Personality and Individual Differences - Gary Reker's Website

Abstract 

Meaning in life of young, middle-aged, and older 

adults: factorial validity, age, and gender invariance of 

the Personal Meaning Index (PMI) 

Gary T. Reker * 

Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada K9J 7B8 

Received 15 May 2003; received in revised form 6 February 2004; accepted 26 March 2004 

Available online 25 May 2004 

The purpose of the present study was to examine the factorial validity and the age and gender invariance of 

the Personal Meaning Index (PMI), a measure of the existential belief that life is meaningful. A combined 

sample of 2065 young ðN ¼ 1152Þ, middle-aged ðN ¼ 483Þ, and older ðN ¼ 430Þ adults completed the purpose 

and coherence subscales of the Life Attitude Profile-Revised (Reker, 1992). Confirmatory factor analysis 

and multiple-groups confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the factorial structure, age invariance, 

and gender invariance of the PMI. The results show that a one-factor congeneric measurement model best 

characterizes the underlying structure of the PMI for each age group and for both males and females. Differential 

item functioning across age for males and females was found for six PMI items; only two PMI items 

were found to be noninvariant across gender. Plausible explanations for the noninvariant PMI items are 

offered and the practical implications for the use of the PMI in multigroup comparisons are discussed. 

Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

Keywords: Personal meaning index; Factorial validity; Age invariance; Gender invariance 

1. Introduction 

Since the introduction of the construct of personal meaning by Frankl (1963) and Maddi 

(1970), considerable attention has been given to the measurement of personal meaning 

(Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Debats, van der Lubbe, & Wezeman, 1993; Reker, 1992, 2000; 

* Fax: +1-705-748-1580. 

E-mail address: greker@trentu.ca (G.T. Reker). 

Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 71–85 

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.010 

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

72 G.T. Reker / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 71–85 

Reker & Chamberlain, 2000). Specifically, the thorny problem of how to define and operationalize 

personal meaning has been addressed. These attempts have resulted in a proliferation of a diverse 

set of conceptual definitions and measuring instruments, each reflecting the theoretical orientation 

of the researcher (e.g., Antonovsky, 1987; Battista & Almond, 1973; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 

1969; Reker & Wong, 1988). The availability of these measures has led to a number of empirical 

studies investigating the correlates of meaning, the mediating/moderating role of meaning, and 

age and gender differences in personal meaning (e.g., Fry, 2001; Harlow, Newcomb, & Bentler, 

1986; Reker, Peacock, & Wong, 1987; Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). 

Of particular interest to the current investigation are studies of personal meaning involving 

multigroup comparisons (e.g., age differences, gender differences). In any such study, it is 

important to demonstrate that the specific meaning measure that is used is structurally valid for 

each comparison group. It is equally important to evaluate the structural invariance of meaning 

measures so that any observed group differences and/or changes over time can be more appropriately 

attributed to ‘‘real’’ differences and/or changes on the personal meaning construct. While 

the factorial validity of meaning measures is normally demonstrated, structural equivalence is 

often assumed and rarely subjected to empirical scrutiny. Thus, it is often not known whether the 

same measure of personal meaning taps the same underlying construct across all comparison 

groups, leading to potential confounding and misinterpretations of observed mean differences. 

To date, a very small number of studies have tested the structural invariance of personal 

meaning measures in multigroup comparisons. Van Ranst and Marcoen (1997) examined the 

factorial validity and invariance of the Life Regard Index (LRI: Battista & Almond, 1973) across 

samples of young and older adults. The LRI is a 28-item, 5-point multidimensional measure 

divided into two subscales, Framework and Fulfillment. Age invariance was tested separately for 

each subscale using individual items as indicators. The factor loadings of the Framework items 

were found to be age invariant, but the loadings of the Fulfillment items were not. The authors 

concluded that the measurement and the structure of the LRI are not equivalent across young and 

older adults and urge researchers to exercise caution when using the LRI to study age differences 

in meaning in life. Along similar lines, Reker and Fry (2003) examined the factor structure and 

factorial invariance of six self-report measures of personal meaning across samples of younger and 

older adults. Invariance, however, was only tested at the scale level using item parcels as indicators. 

All six measures were found to be structurally invariant across age for first-order factor 

loadings, but some scales were shown to be more resistant to sources of noninvariance compared 

to others. 

One of the measures of personal meaning that appears to be more resistant to noninvariance is 

the Personal Meaning Index (PMI), a 16-item measure of the existential belief that life is 

meaningful (Reker, 1992). The PMI is a composite of the Purpose and Coherence subscales of the 

multidimensional Life Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R: Reker, 1992). Although originally 

developed for use with elderly populations, the PMI has been applied to all ages ranging from 

adolescence to older adulthood (e.g., Bearsley & Cummins, 1999; Fry, 2000; Reker et al., 1987). 

Cross-sectional studies across the life span from late adolescence to the old–old have consistently 

found that personal meaning, as measured by the PMI, increases with age (Reker, 1992; Reker et 

al., 1987). Gender differences on the PMI, favouring females, have also been reported (Fry, 2001; 

Reker, 1992; VandeCreek, 1991). Furthermore, the PMI has been shown to have very favourable 

psychometric properties (Reker, 1992; Reker & Fry, 2003).

Despite the current popularity of the PMI, assessment of its psychometric properties has been 

exclusively carried out at the total scale score level. To the author’s knowledge, no study has been 

undertaken to examine the structural invariance of the PMI across age groups and gender at the 

individual item level. Given the frequent use of the PMI in studies of age and gender differences, it 

is important to demonstrate that the PMI items remain structurally invariant in terms of the 

pattern of factor loadings, item distribution characteristics, and the pattern of item response 

frequencies. 

Prior to determining that the PMI items remain age and gender invariant, it is necessary to 

examine the factor structure of the PMI separately for each age group and gender. Based on prior 

exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, it is hypothesized that a first-order CFA model best 

characterizes the underlying factor structure of the PMI for young, middle-aged, and older adults 

and for males and females. For each group, the scale of the latent factor Personal Meaning was 

defined by fixing the factor loading of the first item to unity. Each item is hypothesized to have a 

nonzero loading on the first-order factor and error terms associated with each item are hypothesized 

to be uncorrelated. 

The purposes of the present study were fourfold: (a) to test the factorial structure of the PMI 

separately for young, middle-aged, and older adults and for males and females, (b) to test for 

measurement invariance across three age groups and gender, (c) to identify sources of item 

noninvariance, and (d) to examine age and gender differences in total meaning scores based on the 

invariant PMI items. 

2. Method 

2.1. Participants and procedure 

A combined sample of 2065 adult volunteers (females ¼ 1449; males ¼ 616) participated in this 

study. Study participants were divided into 3 age groups: young, 16–24 years (males ¼ 280, 

females ¼ 872); middle-aged, 25–49 years (males ¼ 148, females ¼ 335); and elderly, 50–93 years 

(males ¼ 188, females ¼ 242). The mean age of all participants was 34.3 years (range 16–93 years, 

SD ¼ 20.0). The young participants were undergraduate psychology and gerontology students 

who received course credit for their involvement. Middle-aged and older adults were recruited 

through community newsletters and posters placed in churches, seniors lodges, and age-segregated 

housing complexes, as well as by word of mouth. Participants were drawn from several 

studies that examined the relationship between personal meaning and psychosocial outcome 

variables. For the current study, all participants completed the Personal Meaning Index (PMI), a 

measure derived from the Life Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R: Reker, 1992). 

2.2. Instrumentation 

G.T. Reker / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 71–85 73 

The Personal Meaning Index (PMI) is a 16-item, 7-point Likert scale (strongly agree...strongly 

disagree) derived by summing the Purpose and Coherence dimensions of the 48-item multidimensional 

Life Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R: Reker, 1992). Scores can range from 16 to 112. 

A high score reflects a strong sense of having achieved life goals, having a mission in life, having a


sense of direction, having a sense of order and reason for existence, and having a logically integrated 

and consistent understanding of self, others, and life in general. Example items include, ‘‘I 

have a mission in life that gives me a sense of direction’’; ‘‘My personal existence is orderly and 

coherent’’. The internal consistency and 4–6 week temporal stability coefficients for the PMI are 

0.91 and 0.90, respectively (Reker, 1992). Regarding validity, the PMI shares significant variance 

with a number of identical measures including the Purpose in Life test (PIL: Crumbaugh & 

Maholick, 1969); the Life Regard Index (LRI: Battista & Almond, 1973), and the Sense of 

Coherence scale (SOC: Antonovsky, 1987). The PMI also correlates significantly with a number of 

related variables including psychological and physical well-being, physical health, ego integrity, 

internal locus of control, life satisfaction, self-transcendent values, and the absence of feelings of 

depression and alienation (Reker, 1992). For the current combined sample, the alpha coefficient 

was found to be 0.91. 

2.3. Statistical analysis 

Tests for factorial validity, age, and gender invariance of PMI items were based on the analyses 

of covariance structures, using maximum likelihood estimation procedures. Analyses were conducted 

in four stages. In the first stage, six first-order CFA models were estimated separately for 

young, middle-aged, and older adult males and females using EQS methodology (Bentler, 1995). 

This procedure serves to confirm the underlying factor structure of the PMI items for each 

comparison group and fulfils the requirements to testing for factorial invariance (Byrne, 1994). 

Since a test of multivariate normality revealed violations of distributional assumptions, model fit 

was based on the following fit indices: the Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square statistic (S–Bv 2 ), the 

robust comparative fit index (R-CFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square 

error of approximation (RMSEA). According to Satorra and Bentler (1994), the S–Bv 2 scaled 

statistic and the R-CFI offer a reliable and valid scaling correction for nonnormality. Hu, Bentler, 

and Kano (1992) provide strong evidence to substantiate the latter. However, given that the R- 

CFI is a relatively uncommon index, the standard CFI will also be reported. Also, given the 

exploratory nature of the study, the following conservative recommended minimum criteria were 

used to determine acceptable fit of the models to the data: R-CFI > 0.85, CFI > 0.85, 

RMSEA < 0.10 (Bentler, 1992). Finally, to achieve well-fitting models, the hypothesized model for 

each comparison group was modified by relaxing significant error covariances identified by the 

Lagrange Multiplier (LM) chi-square statistic. Such modifications are justified because they 

represent nonrandom measurement error due to method effects such as item format (Byrne, 1994). 

The second stage tested for factorial invariance across young, middle-aged, and older adults 

and across males and females. Age invariance was tested separately for males and females across 

three sets of contrasting age groups: young versus elderly; young versus middle-aged, and middleaged 

versus elderly. For each contrast, two well-fitting final models were estimated simultaneously 

and all estimable first-order factor parameters were constrained equal. Gender invariance was 

tested separately for each age group: young males versus young females; middle-aged males versus 

middle-aged females; and older males versus older females. Statistical assessment of age and 

gender invariance was determined by the criteria of goodness-of-fit of the constrained model and 

the probability of equality constraints ðp < 0:05Þ as indexed by the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test. 

Since univariate tests of equality constraints tend to capitalize on chance factors, only items

significant at both the univariate and cumulative multivariate levels of analysis were deemed 

noninvariant. It should also be noted that the Satorra–Bentler scaled statistic and the robust 

comparative fit index are not available for multigroup analyses of invariance. Consequently, 

model fit for invariance was assessed using the chi-square statistic ðv 2 Þ and the comparative fit 

index (CFI > 0.85). 

In the third stage, the factor loadings, skewness, kurtosis, and frequency distributions of 

noninvariant PMI items, identified in prior age group and gender analyses, were examined in an 

effort to understand the basis for their inequality. 

In the final stage, the invariant PMI items were summed to create a total personal meaning 

score. A two-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the presence of age and gender main effects 

and the interaction. For comparison purposes, a second two-way ANOVA was conducted on the 

original PMI that included both invariant and noninvariant items. 

3. Results 

3.1. Stage 1: Factorial validity of the PMI 

Fit statistics related to the structure of the PMI for age groups and gender are presented in 

Table 1. As can be seen, all hypothesized models either met or were very close to the minimum fit 

criteria, thus yielding a satisfactory fit to the data. Modification indexes identified up to five error 

covariances. Significant improvements in model fit, as evidenced by decreases in S–Bv 2 and increases 

in R-CFIs and CFIs (final models), were obtained when the error covariances were allowed 

to be freely estimated. 

The associated first-order factor loadings of the PMI items for age groups and gender are 

presented in Table 2. Item numbers refer to the original 48-item LAP-R from which the PMI items 

are derived. All parameter estimates are statistically significant ðp < 0:001Þ. Relative to all PMI 

items, only item 7 (‘‘The meaning of life is evident in the world around us’’.) exhibited weak, but 

acceptable, parameter estimates. The factor loadings for the young and middle-aged were generally 

similar in magnitude across gender. Of note is the finding that the factor loadings for older 

males were consistently stronger compared to older females and generally higher compared to 

both young and middle-aged males and females. 

3.2. Stage 2: Age and gender invariance of the PMI 

Testing for age and gender invariance was based on the final models (see Table 1). Analyses of 

age invariance for males revealed a good fit to the constrained models: young versus elderly, 

v2 ð313Þ ¼ 789:05; CFI ¼ 0.90; young versus middle-age, v2 ð313Þ ¼ 769:63; CFI ¼ 0.90; middle-age 

versus elderly, v2 ð313Þ ¼ 772:85; CFI ¼ 0.90. Nevertheless, four parameter constraints were found to 

be untenable for young versus older males; one was untenable for young versus middle-aged 

males. No item was untenable for the middle-aged versus older males. Analysis of age invariance 

for females also revealed a good fit to the constrained models: young versus elderly, 

v2 ð313Þ ¼ 1058:45; CFI ¼ 0.92; young versus middle-age, v2 ð313Þ ¼ 1046:72; CFI ¼ 0.92; middle-age 

¼ 1062:50; CFI ¼ 0.92. For this analysis, one parameter constraint was found 

versus elderly, v 2 ð313Þ 

G.T. Reker / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 71–85 75


Table 1 

Fit Statistics for Models of the Structure of the PMI for Age Groups and Gender 

Model v2 S–Bv2 Young 

Male 

df R-CFI CFI RMSEA 

Hypothesized 394.39 300.90 104 0.85 0.83 0.10 

Final model (5 error covariances) 286.05 222.93 99 0.90 0.90 0.08 

Female 

Hypothesized 704.47 520.87 104 0.89 0.89 0.08 


Middle-aged 

Male 

Hypothesized 280.35 205.82 104 0.86 0.83 0.11 


Female 

Hypothesized 425.62 319.24 104 0.84 0.85 0.10 


Elderly 

Male 

Hypothesized 332.79 182.31 104 0.94 0.89 0.11 


Female 

Hypothesized 297.64 208.60 104 0.88 0.86 0.09 


S–B ¼ Satorra–Bentler scaled statistic; R-CFI ¼ robust comparative fit index; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; 

RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation. 

to be untenable for young versus older females; one was untenable for young versus middle-aged; 

and two were untenable for the middle-aged versus older females. The PMI items associated with 

these parameter constraints, the multivariate LMv2 statistic, and the probability values are presented 

in Table 3. 

Inspection of Table 3 shows that PMI items 2, 18, 35, and 31 were found to be noninvariant for 

the young versus elderly males. Item 31 showed the smallest discrepancy. A relatively large correlated 

error involving items 18 and 31 for young ðr ¼ 0:30Þ and middle-aged ðr ¼ 0:23Þ males may 

have contributed to this inequality. Item 35 is also noninvariant in the young versus middle-aged 

comparison. In sum, items 2, 18, and 35 appear to be the most discrepant across age for males. For 

females, PMI items 5, 18, and 27 were found to be noninvariant. Item 5 was noninvariant in the 

young versus elderly contrast; item 27 was noninvariant in the young versus middle-aged contrast; 

and items 18 and 27 were noninvariant in the middle-aged versus elderly comparison. 

Analyses of gender invariance in young, middle-aged, and older adults also revealed a good fit 

to the constrained models: young males versus young females, v2 ð213Þ ¼ 803:82; CFI ¼ 0.92; middleaged 

males versus middle-aged females, v2 ð213Þ ¼ 533:01; CFI ¼ 0.90; older males versus older fe- 

¼ 497:97; CFI ¼ 0.92. One parameter constraint involving item 2 (‘‘In my life I have 

males, v 2 ð214Þ


Table 2 

First-order Factor Loadings of the PMI for Age Groups and Gender 

Item Young Middle-aged Elderly 

Male Female Male Female Male Female 

PMI 1 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.67 0.56 

PMI 2 0.71 0.64 0.70 0.67 0.74 0.66 

PMI 5 0.69 0.77 0.68 0.75 0.81 0.69 

PMI 7 0.32 0.47 0.38 0.37 0.54 0.39 

PMI 12 0.61 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.66 0.57 

PMI 16 0.60 0.58 0.62 0.63 0.77 0.67 

PMI 18 0.46 0.56 0.57 0.62 0.74 0.50 

PMI 26 0.67 0.66 0.71 0.68 0.65 0.49 

PMI 27 0.73 0.69 0.69 0.61 0.79 0.74 

PMI 29 0.71 0.70 0.74 0.72 0.84 0.70 

PMI 31 0.49 0.57 0.65 0.56 0.76 0.56 

PMI 35 0.48 0.55 0.69 0.63 0.74 0.56 

PMI 37 0.79 0.75 0.74 0.77 0.77 0.74 

PMI 38 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.59 0.67 0.60 

PMI 46 0.54 0.50 0.64 0.49 0.70 0.50 

PMI 48 0.53 0.59 0.60 0.58 0.79 0.55 

All factor loadings are statistically significant ðp < 0:001Þ. 

Table 3 

Summary Statistics for Noninvariance across Age for Males and Females 

Constrained parameter Multivariate LMv2 Males 

Young versus Elderly 

p 

2 In my life I have very clear goals and aims 7.32 0.007 

18 Basically, I am living the kind of life I want to live 7.11 0.008 

35 I have a sense that parts of my life fit together into a unified 

pattern 

6.35 0.012 

31 In achieving life’s goals, I have felt completely fulfilled 4.68 0.030 

Young versus Middle-aged 

35 I have a sense that parts of my life fit together into a unified 

pattern 

10.77 0.001 

Females 

Young versus Elderly 

5 I have discovered a satisfying life purpose 8.56 0.003 

Young versus Middle-aged 

27 In thinking of my life, I see a reason for my being here 6.64 0.010 

Middle-aged versus Elderly 

18 Basically, I am living the kind of life I want to live 8.07 0.004 

27 In thinking of my life, I see a reason for my being here 7.27 0.007


very clear goals and aims’’) was found to be untenable in the young male versus female comparison 

(LMv 2 ¼ 7.04, p ¼ 0:008); item 18 (‘‘Basically, I am living the kind of life I want to live’’) 

was found untenable in the elderly male versus female comparison (LMv 2 ¼ 7.00, p ¼ 0:008). No 

item was found to be untenable in the middle-aged. Of note is the finding that items 2 and 18 were 

previously shown to be noninvariant across age as well. 

3.3. Stage 3: Analyses of item characteristics for noninvariant PMI items 

Invariance testing revealed that several PMI items were differentially valid across age groups 

and gender. Why should this be the case? To answer this question it is informative to compare the 

factor loading (size reflects item salience), skewness, kurtosis, and frequency distribution of the 

noninvariant items across the relevant age and gender constrasts. 

3.3.1. Noninvariant PMI items across age 

The item statistics across age groups for males and females are presented in Table 4. For males, 

items 2, 18, 35, and 31 are relevant to the young versus elderly contrast. Item 2, ‘‘In my life I have 

very clear goals and aims’’, appears to have similar salience for both the young and elderly (0.71 

versus 0.74). More elderly than the young (7.2%) agree (response option ‘6’), while more of the 

young (9.3%) moderately and strongly disagree (options ‘3’ and ‘1’). Item 18, ‘‘Basically, I am 

living the kind of life I want to live’’, is more salient for the elderly (0.74 versus 0.46). More elderly 

(18.6%) agree and strongly agree (options ‘6’ and ‘7’), but also disagree and strongly disagree 

(6.4%, options ‘2’ and ‘1’). Item 35, ‘‘I have a sense that parts of my life fit together into a unified 

pattern’’ is more salient for the elderly compared to the young (0.74 versus 0.48). More elderly 

(14.3%) agree and strongly agree (options ‘6’ and ‘7’), while more young adults (9.0%) are 

undecided and moderately disagree (options ‘4’ and ‘3’). Item 35 is also noninvariant for young 

versus middle-aged. Inspection of Table 4 shows that item 35 is more salient for the middle-aged 

(0.69 versus 0.48), and more young compared to elderly males (11.7%) select the undecided (‘4’) 

category. Finally, item 31, ‘‘In achieving life’s goals, I have felt completely fulfilled’’, is more 

salient for the elderly (0.75 versus 0.53). More elderly males (37.2%) agree and strongly agree 

(options ‘6’ and ‘7’), while more younger males remain undecided or moderately disagree (37.5%). 

For females, items 5, 18, and 27 were found to be noninvariant across age. Item 5, ‘‘I have 

discovered a satisfying life purpose’’, was noninvariant in the young versus the elderly contrast. 

Inspection of Table 4 shows that item 5 is slightly more salient for the young (0.77 versus 0.69). 

More younger females (8.2%) chose the undecided (‘4’) category, while more older females 

(19.4%) agree and strongly agree (options ‘6’ and ‘7’) with the item. The main discrepancy, 

however, can be seen in the much larger kurtotic value for the elderly compared to the young (2.05 

versus 0.01). Item 18, ‘‘Basically, I am living the kind of life I want to live’’, was noninvariant in 

the middle-aged versus elderly contrast. The item is more salient for the middle-aged (0.62 versus 

0.50). Interestingly, more middle-aged females (13.8%) both moderately disagree and moderately 

agree (options ‘3’ and ‘5’) with the item, while more elderly females (15.9%) agree and strongly 

agree (options ‘6’ and ‘7’). Again, kurtosis is much larger in the elderly compared to the middleaged 

(2.76 versus 0.99). Item 27, ‘‘In thinking of my life, I see a reason for my being here’’, was 

noninvariant in both the young versus middle-aged and the middle-aged versus elderly contrasts. 

In the young versus middle-aged comparison, item 27 is more salient for the young (0.69 versus

Table 4 

Item Statistics for Noninvariant PMI Items across Age for Males and Females 

Item Factor 

loading a 

Males 

2 In my life I have 

very clear goals 

and aims 

18 Basically, I am 

living the kind of 

life I want to live 

35 I have a sense that 

parts of my life fit 

together into a 

unified pattern 

31 In achieving life’s 

goals, I have felt 

completely fulfilled 

Females 

5 I have discovered a 

satisfying life 

purpose 




27 In thinking of my 

life, I see a reason 

for my being here 

a Standardized parameter estimate. 

b SK ¼ skewness, KU ¼ kurtosis. 

c Expressed in percentages. 


Sampling 

distributionb Frequency distributionc SK KU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Young 0.71 )0.80 )0.27 4.3 6.1 10.4 7.5 22.9 26.8 22.1 

Elderly 0.74 )1.00 0.28 1.1 9.6 4.3 5.9 22.7 34.0 17.5 

Young 0.46 )1.00 0.39 1.1 6.4 7.9 5.4 28.2 36.8 14.3 

Elderly 0.74 )1.36 0.69 2.7 11.2 2.1 3.2 11.2 51.6 18.1 

Young 0.48 )0.81 0.51 2.1 2.9 8.6 16.4 30.0 31.8 8.2 

Middle 0.69 )0.96 0.08 2.7 6.8 10.8 4.7 27.7 37.8 9.5 

Elderly 0.74 )1.04 0.37 2.1 7.5 4.8 11.2 20.2 41.0 13.3 

Young 0.53 )0.13 )0.79 4.3 12.5 21.1 16.4 27.9 13.6 4.3 

Elderly 0.75 )0.59 )0.91 4.8 15.9 9.6 3.2 29.3 29.3 7.9 

Young 0.77 )0.76 0.01 1.4 5.4 8.5 13.6 25.1 33.1 12.8 

Elderly 0.69 )1.38 2.05 1.2 2.9 3.7 5.4 21.5 40.1 25.2 

Middle 0.62 )1.20 0.99 1.8 5.1 7.8 3.0 29.2 40.6 12.5 

Elderly 0.50 )1.67 2.76 0.4 5.4 2.9 2.1 20.2 53.7 15.3 

Young 0.69 )1.21 1.36 0.8 3.1 5.2 7.0 21.7 42.3 19.9 

Middle 0.61 )1.54 3.09 0.9 1.8 3.3 4.2 19.7 46.8 23.6 

Elderly 0.74 )1.51 2.26 1.2 4.1 3.3 6.2 19.8 50.4 14.9 

0.61); more middle-aged females (8.2%) agree and strongly agree (options ‘6’ and ‘7’). Regarding 

the middle-aged versus elderly contrast, item 27 is more salient in elderly females (0.74 versus 

0.61); more elderly compared to middle-aged females (5.9%) seem to both agree and disagree 

(options ‘6’ and ‘2’) with the item. In comparison to the young, the kurtotic values are generally 

much higher in middle-aged and elderly females (1.36 versus 3.09 and 2.26, respectively). 

3.3.2. Noninvariant PMI items across gender 

The noninvariant item statistics across gender for the young and the elderly are presented in 

Table 5. Item 2, ‘‘In my life I have very clear goals and aims’’, is more salient for young males 

compared to young females (0.71 versus 0.64). More males (4.3%) are undecided (option ‘4’) and 

select the disagree end (13.3%) of the response options (‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’), whereas more females


Table 5 

Item Statistics for Noninvariant PMI Items across Gender for Young and Older Adults 

Item Factor 

loading a 

Young 

2 In my life I have 

very clear goals 

and aims 

Elderly 




a Standardized parameter estimate. 

b SK ¼ skewness, KU ¼ kurtosis. 

c Expressed in percentages. 

(14.5%) agree and strongly agree (options ‘6’ and ‘7’). Item 18, ‘‘Basically, I am living the kind of 

life I want to live’’, is more salient for older males compared to older females (0.74 versus 0.50). 

More older males (8.1%) disagree and strongly disagree (options ‘2’ and ‘1’), while more older 

females (9.0%) moderately agree (‘5’) with the item. Finally, all items were found to be gender 

invariant for the middle-aged. 

In summary, invariance testing and analyses of item characteristics identified items 2, 5, 18, 27, 

31, and 35 to be nonequivalent across age groups and gender. Of these items 2, 18, 27, and 35 

appear to be the most problematic in that they share noninvariance across more than one comparison 

group, while items 5 and 31 are unique to only one age contrast. Consequently, the four 

problematic items were removed to create a modified PMI-12 that is age and gender invariant. 

With nonequivalence controlled, it is now possible to test for age and gender differences and to 

compare the results with scores based on the original 16-item PMI. 

3.4. Stage 4: Age and gender differences 

Sampling distributionb 

Frequency distributionc SK KU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Male 0.71 )0.80 )0.27 4.3 6.1 10.4 7.5 22.9 26.8 22.1 

Female 0.64 )1.29 1.48 0.8 4.1 4.6 3.2 23.8 35.0 28.4 

Male 0.74 )1.36 0.69 2.7 11.2 2.1 3.2 11.2 51.6 18.1 

Female 0.50 )1.67 2.76 0.4 5.4 2.9 2.1 20.2 53.7 15.3 

The PMI-12 total score means and standard deviations for age groups and gender are presented 

in Table 6. Statistically significant main effects were found for age (F ð2; 2059Þ ¼16:79, 

p < 0:0000), gender (F ð1; 2059Þ ¼14:95, p < 0:0001), and the age by gender interaction 

(F ð2; 2059Þ ¼3:08, p < 0:05). 

Inspection of the means in Table 6 reveals that personal meaning increases with age and that 

females experience higher levels of personal meaning compared to males. This finding, however, 

must be qualified by the significant interaction effect. Inspection of the means in Table 6 shows 

that only young and middle-aged females experience higher levels of personal meaning compared 

to young and middle-aged males. Older males and females express almost identical levels of 

personal meaning, largely due to a sharp and significant increase in meaning in elderly males. 

When the analysis was repeated for the original 16-item PMI, the significant main effects for age 

and gender remained but the age by gender interaction disappeared.

Table 6 

Means and Standard Deviations of the PMI-12 as a Function of Age Group and Gender 

Gender Age Group 

Young Middle-aged Elderly Combined 

Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N 

Males 55.1 12.0 280 56.3 12.3 148 60.4 14.5 188 57.3 13.1 616 

Females 58.0 11.0 872 60.3 10.8 335 60.6 11.2 242 59.6 11.0 1449 

Combined 56.5 11.3 1152 58.3 11.5 483 60.5 12.8 430 58.4 11.7 2065 

4. Discussion 


The main aim of this study was to examine the factorial validity and factorial invariance of the 

16-item PMI across young, middle-aged, and older adults and males and females. It was expected 

that a one-factor congeneric measurement model would best characterize the underlying structure 

of the PMI in each group. It was also expected that the factor structure would remain age and 

gender invariant. 

Regarding factorial validity, the results clearly support the hypothesized factor structure for 

each age group and gender. The overall findings are consistent with previous exploratory and 

confirmatory factor analytic studies of the PMI (Reker, 1992; Reker & Fry, 2003). The assessment 

of factor structure in those prior studies was limited to extreme age group comparisons involving 

the young and the elderly. The present study extends previous findings by demonstrating that the 

structure of the PMI is replicable and generalizable to large samples of young, middle-aged, and 

older adults as well as to males and females. 

The fact that the underlying factor structure is similar for each age group and gender offers no 

guarantee that the individual items will remain invariant across these groups. Indeed, this was not 

the case for six PMI items. Thus, the expectation that all PMI items would be fully age and gender 

invariant was only partially supported. 

In attempting to explain the noninvariance for the most discrepant PMI items across age 

groups and gender, it is useful to interpret the findings within a developmental framework. Item 2, 

‘‘In my life I have very clear goals and aims’’, was found to be noninvariant in the young versus 

elderly male contrast. Analysis of this item, although equally salient to young and older adults, 

revealed that more of the young males do not see themselves as having very clear goals and aims. 

This was also clearly evident in the gender contrast for young adults with more than one-quarter 

of the males indicating that they did not have very clear goals and aims. Likewise, the endorsement 

pattern for item 31, ‘‘In achieving life’s goals, I have felt completely fulfilled’’, was similar to 

that of item 2 in that more elderly males agree and strongly agree, while more younger males 

remain undecided or moderately disagree. Arnett’s (2000) developmental stage of emerging 

adulthood, characterized by a transition period between adolescents and young adults (18–25 

years), might offer an explanation for the differential validity of these items. During this stage 

individuals explore a broad range of life experiences, begin to make enduring personal decisions, 

and strive to find a personal niche in society. Life for the emerging adult male may thus be more 

variegated, less directed toward a specific purpose, and more open to alternative courses of action. 

Consequently, goal strivings are in flux and remain unfulfilled. The question remains as to why


item 2 is noninvariant across males and females. Marcia (1993) suggests that differences may exist 

in how men and women develop a sense of identity during emerging adulthood. The goals and 

aims of young males tend to be actualized through ideological domains (e.g., religious, political, 

occupational), while the goals and aims of young females are more directed toward interpersonal 

domains (e.g., friendship, dating, family). Goal clarity may be more readily achievable through 

tangible interpersonal encounters as opposed to less tangible ideological pursuits. 

Item 5, ‘‘I have discovered a satisfying life purpose’’, was found to be noninvariant across age 

for the young versus elderly female comparison. More of the young females either don’t know or 

indicate that they have not yet discovered a satisfying life purpose, while a clear majority of elderly 

females indicate that they have. Frankl (1963) postulated that meaning in life must be 

discovered which implies that life experiences and the passage of time should provide the context 

for the discovery of a satisfying life purpose. In support of Frankl’s (1963) view, Reker et al. 

(1987) found a significant linear increase in life purpose, particularly in females, across five 

developmental stages from young adulthood to the old–old. Alternatively, the extreme positive 

endorsement of this item by elderly females (elevated kurtosis) may reflect a tendency to respond 

in a socially desirable manner. In support of such a possibility, Reker et al. (1987) found that 

females compared to males scored higher on a related measure of having a sense of control and 

being responsible for one’s life which, in turn, was significantly correlated with a measure of social 

desirability. 

Item 18, ‘‘Basically, I am living the kind of life I want to live’’, was found to be noninvariant 

across age for both males and females. It was of much greater concern for elderly males compared 

to young males. While the majority of elderly males indicated that they were living the kind of life 

they wished to live, a significant percentage indicated that they did not. A similar pattern of response 

was also evident for females but this time the comparison was across the middle-aged and 

the elderly. In the gender contrast involving the elderly, more elderly males seemed not to be living 

the kind of life they wished to live, while more elderly females showed the reverse pattern. Item 18 

is very much anchored to the present situation. Differential item validity may be reflected in what 

is currently happening in the lives of the different age cohorts. Some of the middle-aged females 

tended to be more ambivalent in their response perhaps reflecting the added stresses and strains of 

motherhood, familial obligations, and/or balancing of work in the home with work outside the 

home. Some of the older adults, particularly the males, may be responding to personal (e.g., 

retirement), physical (e.g., acute health problems), or social (e.g., reduced social network) changes 

that are disrupting their lives, while the lives of the young and middle-aged adults remain relatively 

unchanged. This ‘‘here and now’’ temporal explanation for noninvariance is supported by 

Reker and Fry’s (2003) finding that the Self Transcendence Scale (Reed, 1991), a measure of 

personal meaning assessed by concrete events at the present time, showed the most serious 

departure from age invariance when compared to more abstract measures of personal meaning. 

Item 35, ‘‘I have a sense that parts of my life fit together into a unified pattern’’, was of much 

greater concern for the middle-aged and elderly compared to the young adult males. In both 

comparisons, it was clear that more of the young were undecided, while more middle-aged and 

elderly indicated that their lives were organized and integrated. Young adults are confronted by a 

variety of life experiences with little time and opportunity to consolidate their position in life. By 

midlife, the issues of young adulthood seem to be resolved in favor of a more unified perspective 

on life. In support of this line of reasoning, Dittmann-Kohli and Westerhof (2000) provide


empirical evidence that a person’s meaning system becomes more integrated and consolidated 

with increasing age. 

Item 27, ‘‘In thinking of my life, I see a reason for my being here’’, was found to be noninvariant 

in both the young versus the elderly and middle-aged versus the elderly females. The 

source of noninvariance, however, cannot be readily explained within a developmental framework. 

Given the relatively similar pattern of responses by middle-aged and elderly females to item 

27, it is likely that the findings of noninvariance are due to significant differences in kurtosis. As 

with item 5, the clustering of scores at the positive end of the scale might reflect the operation of a 

particular type of response set (e.g., acquiescence) or response style (socially desirable responding). 

In the original standardization sample (Reker, 1992), item 27 correlated significantly with a 

measure of social desirability ðr ¼ 0:40Þ. However, the invocation of response bias, as a methodological 

explanation for noninvariance, remains speculative and will need to be examined in 

future work with the PMI. 

What then are the practical implications for the use of the PMI in multigroup comparisons? 

Generally, the results indicate that a small number of PMI items are more sensitive to a lack of 

invariance across age groups than across gender. Furthermore, two PMI items found to be 

noninvariant across gender are also noninvariant across age. It follows that one practical solution 

to both age and gender invariance concerns is to remove the noninvariant items from the PMI. 

The immediate consequence of such a strategy is a less reliable scale. However, when these items 

are removed, the alpha coefficient for the current sample drops marginally to 0.88, down from 

0.91. Furthermore, alpha coefficients remain at or above 0.86 in all six age groups by gender 

combinations. On the other hand, it must be recognized that this is the first study to be conducted 

at the individual item level. It is possible that the differential validity across age and gender for 

some PMI items is due to sampling variability. It may be prudent to await the results of future 

studies on similar populations before firm conclusions can be reached. In the meantime, however, 

it is recommended that researchers, practitioners, and others wishing to conduct multigroup 

comparisons of personal meaning use the modified 12 item PMI. 

When the modified 12 item PMI is used in multigroup analysis, both age and gender differences 

emerged. The increase in personal meaning with age and the finding that females, in general, 

report experiencing higher levels of personal meaning is consistent with the results of previous 

studies (Fry, 2001; Reker, 1992; Reker et al., 1987; VandeCreek, 1991). Gender differences in the 

sample of older adults, however, were not found in this analysis. Interestingly, it is the males who 

contribute significantly to achieving a gender balance in personal meaning in older adults. It is 

important to note that when the original 16 item PMI is used as the dependent variable, the age by 

gender interaction is no longer significant, providing support for the argument that the use of a 

measure containing noninvariant items can lead to different interpretations of mean differences in 

multigroup comparisons. 

This study has a number of strengths and weaknesses. First, unlike previous investigations, age 

invariance testing was not limited to extreme age groups but also included middle-aged adults 

drawn from the general population. This allowed for a finer distinction and more exact pinpointing 

of where the source of any noninvariance on the PMI might be embedded. Second, given 

the relatively large sample sizes, it was possible to test for age invariance independent of gender 

and to test for gender invariance independent of age. Third, the current study examined the item 

characteristics of the PMI using a statistical methodology often associated with classical test


theory. A future study might consider an item response theory analysis of the PMI (see for 

example, Gray-Little, Williams, & Hancock, 1997) that could add unique information and provide 

a more complete understanding of differential item functioning. Finally, while age and gender 

invariance of the PMI was tested in a cross-sectional analysis, the study design did not allow for 

testing the structural invariance across time. When invariance is demonstrated over time, any 

observed changes on individual PMI items can be attributed to real changes, not to item instability. 

Future studies should track changes on PMI items for the same age groups at different 

points in time. 

In summary, the findings of the present investigation offer some insights into how well individual 

PMI items operate to measure the construct of personal meaning. Consistent with prior 

research, the factorial structure of the PMI is unidimensional, replicable, and generalizable to 

three different age groups and to males and females. Nonetheless, age and gender differences exist 

in the functioning of some PMI items, suggesting that either the items are given differential 

interpretations or are differentially endorsed by the comparison groups. Developmental and 

methodological explanations were offered to account for these inequalities, with the recommendation 

that, in the short term, the PMI be modified by removing the noninvariant items. It was 

clearly demonstrated that such modifications have the potential to minimize misinterpretations of 

mean differences. Finally, it is gratifying to learn that current and past research continues to 

support the utility of the PMI as a reliable and valid operational measure of the construct of 

personal meaning. 

References 

Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the mystery of health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American 

Psychologist, 55, 469–480. 

Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36, 409–427. 

Bearsley, C., & Cummins, R. A. (1999). No place called home: Life quality and purpose of homeless youths. Journal of 

Social Distress and the Homeless, 8, 207–226. 

Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 

400–404. 

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc. 

Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/windows. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 

Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Measuring meaning in life: An examination of three scales. Personality and 

Individual Differences, 9, 589–596. 

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1969). Manual of instruction for the purpose in life test. Munster, IN: 

Psychometric Affiliate. 

Debats, D. L., van der Lubbe, P. M., & Wezeman, F. R. A. (1993). On the psychometric properties of the life regard 

index (LRI): A measure of meaningful life. An evaluation in three independent samples based on the Dutch version. 

Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 337–345. 

Dittmann-Kohli, F., & Westerhof, G. J. (2000). The personal meaning system in a life-span perspective. In G. T. Reker 

& K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the life span (pp. 107– 

122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Pocket Books. 

Fry, P. S. (2000). Religious involvement, spirituality, and personal meaning for life: Existential predictors of 

psychological well-being in community-residing and institutional care elders. Aging and Mental Health, 4, 375–387.


Fry, P. S. (2001). The unique contribution of key existential factors to the prediction of psychological well-being of 

older adults following spousal loss. The Gerontologist, 41, 1–13. 

Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. S. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg selfesteem 

scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 443–451. 

Harlow, L. L., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Depression, self-derogation, substance use, and suicide 

ideation: Lack of purpose in life as a mediational factor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 5–21. 

Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? 

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351–362. 

Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 134– 

183). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. 

Marcia, J. (1993). The status of statuses: Research review. In J. Marcia, A. Waterman, D. Matteson, S. Archer, & J. 

Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook for psychological research (pp. 22–41). New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Reed, P. G. (1991). Self-transcendence and mental health in the oldest–old adults. Nursing Research, 40, 5–11. 

Reker, G. T. (1992). Manual of the Life Attitude Profile-Revised. Peterborough, ON: Student Psychologists Press. 

Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspectives, dimensions, and measurement of existential meaning. In G. T. Reker & 

K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the life span (pp. 107– 

122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Reker, G. T.& Chamberlain, K. (Eds.). (2000). Exploring existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the 

life span. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Reker, G. T., & Fry, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and invariance of personal meaning measures in cohorts of younger 

and older adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 977–993. 

Reker, G. T., Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1987). Meaning and purpose in life and well-being: A life-span 

perspective. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 44–49. 

Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1988). Aging as an individual process: Toward a theory of personal meaning. In J. E. 

Birren & V. L. Bengtson (Eds.), Emergent theories of aging (pp. 214–246). New York: Springer Publishing Company. 

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. 

In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications to developmental research (pp. 399–419). 

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

VandeCreek, L. (1991). Identifying the spiritually needy patient: The role of demographics. The Caregiver Journal, 8, 

38–47. 

Van Ranst, N., & Marcoen, A. (1997). Meaning in life of young and elderly adults: An examination of the factorial 

validity and invariance of the life regard index. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 877–884. 

Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological well-being. British 

Journal of Psychology, 83, 133–145.

Personality and Individual Differences - Gary Reker's Website

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?