Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs > v.47(1) > 1003290

TOOLS
Lee and Hong: Development of the Meaning in Life Scale for Older Adults
Original Article

Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2017; 47(1): 86-96.

Published online: 28 February 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2017.47.1.86

Development of the Meaning in Life Scale for Older Adults

Si Eun Lee, Gwi-Ryung Son Hong

College of Nursing, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Hong, Gwi-Ryung Son. College of Nursing, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2220-0701, Fax: +82-2-2295-2074, grson@hanyang.ac.kr

Received 8 June 2016       Revised 11 October 2016       Accepted 21 November 2016

© 2017 Korean Society of Nursing Science

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs License. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) If the original work is properly cited and retained without any modification or reproduction, it can be used and re-distributed in any format and medium.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to develop and test the psychometric properties of the newly developed instrument, Meaning in Life, for elderly Korean people.

Methods

Ten older adults participated in the qualitative research used to develop the initial items. Participants for the psychometric testing were 371 community-dwelling older adults. Validity and reliability analyses included content, construct, and criterion-related validities, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.

Results

The Meaning in Life Scale consisted of 12 items with three distinct factors; value of life, source of life, and will to live, which explained 86.7% of the total variance. A three-factor structure was validated by confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion-related validity was supported by comparison with the Purpose in Life Test (r=.74). Reliabilities were secured with test-retest reliability of Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) .85 and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient .90.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that this instrument is useful to measure meaning in life in Korean elders.

Keywords: Aged, Life, Factor analysis, Validity and reliability

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

jkan-47-86-i001
Characteristics Categories Total (n=371) Participants for EFA (n=200) Participants for CFA(n=171) t or χ2 p
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Age (yr) (range: 65~90) 74.96±5.70 75.17±5.78 74.72±5.61 0.76 .448
Gender Female 227 (61.2) 122 (61.0) 105 (61.4) 0.01 .937
Male 144 (38.8) 78 (39.0) 66 (38.6)
Education No formal education 32 (8.6) 17 (8.5) 15 (8.8) 2.08 .722
Elementary school 101 (27.2) 56 (28.0) 45 (26.3)
Middle school 99 (26.7) 58 (29.0) 41 (24.0)
High school 87 (23.5) 44 (22.0) 43 (25.1)
≥College 52 (14.0) 25 (12.5) 27 (15.8)
Marital status Unmarried 6 (1.6) 3 (1.5) 3 (1.8) 3.81 .282
Married 255 (68.8) 131 (65.5) 124 (72.5)
Divorced/separated 19 (5.1) 9 (4.5) 10 (5.8)
Bereaved 91 (24.5) 57 (28.5) 34 (19.9)
Living arrangement Living with family 285 (76.8) 151 (75.5) 134 (78.4) 0.42 .515
Living alone 86 (23.2) 49 (24.5) 37 (21.6)
Number of children (range: 1~5) 3.55±1.03 3.62±1.01 3.48±1.05 1.26 .208
Religion No 104 (28.0) 58 (29.0) 46 (26.9) 0.20 .654
Yes 267 (72.0) 142 (71.0) 125 (73.1)
Perceived economic status Good 41 (11.1) 23 (11.5) 18 (10.5) 2.41 .300
Moderate 210 (56.6) 106 (53.0) 104 (60.8)
Poor 120 (32.3) 71 (35.5) 49 (28.7)
Perceived health status Good 74 (19.9) 39 (19.5) 35 (20.5) 0.05 .973
Moderate 155 (41.8) 84 (42.0) 71 (41.5)
Poor 142 (38.3) 77 (38.5) 65 (38.0)

EFA=Exploratory factor analysis; CFA=Confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 2

Factor Loadings from First Wave EFA of MLS (N=200)

jkan-47-86-i002
Item Contents Factors
1 2 3
13 I want to die quickly. .85 -.42 -.46
2 I want to live long. .71 -.32 -.43
7 I have no reason to live. .65 -.38 -.51
3 I think dying is better than living with a sick condition. .55 -.14 -.32
6 I have a neighbor to share the worries of life. .53 -.37 -.47
5 I like to get along with other people. .51 -.47 -.46
16 My family cares greatly for my life. .31 -.91 -.37
9 My family respects me. .36 -.80 -.50
11 I can share life's concerns with my family. .41 -.76 -.29
20 Helping others makes my life .55 -.45 -.75
21 I know what makes my life .57 -.39 -.73
19 I have a purpose for my life. .55 -.49 -.73
18 I am satisfied with the way I have lived my life. .56 -.49 -.64
25 Life is worthy living. .49 -.53 -.63
15 I have hobbies such as singing or dancing. .53 -.47 -.63
26 God leads me in the right path. .22 -.13 -.47
Eigen value 4.71 4.18 4.71
Explained variance (%) 29.4 26.1 29.4
Total explained variance (%) 29.4 55.5 84.9

EFA=Exploratory factor analysis; MLS=Meaning in life scale.

Table 3

Factor Loadings from Second Wave EFA and Reliability Coefficients of MLS (N=200)

jkan-47-86-i003
Item Contents Factors ITC (r)
1 2 3
20 Helping others makes my life .74 -.44 .52 .57
19 I have a purpose for my life. .73 -.48 .54 .60
21 I know what makes my life important. .73 -.38 .55 .40
25 Life is worthy living. .65 -.54 .50 .51
18 I am satisfied with the way I have lived my life. .65 -.49 .55 .55
15 I have hobbies such as singing or dancing. .63 -.46 .52 .67
26 God leads me in the right path. .47 -.12 .20 .59
16 My family cares greatly for my life. .37 -.92 .29 .65
9 My family respects me. .49 -.79 .34 .69
11 I can share life's concerns with my family. .29 -.75 .39 .66
13 I want to die quickly. .46 -.42 .88 .68
2 I want to live long. .43 -.32 .72 .66
7 I have no reason to live. .51 -.37 .62 .31
3 I think dying is better than living with a sick condition. .32 -.14 .56 .66
Eigen value 4.29 3.78 4.06
Explained variance (%) 30.7 27.0 29.0
Total explained variance (%) 30.7 57.7 86.7

EFA=Exploratory factor analysis; MLS=Meaning in life scale; ITC=Itemtotal correlation.

Table 4

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of MLS (N=171)

jkan-47-86-i004
Item Factors Standardized estimates SE C.R. p AVE Construct reliability
15 Value of life .73 .10 10.11 <.001 .94 .99
18 .77 .10 10.94 <.001
19 .76 .10 10.65 <.001
20 .80 - - -
21 .78 .09 11.01 <.001
25 .75 .09 10.64 <.001
9 Source of life .75 .11 8.79 <.001 .93 .97
11 .65 .13 7.87 <.001
16 .81 - - -
2 Will to live .79 - - - .89 .96
7 .63 .08 7.61 <.001
13 .75 .10 8.85 <.001
Fitness index χ2 (p) df CMIN/DF GFI SRMR RMSEA (90% CI) TLI CFI
Criteria (>.05) ≤3 ≥.90 ≤.08 ≤.10 ≥.90 ≥.90
Model 104.08 (<.001) 51 2.04 .91 .05 .08 (.06~.10) .93 .95

MLS=Meaning in life scale; SE=Standard error; C.R.=Critical ratio; AVE=Average variance extracted; CMIN/DF=Chi-square minimum/degree of freedom; GFI=Goodness of fit index; SRMR=Standardized root mean residual; RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation; CI=Confidence interval; TLI=Turker lewis index; CFI=Comparative fit index.

Two items were deleted because it was standardized estimates of less than .50.

Table 5

ICC for Test-retest (N=30)

jkan-47-86-i005
Test score (M±SD) Retest score (M±SD) Intra-class correlation coefficient (95% CI, p)
37.50±7.46 37.70±6.45 .85 (0.71~0.93, <.001)

ICC=Intra correlation coefficient; CI=Confidence interval.

Appendix

Appendix 1

Meaning in Life Scale

jkan-47-86-a001

Notes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors declared no conflict of interest.

References

1. Park ES, Park JA. Research trends and implications in meaning in life. Ewha J Soc Sci. 2013; 29(1):267–299.
2. Kim KM, Ryu SA, Choi IC. The effect of meaning in life on happiness and health in late life. Korean J Psychol Gen. 2011; 30(2):503–523.
3. Bamonti P, Lombardi S, Duberstein PR, King DA, Van Orden KA. Spirituality attenuates the association between depression symptom severity and meaning in life. Aging Ment Health. 2016; 20(5):494–499. DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1021752.
4. Heisel MJ, Neufeld E, Flett GL. Reasons for living, meaning in life, and suicide ideation: Investigating the roles of key positive psychological factors in reducing suicide risk in communityresiding older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2016; 20(2):195–207. DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1078279.
5. Van Orden KA, Bamonti PM, King DA, Duberstein PR. Does perceived burdensomeness erode meaning in life among older adults? Aging Ment Health. 2012; 16(7):855–860.
6. Crumbaugh JC, Maholick LT. Manual of instructions for the purpose in life test. Munster, DE: Psychometric Affiliates;1969. p. 1–28.
7. McGregor I, Little BR. Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998; 74(2):494–512.
8. Steger MF, Frazier P, Oishi S, Kaler M. The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. J Couns Psychol. 2006; 53(1):80–93. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80.
9. Burbank PM. An exploratory study: Assessing the meaning in life among older adult clients. J Gerontol Nurs. 1992; 18(9):19–28. DOI: 10.3928/0098-9134-19920901-06.
10. Choi SO, Kim SN, Shin KI, Lee JJ, Jung YJ. Development of elderly meaning in life(EMIL) scale. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2003; 33(3):414–424.
11. Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998; 2(1):104–121. DOI: 10.1177/109442819800100106.
12. Fitzpatrick JJ. Life perspective rhythm model. In : Fitzpatrick JJ, Whall AL, editors. Conceptual models of nursing: Analysis and application. Bowie, MD: Brady;1983. p. 295–302.
13. Fitzpatrick JJ, Kim NH. Meaning in life: Translating nursing concepts to research. Asian Nurs Res. 2008; 2(1):1–4. DOI: 10.1016/S1976-1317(08)60023-7.
14. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage;1985. p. 187–220.
15. Won DR, Kim KH, Kwon SJ. Validation of the Korean version of meaning in life questionnaire. Korean J Health Psychol. 2005; 10(2):211–225.
16. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;2012. p. 80–110.
17. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986; 35(6):382–385.
18. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007; 30(4):459–467. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20199.
19. Jung KH, Oh YH, Kang EN, Kim JH, Sunwoo D, Oh MA, et al. A survey of Korean older persons. Report No.: Policy Report 2014-61. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2014.
20. Gyeongin Regional Statistics Office. Capital region 65 Plus (3V Senior) I Aging [Internet]. Gwacheon: Statistics Korea;2016. cited 2016 December 20. Available from: http://www.kostat.go.kr/office/giro/rogi_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=355685&pageNo=&rowNum=10&amSeq=&sTarget=&sTxt=.
21. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988; 103(3):411–423. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
22. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 2010; 52(1):30–41. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2.
23. Shin JS, Lee YB. The effects of social supports on psychosocial well-being of the unemployed. Korean Acad Soc Welf. 1999; 37(1):241–269.
24. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985; 49(1):71–75. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
25. Jo MH, Cha KH. National comparison to life satisfaction. Seoul: Jipmoondang;1998. p. 1–23.
26. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992; 112(1):155–159.
27. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall;2010. p. 109–136.
28. Yu JP. The concept and understanding of structural equation modeling. Seoul: Hannare Publishing Co.;2012. p. 160–370.
29. Field AP. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. 4th ed. London, UK: Sage;2013. p. 685–686.
30. Heo J. Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co.;2013. p. 70–89.
TOOLS
Similar articles