Objective. Life purpose, a stable and generalized intention to do something that is at once

Transcription

1 Validation of the Claremont Purpose Scale with College Undergraduates Objective Life purpose, a stable and generalized intention to do something that is at once meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self (Damon, Menon, & Bronk, 2003, p. 121), has been linked to psychological well-being (Ryff, 1995), motivation (Bundick, 2011), and academic achievement (Damon, 2008). Bronk, Riches, and Mangan (2018) proposed a three-dimensional structure of life purpose based on Damon et al. (2003) and developed the Claremont Purpose Scale (CPS) to measure it with a survey instrument. The dimensions of life purpose are: meaningfulness, goal orientation, and beyond-the-self. This study collected validity evidence for the CPS with a college student sample. Traditional-aged undergraduates, in the final stage of identity formation (Erikson, 1968), are engaged in activities related to life purpose development (Bronk, 2012) and making decisions about their futures in a setting supportive of life goal consideration. Thus, this is an important population with which to validate the CPS. Method This study collected substantive, structural, and external validity (Messick, 1995) and reliability evidence in a sample composed of 266 undergraduates, (59% female, mean age 19.66, SD = 3.07, 71% Freshmen or Sophomores). The substantive stage included cognitive interviews investigating item interpretation among the target population. The structural stage examined convergent and discriminant validity with a confirmatory factor analysis and reliability estimation. The external stage included

2 correlations with related constructs for criterion validity. These constructs were assessed with established instruments (Table 1) and data had acceptable reliabilities (Table 2). Results Cognitive interviews with six undergraduates showed the items were generally correctly interpreted but with a potential for misinterpretation. Instructions were added to ensure students interpreted the items in the context of their own lives instead of a more distal interpretation. The CFA used maximum likelihood estimation and estimated three models. Model one is a singlefactor model (Kline, 2016), model two is a three-correlated factors model implied by Bronk et al. s interpretation of Damon et al. (2003), and model three is a higher order model, which Bronk et al. (2018) found fit their data best. The three-correlated factors model fit the data well (Table 3), providing indications of convergent and discriminant validity. The CPS and its subscales were also correlated with similar and contrasting constructs. The correlations (Table 2) were in the strengths and directions expected, providing evidence of criterion validity. One exception is the beyond-the-self subscale of the CPS and the Aspirations Index financial success subscale (Kasser & Ryan, 1993) were expected to correlate negatively, but there was no correlation between them. Although this result is supported by prior research (Yeager, Bundick, & Johnson, 2012), it merits further exploration to select a construct that contrasts with the beyond-the-self subscale. Evidence from this investigation suggests the CPS is a valid measure for assessing the dimensions of life purpose in college undergraduates. The use of the CPS with college undergraduates could lead to discovery of antecedents of life purpose and ways to facilitate its development in emerging adults.

3

4 References Bronk, K. C. (2012). A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(1), doi: / Bronk, K. C., Riches, B. R., & Mangan, S. (2018). The Claremont Purpose Scale: A measure that assesses the three dimensions of purpose among adolescents. Research in Human Development, 00, doi: / Bundick, M. J. (2011). The benefits of reflecting on and discussing purpose in life in emerging adulthood. New Directions for Youth Development, 132, doi: /yd.430 Damon, W. (2008). The Path to Purpose: Helping our children find their calling in life. New York, NY: Free Press. Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science 7(3), Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York, NY: Norton. Kasser, T. & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), doi: / Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4 th ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9),

5 Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), Yeager, D. S, Bundick, M. J., & Johnson, R. (2012). The role of future work goal motives in adolescent identity development: A longitudinal mixed-methods investigation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37,

6 Table 1 Scales Used to Test Correlations with CPS and its Subscales Scale Authors & Number of Predicted publication date items relationship Design My Future Di Maggio, 11 Positive with Goal Future Orientation Ginevra, Nota, & Orientation subscale (DMF) Soresi, 2016 Result Meaning in Life Measure (MLM) Morgan & Robinson, Positive with Meaningfulness Pleasure and Pressure Based Prosocial Motivation Scale (3PMS) Gebauer, Riketta, Broemer, & Maio, Positive with Beyond-the-Self Aspiration Index Financial Success subscale (AI) Kasser & Ryan, Negative with Beyond-the-self Unanticipated No relationship Academic Motivation in College Intrinsic Motivation Accomplishment subscale (AMC-IM) Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Brière, Senécal, & Vallières, Positive with CPS Academic Motivation in College - Amotivation subscale (AMC-AM) Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Brière, Senécal, & Vallières, Negative with CPS Pure Procrastination Scale Academic Adaptation - Delay subscale (PPS) Wu & Fan, Negative with Goal Orientation Life Attitude Profile - Existential Vacuum subscale (LAP) Reker & Peacock, Negative with Meaningfulness

7 Table 2 Goal.510** -- BTS.310** 421** -- CPS.793**.796**.749** -- DMF.538**.586**.493**.682** -- MLM.627**.532**.398**.662**.630** -- 3PMS.135*.206**.576**.392**.262**.230** -- AI * **.191** PPS -.351** -.469** -.140* -.397** -.290** -.410** LAP -.424** -.271** ** -.198** -.355** **.431** -- AMC-IM.288**.365**.195**.353**.410**.390**.183**.215** -.217** AMC-AM -.150* -.297** -.203** -.268** -.193** -.344** -.237** **.343** -.171** -- Reliability Note. Meaning = the meaningfulness subscale of the CPS. Goal = the goal orientation/goal directedness subscale of the CPS. BTS = the beyondthe-self subscale of the CPS. CPS =Claremont Purpose Scale. DMF = the future orientation subscale of the Design My Future instrument. MLM = the Meaning in Life Measure. 3PMS = the Pleasure and Pressure Based Prosocial Motivation Scale. AI = the financial subscale of the Aspirations Index. PPS = the delay subscale of the Pure Procrastination Scale. LAP = the existential vacuum subscale of the Life Attitudes Profile. AMC-IM = the intrinsic motivation subscale of the Academic Motivation in College scale. AMC-AM = the amotivation subscale of the Academic Motivation in College scale. Correlations were run with pairwise deletion, therefore sample size ranges from 261 to 266. * = p <.05 (two tailed). ** = p <.01 (two-tailed). Scale Reliabilities and Correlations Among Subscales, CPS, and External Measures Meaning Goal BTS CPS DMF MLM 3PMS AI PPS LAP AMC- IM Meaning -- AMC- AM

8 Table 3 Models Estimated and Model Fit Statistics (N = 266) Model Number Model df χ 2 SRMR 1 Single-Factor * Three correlated Factors *.044 RMSEA [Confidence Interval].207 [.193,.222].055 [.036,.073].059 [.040, 3 Higher-order * ] Note. df = degrees of freedom; χ2 = Chi squared test statistic; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Bentler comparative fit index. * = p <.001 CFI