PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE SPANISH VERSION OF THE MEANING IN LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE (MLQ) IN ADULTS

Behavioral Psychology / Psicología Conductual, Vol. 30, Nº 3, 2022, pp. 809-826 https://doi.org/10.51668/bp.8322313n PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE SPANISH VERSION OF THE MEANING IN LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE (MLQ) IN ADULTS1 José H. Marco1,2, Jesús Privado3, Verónica Guillen1,2, Sole Quero2,4, Sandra Pérez5, Rosa Baños1,4 and Pilar Tormo3 1University of Valencia; 2 Cyber Pathophysiology Obesity and Nutrition (CB06/03), Carlos III Health Institute; 3 Valencia International University; 4University Jaume I; 5Catholic University of Valencia Saint Vincent Martyr Abstract The most widely used instrument to assess meaning in life is the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ). To date, no study has analyzed the psychometric characteristics in the Spanish adult population. Our aim is to analyze the psychometric properties of the MLQ in a sample of Spanish participants. The sample consisted of 683 adults, 80.4% women, from Spain. CFA and factorial invariance of the factors obtained as a function of the gender and age of the participants was studied. The data had a good fit to a model with two factors called Presence and Search. The two factors showed a low and positive correlation (.19); however, we cannot assume factorial invariance for gender and age groups. The MLQ showed adequate convergent validity with measures of purpose in life, anxiety, and depression. The present research provides support for the good psychometric properties and reliability of the MLQ in adult Spanish participants to assess meaning in life. KEYS WORDS: meaning in life, presence, search, factorial invariance, purpose. Resumen El autoinforme más utilizado para evaluar el sentido en la vida es el “Cuestionario de sentido en la vida” (MLQ). Hasta la fecha, ningún estudio ha analizado las características psicométricas del MLQ en población adulta española. Por tanto, nuestro objetivo fue analizar las propiedades psicométricas del MLQ en una muestra de adultos españoles. Participaron 683 personas, 80,4% mujeres. Se realizó un análisis factorial confirmatorio y un estudio de la invarianza factorial de los factores obtenidos en función del sexo y la edad de los participantes. Los datos ajustaron bien a un modelo con dos factores denominados Presencia y Búsqueda. Los dos factores estuvieron correlacionados de manera baja y positiva (0,19), sin embargo, no podemos asumir invarianza factorial para grupos de sexo y edad. El MLQ mostró una adecuada validez convergente con medidas de propósito en la Funding for the study was provided by (R + D + I) Projects of the State Programs Oriented to the Challenges of Society, within the framework of the State Research Plan Scientific and Technical and Innovation, with Code: PID2019-111036RB-I00, from Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain. Correspondence: José H. Marco, University of Valencia, Faculty of Psychology, Dept. of Personality, Evaluation and Psychological Treatment, Av. Blasco Ibañez, 21, 46010 Valencia (Spain). E-mail: [email protected] 810 MARCO, PRIVADO, GUILLEN, QUERO, PÉREZ, ROSA BAÑOS AND TORMO vida, ansiedad y depresión. La presente investigación respalda las buenas propiedades psicométricas y la fiabilidad del MLQ en participantes adultos españoles para evaluar el sentido la vida. PALABRAS CLAVE: sentido en la vida, presencia, búsqueda, invariancia factorial, propósito. Introduction The topic of “meaning in life” (MIL) is undoubtedly of great philosophical and psychological interest, and it is generally recognized as a key human concern (Frankl, 1978). The term has received attention in recent years, and it has been further enhanced by the emergence of positive psychology (Heintzelman & King, 2014; George & Park, 2016; Martela & Steger, 2016). A large number of studies have shown the association between MIL and mental health. The presence of MIL is associated with better psychological adjustment (Park, 2010), and low MIL is negatively associated with greater suicide risk (e.g., Costanza et al., 2019), depressive symptoms (Volkert et al., 2014), clinical anxiety (Marco & Alonso, 2019), eating disorder psychopathology (Marco et al., 2020), and more core symptoms of borderline personality disorder (Marco et al., 2017). Although there are several self-reports to evaluate meaning in life, such as Purpose in Life (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1969), the most widely used instrument is the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ). This questionnaire was originally developed by Steger et al. (2006) to measure the two main dimensions of MIL: Presence and Search for meaning in life. It is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 10 items rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (absolutely false) to 7 (absolutely true). The MLQ is composed of two subscales with five items each. On the one hand, the Presence of meaning subscale is composed of items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 (the latter item is inverse). This scale measures the extent to which the person has found genuine and authentic meaning in his/her life. Some representative items on the subscale are: "I understand my life’s meaning”; “My life has a clear sense of purpose”; and” I have a good sense of what makes my life meaningful”. On the other hand, the Search for meaning subscale is composed of items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10. This subscale measures the extent to which the person is searching for meaning in life. Some representative items are: “I am looking for something that makes my life feel meaningful”; “I am always looking for my life’s purpose”; and “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life.” The scores range from 5 to 35, and higher scores show higher presence of meaning or greater searching for meaning in life. To develop the MLQ, 83 items were originally created that collected the concepts and main constructs of the most relevant theories and questionnaires on meaning. Of the 83 items, 44 were initially selected. These 44 items formed a selfreport that was administered to a sample of 151 American college students. In a first study, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. Two main factors appeared, and the MLQ was reduced to 17 items (9 on the presence subscale and 8 on the search subscale). The former referred to the presence of meaning or purpose in a person's life. The latter referred to the search for meaning. Spanish validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) 811 Subsequently, two Confirmatory Factorial Analyses (CFA) of a 10-item model (5 for presence and 5 for search) were performed in two different samples, identifying two independent factors. CFA indicated that the best model had five items in each factor. The factors of Presence and Search were correlated (r= -.19), and internal consistency was good for Presence (.86) and Search (.87). One-month test-retest reliability coefficients were .70 for Presence and .73 for Search. Scores did not differ across gender, race, or year in school. Thus, Steger et al., (2006) suggested that the two factors are relatively independent and can be assessed separately. The MLQ factorial structure has been analyzed in different non-clinical samples, and the results showed that it is a reliable measure with good internal consistency. The Japanese translation was validated with a sample of Japanese (N= 982) and American (N= 1183) participants with a mean age= 20.4 years old (SD= 4.2) (Steger, Kawabata, et al., 2008). They conducted multigroup CFA and confirmed the original two-factor structure across the two cultures, showing invariance. The association between Presence and Search in the Japanese sample was positive (r=.21), and in the American sample, it was negative (r= -.21). In Turkey, with a sample of 837 Turkish participants with a mean age of 24.24 (SD= 3.78) and Americans with a mean age of 28.34 (SD= 11.10), CFA confirmed the two-factor model and the structural invariance of this scale across Turkish and USA samples. The Presence and Search subscales were negatively associated (r= -.41) (Boyraz et al., 2013). In a South African sample composed of 326 adults (Temane et al., 2014), CFA confirmed the two-factor model for the English version of the MLQ. Presence and Search were negatively associated (r= -.19). The authors found that younger people, compared to adults and older people, tend to score higher on Search. In a sample of Hong Kong caregivers of patients with chronic illness (N= 223) with a mean age of 54.7 years (SD= 14.2), CFA confirmed the original model with the same two-factor structure: Presence and Search. The correlation between Presence and Search was positive and moderate (r= .47) (Chan, 2014). In the Brazilian adaptation (Damasio & Koller, 2015), the original factor structure was analyzed in a sample of 3020 adult participants (M= 33.92 years, SD= 15.01), and CFA provided evidence that the Presence and Search subscales presented better goodness-of-fit indexes when evaluated separately. Moreover, a Multiple group CFA achieved full measurement and structural invariance for gender and age (young people, adults, and the elderly) groups. The results showed that young women presented higher levels of Search than the group of adults, whereas no such differences were found in men. Presence and Search had a low and negative correlation (r= -.11). In the Greek version (Pezirkianidis et al., 2016) with adult participants (N= 6287) with a mean age of 37.49 (SD= 13.65), the two main MLQ factors were found in the EFA. In the Chinese adaptation (Jiang et al., 2016) (M= 20.95 years, SD= 1.41), CFA was employed, showing goodness of fit for the original model, and the measurement model was invariant across males and females. Presence and Search had a low and positive association (r= .12). In India, with Hindi-speaking (N= 826) adult participants, CFA confirmed the original two-factor structure, explaining 56.42% of the variance. Presence and Search were negatively associated (r= -.36) (Singh et al., 2016). In Nigeria, with 809 internally displaced adults (M= 33.69 years, SD= 13.18) who spoke Hausa, CFA was conducted, and the original two-factor structure of the MLQ was 812 MARCO, PRIVADO, GUILLEN, QUERO, PÉREZ, ROSA BAÑOS AND TORMO validated (Chukwuorji et al., 2019), with a high and positive correlation between Presence and Search (r= .72). Regarding age, no significant differences were found between young and older participants, and in the case of gender, the only significant difference was in Presence, with females scoring higher than males. In Italy, Negri et al., (2020), in a study with 464 adults (M=39.34 years, SD= 10.86), performed CFA that supported the two-factor structure, and the two subscales were negatively correlated (r= -.49). No gender differences were detected, but older participants reported greater presence and lower Search than younger participants. In the Romanian population (Balgiu, 2020), the original factor structure was analyzed in a sample of undergraduate participants with a mean age of 19.29 (SD= 1.42), and CFA showed a two-factor model with gender invariance. However, the factor loading of item 9 was low (.38). In these samples, a low and positive association was found between the two scales (r= .17). Women participants obtained higher scores than the men. Moreover, the MLQ has been validated with adolescents in Australia in a sample of 135 participants with a mean age of 15.18 years (SD= 1.42) (Rose et al., 2017). The original two-factor structure was confirmed with CFA. Regarding the psychometric characteristics of the MLQ in Spanish-speaking countries, Steger, Frazier et al., 2008, tested the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the MLQ with a very small convenience sample of 46 Spanish undergraduate students (M= 22.2 years; SD= 3.6), and CFA supported the twofactor structure. In this study, Presence and Search were not correlated, and invariance across gender and age was not studied. In Argentina (Góngora & Solano, 2011), in a sample of 707 adults with a mean age of 34.12 years (SD= 12.43) and 128 adolescents with a mean age of 15.65 years (SD= 1.58), CFA showed a better fit of the two-factor model if item 9 on the Presence scale was removed. Presence and Search had a low and negative correlation (r= -.11), and in adult participants, no gender differences were detected. However, in adolescents, men showed higher scores on Presence than women. There was no study of invariance between genders or between young and older participants. In sum, to date, the psychometric characteristics of the MLQ have been analyzed in numerous English-speaking countries and only in one study with Spanish adolescents. However, no studies have analyzed the psychometric characteristics of the MLQ in the Spanish adult population. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out studies that demonstrate the psychometric characteristics of the MLQ in the Spanish adult population. The present study has the general objective of analyzing the psychometric properties of the MLQ in a sample of Spanish participants. To achieve this objective, we will first study the internal structure of the MLQ using a two-factor confirmatory model and testing its internal consistency. Second, we will analyze the differences in the invariance of the factorial structure of the MLQ depending on the gender and age of the participants. Third, we will analyze whether there are differences in the MLQ factor scores based on age and gender. And fourth, we will study the evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of the scale by relating it to other measures: purpose in life, depression, anxiety, and somatization. Spanish validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) 813 Method Participants The sample consisted of 683 Spanish participants, of whom 80.4 % were women. The mean age was 35.05 (SD= 13.72), ranging from 18 to 83 years. In addition, 42.0 % were single, 5.9 % separated, 51.1 % married, and 1.0 % widowed. The level of studies in 49.6 % was university graduate; 33.1 % had a university master’s degree, 16.3 % had secondary studies, and 1.0 % had primary studies. Instruments a) Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ, Steger et al., 2006), the Spanish version was translated by Steger, Frazier et al. (2008). The MLQ is a self-reported questionnaire made up of 10 items, and it was developed to assess the two main dimensions of meaning in life: Presence and Search of meaning in life. The items are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (absolutely false) to 7 (absolutely true). Both subscales are composed of 5 items. The subscales are calculated with the sum of the items that make up each subscale (Steger et al., 2006). Higher scores indicate greater Presence and Search of meaning, respectively. In previous studies, the two subscales have shown adequate reliability with coefficients α= .81 for the Presence subscale and α= .90 for the Search subscale (Steger et al., 2008). b) Brief Symptoms Inventory (BSI-18, Derogatis, 2001), Spanish version by Andreu et al. (2008). The BSI-18 is a self-applied test that consists of 18 items referring to physical, anxious, and depressive symptoms, with responses given on a 4point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). It is made up of three subscales: Depression (6 items), Somatization (7 items), and Anxiety (6 items). The IBS is composed of three subscales: Depression (6 items), Somatization (6 items), and Anxiety (6 items). The score of each subscale is computed with the sum of each of the items that compose it, a higher score indicates greater psychopathology. The three subscales have shown adequate reliability with coefficients α= .88 for the Depression subscale, α= .78 for Somatization, and α= .71 for Anxiety (Andreu et al., 2008). c) Purpose in Life-10 (PIL-10; García-Alandete et al., 2013). The PIL is a 10-item Likert-type scale with seven response categories (1 to 7). It offers a measure of different aspects of meaning in life (e.g., "In life I have many definite goals and longings", "My life is empty and full of despair", "If I died today, it would seem to me that my life has been very valuable”, “I consider that my ability to find meaning in life is very great”, “I have discovered clear goals and a satisfactory purpose for my life”). The PIL-10 is composed of 2 subscales: Meaning and Satisfaction (5 items), and Vital Goals (5 items).The score of each subscale is computed with the sum of each one of the items that compose it, a higher score 814 MARCO, PRIVADO, GUILLEN, QUERO, PÉREZ, ROSA BAÑOS AND TORMO indicates greater Meaning in life and Satisfaction, and greater presence of Life Goals. In previous studies, the two subscales have shown adequate reliability with coefficients α= .81 for the Meaning and Satisfaction subscale and α= .84 for the Vital Goals subscale (α= .71) (Garcia-Alandete et al., 2013). Procedure The sample was obtained through the massive distribution of emails in several colleges and universities in Spain (through Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and personal contacts) that contained the description of the study. Once the students had read about its characteristics, they decided whether they wanted to participate. The inclusion criteria were: a) They had to be over 18 years old and speak Spanish perfectly, b) They had to sign the informed consent, and c) The participants could not have any diagnosis of a mental disorder. All the participants provided their consent to participate in the study, and they answered a 20-minute survey using the Google Forms online platform. In this online survey, the following question appeared: “Are you currently diagnosed with a mental disorder?” “Indicate which one”. They did not receive any compensation for participating in the study. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University. Data analyses First, the distribution of the main variables contemplated in the study, including the MLQ items, was analyzed using the SPSS V.18. Second, evidence of the internal validity of the MLQ was studied using CFA with the AMOS V.7.0 program (Arbuckle, 2006). The sample consisted of 683 participants for the 10 indicators (10 test items), yielding a ratio of 183/10 ≈ 18 participants per indicator, which far exceeds the recommended minimum of 100 participants and 10 times the number of indicators (Byrne, 2001). The absolute goodness of fit statistics used to measure the fit of the model to the empirical data were: the ratio χ2/df (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), with values below 3 indicating a good fit; and Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), with values above .95 indicate good fit. The incremental fit indices that compared the resulting model with the null model were: the Normed Fit Index (NFI) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), values above .95 indicate good fit and that the empirical model is significantly different from the null model. Moreover, the parsimony indices that evaluated the fit of the evaluated model based on the number of estimators were: the Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) and the Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) (James et al., 1982), with values above .50 indicating a good fit. Third, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the factors obtained with the CFA and the internal discrimination of the test (biserial-point correlation) were calculated with the SPSS. Fourth, the factorial invariance of the factors obtained as a function of the age and gender was studied with the AMOS program. In order to see the possible group differences in the two factors of the MLQ, an inter-subject ANOVA was carried out for each factor, using age (23 years old or less and 46 years old or more) and gender as independent factors. Finally, the Pearson correlation was calculated between the MLQ factors and Spanish validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) 815 the rest of the measures included in the study in order to find evidence of convergent and discriminant validity with the SPSS. Results Table 1 shows the main descriptive statistics of the 10 items of the MLQ and of the different measures applied in the study. The asymmetry and kurtosis values were adequate for all the measures, according to West et al. (1995) asymmetry below 2 in absolute value, kurtosis below 7 in absolute value. Table 1 Descriptive statistics, asymmetry, kurtosis and biserial-point correlation for the items of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) and the other used measures Instruments M SD Asymmetry Kurtosis Biserial-point correlation Meaning in Life Questionnaire (items) 1. I understand my life’s meaning 5.48 1.42 -1.01 0.83 .753 2. I am looking for something that makes my life feel meaningful 3.96 2.00 -0.06 -1.29 .760 3. I am always looking to find my life’s purpose 4.28 1.87 -0.31 -1.00 .780 4. My life has a clear sense of purpose 5.06 1.56 -0.67 -0.13 .807 5. I have a good sense of what makes my life meaningful 5.30 1.42 -0.90 0.60 .714 6. I have discovered a satisfying life purpose 5.47 1.38 -1.00 0.87 .759 7. I am always searching for something that makes my life feel significant 4.16 1.88 -0.19 -1.08 .802 8. I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life 4.21 1.87 -0.30 -1.03 .844 9. My life has no clear purpose 2.71 1.83 0.80 -0.58 .527 10. I am searching for meaning in my life 3.78 2.04 0.04 -1.30 .801 Purpose in Life 53.37 10.30 -0.99 1.49 -- Brief Symptoms Inventory (Somatization) 5.72 5.67 0.78 -0.52 -- Brief Symptoms Inventory (Anxiety) 6.90 6.00 0.87 -0.16 -- Brief Symptoms Inventory (Depression) 6.72 5.76 0.86 -0.17 -- Evidence of internal validity Taking into account that the multivariate kurtosis presented a value of 41.45, we decided to use the Unweighted Least Squares method as an adjustment procedure (Hair et al., 1999). In Figure 1 you can see the contrasted CFA for the 816 MARCO, PRIVADO, GUILLEN, QUERO, PÉREZ, ROSA BAÑOS AND TORMO MLQ. The Presence factor explains 38.51% of the total variance, and the Search factor explains 28.44% of the total variance. The two factors were obtained with a low correlation (.19). The goodness of fit indices was quite acceptable: χ2/df=91.59, GFI= .980, NFI= .970, PGFI= .606, PNFI= .733. Therefore, we can consider that the data fits quite well to a factorial model of two independent factors called Presence and Search. The factorial weights for the items that make up each factor are greater than |± .40|, which reflects that the contribution of the different items to the factor is quite high. Figure 1 CFA for MLQ in the total sample Reliability The internal consistency, measured with Cronbach’s alpha, was .870 for Presence, .922 for Search, and .88 for the total scale, which are high values. In addition, the biserial-point correlation of each item with respect to the factor to which it belongs present values > .20, which is thee minimum recommended (Abad et al., 2011) (see Table 1), specifically they are values between .527 and .844, which indicates that the internal discrimination of the scale is very good. Factorial invariance We checked whether the factorial structure differed according to the gender of the participants. Taking into account that they did not present a multivariate normal distribution of the items on the questionnaire, we used the unweighted least .62 Item 9 Presence Item 1 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 -.84 -.87 -.72 -.80 .81 Item 2 Search Item 3 Item 7 Item 8 Item 10 .80 .83 .88 .87 .19 Spanish validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) 817 squares estimation procedure. Table 2 shows that the χ2 results are statistically significant at 5% for the different models compared: A and B, B and C, and C and D. Therefore, we cannot assume factorial invariance for both genders (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Figure 2 shows the factorial weights of the model for each gender. The main difference is that for men the correlation between the two latent factors is .05, whereas for women it is .24. Both models present a very good fit to the data, as can be seen in the different goodness of fit indices in Table 2: GFI, NFI, PGFI and PNFI. Table 2 Goodness of fit indices for in terms of gender Figure 2 CFA for MLQ for each sex Note: Bold font for men and cursive font for women. .45/.68 Item 9 Presence Item 1 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 2 Search Item 3 Item 7 Item 8 Item 10 .05/.24 -.87/-.83 -.85/-.86 -.86/-.68 -.83/-.80 .81/.82 .77/.80 .86/.82 .89/.88 .89/.86 824 MARCO, PRIVADO, GUILLEN, QUERO, PÉREZ, ROSA BAÑOS AND TORMO Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. W. (2006). Factors contributing to optimal human functioning in people of color in the United States. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 228-244. doi: 10.1177/0011000005281318 Costanza, A., Prelati, M., & Pompili, M. (2019). The meaning in life in suicidal patients: The presence and the search for constructs. A systematic review. Medicina, 55, 1-18. doi: 10.3390/medicina55080465 Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1969). Manual of instructions for the purpose in life test. Saratoga, NY: Viktor Frankl Institute of Logotherapy. Damasio, B., & Koller, S. H. (2015). Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Adaptation process and psychometric properties of the Brazilian version. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 47, 185-195. doi: 10.1016/j.rlp.2015.06.004 Derogatis, L. R. (2001). BSI 18, Brief Symptom Inventory 18: Administration, scoring and procedures manual. Minneapolis: NCS Pearson. Frankl, V. E. (1978). The unheard cry for meaning. Psychotherapy and humanism. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. García‐Alandete, J., Rosa, E., & Sellés, P. (2013). Estructura factorial y consistencia interna de una version española del Purpose‐in‐Life Test [Factorial structure and internal consistency of a Spanish version of the Purpose‐in‐Life Test]. Universitas Psychologica, 12(2), 517-530. doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY12‐2.efci García-Alandete, J., Rosa, E., Soucase, B. & Gallego-Pérez, J. F. (2011). Diferencias asociadas al sexo en las puntuaciones total y factoriales del Purpose-In-Life Test en universitarios españoles [Sex differences on Purpose-In-Life Test total and factorial scores among Spanish undergraduates]. Universitas Psychologica, 10(3), 681-692. George L. S. & Park, C. L. (2016) Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology, 20(3) 205-220. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000077 Góngora, V., & Solano, A. C. (2011). Validación del Cuestionario de significado de la vida MLQ en población adulta y adolescente argentina [Validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) in Argentinean adult and adolescent population]. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 395-404. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1999). Análisis multivariante [Multivariate analysis]. Madrid, Spain: Prentice Hall. Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014). (The feeling of) meaning-as information. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 153-167. doi: 10.1177/1088868313518487´ James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Models, assumptions and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jiang, Y., Bai, L., & Xue, S. (2016). Validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) in Chinese university students and invariance across gender. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 3, 41-48. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Marco, J. H., & Alonso, S. (2019). Meaning in life buffers the association between clinical anxiety and global maladjustment in participants with common mental disorders on sick leave. Psychiatry Research, 271, 548-553. doi : 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.027 Marco, J. H., Cañabate, M., Llorca, G., & Pérez, S. (2020). Meaning in life moderates hopelessness, suicide ideation, and borderline psychopathology in participants with Spanish validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) 825 eating disorders: A longitudinal study. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 27(2), 146158. doi: 10.1002/cpp.2414 Marco, J. H., Cañabate, M., Pérez, S., Guillén, V., Botella, C., & Baños, R. (2021). The meaning making model of eating disorders (MESTA): A preliminary analysis of the model. Behavioral Psychology/Psicología Conductual, 29(1)5-28. doi: 10.51668/bp.8321101n Marco, J. H., Pérez, S., García‐Alandete, J., & Moliner, R. (2017). Meaning in life in people with borderline personality disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24(1), 162170. 10.1002/cpp.1991 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. doi: 10.1037/0033295X.98.2.224 Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 531-545. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623 Negri, L., Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2020). Italian validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Factor structure, reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity. Psychological Reports, 123(2), 578-600. doi: 10.1177/0033294118821302 Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257-301. doi: 10.1037/a0018301 Pezirkianidis, C., Galanakis, M., Karakasidou, I., & Stalikas, A. (2016). Validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) in a Greek sample. Psychology, 7, 1518-1530. doi: 10.4236/psych.2016.713148 Rose, L. M., Zask, A., & Burton, L. J. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) in a sample of Australian adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(1), 68-77. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2015.1124791 Singh, K., Junnarkar, M., Jaswal, S., & Kaur, J. (2016). Validation of Meaning in Life Questionnaire in Hindi (MLQ-H). Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 19(5), 448-458. doi: 10.1080/13674676.2016.1189759 Steger, M. F. (2012). Experiencing meaning in life: Optimal functioning at the nexus of spirituality, psychopathology, and well-being. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning (2nd Ed., pp. 165-184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80-93. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80 Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., & Zacchanini, J. L. (2008). Terrorism in two cultures: Traumatization and existential protective factors following the September 11th attacks and the Madrid train bombings. Journal of Trauma and Loss, 13, 511-527. doi: 10.1080/15325020802173660 Steger, M. F., Kawabata, Y., Shimai, S., & Otake, K. (2008). The meaningful life in Japan and the United States: Levels and correlates of meaning in life. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 660-678. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.09.003 Temane, L., Khumalo, I. P., & Wissing, M. P. (2014). Validation of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire in a South African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(12), 5160. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2014.904088 826 MARCO, PRIVADO, GUILLEN, QUERO, PÉREZ, ROSA BAÑOS AND TORMO Volkert, J., Schulz, H., Brütt, A. L., & Andreas, S. (2014). Meaning in life: Relationship to clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy outcome. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(6), 528-535. doi: 10.1002/ jclp.22053 West, S. G., Finch, J. F. & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. RECEIVED: August 23, 2021 ACCEPTED: February 25, 2022