The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Revisiting the Evidence of Validity and Measurement Invariance Using the Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling.

IF 3.5 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Assessment Pub Date : 2024-12-26 DOI:10.1177/10731911241304223

Veljko Jovanović, Mihajlo Ilić, Dušana Šakan, Ingrid Brdar

{"title":"The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Revisiting the Evidence of Validity and Measurement Invariance Using the Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling.","authors":"Veljko Jovanović, Mihajlo Ilić, Dušana Šakan, Ingrid Brdar","doi":"10.1177/10731911241304223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) assesses two distinct dimensions of meaning in life: presence of meaning and search for meaning. The MLQ is the most widely used instrument for measuring meaning in life, yet there is a limited variety of validity evidence on the originally proposed two-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) solution. In this light, the present research examined, across five studies (total N = 3,205), several aspects of the MLQ's validity and tested cross-gender and cross-national measurement invariance. We also examined the usefulness of the exploratory structural equation model (ESEM) of the MLQ as an alternative to the standard CFA model. The results obtained provide evidence for: (a) the validity (structural, convergent, concurrent, and incremental) of the MLQ ESEM factors; (b) full scalar invariance of the MLQ ESEM model across gender and partial measurement invariance across four countries; and (c) similar cross-national relationships between MLQ ESEM factors and measures of depression and life satisfaction. The present research provides support for the value of applying the ESEM framework in overcoming limitations of the CFA model when examining evidence on the MLQ's validity.","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911241304223"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241304223","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) assesses two distinct dimensions of meaning in life: presence of meaning and search for meaning. The MLQ is the most widely used instrument for measuring meaning in life, yet there is a limited variety of validity evidence on the originally proposed two-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) solution. In this light, the present research examined, across five studies (total N = 3,205), several aspects of the MLQ's validity and tested cross-gender and cross-national measurement invariance. We also examined the usefulness of the exploratory structural equation model (ESEM) of the MLQ as an alternative to the standard CFA model. The results obtained provide evidence for: (a) the validity (structural, convergent, concurrent, and incremental) of the MLQ ESEM factors; (b) full scalar invariance of the MLQ ESEM model across gender and partial measurement invariance across four countries; and (c) similar cross-national relationships between MLQ ESEM factors and measures of depression and life satisfaction. The present research provides support for the value of applying the ESEM framework in overcoming limitations of the CFA model when examining evidence on the MLQ's validity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

生活意义问卷：用探索性结构方程模型重新审视效度和测量不变性的证据。

生活意义问卷（MLQ）评估生活意义的两个不同维度：意义的存在和寻找意义。MLQ是最广泛使用的测量生活意义的工具，但最初提出的双因素验证性因素分析（CFA）解决方案的有效性证据有限。有鉴于此，本研究通过五项研究（总N = 3,205）检验了MLQ有效性的几个方面，并测试了跨性别和跨国测量的不变性。我们还研究了MLQ的探索性结构方程模型（ESEM）作为标准CFA模型的替代方案的实用性。结果表明：(a) MLQ ESEM因子的效度（结构效度、收敛效度、并发效度和增量效度）；(b) MLQ ESEM模型跨性别的全标量不变性和四个国家的部分测量不变性；(c) MLQ ESEM因素与抑郁和生活满意度测量之间存在类似的跨国关系。本研究支持了ESEM框架在检验MLQ效度证据时克服CFA模型局限性的价值。

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

Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

2.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.