Content uploaded by Gitima Sharma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gitima Sharma on Nov 11, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Gitima Sharma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gitima Sharma on Sep 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Character Education, Volume 15(2), 2019, pp. 39–52 ISSN 1543-1223
Copyright © 2019 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
VALIDATION OF THE REVISED SENSE
OF PURPOSE SCALE
WITH EMERGING ADULTS
Gitima Sharma and Mariya Yukhymenko-Lescroart
California State University at Fresno
This study focused on the validation of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale (SOPS-2) with emerging adults.
We used a sample of 681 college students aged between 18 and 25 years old. The results provided evidence
for the factorial validity of the SOPS-2 designed to measure awareness of purpose, awakening to purpose, and
altruistic purpose. The SOPS-2 can be used as a valid and reliable measure of sense of purpose among those
in the age group of 18–25 years.
The developmental period from 18 to 25 years
of age—during which many young people
leave the dependency of childhood and adoles-
cence and explore future life directions—has
been designated as emerging adulthood
(Arnett, 2000). According to Arnett (2000),
“emerging adulthood is a time of life when
many different directions remain possible,
when little about the future has been decided
for certain, when the scope of independent
exploration of life’s possibilities is greater for
most people than it will be at any other period
of the life course” (p. 469). The time period of
emerging adulthood also overlaps with the
phase of late adolescence (18 to 20 years). The
explorations of late adolescence and emerging
adulthood can cause feelings of rejection, fear
of failure, lack of confidence, disappointment,
and disillusionment, resulting in at-risk behav-
iors (Arnett, 2000). According to Damon
(2008), the difference between young people
who feel directionless and stalled in their
development and those who feel engaged and
motivated can be explained by whether they
have found a compelling sense of purpose in
life. Research has also shown that a strong
sense of purpose contributes to emerging
adults’ identity commitment, hope, positive
affect, and future well-being (Burrow, O’Dell,
& Hill, 2010; Hill, Burrow, Brandenberger,
Lapsley, & Quaranto, 2010; Hill, Edmonds,
Peterson, Luyckx, & Andrews, 2016).
• Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Gitima Sharma, gsharma@csufresno.edu
40 Journal of Character Education Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
Although purpose in emerging adulthood
has been positively associated with several
indicators of positive development, existing
measures of purpose are limited in their
conceptual clarity, time sensitivity, and psy-
chometric research. Thus, validating a concep-
tually and empirically sound measure of sense
of purpose among those in the age group of 18
to 25 years, could contribute to the literature
on the nature, role, and development of sense
of purpose among emerging adults. The aim of
this study was to validate the Revised Sense of
Purpose Scale (SOPS-2; Yukhymenko &
Sharma, 2017) with emerging adults aged 18
to 25 years. SOPS-2 consists of three sub-
scales: awareness of purpose, awakening to
purpose, and altruistic purpose subscales.
These subscales were informed by Bronk’s
(2013) emphasis of both the presence of and
search for purpose as well as Damon, Menon,
and Bronk’s (2003) conceptualization of pur-
pose that emphasizes a beyond-the-self aim.
Damon et al. (2003) defined purpose as a “sta-
ble and generalized intention to accomplish
something that is at once meaningful to the self
and of consequence to the world beyond the
self” (p. 121). Many scholars, including
Damon (2008), have used the terms “purpose”
and “sense of purpose” interchangeably. We
consider “purpose” as the ultimate goal of life
and “sense of purpose” as subjective sense of
whether one has a purpose in life and the
extent to which one is aware of his/her pur-
pose; in this manuscript we have used the
terms interchangeably.
REVIEW OF EXISTING
MEASURES OF PURPOSE
AND THEIR LIMITATIONS
Several instruments have been designed to
measure purpose. For example, Crumbaugh
and Maholick (1964) developed the Purpose in
Life test to measure the degree to which indi-
viduals experience a sense of purpose in life.
The Purpose in Life test is critiqued for being
confounded with variables unrelated to
purpose, such as sense of responsibility and
mood (Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). Reker and
Peackock (1981) developed the Life Attitude
Profile. This scale includes a subscale titled
life purpose scale, which has nine items that
focus on the concepts of zest for life, fulfill-
ment, contentment, and satisfaction as well as
purpose in life (Reker & Peackock, 1981), and,
hence, could capture any of these constructs
(Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). Most
recently, Bundick et al. (2006) developed the
Revised Youth Purpose Survey to measure
purpose among younger participants. How-
ever, as of now, this survey lacks empirical
evidence for psychometric soundness (Bronk,
2013).
In addition to being confounded with other
variables, lacking psychometric evidence, and
not being based on a clear conceptualization of
purpose, a key limitation of current measures
is that they all are time-insensitive and only
assess the absolute presence or absence of
sense of purpose, instead of recent changes in
sense of purpose (Scheier et al., 2006).
According to Card (2017), when exploring
constructs related to character development, it
is critical to use measures that are sensitive to
potential changes across development or an
intervention. Sharma (2015) addressed these
limitations of existing purpose measures by
developing and validating the Sense of Pur-
pose Scale.
THE REVISED SENSE
OF PURPOSE SCALE (SOPS-2)
Based on an integrative literature review,
Sharma (2015) generated an initial pool of
items and conducted a pilot study to test these
items, resulting in 28 items and three factors to
measure sense of purpose. Based on the pilot
study and further literature review, Sharma
(2015) performed content and construct vali-
dation to test a revised 30-item scale with a
sample of volunteer undergraduate students
aged 18–28 years who were enrolled in two
large public universities located on the East
Validation of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale With Emerging Adults 41
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
Coast of the United States (Sharma, 2015).
The results from further exploratory factor
analysis of the Sense of Purpose Scale showed
that 17 items loaded on three factors of sense
of purpose (awareness of purpose, altruistic
purpose, and awakening to purpose) and
explained a total of 52.3% of the variance
(Sharma, Yukhymenko-Lescroart, & Kang,
2017).
Yukhymenko-Lescroart and Sharma (2017)
subsequently conducted a multistudy to revise
and validate the Sense of Purpose Scale, creat-
ing the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale
(SOPS-2). The multistudy included a total
sample of 1,210 adults across four substudies
(mean age ranged from 32.75 to 49.71 years)
and provided evidence of reliability and valid-
ity. The authors specifically: (a) conducted
content validation of the scale, (b) tested its
multidimensional factorial structure by using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and (c)
evaluated convergent and divergent validity of
the SOPS-2 subscales with respect to presence
of meaning, search for meaning, compassion,
positivity, humility, moral identity,
self-esteem, pride, and regret. The resulting
SOPS-2 contains 14 items and is a multidi-
mensional scale with three subscales: aware-
ness of purpose, awakening to purpose, and
altruistic purpose.
The awareness of purpose subscale assesses
the extent to which individuals are clear and
confident about their purpose in life (Sharma
et al., 2017). In contrast, the awakening to pur-
pose subscale consists of items with stems
such as “I am gaining,” “I am awakening,” and
“recent activities are helping” to assess
changes in an individual’s clarity about their
purpose in life as well as the efforts being
made to awaken to that purpose (Sharma et al.,
2017). The altruistic purpose subscale assesses
the “desire to make a positive difference in the
world” (Sharma et al., 2017, p. 8). In accor-
dance with Damon et al.’s (2003) conceptual-
ization of purpose that emphasizes an intention
to accomplish something of consequence to
the world beyond the self, this subscale was
designed to capture the intention to positively
contribute to society. It is important to note
that Damon et al. (2003) emphasized that the
dimension of impacting the world beyond the
self might not be always altruistic in nature. In
fact, the concept of “beyond the self” could
refer to a positive or negative impact on soci-
ety. However, research has shown that com-
pared to other types of purpose, altruistic
purpose contributes to more positive develop-
mental outcomes (Bronk & Finch, 2010),
well-being (Hill, Burrow, O’Dell, & Thornton,
2010), and life satisfaction (Bronk & Finch,
2010). Therefore, Sharma et al. (2017) empha-
sized the importance of assessing aspirations
to make a positive difference in the society and
included an altruistic purpose subscale in the
SOPS-2.
RATIONALE FOR VALIDATING
SOPS-2 IN EMERGING ADULTS
There are several reasons to believe that the
factorial, criterion, and discriminant validity of
SOPS-2 would look different for emerging
adults than older adults. One of the reasons is
that during emerging adulthood, young people
are still in the process of exploring who they
are and their long-term aspirations. Although
Erikson (1950), the stage of identity versus
role confusion (12 to 18 years) as a milestone
of adolescence, Arnett (2000) has argued that
societal changes have led to youth making
important life decisions and continuing to
develop a sense of identity in emerging adult-
hood (18 to 25 years). During the stage of iden-
tity vs. role confusion, adolescents explore
their values, beliefs, goals, sense of self, and
purpose in life (Erikson, 1968). Burrow et al.
(2010) found that, in alignment with Marcia’s
(1996) theory of four identity statuses, there
are four profiles of youth purpose: achieved,
foreclosed, uncommitted, and diffused. The
findings also showed that youth with greater
purpose exploration scored higher on identity
exploration. Though this research was primar-
ily focused on adolescents, we would assume
similar pattern for emerging adults who are
42 Journal of Character Education Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
also undergoing identity development pro-
cesses. However, more empirical studies are
required to analyze the relationship between
identity stages and sense of purpose among
emerging adults.
Erikson (1950) indicated that the stage inti-
macy vs. isolation was a key feature of adult-
hood (18 to 40 years). During the stage of
intimacy vs. isolation, emerging adults aspire
to form intimate, loving, and lasting relation-
ships with others (Erikson, 1950). Erikson
(1968) stated that to establish healthy intimate
relationships, it is important to have a strong
sense of self. For young adults, higher scores
on identity achievement have been related to
greater autonomy and affiliation (Orlofsky,
Marcia, & Lesser, 1973). Therefore, support-
ing emerging adults to develop a strong sense
of purpose and identity might also support
their ability to develop healthier relationships.
In sum, purpose has a unique relationship to
the developmental milestones of emerging
adulthood. Similar to adolescents, emerging
adults are still developing a strong sense of
who they are and making critical future deci-
sions (Arnett, 2000; Erikson, 1968). Thus,
sense of purpose in emerging adulthoods
might differ from older adults who are more
likely to have already explored and identified
their purpose in life.
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY
The first objective of this study was to test fac-
torial validity of the SOPS-2 with a sample of
18 to 25 year old college students. To deter-
mine whether factorial validity of the scale
was established, we conducted a CFA. A CFA
is appropriate when the structure of the scale is
known. In the study with adults, Yukhy-
menko-Lescroart and Sharma (2017) showed
that the 14-item SOPS-2 consists of three fac-
tors (5-item awareness of purpose, 5-item
altruistic purpose, and 4-item awakening to
purpose), which provided the rationale for
conducting CFA in this study.
The second purpose of this study was to
establish criterion validity of the SOPS-2. Fol-
lowing Sharma et al. (2017) and Yukhy-
menko-Lescroart and Sharma (2017), we
tested criterion validity of the SOPS-2 by
exploring associations between the three
SOPS-2 subscales and the two subscales of the
Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ, Steger
et al., 2006), the presence of meaning and the
search for meaning, and the Santa Clara Com-
passion Scale (Hwang, Plante, & Lackey,
2008). We selected these two scales because
the literature suggests that meaning and pur-
pose are closely related but distinct constructs.
For instance, Baumeister (1991) suggested that
to experience a sense of meaning in life, peo-
ple fulfill four basic needs: purpose, value,
efficacy, and self-worth. Also, altruistic pur-
pose is closely related to feelings of generosity
and compassion (Mariano & Savage, 2009).
Therefore, a significant correlation between
these scales and SOPS-2 subscales would pro-
vide evidence for convergent validity. In this
study, we expected to see similar patterns of
correlations between these measures as they
were reported in previous studies (Sharma et
al., 2017; Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma,
2017). We hypothesized that all correlations
would be positive and significant, and that
altruistic purpose would be most strongly cor-
related with compassion; awareness of purpose
would be most strongly correlated with pres-
ence of meaning; and awakening to purpose
would be most strongly correlated with search
for meaning.
The third aim of this study was to test mea-
surement invariance across demographic
groups that could be related to differences in
experience of purpose. For example, in the
context of gender, Crose, Nicholas, Gobble,
and Frank (1992) suggested that men might
develop sense of purpose through work and
achievement, whereas women’s life purpose
might be more relationship oriented. With
regard to academic year or age, Moran (2009)
found that the clarity as well as beyond the self
nature of purpose increases from the period of
adolescence to young adulthood. According to
Validation of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale With Emerging Adults 43
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
Watt (2015), people often seek answers to
existential questions on meaning and purpose
in the context of race. Based on a phenomeno-
logical study, Sharma and De Alba (2018)
found that participants’ cultural background
and ethnic identity informed the nature of their
purpose in life. For example, participants from
minority backgrounds described their purpose
in the context of a desire to prove stereotypes
against their group wrong and become role
models for other minority youth. We sought to
explore the measurement invariance across
these groups to determine whether the SOPS-2
could be used to explore differences in purpose
experiences by demographic groups.
METHODS
Participants
The participants were recruited from a pub-
lic institution, which is designated as a His-
panic Serving Institution and an Asian Ameri-
can Native American Pacific Islander-Serving
Institution. We sent an email requesting all the
department assistants to forward a survey link
to all the part-time and full-time students in
their departments. A sample of 681 partici-
pants (76.4% female) aged between 18 and 25
years old (M = 21.2, SD = 2.1) provided re-
sponses to the set of scales. Participants identi-
fied their race and ethnicity as Hispanic or
Latino (41.4%), White (28.8%), Asian or Pa-
cific Islander (15.7%), Black or African Amer-
ican (3.1%), and “other” or multiethnic
(10.9%), which reflects the student body at this
institution as suggested by the Office of Insti-
tutional Effectiveness. The sample included
585 undergraduate students (83.4%), particu-
larly, 115 freshmen (16.9%), 107 sophomores
(15.7%), 175 juniors (25.7%), and 171 seniors
(25.1%), as well as 102 graduate students
(15.0%) and 11 “other” (students pursuing
teaching credentials). Compared to the student
body at this university, females were overrep-
resented in our sample, χ
2
(1, N = 673) = 96.65,
p < .001. Additionally, seniors were underrep-
resented and juniors and postbaccalaureate stu-
dents were overrepresented in our sample,
χ
2
(4, N = 681) = 36.42, p < .001.
Measures
Sense of Purpose Scale. Participants com-
pleted the SOPS-2 (Yukhymenko-Lescroart &
Sharma, 2017), designed to measure aware-
ness of purpose (five items, My purpose in life
is clear), altruistic purpose (five items, I seek
to help others), and awakening to purpose
(four items, I am gaining clarity about my
life’s purpose). The reliability of these sub-
scales will be reported in the results section.
As reported by Sharma et al. (2017), the first
factor, titled awareness of purpose, captures the
extent to which people are aware of their pur-
pose in life and moving toward fulfillment of
their life’s purpose. This scale has items such as
“my purpose in life is clear” that assesses how
clear or certain people are of their purpose in
life. The second factor, titled altruistic purpose,
captures participants’ aspiration to make a pos-
itive difference in the world or the altruistic
nature of their purpose in life. This scale has
items such as “I seek to help others” that also
examine people’s general orientation toward
benevolent behavior. The items of the third fac-
tor, titled awakening to purpose, were devel-
oped with the goal of assessing whether
participants are actively engaging in the pro-
cess of exploring their life’s purpose and for-
mulating long-term goals that resonate with
their purpose. An example from these items is
“I am gaining clarity about my life’s purpose.”
Participants indicated their agreement with
each item on a 7-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Meaning in Life Questionnaire. We used
the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Ste-
ger et al., 2006) to measure the construct of
meaning. Steger et al. (2006) defined meaning
in life as “the sense made of, and significance
felt regarding, the nature of one’s being and
existence” (p. 81). The MLQ has two sub-
scales: presence of meaning (MLQ-P) and
search for meaning (MLQ-S). The MLQ-P
subscale consists of five items, such as “My
44 Journal of Character Education Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
life has a clear sense of purpose.” The MLQ-S
subscale consists of five items, such as “I am
seeking a purpose or mission for my life.” The
alpha coefficients for the presence of meaning
subscale in this study was .92, and for the
search for meaning subscale was .88. Partici-
pants indicated their agreement with each item
on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (absolutely
untrue) to 7 (absolutely true).
Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale. We
administered the Santa Clara Brief Compas-
sion Scale (Hwang et al., 2008), an abbreviated
version of Sprecher and Fehr’s (2005) Com-
passionate Love Scale. Sprecher and Fehr
(2005) defined compassionate love as love that
encompasses “feelings, cognitions, and behav-
iors that are focused on caring, concern, ten-
derness, and an orientation toward supporting,
helping, and understanding the other(s)” (p.
630). The Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale
consists of five items such as “I tend to feel
compassion for people, even though I do not
know them.” The alpha coefficient for the scale
in this study was .88. Participants indicated
their agreement with each item on a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7
(very true of me).
Procedu
r
e
After receiving approval according to uni-
versity procedures and policies, we sent emails
to instructors in the departments of education
and counseling, asking them to forward the
invitation to participate in the anonymous
online survey to their students. The online
anonymous survey comprised of the ethical
guidelines associated with present study,
informed consent, above-mentioned scales,
and questions related to participants’ demo-
graphic background. There was no compensa-
tion for participating in this study.
Data Analysis
First, we performed CFA to confirm the
factorial structure of the SOPS-2 scale. We
followed the recommendations of Hu and
Bentler (1999) and evaluated the model fit
based on a combination of several indices,
including root-mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA), standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR), comparative fit index
(CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). Hu and
Bentler (1999) recommended a cutoff value
close to .95 for CFI and TLI, close to .08 for
SRMR, and close to .06 for RMSEA. Addi-
tionally, we explored the chi-square to degrees
of freedom ratio, which we compared to the
conservative cutoff of 2.0. We also examined
item loadings following Hair, Black, Babin,
and Anderson (2010), who recommended that
the standardized loadings should be .50 or
above (ideally .70 or above).
Next, we examined construct validity based
on reliability, extracted variance, and correla-
tions between factors, as outlined in Hair et al.
(2010, p. 673). First, reliability was assessed
based on const ruct reliability (CR) us ing the for-
mula of McDonald’s (1970) omega (also see
Hair et al., 2010, p. 687). The CR value of .70
or higher suggests good internal reliability (Hair
et al., 2010, p. 687). We also supplemented reli-
ability analyses with interitem correlations
(IIC) for each subscale. Second, we explored the
values of average variance explained (AVE),
which shows the degree that a latent variable is
explained by its observed variables. The AVE
values of .50 or greater indicate convergent
validity. AVE values greater than the square of
the correlation between the two factors indicate
discriminant validity.
To further assess factorial validity of the
SOPS-2, we engaged in a series of tests of
measurement invariance. Measurement invari-
ance suggests that items of a scale are unbiased
and that the response to items depends on the
value of the variable rather than the group
membership. We tested invariance for groups
across gender (male and female), race/ethnic-
ity (White, Hispanic/Latino, and Other), and
academic year (freshman, sophomore, junior,
senior, and graduate). First, we established
baseline models for each subgroup, followed
by a sequence of more restrictive models.
Invariance testing was performed for equality
of factor patterns (configural invariance), fac-
Validation of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale With Emerging Adults 45
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
tor loadings (metric invariance), and item
intercepts (scalar invariance). Measurement
invariance was established when the model fit
of each progressively restricted model did not
change considerably compared to the preced-
ing model. Following recommendations in the
literature (Chen, 2007), we compared the mod-
els based on changes in CFI, TLI, and
RMSEA. While our sample size was large
(i.e., more than 300), our subgroups were not
equal, therefore, we used the following cutoff
values: a change of less than .005 for CFI, sup-
plemented by a change of less than .01 in
RMSEA and .025 in SRMR for testing metric
invariance and a change of less than .005 for
CFI, supplemented by a change of less than .01
in RMSEA and .005 in SRMR for testing sca-
lar invariance (Chen, 2007).
Finally, we examined criterion validity of
the data based on the correlations between the
SOPS-2 subscales with the three latent factors
of presence of meaning in life, search for mean-
ing in life, and compassion, using a CFA model.
We expected to see positive correlations, par-
ticularly, relatively higher correlations between
awareness of purpose and presence of meaning,
between awakening to purpose and search for
meaning, and between altruistic purpose and
compassion. The analyses were performed in
Mplus 8.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2017),
using maximum likelihood estimation method
with robust standard errors.
RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The 14 SOPS-2 items were specified as
indicators of their intended factors of aware-
ness of purpose (five items), altruistic purpose
(five items), and awakening to purpose (four
items). The results showed a good model fit to
the data: χ
2
(74, N = 681) = 171.24, p < .001, χ
2
/
df = 2.31, scaling correction factor = 1.418,
CFI = .977, TLI = .972, RSMEA = .044, 90%
CI [.035, .053], SRMR = .034. Modification
indices did not indicate any revisions to the
model, which would substantially improve the
model fit and be conceptually justified. Item
loadings were all significant and ranged from
.85 to .90 for awareness of purpose, from .72 to
.81 for altruistic purpose, and from .66 to .84
for awakening to purpose. Table 1 shows fac-
tor loadings.
T
ABLE
1
Factor Loadings for the SOPS-2 Items, N = 681
Subscale and Items Estimate SE
AWR: My purpose in life is clear. 0.85 0.02
AWR: I am certain about my life’s purpose. 0.90 0.02
AWR: I feel confident about my life’s purpose. 0.90 0.01
AWR: I can describe my life’s purpose. 0.86 0.02
AWR: I have a clear understanding of my life’s purpose. 0.87 0.02
ALT: I aspire to make a positive difference in my community. 0.81 0.02
ALT: I seek to help others. 0.74 0.03
ALT: I seek to serve society in many ways, large and small. 0.80 0.02
ALT: I want to spend my life making a positive impact on others. 0.79 0.02
ALT: I make efforts to promote other people’s well-being. 0.72 0.03
AWK: I am awakening to my life’s ultimate goal. 0.82 0.02
AWK: I am gaining clarity about my life’s purpose. 0.84 0.02
AWK: I am gaining understanding about the deeper purpose of my life. 0.83 0.02
AWK: Recent activities are helping me to awaken to my life’s purpose. 0.66 0.03
Notes: SE = standard error; AWR = awareness of purpose;
ALT = altruistic purpose; AWK = awakening to purpose.
46 Journal of Character Education Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
Construct Validity: Reliability, Extracted
Variance, and Correlations
Construct reliability values were reasonable
and all above the recommended value of .70:
.94 for awareness of purpose, .88 for altruistic
purpose, and .87 for awakening to purpose,
indicating good reliability of each subscale.
Interitem correlations (IIC) were between .72
and .81 (IIC: M = .77, SD = .03) for awareness
of purpose, between .56 and .67 (IIC: M = .60,
SD = .04) for altruistic purpose, and between
.55 and .69 (IIC: M = .62, SD = .06) for awak-
ening to purpose.
The latent correlations were r(679) = .51, p
< .001, 95% CI [.43, .59] between awareness
of purpose and altruistic purpose, r(679) = .80,
p < .001, 95% CI [.75, .86] between awareness
of purpose and awakening to purpose, and
r(679) = .57, p < .001, 95% CI [.50, .64]
between awakening to purpose and altruistic
purpose.
The values of average variance extracted
(AVE) were at or above the recommended
norm of .50: .77 for awareness of purpose, .60
for altruistic purpose, and .50 for awakening to
purpose. Comparing the AVE values to
squared correlations showed that the squared
correlation between awareness of purpose and
altruistic purpose (.26) was lower than the cor-
responding AVE values (.77 and .60). The
squared correlation between awareness of pur-
pose and awakening to purposes (.64) was
lower than the AVE value for the awareness
subscale (.77) but slightly higher than the AVE
value for the awakening subscale (.62). Finally,
the squared correlation between awakening and
altruistic purpose (.32) was lower than the cor-
responding AVE values (.62 and .60).
Because the correlation between awareness
of purpose and awakening to purpose was
high, an alternative 2-factor model was tested,
in which items of awareness and awakening
were specified as indicators of the same factor.
The results showed that this model had a mar-
ginal fit: χ
2
(76, N = 681) = 461.86, p < .001, χ
2
/
df = 6.08, scaling correction factor = 1.434,
CFI = .909, TLI = .891, RSMEA = .086, 90%
CI [.079, .094], SRMR = .060, which was also
a significantly worse fit compared to the model
presented in Table 1: χ
2
(2, N = 681) = 207.79,
p < .001. These results suggested that the
3-factor model was more appropriate for these
data.
Factorial Validity:
Measurement Invariance
To explore measurement invariance by gen-
der (male and female), race/ethnicity (White,
Hispanic/Latino, and Other), and academic
year (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior,
graduate), the measurement models were first
established separately for each of these groups.
The models showed reasonable fits to the data
for these groups (see Table 2). All factor load-
ings were significant. Examination of modifi-
cation indices did not reveal any changes
justified conceptually. Therefore, measure-
ment invariance was examined starting with
the least restrictive model (configural).
Table 2 shows the results for model fit for
each group as well as configural, metric, and
scalar measurement invariance across gender
(male and female), three groups of race/ethnic-
ity (White, Hispanic/Latino, and Other), and
academic year (freshman, sophomore, junior,
senior, graduate). The data showed that the
SOPS-2 was invariant across these subgroups
as indicated by changes of less than .005 for
CFI, less than .01 for RMSEA between config-
ural and metric models and between metric
and scalar models. The change in SRMR val-
ues were less than .025 for invariance testing
across gender and race/ethnicity, and slightly
over for testing metric across the academic
year (i.e., .027). The changes in SRMR values
were all less than .005 for testing scalar invari-
ance. These results showed that factor loadings
(configural), factor patterns (metric), and item
intercepts (scalar) were generally equivalent
for students of different academic year, for
both genders, and for different race/ethnic
backgrounds; thus, establishing the factorial
validity of the scale.
Validation of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale With Emerging Adults 47
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
Criterion Validity
Criterion validity was established based on
the correlations between the SOPS-2 subscales
with the three latent factors of presence of
meaning in life, search for meaning in life, and
compassion, using a CFA model. The 14 items
were specified as indicators of the intended
factors of awareness of purpose, altruistic pur-
pose, and awakening to purpose; additionally,
the five presence of meaning in life items, the
five search for meaning in life items, and the
five compassion items were specified as indi-
cators of their intended factors. The 6-factor
model showed an adequate fit to the data:
χ
2
(362, N = 681) = 931.60, p < .001, χ
2
/df =
2.57, scaling correction factor = 1.224, CFI =
.949, TLI = .943, RSMEA = .048, 90% CI
[.044, .052], SRMR = .051. The factor load-
ings ranged from .74 to .91 for presence of
meaning, .74 to .80 for search for meaning, and
.64 to .86 for compassion.
Table 3 shows latent correlations among the
variables. As expected, presence of meaning
was positively and most strongly correlated
with awareness of purpose, r(681) =.93,
1
p <
.001. Presence of meaning was also positively
correlated with awakening to purpose, r(681)
=.79, p < .001, and altruistic purpose, r(681)
=.55, p < .001. Also as predicted, search for
meaning in life was positively correlated with
awakening to purpose, r(681) =.31, p < .001,
and altruistic purpose, r(681) =.25, p = .003.
Search for meaning did not significantly cor-
relate with awareness of purpose. Finally, as
expected, compassion was positively and most
strongly correlated with altruistic purpose,
r(681) =.69, p < .001. Compassion was also
positively correlated with awareness of pur-
T
ABLE
2
Measurement Invariance Across Gender, Educational Level, and Race/Ethnicity (N = 681)
Model χ
2
df χ
2
/df CFI RMSEA 90% CI SRMR
Gender
Males, n = 153 107.75 74 1.46 .967 .055 [.030, .076] .046
Females, n = 520 168.15 74 2.27 .972 .049 [.040, .059] .036
Configural invariance 279.39 148 1.89 .971 .051 [.042, .061] .038
Metric invariance 298.17 159 1.88 .969 .051 [.042, .060] .057
Scalar invariance 314.88 170 1.85 .968 .050 [.042, .059] .059
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino, n = 276 121.75 74 1.65 .974 .048 [.032, .063] .039
White, n = 192 97.59 74 1.32 .981 .041 [.012, .061] .049
Other, n =199 114.35 74 1.55 .971 .052 [.032, .071] .050
Configural invariance 333.55 222 1.50 .975 .048 [.037, .058] .046
Metric invariance 363.45 244 1.49 .973 .047 [.037, .057] .070
Scalar invariance 397.77 266 1.50 .971 .047 [.037, .057] .073
Academic Year
Freshman, n = 115 131.99 74 1.78 .940 .083 [.059, .105] .052
Sophomore, n = 107 119.12 74 1.61 .942 .075 [.049, .100] .059
Junior, n = 175 107.34 74 1.45 .973 .051 [.027, .071] .047
Senior, n = 171 89.86 74 1.21 .985 .035 [0, .059] .041
Graduates, n = 102 116.38 74 1.57 .951 .075 [.047, .100] .059
Configural invariance 563.03 370 1.52 .961 .062 [.052, .073] .050
Metric invariance 596.25 414 1.44 .963 .057 [.047, .067] .077
Scalar invariance 643.99 458 1.41 .962 .055 [.045, .065] .080
Notes: Configural = invariance of factor patterns; metric = invariance of factor loadings; scalar = invariance of item
intercepts.
48 Journal of Character Education Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
pose, r(681) =.33, p < .001, and awakening to
purpose, r(681) =.39, p < .001.
The Effects of Age and Academic Year
Finally, we examined the effects of age and
academic year on the sense of purpose in life to
explore whether students at the beginning of
their college experience responded similarly to
those who were at the end of their experience.
Age was slightly but positively correlated with
awareness of purpose, r(679) = .09, p = .024,
and with altruistic purpose, r(679) = .13, p =
.001, but not with awakening to purpose,
r(679) = .07, p = .078.
Table 4 shows means and standard devia-
tions on the sense of purpose subscales across
academic year. Analysis of variance with post
hoc tests showed that graduate students
reported stronger awareness of sense of pur-
pose (F(5, 665) = 4.06, p = .003), altruistic
purpose (F(5, 665) = 3.70, p = .005), and
awakening to purpose (F(5, 665) = 4.36, p =
.002) compared to their undergraduate coun-
terparts.
DISCUSSION
The SOPS-2 showed a conceptually and
empirically sound three-factor structure based
on several diagnostics of model evaluation,
including item loadings, modification indices,
and omega reliabilities. The SOPS-2 factorial
validity was established by demonstrating rea-
sonable fit indices that did not change substan-
tially across the models measuring invariance
of factor loadings, patterns, and variances,
suggesting generalizability of the scale for
those in the age group of 18 to 25 years of both
genders, undergraduate and graduate student
status, and different racial/ethnic backgrounds.
T
ABLE
3
Latent Correlations Among Measured Variables (N = 681)
12345
1. Awareness of purpose —
2. Altruistic purpose .51
***
[.44, .59] —
3. Awakening to purpose .80
***
[.75, .86] .57
***
[.50, .64] —
4. Presence of purpose .93
***
[.91, .95] .55
***
[.48, .62] .79
***
[.74, .85] —
5. Search for purpose .03 [–.07, .13] .25
**
[.16, .34] .31
***
[.21, .42] .04 [–.06, .14] —
6. Compassion .33
***
[.24, .42] .69
***
[.62, .76] .39
***
[.30, .47] .38
***
[.29, .46] .22
***
[.13, .32]
Notes: The 95% confidence intervals for latent correlations are shown in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
T
ABLE
4
Descriptive Statistics for Sense of Purpose by Academic Year
Awareness of Purpose
M (SD)
Altruistic Purpose
M (SD)
Awakening to Purpose
M (SD)
Freshman 5.11 (1.25) 5.93 (0.84) 5.15 (1.04)
Sophomore 5.31 (1.31) 5.95 (0.83) 5.35 (1.06)
Junior 5.08 (1.40) 6.06 (0.74) 5.21 (1.02)
Senior 5.30 (1.19) 6.05 (0.75) 5.26 (1.03)
Graduate students 5.67 (1.09) 6.29 (0.64) 5.66 (0.92)
Total 5.27 (1.28) 6.05 (0.77) 5.31 (1.03)
Validation of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale With Emerging Adults 49
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
Criterion validity was evident based on
associations between the subscales (awareness
of purpose, awakening to purpose, and altruis-
tic purpose) and scales that assessed presence
of meaning, search for meaning, and compas-
sion. The patterns of correlations were gener-
ally similar to those reported in the previous
scale development studies (Sharma et al.,
2017; Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma,
2017). The findings regarding the correlation
between the presence of meaning and aware-
ness of purpose confirmed that meaning and
purpose are related constructs, as indicated by
their positive correlations, but also distinct
from each other, as demonstrated by discrimi-
nant validity results. The positive association
between altruistic purpose and compassion
reinforced the findings of previous studies,
such as Mariano and Savage’s (2009) study
that revealed greater generosity and empathy
among people who reported a strong sense of
purpose. The positive correlation between
search for meaning and awakening to purpose
supported the potential of the awakening to
purpose subscale to assess whether individuals
have recently begun to explore and gain clarity
about their purpose. However, longitudinal
studies are needed to clarify whether the mea-
sure is indeed time-sensitive and can evaluate
changes in sense of purpose. Also, that the
awakening to purpose subscale was more
closely related to presence of meaning than the
search for meaning suggests that awakening to
purpose may reflect a process of strengthening
clarity about purpose in life rather than search-
ing for life’s ultimate purpose.
Implications for Practice
Many scholars have demonstrated the posi-
tive role that sense of purpose plays in influ-
encing peopless, wellness, and life satisfaction
(Bronk, Hill, Lapsley, Talib, & Finch, 2009).
In contrast to such correlational studies
demonstrating positive associations of purpose
with positive outcomes, there is a dearth of
research on the extent to which young people
recognize a purpose in life (Burrow et al.,
2010) and interventions to enhance their sense
of purpose. A notable exception is an interven-
tion study from Bundick (2011), who explored
whether engaging in an intensive session that
encouraged participants to reflect upon and
discuss their purpose in life enhanced their
sense of purpose. Bundick (2011) found no
support for the hypothesis that one-time dis-
cussion on purpose could increase the degree
to which participants became aware of their
purpose in life; however, such discussion was
found to strengthen the dimension of
goal-directedness 9 months later. Bundick
(2011) concluded that even a one-time inten-
sive reflection on and discussion about pur-
pose could act as a triggering event that could
impel people to later reflect upon their purpose
in life.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to measure
effectiveness of purpose interventions with
existing measures because normative trajecto-
ries of purpose development have not been
clearly established. The awakening to purpose
subscale was designed to assess recent changes
in sense of purpose. The present study has pro-
vided empirical support for the awakening to
purpose subscale and its potential to assess
whether people have recently begun to explore
and gain clarity about their life’s purpose.
However, more research is needed to investi-
gate the time-sensitivity and effectiveness of
this subscale in assessing changes in sense of
purpose.
Limitations and Future Directions
The results of the present study should be
interpreted in light of the following limita-
tions. First, the sample consisted of only
undergraduate and graduate students. The
nature and development of sense of purpose
among university students might be different
from that of noncollege attending emerging
adults, which could potentially affect the
validity of the SOPS-2 among the broader 18
to 25 years old age group. Emerging adulthood
might not be a universal experience due to the
alternative transition experiences that some
50 Journal of Character Education Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
young people from nonindustrialized and mar-
ginalized populations might experience (Lee &
Waithaka, 2017). Very often, young people
belonging to low-income or minority groups
have less human capital than their more privi-
leged peers and, thus, do not have the opportu-
nity to freely explore life choices. As a result,
they may face challenges related to school
attendance, career success, and future earning
prospects (Lee & Waithaka, 2017). They are
also more likely to assume adult role statutes in
terms of parenting, entering full-time labor
force, and establishing independent house-
holds. To determine whether these differences
impact the nature of purpose, future research
should investigate the SOPS-2 in a noncollege
attending sample.
While the current study provided evidence
for factorial validity for both female and males
as evident in the results for measurement
invariance, future studies should target a more
balanced sample of males and females. In
addition, sample characteristics associated
with convenience sampling that were not
assessed may have affected results, such as the
reasons students elected to participate and the
majors and departments of the participants. As
research on purpose continues, more rigorous
sampling methodology would allow results to
be more broadly interpretable.
The SOPS-2 has been previously validated
with adults and was validated with emerging
adults in the current study. While the SOPS-2
is valid for use with those who are 18 years or
older, its validity and reliability has not yet
been explored with younger participants. Since
purpose and identity are reinforcing and over-
lapping constructs (Bronk 2011), and the
development of purpose is closely related to
the development of identity (Burrow et al.,
2010), we suspect that participants younger
than 18 years of age who are still exploring
their identity may not respond to items on
awareness of purpose and awakening to pur-
pose differentially. We further speculate that
the two processes—awakening to one’s pur-
pose and awareness of one’s purpose—are
likely to occur concurrently for younger ado-
lescents. However, future research is needed to
explore this supposition. Because the time
period of emerging adulthood overlaps with
late adolescence, it would be interesting to
explore the similarities and distinctions regard-
ing sense of purpose among late adolescents
and emerging adults. Ultimately, it would be
informative to investigate questions of change
and developmental trajectories of sense of pur-
pose across development from adolescence
through adulthood. Along the lines of under-
standing purpose development, research is
needed to establish the utility of the awakening
to purpose subscale in assessing the changes in
sense of purpose.
Future studies should also explore the rela-
tionship between sense of purpose and other
developmental outcomes (e.g., grit, self-
esteem, persistence, identity achievement).
Intervention studies should explore causal
relationships between sense of purpose and
related variables. Most importantly, given the
positive role of purpose, the SOPS-2 could be
used to assess the effectiveness of intervention
studies designed to enhance purpose.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present study confirmed a
three-factor structure of the SOPS-2 based on
several diagnostics of model evaluation. The
SOPS-2 measures awareness of purpose,
awakening to purpose, and altruistic purpose,
which are important dimensions of the con-
struct of sense of purpose that have not been
included in previous instruments. This study
has added to the evidence for the factorial, cri-
terion, and discriminant validity of SOPS-2
among those in the age group of 18 to 25 years.
NOTE
1. To explore discriminant validity between
the factors of presence of meaning in life
and awareness of purpose, we compared
two models: a 2-factor model, in which
the five items of awareness of purpose
Validation of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale With Emerging Adults 51
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
and the five items of presence of meaning
were specified to represent their intended
factors, and a 1-factor model, in which the
10 items of awareness of purpose and
meaning in life were specified to repre-
sent a single factor. The two models were
compared using a chi-square difference
test for the Satorra-Bentler scaled
chi-square (Satorra, 2000). The fit of
2-factor model was very good: χ
2
(34, N =
681) = 77.46, p < .001, χ
2
/df = 2.28, scal-
ing correction factor = 1.545, CFI = .988,
TLI = .985, RSMEA = .043, 90% CI
[.031, .056], SRMR = .016. The fit of
1-factor mode was acceptable but, com-
pared to the two-factor model, it was
worse: χ
2
(35, N = 681) = 208.91, p <
.001, χ
2
/df = 5.97, scaling correction fac-
tor = 1.574, CFI = .953, TLI = .940,
RSMEA = .085, 90% CI [.074, .097],
SRMR = .026. The results of the
chi-square difference test showed that the
two-factor model had a significantly bet-
ter fit than the alternative one-factor
model, χ
2
(1, N = 681) = 81.70, p < .001,
suggesting that the two factors of aware-
ness of purpose and search for meaning
were not completely redundant.
REFERENCES
Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory
of development from the late teens through the
twenties. The American Psychologist, 55, 469–
480.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Bronk, K. C. (2011). The role of purpose in life in
healthy identity formation: A grounded model.
New Directions for Youth Development, 132,
31–44.
Bronk, K. C. (2013). Purpose in life: A critical com-
ponent of optimal youth development. New
York, NY: Springer.
Bronk, K .C., & Finch, H. W. (2010). Adolescent
characteristics by type of long-term aim in life.
Applied Developmental Science, 14, 35–44.
Bronk, K. C., Hill, P. L., Lapsley, D. K., Talib, T.
L., & Finch, H. W. (2009). Purpose, hope, and
life satisfaction in three age groups. The Journal
of Positive Psychology, 4, 500–510.
Bundick, M. J. (2011). The benefits of reflecting on
and discussing purpose in life in emerging adult-
hood. New Directions for Youth Development,
132, 89–103.
Bundick, M., Andrews, M., Jones, A., Mariano, J.
M., Bronk, K. C., & Damon, W. (2006). Revised
youth purpose survey. Unpublished instrument.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Center.
Burrow, A. L., O’Dell, A. C., & Hill, P. L. (2010).
Profiles of a developmental Asset: Youth pur-
pose as a context for hope and well-being. Jour-
nal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1265–1273.
Card, N. A. (2017). Methodological issues in mea-
suring the development of character. Journal of
Character Education, 13, 29–45.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit
indexes to lack of measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
Crose, R., Nicholas, D. R., Gobble, D. C., & Frank,
B. (1992). Gender and wellness: A multidimen-
sional systems model for counseling. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 71, 149–156.
Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An
experimental study in existentialism: The psy-
chometric approach to Frankl’s concept of
noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 20, 589–596.
Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: How
young people find their calling in life. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Damon, W., Menon. J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The
development of purpose during adolescence.
Applied Developmental Science, 7, 119–128.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New
York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson,
R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear-
son Prentice Hall.
Hill, P. L., Burrow, A. L., Brandenberger, J. W.,
Lapsley, D. K., & Quaranto, J. C. (2010). Colle-
giate purpose orientations and well-being in
adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 31, 173–179.
Hill, P. L., Burrow, A. L., O’Dell, A. C., & Thorn-
ton, M. A. (2010). Classifying adolescents’ con-
ceptions of purpose in life. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 5, 466–473.
52 Journal of Character Education Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019
IAP PROOFS
© 2019
Hill, P. L., Edmonds, G. W., Peterson, M., Luyckx,
K., & Andrews, J. A. (2016). Purpose in life in
emerging adulthood: Development and valida-
tion of a new brief measure. Journal of Positive
Psychology, 11, 237–245.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for
fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hwang, J. Y., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The
development of the Santa Clara Brief Compas-
sion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and
Fehr’s Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psy-
chology, 56, 421–428.
Lee. J. S., & Waithaka, E. N. (2017). The intersec-
tions of marginalized social identities in the tran-
sition to adulthood: A demographic profile.
Emerging Adulthood, 5, 151–163.
Marcia, J. E. (1996). Development and validation of
ego identity status. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Mariano, J. M., & Savage, J. (2009). Exploring the
language of youth purpose: References to posi-
tive states and coping styles by adolescents with
different kinds of purpose. Journal of Research
in Character Education, 7, 1–24.
McDonald, R. P. (1970). Theoretical foundations of
principal factor analysis and alpha factor analy-
sis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statisti-
cal Psychology, 23, 1–21.
Moran, S. (2009). Purpose: Giftedness in intraper-
sonal intelligence. High Ability Studies, 20, 143–
159.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017).
Mplus User’s Guide, Eighth Edition. Los Ange-
les, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Orlofsky, J. L., Marcia, J. E., & Lesser, I. M. (1973).
Ego identity status and the intimacy versus isola-
tion crisis of young adulthood. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 27, 211–219.
Reker, G. T., & Peacock, E. J. (1981). The Life Atti-
tude Profile (LAP): A multidimensional instru-
ment for assessing attitudes toward life.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 13,
64–73.
Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted
tests in multi-sample analysis of moment struc-
tures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, &
A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate
statistical analysis: Advanced studies in theoret-
ical and applied econometrics (pp. 233−247).
Boston, MA: Springer.
Scheier, M. F., Wrosch, C., Baum, A., Cohen, S.,
Martire, L. M., Matthews, K. A., … Zdaniuk, B.
(2006). The Life Engagement Test: Assessing
purpose in life. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
29, 291–298.
Sharma, G. (2015). Sense of Purpose Inventory:
Development, psychometric examination and
construct validation (unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
Sharma, G., & De Alba, E. (2018). Sense of purpose
among female students belonging to minority
ethnic and Buddhist backgrounds. Journal of
College and Character, 19, 137–151.
Sharma, G., Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M., & Kang,
Z. (2017). Sense of Purpose Scale: Development
and initial validation. Applied Developmental
Science, 1–12.
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate
love for close others and humanity. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M.
(2006). The meaning in life questionnaire:
Assessing the presence of and search for mean-
ing in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
53, 80–93.
Watt, S. K. (2015). Situating race in college stu-
dents’ search for purpose and meaning: Who am
I? Journal of College & Character, 16, 135–142.
Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M. A., & Sharma, G.
(2017, April). Validation of the Sense of Purpose
Inventory with adults. Round table presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation
between meaning in life and psychological
well-being. Journal of Psychology, 83, 133–145.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
