Psychometric approbation of the Ukrainian version of the life-purpose orientations test
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2022.12.02.042Keywords
life - purpose orientations, meaning in life, psychometric evaluation, psychodiagnostics, structural validity, internal consistencyAbstract
The relevance of adapting psychodiagnostic instruments into Ukrainian is determined by the need to ensure their linguistic, cultural, and psychometric suitability for the target population. The aim of the study - to conduct a psychometric evaluation of the Ukrainian-language version of the Life-Purpose Orientations Test by assessing item characteristics, internal consistency, and structural validity. The study involved 246 students aged 15–22 y. o. (M = 17.10; SD = 1.56), including 149 males and 97 females. The assessment was conducted face – to - face in general secondary education institutions and higher education institutions in Odesa ( Ukraine). The Ukrainian - language 20-item version of the Life-Purpose Orientations Test was administered. Descriptive statistics, corrected item–total correlations, Cronbach’s α, McDonald’s ω, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, exploratory factor analysis, and parallel analysis were used. The total life meaningfulness score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.856; McDonald’s ω = 0.860). Reliability varied across the subscales: the highest coefficients were obtained for “Goals in Life” and “Life Effectiveness,” whereas the lowest were found for “Locus of Control – Self.” The data were suitable for factor analysis (KMO = 0.864; χ²(190) = 1351.08; p < 0.001). Parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis identified three latent components: “Agency and Control over Life Choices,” “Life Satisfaction and Engagement,” and “Goal and Worldview Clarity.” The Ukrainian - lang
uage version of the Life - Purpose Orientations Test demonstrated adequate
of the total score and may be used for the integral assessment of life meaningfulness. At the same time, the subscale scores should be interpreted with caution and require further examination in independent samples.
References
1. George L. S, Park C. L. Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology. 2016; 20(3):205 – 220. DOI: 10.1037/gpr0000077
2. Martela F, Steger MF. The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. Journal of Positive Psychology. 2016;11:531–545. DOI:10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623
3. Crumbaugh J. C, Maholick L. T. An experimental study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to Frankl's concept of noogenicneurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1964; 20: 200–207. DOI:tps://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196404)20:2<200::AID-JCLP2270200203>3.0.CO;2-U
4. Harlow L. L, Newcomb M. D, Bentler P. M. Purpose in Life Test assess mentusing latent variable methods. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1987; 26(3): 235–236 DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1987.tb01355.x
5. Jonsén E, Fagerström L, Lundman B, Nygren B, Vähäkangas M, Strandberg G. Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Purpose in Life scale. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2010;24(1):41–48 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00682.x
6. Schulenberg S. E, Schnetzer L. W, Buchanan E. M. The Purpose in Life Test – Short Form: Development and Psychometric Support. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2011;12(5):861–876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9231-9
7. Steger MF, Frazier P, Oishi S, Kaler M. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2006;53(1):80–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
8. Omelchenko T. Experimental study of personality self-development of future practicing psychologists. Psychological Prospects Journal. 2019;(34):194–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29038/2227-1376-2019-34-194-205
9. Veldbrekht O. O, Bovdyr O. S, Samkova O. M. Factor structure of the Life – Meaning Orientations Test in the students sample. Psychological Journal. 2021;7(9):17–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2021.7.10.2
10. International Test Commission. ITC Guidelines for Translating and
Adapting Tests (Second Edition). International Journal of Testing. 2018;18(2):101–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166
11. Beaton D. E, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz M. B. Guidelines for the process of cross – cultural adaptation of self – report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–3191. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
12. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.
13. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Yuliia Asieieva

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The periodical offers access to content in the Open Access system under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 26
Number of citations: 0