Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2020

19-04-2020

Assessing meaning & purpose in life: development and validation of an item bank and short forms for the NIH PROMIS®

Auteurs: John M. Salsman, Benjamin D. Schalet, Crystal L. Park, Login George, Michael F. Steger, Elizabeth A. Hahn, Mallory A. Snyder, David Cella

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

A sense of meaning and purpose is important for people living with acute and chronic illness. It can buffer the effects of stress and facilitate adaptive coping. As part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), we developed and validated an item response theory (IRT)-based measure of meaning and purpose in life.

Methods

Informed by a literature review and patient and content-expert input, we wrote 52 items to assess meaning and purpose and administered them to a general population sample (n = 1000) along with the Meaning in Life Questionnaire-Presence of Meaning Subscale (MLQ-Presence) and the Life Engagement Test (LET). We split the sample in half for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). IRT analyses included assessments of differential item functioning (DIF).

Results

Participants had a mean age of 47.8 years and 50.3% were male. EFA revealed one dominant factor and CFA yielded a good fitting model for a 37-item bank (CFI = 0.962, TLI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.085). All items were free of sex, age, education, and race DIF. Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from α = 0.90 (4-item short form) to α = 0.98 (37-item bank). The 8-item Meaning and Purpose short form was correlated with the MLQ-Presence (r = 0.89), the LET (r = 0.79), and the full PROMIS Meaning and Purpose item bank (r = 0.98).

Conclusions

The PROMIS Meaning and Purpose measures demonstrated sufficient unidimensionality and displayed good internal consistency, model fit, and convergent validity. Further psychometric testing of the PROMIS Meaning and Purpose item bank and short forms in people with chronic diseases will help evaluate the generalizability of this new tool.
vorige artikel Development of a patient-reported experience questionnaire for patients with sarcoma: the Sarcoma Assessment Measure (SAM)
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Cella, D., et al. (2010). Initial adult health item banks and first wave testing of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS™) Network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1179.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Cella, D., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Segawa, E., Schalet, B., & Cella, D. (2020). A comparison of computer adaptive tests (CATs) and short forms in terms of accuracy and number of items administrated using PROMIS profile. Quality of Life Research,29(1), 213–221.PubMed
4.
Reeve, B. B., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care,45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31.PubMed
5.
6.
Cook, K. F., et al. (2016). PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,73, 89–102.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress,17(1), 11–21.PubMed
8.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 141–166.PubMed
9.
Samman, E. (2007). Psychological and subjective wellbeing: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies,35(4), 459–486.
10.
Salsman, J., et al. (2014). Assessing psychological well-being: Self-report instruments for the NIH Toolbox. Quality of Life Research,23(1), 205–215.PubMed
11.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. Journal of Positive Psychology,4(1), 43–52.
12.
McKnight, P. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Purpose in life as a system that creates and sustains health and well-being: An integrative, testable theory. Review of General Psychology,13(3), 242–251.
13.
Fusar-Poli, P., et al. (2020). What is good mental health? A scoping review. European Neuropsychopharmacology,31, 33–46.PubMed
14.
Koizumi, M., et al. (2008). Effect of having a sense of purpose in life on the risk of death from cardiovascular diseases. Journal of Epidemiology,18(5), 191–196.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Kim, E. S., Delaney, S. W., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2019). Sense of purpose in life and cardiovascular disease: Underlying mechanisms and future directions. Current Cardiology Reports,21(11), 135.PubMed
16.
Verduin, P. J., et al. (2008). Purpose in life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical Rheumatology,27(7), 899–908.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Mascaro, N., & Rosen, D. H. (2005). Existential meaning's role in the enhancement of hope and prevention of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality,73(4), 985–1013.PubMed
18.
Costanza, A., Prelati, M., & Pompili, M. (2019). The meaning in life in suicidal patients: the presence and the search for constructs. A systematic review. Medicina (Kaunas),55(8), E465.
19.
Liu, H., et al. (2010). Representativeness of the PROMIS Internet Panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1169–1178.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Roster, C. A., et al. (2004). A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. International Journal of Market Research,46(3), 359–374.
21.
Salsman, J. M., et al. (2018). Refining and supplementing candidate measures of psychological well-being for the NIH PROMIS(R): Qualitative results from a mixed cancer sample. Quality of Life Research,27(9), 2471–2476.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., et al. (2014). Subjective well-being measures for children were developed within the PROMIS project: Presentation of first results. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,67(2), 207–218.PubMed
23.
George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2016). Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology,20(3), 205.
24.
Gershon, R. C., et al. (2010). Assessment of neurological and behavioural function: the NIH Toolbox. Lancet Neurology,9(2), 138–139.PubMed
25.
26.
Forrest, C. B., et al. (2019). Assessing children's eudaimonic well-being: The PROMIS pediatric meaning and purpose item banks. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,44(9), 1074–1082.PubMed
27.
Scheier, M., et al. (2006). The Life Engagement Test: Assessing purpose in life. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,29(3), 291–298.PubMed
28.
Steger, M. F., et al. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology,53(1), 80–93.
29.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54(6), 1063–1070.PubMed
30.
Diener, E., et al. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,49(1), 71–75.PubMed
31.
Diener, E., et al. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin,125(2), 276–302.
32.
Hays, R. D., et al. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research,18(7), 873–880.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Pilkonis, P. A., et al. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS):depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment,18(3), 263–283.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
35.
R Core Development Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018. Retrieved from https://​www.​r-project.​org/​.
36.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
37.
Humphreys, L. G., & Montanelli, R. G., Jr. (1975). An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,10(2), 193–205.
38.
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika,22(1), 53–61.
39.
Reise, S. P., et al. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement,73(1), 5–26.
40.
Muthén, B., et al. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished Paper.
41.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, No. 17. 1969. Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society.
42.
Thissen, D. (2003). MULTILOG. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
43.
Cai, L., Thissen, D., & de Toit, S. (2011). IRTPRO 2.01. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
44.
Preston, K., et al. (2011). Using the nominal response model to evaluate response category discrimination in the PROMIS emotional distress item pools. Educational and Psychological Measurement,71(3), 523–550.
45.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further examination of the performance of S-X 2, an item fit index for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement,27, 289–298.
46.
Kang, T., & Chen, T. T. (2011). Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for the graded response model. Asia Pacific Education Review,12(1), 89–96.
47.
Scott, N. W., et al. (2009). A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,62(3), 288–295.PubMed
48.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
49.
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software,39(8), 1–30.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
51.
Babakhanyan, I., et al. (2018). National Institutes of Health Toolbox Emotion Battery for English- and Spanish-speaking adults: Normative data and factor-based summary scores. Patient Related Outcome Measures,9, 115–127.PubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Choi, S. W., et al. (2014). Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychological Assessment,26(2), 513–527.PubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement,7(2), 201–210.
54.
Carlozzi, N. E., et al. (2016). New measures to capture end of life concerns in Huntington disease: Meaning and purpose and concern with death and dying from HDQLIFE (a patient-reported outcomes measurement system). Quality of Life Research,25(10), 2403–2415.PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology,83(Pt 1), 133–145.PubMed
56.
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,83(1), 10–28.PubMed
57.
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet,385(9968), 640–648.
58.
Czekierda, K., et al. (2017). Meaning in life and physical health: systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review,11(4), 387–418.PubMed
59.
Lee, V. (2008). The existential plight of cancer: Meaning making as a concrete approach to the intangible search for meaning. Supportive Care in Cancer,16(7), 779–785.PubMed
60.
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin,136(2), 257–301.PubMed
61.
Martz, E., & Livneh, H. (2016). Psychosocial adaptation to disability within the context of positive psychology: findings from the literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation,26(1), 4–12.PubMed
62.
Leonhardt, B. L., et al. (2017). Recovery and serious mental illness: A review of current clinical and research paradigms and future directions. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics,17(11), 1117–1130.PubMed
63.
Park, C. L., et al. (2019). Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer,125(14), 2383–2393.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metagegevens
Titel
Assessing meaning & purpose in life: development and validation of an item bank and short forms for the NIH PROMIS®
Auteurs
John M. Salsman
Benjamin D. Schalet
Crystal L. Park
Login George
Michael F. Steger
Elizabeth A. Hahn
Mallory A. Snyder
David Cella
Publicatiedatum
19-04-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02489-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2020

Quality of Life Research 8/2020 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life of Portuguese children and adolescents according to diet quality and food intake

OriginalPaper

Development and content validation of a questionnaire measuring patient empowerment in cancer follow-up

OriginalPaper

Psychotropic polypharmacy and its association with health-related quality of life among cancer survivors in the USA: a population-level analysis

OriginalPaper

Quality of life and mental health in adolescent users of oral contraceptives. Results from the nationwide, representative German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS)

OriginalPaper

Challenges and lessons learned from using anchoring vignettes to explore quality of life response behavior

OriginalPaper

Proxy reliability of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule II among adult patients with mental disorders