988). Effects of world view on purpose in life. The Journal of Psychology, 122, 365–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J., & Farsides, T. (2007). Measuring meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies. doi:10.1007/s10902-007-9075-0.

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöhlmann, K., Gruss, B., & Joraschky, P. (2006). Structural properties of personal meaning systems: A new approach to measuring meaning of life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 109–117. doi:10.1080/17439760600566008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12, 287–297. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspective, dimensions, and measurement of existential meaning. In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the life span (pp. 39–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reker, G. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1979). Factor structure, construct validity and reliability of the seeking of noetic goals (SONG) and purpose in life (PIL) tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 85–91. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197901)35:1<85::AID-JCLP2270350110>3.0.CO;2-R.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robak, R. W., & Griffin, P. W. (2000). Purpose in life: What is its relationship to happiness, depression, and grieving? North American Journal of Psychology, 2, 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato, F., & Tanaka, H. (1974). An experimental study on the existential aspect of life: I. The cross-cultural approach to purpose in life. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 33, 20–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulenberg, S. E. (2004). A psychometric investigation of logotherapy measures and the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2). North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 477–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulenberg, S. E., & Henrion, R. P. (2005). Logotherapy past, present, and future: A conversation with James C. Crumbaugh. International Forum for Logotherapy, 28, 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulenberg, S. E., Hutzell, R. R., Nassif, C., & Rogina, J. M. Logotherapy for clinical practice. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training (in press).

  • Shek, D. T. L. (1988). Reliability and factorial structure of the Chinese version of the purpose in life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 384–392. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198805)44:3<384::AID-JCLP2270440312>3.0.CO;2-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shek, D. T. L. (1992). Meaning in life and psychological well-being: An empirical study using the Chinese version of the purpose in life questionnaire. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shek, D. T. L. (1993). The Chinese purpose-in-life test and psychological well-being in Chinese college students. International Forum for Logotherapy, 16, 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shek, D. T. L., Hong, E. W., & Cheung, M. Y. P. (1987). The purpose in life questionnaire in a Chinese context. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sink, C. A., Van Keppel, J., & Purcell, M. (1998). Reliability estimates of the purpose in life and seeking of noetic goals tests with rural and metropolitan area adolescents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. T., & McCarthy, D. M. (1995). Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 300–308. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starck, P. L. (1983). Patients’ perceptions of the meaning of suffering. International Forum for Logotherapy, 6, 110–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starck, P. L. (1985). Guidelines-Meaning in Suffering Test. Abilene, TX: Viktor Frankl Institute of Logotherapy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steger, M. F. (2006). An illustration of issues in factor extraction and identification of dimensionality in psychological assessment data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 263–272. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Stability and specificity of meaning in life and life satisfaction over one year. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 161–179. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9011-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, K. M., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2008). The meaning in life questionnaire: A psychometric study with individuals with serious mental illness (submitted).

  • Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waisberg, J. L., & Starr, M. W. (1999). Psychometric properties of the purpose in life test with a sample of substance abusers. International Forum for Logotherapy, 22, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, L. H., & Klein, A. E. (1980). A cross-validated investigation of the Crumbaugh purpose-in-life test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 1065–1071. doi:10.1177/001316448004000434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P. T. P., & Fry, P. S. (1998). The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Schulenberg’s research team with data collection and data entry, and Dr. William T. Hoyt for helpful comments and suggestions on a previous draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, 38677, USA

    Stefan E. Schulenberg & Amanda M. A. Melton

Authors
  1. Stefan E. Schulenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda M. A. Melton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan E. Schulenberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schulenberg, S.E., Melton, A.M.A. A Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Evaluation of the Purpose in Life Test: Preliminary Psychometric Support for a Replicable Two-Factor Model. J Happiness Stud 11, 95–111 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9124-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9124-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation