Content area
Full text
Contents
- Abstract
- Overview of Meaning in Life Literature
- Study 1a
- Method
- Participants and Procedure
- Measures
- Results and Discussion
- Study 1b
- Method
- Results and Discussion
- Descriptive Statistics
- Relations With Demographics
- Convergent Validity
- Discriminant Validity
- Summary of Studies 1a and 1b
- Study 2
- Method
- Results and Discussion
- Summary of Studies 1 and 2
- Study 3
- Method
- Participants and Procedure
- Measures
- Results and Discussion
- CFA of MLQ Structure in a Replication Sample
- Reliability for the MLQ and Other Meaning Measures
- Convergent and Discriminant Validity Analysis
- Convergent and Discriminant Validity for the MLQ–P
- Convergent validity between target and informant reports on the MLQ–P
- Convergent validity with other meaning measures
- Discriminant validity of the MLQ–P
- Comparison of Meaning Measures
- Convergent and Discriminant Validity for the MLQ–S
- Convergent validity of the MLQ–S
- Discriminant validity of the MLQ–S
- Summary
- General Discussion
- Implications for Counseling
- Limitations and Future Directions
- Appendix A
Figures and Tables
Abstract
Counseling psychologists often work with clients to increase their well-being as well as to decrease their distress. One important aspect of well-being, highlighted particularly in humanistic theories of the counseling process, is perceived meaning in life. However, poor measurement has hampered research on meaning in life. In 3 studies, evidence is provided for the internal consistency, temporal stability, factor structure, and validity of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ), a new 10-item measure of the presence of, and the search for, meaning in life. A multitrait–multimethod matrix demonstrates the convergent and discriminant validity of the MLQ subscales across time and informants, in comparison with 2 other meaning scales. The MLQ offers several improvements over current meaning in life measures, including no item overlap with distress measures, a stable factor structure, better discriminant validity, a briefer format, and the ability to measure the search for meaning.
In recent years the construct of meaning in life has received renewed attention and legitimacy, perhaps in conjunction with a growing focus on positive traits and psychological strengths (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Invariably, meaning in life is regarded as a positive variable—an indicator of well-being (Ryff, 1989), a facilitator of adaptive coping (Park & Folkman, 1997), or a marker of...





