EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

ARTICLE 10.1177/0013164402251040

MARSH ET AL.

THE PURPOSE IN LIFE SCALE: PSYCHOMETRIC

PROPERTIES FOR SOCIAL DRINKERS AND
DRINKERS IN ALCOHOL TREATMENT

ALI MARSH, LEIGH SMITH, AND JAN PIEK

Curtin University of Technology, Australia

BILL SAUNDERS
Graylands Hospital, Australia

The aim of the present research was to further investigate (a) the structure of the Purpose
in Life test (PIL) using confirmatory factor analytic techniques, (b) the reliability of PIL
scores, and (c) the validity of the PIL. Participants were 357 social drinkers (not in alco-
hol treatment) and 137 treatment drinkers (in alcohol treatment). With the exclusion of 3
items, a unidimensional measurement model for the PIL provided an adequate fit for
social and treatment drinkers. Model invariance analysis indicated that 6 of 17 PIL items
had different pattern coefficients for the two groups of drinkers. The 17 items of the PIL
demonstrated good measurement reliability for both groups of drinkers and good criterion-
related validity.

Keywords: Purpose in Life; psychometric properties; social drinkers; treatment drink-

ers; impaired control over drinking

Existential psychology holds that the ability to find meaning and sense in
our everyday lives and our overall existence is basic to health and well-being.

We are grateful to the drug treatment agencies in Perth who allowed us access to clients, to
the workplaces who allowed us access to employees, and to the voluntary organizations who al-
lowed us access to their members. Thanks also go to Ali Dale and Paul Prytzula for assistance
with data collection, to Dr. Peter Sevastos for his statistical assistance, and to the social and treat-
ment drinkers who completed questionnaires. We are also grateful to the Australian Federation
of University Women (WA) Education Trust for its financial contribution to assist with data col-
lection. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Ali Marsh, School of Psychol-
ogy, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845, Australia; e-mail:
a.marsh@curtin.edu.au.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 63 No. 5, October 2003 859-871
DOI: 10.1177/0013164402251040
© 2003 Sage Publications
859
860 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Empirical studies support an association between poor meaning in life and

mental health problems (Kinnier et al., 1994; Kish & Moody, 1989; see also
Yalom, 1980, for an early review), as well as between high meaning in life
and psychological well-being (Zika & Chamberlain, 1987, 1992) and effec-
tive coping with past stressful life events (Debats, Drost, & Hansen, 1995).
Issues considered integral to purpose and meaning in life are having a
sense of clear aims in life, a sense of achieving life goals, a belief that one’s
daily activities are worthwhile and meaningful, a sense that one’s life has
coherence and meaning, and enthusiasm and excitement about life. Yalom
(1980) commented that “meaninglessness is intricately interwoven with lei-
sure and with disengagement: the more one is engaged with the everyday pro-
cess of living and surviving, the less does the issue arise” (p. 10). Engagement
is very difficult, however, for people for whom the constant nagging thought
of, “What’s the point?” accompanies every action. This thought makes all
actions seem pointless and therefore difficult to carry out. It is understand-
able that boredom is often the most obvious manifestation of such a state and
that withdrawal from everyday activities can occur (Frankl, 1967, 1997). Sui-
cide is the most extreme reaction to an inability to find meaning in life. Other
reactions described by Frankl (1967, 1997) are the development of neurotic
symptoms or addiction problems. Frankl argued that addiction problems,
including excessive drinking and drug use, excessive sexuality, and excessive
gambling are based in the pursuit of pleasure as a way of dulling the existen-
tial pain (Frankl, 1972, 1997).
Research also supports an association between poor purpose and meaning
in life and addiction problems. Thus, heavy use of alcohol has been associ-
ated with poor purpose in life (e.g., Harlowe, Newcomb & Bentler, 1986;
Hutzell & Peterson, 1986; Jacobson, Ritter, & Mueller, 1977; Orcutt, 1984;
Waisberg & Porter, 1994), as has the use of other drugs, including cocaine
(Newcomb, Bentler, & Fahey, 1987), heroin (Coleman, Kaplan, &
Downing, 1986), and multiple drugs (Harlowe et al., 1986; Kinnier et al.,
1994; Newcomb & Harlowe, 1986; Padelford, 1974).
Most studies of the relationship between meaning in life and mental health
and drug use have used the scale of Purpose in Life (PIL) (Crumbaugh &
Maholick, 1964) to measure meaning, although a minority have used other
instruments such as the Life Regard Index (Battista & Almond, 1973) or
qualitative interview techniques. The PIL is a 20-item self-report attitude
scale to measure the extent to which people perceive their lives to be purpose-
ful and meaningful. The scale has been widely used, and scores have shown
good reliability, with the authors of the scale reporting split-half reliability
coefficients of .90 (Crumbaugh & Maholik, 1964) and .92 (Crumbaugh &
Maholik, 1968).
The scale has also shown good validity in a variety of studies. For exam-
ple, PIL scores have been found to correlate satisfactorily with the therapist
 MARSH ET AL. 861

ratings of purpose in life among clinical patients (Crumbaugh, 1968; Kinnier

et al., 1994), and with ministers’ ratings of degree of meaning and purpose
exhibited by parishioners. Low PIL scores have been found to be associated
with suicidal ideation (Harlowe et al., 1986; Kinnier et al., 1994) and drug use
(Coleman et al., 1986; Harlowe et al., 1986; Kinnier et al., 1994; Padelford,
1974). PIL scores have been found to be lower in people in treatment for alco-
hol problems than the general population (Crumbaugh & Carr, 1979;
Jacobson et al., 1977; Waisberg & Porter, 1994), and lower from men in treat-
ment for drinking with a range of psychopathology (Kish & Moody, 1989).
PIL scores have also been found to increase during alcohol treatment
(Crumbaugh & Carr, 1979; Jacobson et al., 1977; Waisberg & Porter, 1994).
Most studies assume the PIL is unidimensional and report a single total
measure. However, as noted by Yalom (1980), the items appear to relate to
several different constructs: life meaning (purpose or mission), life satisfac-
tion (boredom, excitement, painfulness), freedom, fear of death, suicide, and
how worthwhile one perceives one’s life to be. A very limited number of
exploratory factor analytic studies have been conducted about the structure of
the PIL, with each study obtaining a different number of factors. Thus, Shek
(1988) obtained a five-factor solution with two general factors (existence and
death). Chamberlain and Zika (1988) found one general higher order factor.
Reker and Cousins (1979), on the other hand, obtained a six-factor solution
but did not examine the possibility of fewer higher order or general factors.
Published reports of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the PIL are very
rare. Harlowe, Newcomb and Bentler (1987) slightly rephrased some PIL
items for ease of presentation and found four primary factors with one gen-
eral factor. Dale (2003) found that the scale was basically one-dimensional.
The paucity of studies about the factor structure of the PIL, along with the
differences in the findings, suggests that caution is warranted for the assump-
tion that PIL is measuring a unidimensional construct. If purpose in life, as
measured by the PIL, is not unidimensional, then the validity of adding scores
for all the PIL items to form a total score may also be called into question.
The aim of the present research was to further investigate (a) the structure
of the PIL using confirmatory factor analytic techniques, (b) the reliability of
PIL scores, and (c) the validity of the PIL. This study is part of a larger study
investigating impaired control over drinking (Marsh, 2000). These issues
were investigated for drinkers who acknowledged experiencing impaired
control over drinking, defined as drinking more than intended or more than
one thinks one should, in the previous 6 months. Data were collected from
two groups: social drinkers (drinkers not in treatment for alcohol problems)
and treatment drinkers (drinkers in treatment for alcohol problems). Social
drinkers and drinkers in clinical treatment programs are two populations for
whom purpose in life is a relevant construct with implications for prevention
and treatment.
862 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Method

Participants

Participants were 357 social drinkers (not in alcohol treatment) and 137
treatment drinkers (in alcohol treatment). All participants acknowledged
experiencing impaired control in the past 6 months. Compared to social
drinkers, treatment drinkers were significantly older (mean age of 39.7 vs.
29.5), and a larger proportion of them were men (80.9% vs. 39.1%). The
higher mean age and gender distribution (more men than women) found in
the clinical treatment sample were typical of most treatment populations
reported in the literature (e.g., Anton, Moak, & Latham, 1995; Heather,
Tebbutt, Mattick, & Zamir, 1993; Modell, Glaser, Cyr & Mountz, 1992). The
somewhat low proportion of men compared to women in the social drinker
sample may, however, reflect sampling bias resulting from recruiting a num-
ber of employees of shopping centers into the study, who were more likely to
be women than men.
A higher proportion of social drinkers reported having completed or par-
tially completed a university qualification, whereas treatment drinkers were
more likely than social drinkers to have not completed secondary school,
have no education beyond secondary level, and have completed a Technical
and Further Education (TAFE) qualification. There were also significant dif-
ferences between the groups in terms of usual occupation. Social drinkers
were more likely than treatment drinkers to be professional, employed in
sales, or be studying. Treatment drinkers were more likely than social drink-
ers to be tradespeople, unskilled (laborers, drivers, cleaners), or not
employed (unemployed/pensioner).
There were also differences between the groups in current employment
status. The social drinkers were most likely to be in some form of employ-
ment and/or to be studying, whereas treatment drinkers were most likely to be
unemployed or on a pension or sickness benefits. Treatment drinkers
reported having been in treatment from 4 days to 6 months (1 to 6 days: 40%;
1 to 6 weeks: 32%; more than 6 weeks to 6 months: 28%).

Materials

A self-report questionnaire was completed by each respondent that con-

tained demographic questions (e.g., gender, age, education, current employ-
ment status, alcohol treatment history), the PIL scale, a measure of alcohol
dependence (Severity of Alcohol Dependence Data scale [SADD]
(Raistrick, Dunbar, & Davidson, 1983), and a measure of impaired control
over alcohol consumption (Part 2 of the Impaired Control Scale [ICS])
(Heather et al., 1993).
 MARSH ET AL. 863

PIL. PIL consists of 20 items, each rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1
(low purpose) to 7 (high purpose). Total scores can range from 20 (low pur-
pose) to 140 (high purpose). Evidence regarding previous psychometric
investigations of the PIL was reported in the introduction.

Alcohol dependence. The SADD (Raistrick et al., 1983) is a widely used

15-item scale to assess all the dimensions of the Alcohol Dependence Syn-
drome (behavioral, physiological, and subjective). Responses are scored on a
4-point scale (never, sometimes, often, nearly always). In the original scale,
drinkers are asked to think about their most recent drinking habits. For the
purposes of this study, they were asked to think about their drinking in the
past 6 months to be consistent with the other drinking-related scales. SADD
scores have showed reliability for a variety of drinking populations (Jorge &
Masur, 1985; Raistrick et al., 1983). The measure has also been shown to
have good validity in that it distinguishes well between clinical and
nonclinical populations of drinkers (Heather et al., 1993), and its scores cor-
relate highly with other measures of dependence, alcohol consumption, and
alcohol problems (e.g., Davidson & Raistrick, 1986; Drummond, 1990;
Gorman, Duffy, Raine, & Taylor, 1989; Heather, Booth, & Luce, 1998;
Skinner & Horn, 1984).

Impaired control. Part 2 of the ICS (Heather et al., 1993) assesses the fail-
ure of attempts to control drinking in the past 6 months, or Failed Control
(FC). Psychometric investigations of FC using principal components analy-
sis have indicated that the scale is unidimensional (Heather et al., 1993,
1998), and the scores have shown good internal consistency for various
drinking samples (Heather et al., 1993, 1998) and high test-retest reliabilities
during a period of 1 to 3 weeks (Heather et al., 1993). Scores on the scale also
discriminated a clinical from a nonclinical group (Heather et al. 1993). Con-
current validity has also been supported with scores on FC correlating signifi-
cantly with consumption, alcohol dependence, and alcohol problems
(Heather et al., 1993, 1998).
The substitution method of scoring FC, advocated by Heather et al.
(1998), was used in the present research: If a participant has not attempted to
control his or her drinking in the situation described in any item, he or she is
instructed to tick “does not apply,” and these responses are replaced with the
score for the equivalent item from Part 3, Predicted Control (PC), which
assesses expected failure of control rather than actual failed control.

Procedure

Social drinkers were recruited from workplaces, university classes, and a

voluntary organization. Treatment drinkers were recruited from several drug
864 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

treatment programs in Perth, Western Australia. Questionnaires were distrib-

uted to interested participants (a) directly by the researcher, (b) via desig-
nated people who had regular contact with potential participants, (c) via a
notice and a stack of questionnaires interested participants were invited to
take, or (d) by snowballing whereby previous participants distributed ques-
tionnaires to other people with whom they were in contact. Completed ques-
tionnaires were returned (a) by mail in addressed prepaid envelopes, (b) in
sealed envelopes to some designated point or person from where they were
collected by the researcher, or (c) by being handed in sealed envelopes
directly to the researcher. Anonymity was ensured by not asking participants
to provide their names or any other identifying information about
themselves.

Results

Psychometric Structure and Internal Consistency of the PIL

The hypothesis that the factor structure of the PIL was unidimensionnal
was examined using CFA procedures available in LISREL 8.30. As the PIL
contained nonnormally distributed variables, a Weighted Least Squares
(WLS) factor analysis of the polychoric correlation matrix, using the weights
provided by the asymptotic covariance matrix, was used (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1989).
Score reliability for each construct was calculated according to the follow-
ing formula (Fornell & Larker, 1981):

( sum of SFL )2
construct reliability =
( sum of SFL )2 + sum ME

Where SFL stands for the standardized item loadings (lambda) for each fac-
tor, and ME stands for indicators of error of measurement, that is the stan-
dardized error terms for individual items (theta delta). The commonly used
threshold of .70 for an acceptable reliability was adopted here (see Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).
For the social drinkers, a unidimensional model could not be fitted using
all 20 items of the PIL. A satisfactory undimensional fit was obtained, how-
ever, by excluding 3 items with low factor loadings (< .50), and then freeing
the error-covariances between four pairs of items, χ2(115, 357) = 212.92,
RMSEA = .049, GFI = .96, AGFI = .95, IFI = .97. The excluded items were
Item 7 (“After retiring, I would: do some of the exciting things I have always
wanted to do . . . loaf completely for the rest of my life”), Item 14 (“Concern-
ing people’s freedom to make their own choices, I believe people are: abso-
lutely free to make all life choices . . . completely bound by limitations of
 MARSH ET AL. 865

Table 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Pattern Coefficients for Social and Treatment Drinkers
(17 items)

Social Treatment

Summary of Item Content Loading z Loading z

1. Usual level of boredom versus excitement .72 29.8 .77 22.0

2. Whether life seems exciting versus routine .79 35.6 .71 22.3
3. Clarity of goals in life .69 26.9 .80 17.8
4. Sense of meaning and purpose in life .84 40.9 .92 28.4
5. Whether each day seems new or the same .68 22.7 .82 17.9
6. Satisfaction with this life .68 25.8 .83 20.1
8. Progress toward life goals .68 22.6 .56 11.5
9. Happiness versus despair about life .81 41.8 .82 26.8
10. Worthwhileness of life lived so far .84 41.4 .77 22.0
11. Sense of a reason for existing .73 28.3 .75 19.9
12. Sense of meaningful place in the world .70 24.4 .66 14.4
13. Whether a responsible person .59 18.7 .47 9.3
16. Whether ever contemplated suicide .62 21.1 .55 11.5
17. Ability to find meaning and purpose in life .72 32.4 .65 18.6
18. Sense of personal control over life .66 20.3 .63 11.6
19. Pleasure in daily tasks .77 33.1 .67 17.8
20. Purpose and meaning in life found so far .87 41.4 .61 16.0

heredity and environment”), and Item 15 (“With regard to death, I am: pre-
pared and unafraid . . . unprepared and frightened”). Error-covariances were
freed between Items 12 and 11, 11 and 4, 2 and 1, and 19 and 1. CFA item pat-
tern coefficients are shown in Table 1.
For the treatment drinkers, a close approximation to a unidimensional fit
for the same 17 items was achieved by freeing the error-covariances from 10
pairs of items (20 and 19, 20 and 1, 18 and 2, 18 and 13, 20 and 17, 20 and 18,
11 and 10, 19 and 11, 13 and 7, and 10 and 7). All fit indices other than the
RMSEA were satisfactory for treatment drinkers, χ2(108, 137) = 182.94,
RMSEA = .071, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, IFI = .95. CFA pattern coefficients
are shown in Table 1. Reliabilities of the 17 PIL items were very high at .95
for social and treatment drinkers.
A test of model invariance was conducted by running a multiple groups
analysis. The freed error-covariances that enabled model fit in the individual
group analyses reported above were retained as the baseline models for the
two groups. In Model 1, the factor pattern coefficients were constrained to be
equivalent for the two groups. As shown in Table 2, there was a statistically
significant difference between model fit for the two groups of drinkers, indi-
cating that not all factor pattern coefficients were equivalent across groups. In
Model 2, factor pattern coefficients for 6 items (2, 3, 4, 6, 19, and 20) were
freed across groups on the basis of the modification indices. As shown in
866 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Table 2
Fit Indices for Multiple Groups Analyses

Chi-Square n df p GFI IFI

Model 1 88.65 494 17 < .001 .90 .94

Model 2 22.83 494 11 < .05 and > .01 .93 .96
Difference 55.82 494 6 < .001

Note. GFI = Goodness of Fit Index.

Table 2, Model 2 provided a significantly better fit than Model 1 (p < .001).
Freeing further factor loadings did not improve model fit. This suggested that
11 of the PIL items (1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18) could be consid-
ered to have invariant coefficients across groups whereas the coefficients for
the remaining 6 items were different for the two groups.

Comparison of Scores on PIL, SADD,

and FC for Social and Treatment Drinkers

To compare scores on the PIL, SADD, and FC for social and treatment
drinkers, t tests for independent samples were used. Scores for two sets of PIL
items were considered: the 17 items identified as forming a unidimensional
scale (PIL17), and the 11 items identified as having invariant pattern coeffi-
cients across groups (PIL11). It was hypothesized that social drinkers would
score significantly higher than treatment drinkers on the PIL item sets and
significantly lower on the SADD and FC. Bonferroni correction resulted in a
one-tailed significance level of .025. Results are shown in Table 3.
Scores for social and treatment drinkers differed statistically significantly
as hypothesized, with treatment drinkers having lower meaning in life and
higher alcohol dependence and impaired control than social drinkers. Effect
size for group differences was moderate for the PIL item sets and large for the
SADD and FC.
To check that these differences were not due to demographic differences
between the samples, scores on the PIL11, PIL17, SADD, and FC were com-
pared for a matched sample of social and treatment drinkers. Samples were
matched in terms of gender and age (within 10 years), and approximately
matched in terms of education and usual occupation. Matching was con-
ducted by producing 12 clusters within each gender (using SPSS Quick Clus-
ter) and matching closely on the relevant variables within clusters. If no
match was found within clusters, matching was conducted between clusters
closest in terms of age, education, and usual occupation. Of the 137 treatment
drinkers, 90 were matched to social drinkers. The remaining 47 treatment
drinkers were not matched because of the high number with low levels of
education and no usual occupation.
 MARSH ET AL. 867

Table 3
Comparisons Between Scores for Social and Treatment Drinkers: Total and Matched Samples

Social Treatment
2
Variable M SD M SD t* Effect Size (η )

Total sample
PIL (17-item total) 105.43 16.06 84.03 22.54 11.775 .220
PIL (11-item total) 104.73 16.50 83.12 23.35 11.528 .213
SADD (total) 6.41 5.12 24.29 9.32 –26.945 .596
FC (total) 9.28 7.16 28.36 7.64 –26.010 .579
Matched sample
PIL (17-item total) 105.28 14.81 86.68 23.45 6.362 .185
PIL (11-item total) 104.48 15.78 85.78 24.20 6.108 .173
SADD (total) 6.83 5.49 23.86 9.30 –14.95 .590
FC (total) 9.04 6.85 24.98 8.54 –13.800 .557

Note. PIL = Purpose in Life Test; SADD = Severity of Alcohol Dependence Data Scale; FC = Failed Control.
For total sample, df = 492, social n = 357, and treatment n = 137; for matched sample, df = 178, social n = 90,
and treatment n = 90. For PIL (17-item total): mean score for the 17 PIL items was multiplied by 20 to maintain
same possible range of scores as in original 20-item scale. For PIL (11-item total): mean score for the 11 PIL
items was multiplied by 20 to maintain same possible range of scores as in original 20-item scale. Possible
range of scores: PIL: 20 to 140, SADD: 0 to 45, and FC: 0 to 40.
*p < .001.

Differences between the matched samples of treatment and social drink-

ers mirrored those for the whole sample. There were no significant differ-
ences between the matched and unmatched treatment drinkers or the matched
and unmatched social drinkers on any of the variables. It was therefore con-
cluded that differences between social and treatment drinkers for the whole
sample were not due to those demographic characteristics.

Correlations Between Scores

on the PIL, SADD, and FC

Pearson product-moment correlations were used to examine the relation-

ship between scores on the PIL17, PIL11, SADD, and FC for social and treat-
ment drinkers separately, and for both groups combined. It was hypothesized
that PIL scores (both item sets) would be negatively correlated with SADD
and FC scores, and the SADD and FC scores would be positively correlated.
The correlations are shown in Table 4 for social drinkers, treatment drinkers,
and the groups combined, respectively.
Table 4 shows that all correlations were as hypothesized, indicating that
lower meaning in life was associated with higher alcohol dependence and
impaired control, and that higher alcohol dependence was strongly associ-
ated with higher impaired control over drinking. In addition, scores on the
two versions of the PIL were extremely highly correlated. Spearman rank
order correlations between the two versions of the PIL were also highly cor-
868 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Table 4
Correlations Between PIL (17 Items and 11 Items), SADD, and FC Scores for Social,
Treatment, and All Drinkers

PIL17 PIL11 SADD

Social drinkers (n = 357)

PIL11 .981
SADD –.351 –.328
FC –.312 –.300 .673
Treatment drinkers (n = 137)
PIL11 .982
SADD –.324 –.333
FC –.312 –.343 .737
All drinkers (n = 494)
PIL11 .985
SADD –.550 –.539
FC –.534 –.531 .867

Note. PIL = Purpose in Life Test; SADD = Severity of Alcohol Dependence Data Scale; FC = Failed Control.
All correlations are statistically significant at p < .001.

related, further reinforcing the similarity between the two measures (social
drinkers = .977, treatment drinkers = .979, and all drinkers = .982).

Discussion
A single dimension was identified for the PIL with the exclusion of 3 items
(Items 7, 14, and 15). Item 7 (retirement) and Item 15 (fear of death) were not
addressed by any other items in the PIL, and some participants commented
that these two items did not seem to fit with the others. Item 14 (people’s free-
dom to make choices) differs from all other PIL items by directing partici-
pants to respond in terms of people in general rather than themselves as indi-
viduals, which may have lead to different responses. The 17 remaining items
that formed the unidimensional scale addressed a number of issues, including
satisfaction with daily life, whether there are clear goals in life, sense of over-
all meaning in life, sense of personal responsibility, and sense of control.
The unidimensional measurement model provided an adequate fit for
social and treatment drinkers. The measurement model was factorially
invariant for the groups, but a test of model invariance indicated that factor
pattern coefficients varied between the groups on six items.
An examination of scores for social and treatment drinkers on two ver-
sions of the PIL, one consisting of the 17 unidimensional items and the other
of the subset of 11 PIL items with invariant pattern coefficients, indicated that
results were very similar for the two versions of the scale. That is, for both
versions of the PIL, social drinkers had lower scores than treatment drinkers,
and in both instances, effect sizes were moderate to large. In addition, corre-
 MARSH ET AL. 869

lations between scores for the two versions were extremely high. These find-
ings suggest that for this sample, the 6 PIL items that were not invariant
across the two groups made little difference to overall scores for the two
groups.
The unidimensional structure for the PIL identified here is consistent with
the assumptions made in many research studies using the instrument, consis-
tent with the exploratory factor analyses of the scale conducted by Chamber-
lain and Zika (1988), and with the confirmatory analyses of the scale by
Harlowe, Newcomb, and Bentler (1988) and Dale (2003). The finding is con-
trary to the proposition of some researchers, such as Yalom (1980), that the
items appear too disparate to be measuring just one general construct of pur-
pose in life, and with the exploratory factor analysis of the scale by Shek
(1988) in which two general factors were found for the scale.
Scores for the 17-item PIL showed good reliability for both groups of
drinkers. The scale also demonstrated good criterion-related validity in that
high PIL scores were associated with low alcohol dependence and impaired
control over drinking for both groups and for the groups combined. These
results confirm those in other studies of the relationship between purpose in
life and drinking problems, in which the heavy use of alcohol has been asso-
ciated with poor purpose in life (e.g., Harlowe et al., 1986; Hutzell & Peter-
son, 1986; Jacobson et al., 1977; Orcutt, 1984; Waisberg & Porter, 1994).

Implications

Although most studies of the factor structure of the PIL, both exploratory
and confirmatory, have found a single dimension for the scale, the number of
such studies is limited, and two such studies (the present one and Dale, 2003)
only obtained a single factor solution by excluding a few items. Further
examination of the structure of the scale when used with various groups is
therefore necessary, and it would seem appropriate that some examination of
the dimensionality of the scale be conducted whenever the scale is used. Sim-
ply adding scores of all 20 items when they might not constitute a single
dimension is likely to compromise the reliability and validity of any results
obtained with the scale.

References
Anton, R., Moak, D., & Latham, P. (1995). The Obsessive Compulsive Drinking scale: A self-
rated instrument for the quantification of thoughts about alcohol and drinking behaviour. Al-
coholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 19(1), 92-99.
Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36, 409-427.
Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Measuring meaning in life: An examination of three scales.
Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 589-596.
Coleman, S., Kaplan, J., & Downing, R. (1986). Life cycle and loss: The spiritual vacuum of her-
oin addiction. Family Process, 25(1), 5-23.
870 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Crumbaugh, J. (1968). Cross validation of Purpose-in-Life test based on Frankl’s concepts.

Journal of Individual Psychology, 24, 74-81.
Crumbaugh, J., & Carr, G. (1979). Treatment of alcoholics with logotherapy. International Jour-
nal of the Addictions, 14, 847-853.
Crumbaugh, J., & Maholick, L. (1964). An experimental study of existentialism: The
psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 20, 200-207.
Dale, A. (2002). Do some drug users have less to live for? Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.
Davidson, R., & Raistrick, D. (1986). The validity of the Short Alcohol Dependence Data
(SADD) questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction, 81, 217-222.
Debats, D., Drost, J., & Hansen, P. (1995). Experiences of meaning in life: A combined qualita-
tive and quantitative approach. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 359-375.
Drummond, D. (1990). The relationship between alcohol dependence and alcohol-related prob-
lems in a clinical population. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 357-366.
Fornell, C., & Larker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Frankl, V. (1967). Psychotherapy and existentialism: Selected papers on Logotherapy. London:
Hazell Watson & Viney, LTD.
Frankl, V. (1972). The doctor and the soul (2nd ed.). New York: Alfred Knopf.
Frankl, V. (1997). Man’s search for ultimate meaning. New York: Plenum.
Gorman, D., Duffy, S., Raine, S., & Taylor, C. (1989). Level of agreement between questionnaire
measures of alcohol dependence, alcoholism and problem drinking in a sample presenting at
a specialist alcohol treatment service. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 24, 227-232.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harlowe, L., Newcomb, M., & Bentler, P. (1986). Depression, self-derogation, substance abuse,
and suicide ideation: Lack of purpose in life as a mediational factor. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 42, 5-21.
Harlowe, L., Newcomb, M., & Bentler, P. (1987). Purpose in Life test assessment using latent
variable methods. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(3), 235-236.
Harlowe, L., Newcomb, M., & Bentler, P. (1988). Purpose in Life test assessment using latent
variable methods. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 235-236.
Heather, N., Booth, P., & Luce, A. (1998). Impaired Control scale: Cross-validation and relation-
ships with treatment outcome. Addiction, 93(5), 761-771.
Heather, N., Tebbutt, J., Mattick, R., & Zamir, R. (1993). Development of a scale for measuring
impaired control over alcohol consumption: A preliminary report. Journal of Studies on Al-
cohol, 54, 700-709.
Hutzell, R., & Peterson, T. (1986). Use of the Life Purpose Questionnaire with an alcoholic pop-
ulation. International Journal of the Addictions, 21(1), 51-57.
Jacobson, G., Ritter, D., & Mueller, L. (1977). Purpose in life and personal values among adult
alcoholics. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(1), 314-316.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 user’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scien-
tific Software.
Jorge, M., & Masur, J. (1985). The use of the short-form Alcohol Dependence Data Question-
naire (SADD) in Brazilian alcoholic patients. British Journal of Addiction, 80, 301-305.
Kinnier, R., et al. (1994). Depression, meaninglessness, and substance abuse in “normal” and
hospitalised adolescents. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 39(2), 101-111.
Kish, G., & Moody, D. (1989). Psychopathology and life purpose. International Journal of
Logotherapy, 12(1), 40-45.
Marsh, A. (2000). Attributions and impaired control over alcohol consumption. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.
 MARSH ET AL. 871

Modell, J., Glaser, F., Cyr, L., & Mountz, J. (1992). Obsessive and compulsive characteristics of
craving in alcohol abuse and dependence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
16(2), 272-274.
Newcomb, M., Bentler, P., & Fahey, B. (1987). Cocaine use and psychopathology: Associations
among young adults. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 1167-1188.
Newcomb, M., & Harlowe, L. (1986). Life events and substance use among adolescents: Medi-
ating effects of personal loss of control and meaninglessness in life. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 564-577.
Orcutt, J. (1984). Contrasting effects of two kinds of boredom on alcohol use. Journal of Drug
Issues, 14, 161-173.
Padelford, B. (1974). Relationship between drug involvement and purpose in life. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 30, 303-305.
Raistrick, D., Dunbar, G., & Davidson, R. (1983). Development of a questionnaire to measure al-
cohol dependence. British Journal of Addiction, 78(1), 89-96.
Reker, G., & Cousins, J. (1979). Factor structure, construct validity and reliability of the Seeking
Noetic Goals (SONG) and Purpose in Life (PIL) tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(1),
85-91.
Shek, D. (1988). Reliability and factorial structure of the Chinese version of the Purpose in Life
Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(3), 384-392.
Skinner, H., & Horn, J. (1984). Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS): User’s guide. Toronto, Can-
ada: Addiction Research Foundation.
Waisberg, J., & Porter, J. (1994). Purpose in life and outcome of treatment for alcohol depend-
ence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 49-63.
Yalom, I. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1987). Relation of hassles and personality to subjective well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 155-162.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological
well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 133-145.