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

IF 2.8 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Zhiwei Zhou, Wei Qi, Qinqhuan He, Jie Wen, Miao Miao
{"title":"Which One is the Best for Evaluating the Multidimensional Structure of Meaning in Life Among Chinese: A Comparison of Three Multidimensional Scales","authors":"Zhiwei Zhou,&nbsp;Wei Qi,&nbsp;Qinqhuan He,&nbsp;Jie Wen,&nbsp;Miao Miao","doi":"10.1007/s11482-024-10307-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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 (<i>N</i> = 393) was used for factor analysis, while Sample 2 (<i>N</i> = 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51483,"journal":{"name":"Applied Research in Quality of Life","volume":"19 4","pages":"1791 - 1810"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Research in Quality of Life","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-024-10307-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

哪一个最适合评估中国人生活意义的多维结构?三种多维量表的比较
生活意义(MIL)在促进身心健康方面发挥着至关重要的作用。鉴于生命意义的多维性,需要进一步研究来区分生命意义的不同组成部分。本研究关注三个相似但又不同的多维量表(多维存在意义量表,MEMS;多维生活意义量表,MMILS;四方存在意义量表,QEMS),旨在验证这些量表的中文版本,并比较它们对以积极情感、消极情感和生活满意度为指标的主观幸福感的预测效果。数据收集自两个中国样本。样本 1(N = 393)用于因子分析,样本 2(N = 447)用于评估不同 MIL 测量的测量不变性、可靠性和对主观幸福感的预测关系。结果表明,所有三种 MIL 测量(MEMS、QEMS 和修改后的 MMILS)均表现出良好的信度和效度,并能积极预测主观幸福感。此外,在控制了其他 MIL 测量的影响后,QEMS 在预测积极情绪和消极情绪方面显示出了显著的增量有效性。这些研究结果表明,与 MEMS 和 MMILS 相比,QEMS 可能是更适合中国国情的多维 MIL 测量方法。我们还需要在其他文化背景下进一步研究这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Research in Quality of Life
Applied Research in Quality of Life SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: The aim of this journal is to publish conceptual, methodological and empirical papers dealing with quality-of-life studies in the applied areas of the natural and social sciences. As the official journal of the ISQOLS, it is designed to attract papers that have direct implications for, or impact on practical applications of research on the quality-of-life. We welcome papers crafted from interdisciplinary, inter-professional and international perspectives. This research should guide decision making in a variety of professions, industries, nonprofit, and government sectors, including healthcare, travel and tourism, marketing, corporate management, community planning, social work, public administration, and human resource management. The goal is to help decision makers apply performance measures and outcome assessment techniques based on concepts such as well-being, human satisfaction, human development, happiness, wellness and quality-of-life. The Editorial Review Board is divided into specific sections indicating the broad scope of practice covered by the journal. The section editors are distinguished scholars from many countries across the globe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信