Cross-cultural measurement invariance of the purpose in life test - Short form (PIL-SF) in seven Latin American countries

Abstract

The aim was to test the cross-cultural measurement invariance of the PIL-SF in a sample of people from seven Latin American countries. Additionally, the characteristics of the PIL-SF items were evaluated and to assess the relationship between purpose in life, as measured by the PIL-SF, and fear of COVID-19. A total of 4306 people from seven Latin American countries participated in the study. The results indicated that the PIL-SF is invariant in the seven participating countries and, therefore, there is evidence that the items reflect the purpose of life in the same way in all countries. This allows comparisons of purpose in life between countries that are free of bias, reflecting the true differences in how countries respond to items. From IRT, the discrimination parameters are adequate and indicate that the items cover a wide range of the purpose in life construct. The difficulty parameters are adequate and increase monotonically. This indicates that people would need a higher level of purpose in life to respond to the higher response categories. Thus, the PIL-SF items would be useful in determining people with a relatively high degree of purpose in life. Identifying people with different levels of purpose in life would allow them to be part of intervention programs, either to support those with low levels or to maintain and reinforce their purpose in life. The evidence of cross-country measurement invariance of the PIL-SF provides a measure to be used in cross-cultural studies about the meaning of life.

Validation of The Purpose in Life Scale-Short Form in an Ecuadorian Sample: factor analysis, reliability and graded response model

“…In addition, the differences in α are not significant so they are considered equal. The confirmation of internal consistency in the present study agrees with previous reports analyzing this aspect (Caycho-Rodríguez et al, 2022b;Pacak-Vedel et al, 2021;Rubio-Belmonte et al, 2023;Weber et al, 2022). Likewise, regarding the validity of the relationship with other variables, the PIL-SF converges in a negative sense with the PHQ-9, indicating a relevant relationship with measures that assess the symptoms of depression.…”

“…In general, the scale is reliable and accurate in assessing the MIL construct. These results are consistent with the work of Caycho-Rodríguez et al (2022b), although in this case the discrimination of item 20 is significantly more pronounced and different from the rest of the PIL-SF items.…”

“…The fit indices reported to establish factorial validity are within acceptable ranges (Brown, 2015;Byrne, 2008;Mueller & Hancock, 2018;Wolf et al, 2013). The unifactorial structure of the PIL-SF in the reference sample is consistent with both the original version (Schulenberg et al, 2011) and other validation work (Caycho-Rodríguez et al, 2022b;Pacak-Vedel et al, 2021;Weber et al, 2022). This supports the hypothesis of unidimensionality of the measure.…”

“…The study establishes a one-dimensional structure of four items with an adequate internal consistency of α = .86 and it shows divergence with the construct of psychological distress in a moderate way (r = -.49). The PIL-SF has also been translated and validated to a limited extent, in which it has been found to have adequate psychometric properties (mainly factor validity and reliability) (Pacak-Vedel et al, 2021) like in splanish undergraduates (Rubio-Belmonte et al, 2023) and the Latin American context (Caycho-Rodríguez et al, 2022b;Weber et al, 2022), in which the unidimensional factorial structure is confirmed, in addition to an adequate internal consistency reliability. It should be noted that in this process of psychometric exploration of the PIL-SF there are no validity studies in relation to other variables to determine the convergence of the scale with other relevant variables for the context such as mental health or symptoms of disturbance conditions such as depression, for example.…”

“…Currently, much of the instrumental evaluation of the PIL-SF is based on Classical test theory (CTT) considerations (factorial validity, reliability, others), but the verification of measurement equivalence (ME) is almost nonexistent. Only the work of Caycho-Rodríguez et al (2022b), who tested ME as a function of national origin in Latin America, stands out. However, for other variables of interest, such as gender (given its relevance in social and psychological research), there is no current evidence of its application in the case of the PIL-SF, although some results suggest the existence of differences (Xi et al, 2022), in which women score higher than men.…”