Development and Psychometric Validation of the Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II (MMOP-II)

Highlights

Public health relevance—How does this work relate to a public health issue?

• This research focuses on purpose in life, which is central motivational construct that is closely linked with wellbeing, quality of life, and reduced psychological symptoms.

Public health significance—Why is this work of significance to public health?

• Existing purpose in life measures have important conceptual limitations, which may hinder their effective use and interpretation in research and clinical settings.
• This article reports on the development and validation of the Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II (MMOP-II), which aims to address the limitations of prior measures of purpose in life.

Public health implications—What are the key implications or messages for practitioners, policy makers, and/or researchers in public health?

• The MMOP-II provides researchers and practitioners with a multidimensional tool for measuring purpose in life based on a contemporary, systems-based conceptualization of purpose in life. The MMOP-II comprises five dimensions: two past-oriented dimensions (coherence in past experiences, significance in past experiences), two present-oriented dimensions (motivated exploration and commitment, identity and social role contentment), and one future-oriented dimension (future purpose in life).
• As a psychometrically rigorous and conceptually supported measure of purpose in life, the MMOP-II supports future research aiming to extend knowledge of purpose in life across a range of contexts (e.g., research and clinical), as well as its role in promoting wellbeing and quality in life and informing the development of interventions that aim to protect against psychological symptoms.

Abstract

Purpose in life is a central motivational construct that has a profound influence on wellbeing. However, existing measures lack the breadth and precision needed to accurately capture this complex construct. In the present study, we aimed to develop a new measure rooted in a holistic, systems-based theoretical framework of purpose in life: the 18-item Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II (MMOP-II). In Study 1, our confirmatory factor analyses in a sample of 303 university students (female = 82.5.%, white = 78.5%) supported a strong five-factor higher-order model fit, outperforming the three-factor and unidimensional alternatives. The Study 2 results replicated these findings in a sample of 290 community adults (female = 54%, white = 76.6%). The results from Study 2 also showed that the MMOP-II correlated with concurrent, convergent, and divergent validity measures in theoretically consistent ways. Across both studies, internal consistency reliability met adequate thresholds for all subscales as well as the total MMOP-II score. Overall, our results support purpose in life as a coherent, higher-order construct measurable by the MMOP-II. Future research should aim to examine the test–retest reliability of the MMOP-II and its generalizability in diverse samples.

1. Introduction

Purpose in life is a powerful psychological construct with widespread benefits for social wellbeing, physical health, and psychological wellbeing [1,2,3,4]. Hence, it is of clinical interest, namely as a target in existential therapies [5]. Purpose in life, however, is a complex construct. As stated by Rollo May, “purpose involves all levels of experience” [6] (p. 42). It encompasses and yet extends beyond transient experiences, actions, goals, and values [7,8]. Recognition of the profound influence of purpose in life has resulted in emerging perspectives that view it as dynamic motivational system [9,10] rather than a specific resource.

Given the significance of purpose in life and its close relationship to other motivational constructs, valid and reliable assessment is critical. In this paper, we briefly review the four most prominent measures of purpose in life as identified in previous research [11,12]: the Purpose in Life Test (PILT) [13], the Purpose in Life Test—short form (PILT-SF) [14], the Life Engagement Test (LET) [15], and the purpose subscale of Ryff’s Psychological Wellbeing Scales (PWB-P) [16]. As there are already existing reviews of the psychometric properties of popular purpose in life measures [7,11], we aim to focus specifically on reviewing the content validity of existing measures, an under-considered but crucial aspect of psychometric development [17]. We then aim to construct a new instrument, the Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II (MMOP-II), to address the limitations of existing measures and advance toward a more precise and theoretically consistent measurement of purpose in life.

1.1. Content Validity

Content validity is a fundamental aspect of psychometric quality as it determines whether a measure adequately represents the construct it aims to assess [17]. It is especially important in measure development because a scale may demonstrate acceptable reliability and structural fit yet fail to capture the intended construct in a meaningful and interpretable way [17]. Content validity is therefore the foundation for interpreting other forms of validity, reliability, and factor structure [17]. Four key features of content validity will be examined: (1) domain definition refers to how the target construct is operationally defined; (2) domain representation refers to how well the measure covers the full breadth and appropriate balance of the different aspects of the target construct; (3) content relevance is the degree to which individual items accurately reflect the target construct, while avoiding overlap with tangential or unrelated content; and (4) construction procedures concerns the use of rigorous, transparent, and theoretically informed methods to ensure comprehensive domain representation and content relevance [17,18].

1.2. The Purpose in Life Test (PILT)

Although the PILT was developed with reference to logotherapy, Frankl’s [5] framework provides little guidance for psychometric assessment. Frankl [5,19] used the terms “purpose” and “meaning” interchangeably, resisted precise definitions in favor of its therapeutic applications, and conceived meaning as trans-subjective, that is, something that is bigger than the self. One interpretation of his work suggests that meaning is the unique, situationally specific significance that each individual is called to discover. By contrast, purpose, according to Frankl [5], reflects the motivational pull toward the fulfilment of meaning, which is achieved through creativity, enjoyment, or through finding it in suffering. Hence, while Frankl’s [5,19] approach may have helped to make constructs of meaning and purpose malleable for therapeutic use, the abstract nature of how they are defined in logotherapy makes them particularly challenging to research.

As a result of construct ambiguity, while some PILT items appear to directly capture purpose (e.g., Item 4: my personal existence is: 1 = utterly meaningless without purpose, 7 = very purposeful and meaningful) or related goal processes (e.g., Item 3: in life I have: 1 = no goals, nor aims at all, 7 = very clear goals and aims). Many other items of the PILT assess constructs only indirectly related to purpose, such as enthusiasm, freedom, attitudes toward death, responsibility, and suicidal thoughts [13,14]. This breadth raises concern that the PILT measures general wellbeing or psychopathology (particularly depression) rather than purpose in life [14].

Further concerns of content validity arise from the PILT’s construction. Item generation was primarily driven by the researchers’ intuitive ‘guesses’ about what might differentiate psychological patients from non-patients, with item selection guided by discriminant validity results rather than conceptual alignment [13]. As such, the PILT reflects a pragmatic rather than theoretically rigorous approach, limiting its content validity and its ability to capture Frankl’s conception of purpose in life.

1.3. The Purpose in Life Test—Short Form (PILT-SF)

In attempts to address the limitations of the PILT, Schulenberg et al. [14] developed the 4-item, short form of the purpose in life test (PILT-SF). Like the original, the PILT-SF items are rated on a 7-point rating scale. The PILT-SF, however, is more precise in its measurement, as it was developed by retaining only the items of the PILT that included content of goals, meaning, or purpose, thus resulting in a more content relevant scale [14]. While this greatly supported the specificity of the PILT-SF, this construction method did not address the broader shortcomings of the original PILT, particularly regarding domain definition and domain representation.

1.4. The Life Engagement Test (LET)

The LET is a 6-item measure of purpose in life. Each item on the LET is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree [15]. Developers of the LET derived its theoretical foundation from behavioral self-regulation models and is operationalized as “the extent to which a person considers his or her activities to be valuable and important” [15] (p. 262). While this definition is clear, it is limited in that it overlooks broader and deeper aspects of purpose in life, such as those tied to identity, contributions beyond the self, or as a resource that can support a long-term sense of directions and persistent commitments such as through hardships and suffering [5,9,20].

Overall, the LET demonstrates reasonable coverage of Scheier et al.’s [15] definition of purpose in life, with items such as “To me, the things I do are all worthwhile” (Item 1), “I value my activities a lot” (Item 3), and “I have lots of reasons for living” (Item 6). It could be argued however, that the inclusion of three reverse coded items (e.g., Item 5: I don’t care very much about the things I do) appears to assess the perceived absence of value in one’s activities, rather than the presence of purpose, which are not conceptually equivalent. This conflation risks narrowing the construct by equating disengagement with purposelessness and failing to account for contexts where activities are important but do not necessarily speak to an individual’s purpose in life (e.g., paying taxes and doing laundry).

In the LET’s construction, Scheier [15] noted an intention to frame scale items around current purpose in life, arguing that retrospective perspectives of purpose in life make it difficult to track changes overtime [15]. While this concern is understandable, this assumption overlooks that all self-report questionnaires capture the participant’s present perspective even when evaluating views of the past. Excluding retrospective assessment risks omitting important facets of purpose in life, such as those noted in literature linking nostalgia and autobiographical recall with the development and maintenance of purpose in life [21,22]. Understandings of past experiences are also variable and subject to change, such as in response to narrative therapy, which involves reflecting on the past to derive meaningful insights and a sense of purpose [23]. Hence, by avoiding a participant’s evaluations of the past, the LET potentially neglects crucial and therapeutic aspects of purpose in life.

1.5. Ryff’s Psychological Wellbeing Scales—Purpose Subscale (PWB-P)

The 9-item PWB-P is measure of purpose in life based on the Ryff’s [16] psychological wellbeing model. The PWB-P is rated on a 6-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Across publications, the operational definition of purpose in life informing the PWB-P has shifted from “the sense of directedness and intentionality” [16] (p. 1071) to “the belief that one’s life is purposeful and meaningful” [24] (p. 720). Though these definitions of purpose in life are broad, as they encompass both motivational elements (sense of direction and intentionality) and evaluative elements (beliefs of one’s life as purposeful and meaningful), they also lack specificity. Specifically, the definitions do not clarify which forms of directions and intentions are purposeful (or whether all senses of direction and intentions are purposeful), or the criteria of which a life could be judged as purposeful or meaningful (or if all people who evaluate their life as purposeful or meaningful have it). Furthermore, the lack of conceptual distinction between purpose in life, goals, sense of direction, beliefs about meaning, and aims adds to this definitional ambiguity.

Despite the broad definition of purpose in life that informed the PWB-P, the items are relatively narrow in scope, with eight out of the nine items of the scale adopting a future-oriented approach with some mention of future perspectives, goal, plan, accomplishment, or aim. The only exception is Item 3 of the scale “my daily activities often seem trivial and unimportant to me” (reverse scored), which is the only item with a predominantly evaluative element. The emphasis on the future-oriented aspect of purpose in life has consequently resulted in the neglect of present-oriented commitments (e.g., to be a consistent parent to my child) that may not reflect a long-term achievement but are nonetheless pertinent to purpose in life and an ongoing intention that provides life with meaning.

In terms of the content relevance of the PWB-P, most items are loosely relevant to the proposed definitions of purpose in life but do not target the constructs precisely. For instance, “I am an active person in carrying out the plans I set for myself” (Item 7) extends beyond Ryff’s [16] operationalization of purpose as a sense of direction and intentionality and begins to tap into aspects of active engagement and goal pursuit as well as identity (i.e., self as an ‘active’ person). Similarly, “I enjoy making plans for the future and working to make them a reality” (Item 6) may speak to an individual’s enjoyment and preferences of planning how they wish to live life but, again, does not target the presence of a current sense of direction or intent. One can view oneself as someone who enjoys making plans and working toward them, but that does not mean that is what they are actually doing.

The construction of the PWB-P was built from a conception of purpose in life as one of six parts of a larger theory of psychological wellbeing [16]. While theoretically valuable, this integration means that purpose in life may not have received the conceptual depth for an accurate representation of such an expansive and complex construct. Consistent with our concerns, the PWB-P has received heavy criticism regarding its overlap with other aspects of psychological wellbeing, including personal growth, self-acceptance, and environmental mastery [25]. Furthermore, Ryff’s [16] item refinement process relied heavily on statistical criteria rather than conceptual coverage of purpose in life, which likely contributed to a skew of PWB-P items toward motivational aspects of purpose in life at the expense of evaluative content.

1.6. The Multidimensional Measure of Purpose II (MMOP-II)

While the measures reviewed above have demonstrated strengths and utility, they also have limitations, particularly with how purpose in life has been operationalized. The PILT and PWB-P reflect definitions that are broad, making it difficult to translate into precise items, whereas the PILT-SF and LET are overly narrow and specific, compromising the recognition of the full breadth and complexity of purpose in life. To address these limitations, we aimed to develop the MMOP-II, a new instrument that is rooted in a systems-based purpose in life framework, as illustrated in Figure 1.

This systems-based purpose in life framework represents a multidimensional and integrative perspective, conceptualizing purpose in life as a system involving past-, present-, and future-oriented processes [26]. In the context of this research, past-oriented processes encompass having a sense of coherence and significance of experiences of met and unmet psychological needs [26]. Present-oriented processes support intrinsically motivated personal growth and development (i.e., hedonic pleasure, curious exploration, motivated commitment, identity, and social role development) [26]. Future-based processes involve expanding one’s orientations in life to support a desired future life (i.e., personal conception of ideal future life, self-concordant goal development, goal-directed action, and eudaimonic pleasure) [26]. As such, the development of the MMOP-II is based in an operationalization of purpose in life as a dynamic internal motivational system in which a person’s sense of coherence and significance of their unique history informs their life orientations to promote meaningfulness in the present and into the future (see ref. [26] for a more detailed description of the theoretical model).

The purpose in life system extends other well-known models of meaning and purpose. Therefore, some clarifications must be made between relevant constructs. Specifically, it is important to distinguish how coherence and significance in the purpose in life system differs from their use in the tripartite view of meaning in life [27,28]. In the tripartite model, coherence, significance, and purpose are considered distinct but related aspects of meaning in life [27,28]. The purpose in life system extends the tripartite model by suggesting that coherence and significance of past experiences of psychological needs are the foundation for purpose in life [26].

Based on the purpose in life system, the MMOP-II is an 18-item self-report multidimensional measure of purpose in life developed to address the limitations of the original MMOP by improving specificity of instructions, item wording, and dimensions [26]. The MMOP-II comprises five subscales in line with the purpose in life system in Figure 1: Coherence in Past Experience (CIPE; 3 items) and Significance in Past Experience (SIPE; 3 items), Identity and Social Role contentment (ISRC; 3 items), Motivated Exploration and Commitment (MEAC; 3 items), and Future-oriented Purpose in Life (FPIL; 6 items). As such, past-, present-, and future-oriented aspects of purpose in life are represented in the MMOP-II. Subscale scores are calculated by summing the relevant items. The total MMOP-II score is derived by summing all subscale scores. Higher scores reflect greater purpose in life.

The MMOP-II instructs participants to rate on a 7-point scale which, as noted by Kyriazos and Stalikas [29], is the optimal number of items to balance the response sensitivity with the risk of random error. All response options are fully labeled, as this is generally more satisfying for participants and has been shown to produce superior psychometric properties [29]. By contrast, partially labeled response item options in which respondents disproportionately select labeled options consequently introduce bias. The MMOP-II response options are absolutely untrue = 1, mostly untrue = 2, somewhat untrue = 3, equally true and untrue = 4, somewhat true = 5, mostly true = 6, and absolutely true = 7.

The MMOP-II instructions were designed to distinguish the concept of purpose in life from that of purpose of life, to guide participants toward considering their lived experiences of purpose rather than interpreting items with cosmic or philosophical perspective. To capture individual variability in how purpose in life is experienced, participants are encouraged to think in a way that is personally meaningful and relevant. The instructions also inform participants that the questionnaire includes items with past, present, and future temporal orientations, corresponding to the constructs outlined earlier in this manuscript.

Past-oriented items are captured in the CIPE and SIPE dimensions of the MMOP-II. CIPE and SIPE items all begin with the phrase, “when I reflect on my past…”, to cue participants to adopt a retrospective mindset. CIPE items were designed to capture participants’ understanding of their past experiences of met and unmet needs (e.g., “When I reflect on my past, I understand how I have been shaped by my experiences”). SIPE items aimed to assess participants’ sense of awareness and importance placed on past experiences (e.g., “When I reflect on my past, I find value in the lessons I have learnt”).

Present-oriented items start with the prompt “When I reflect on my present…” to orient participants temporally to their present life. Present-oriented items are covered in the MEAC and ISRC subscales of the MMOP-II subscales. MEAC items focus on participants’ curious exploration and commitment to a personally valued areas of life, which align with constructs of curious exploration (e.g., “When I reflect on my present, I notice myself wanting to delve deeper into what interests me”) and motivated commitment (“When I reflect on my present, I see areas in my life to which I am committed to developing”), as seen in Figure 1 model. ISRC items target participants’ satisfaction and pleasure with their current identity and social roles, as reflected in Figure 1 in constructs of identity and social role formation (e.g., “When I reflect on my present, I value myself and the role I have in the lives of others”) and hedonic pleasure (e.g., When I reflect on my present, I find it easy to be grateful”).

Future-oriented items are all captured by the FPIL dimension and begin with the phrase “When I reflect on my future…”, to cue a prospective perspective. FPIL items aimed to assess the four future-oriented purpose in life constructs seen in Figure 1 including: (1) personalized conception of the ideal future life (e.g., “When I reflect on my future, I find value the direction I have chosen in life”); (2) self-concordant goals (e.g., “When I reflect on my future, I appreciate the plans I have made for a meaningful future”); (3) goal-directed action (e.g., “When I reflect on the future, I notice how my actions are contributing to a meaningful life”); and (4) eudaimonic pleasure (e.g., “When I reflect on my future, I feel a sense of purpose in life”).

The development of the MMOP-II involved two psychometric studies. Study 1 details the item selection process and initial examination of the MMOP-II’s factor structure. Study 2 replicated the procedure of Study 1 with a different sample and further examines the MMOP-II’s concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity.

2. Study 1: Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, and all measures in the study. Ethics approval for this project was granted [REMS reference number: 2022-03883-FANG]. We aimed for a sample size of around 300 participants, consistent with MacCallum and colleagues’ [30] recommendations and ended data collection when this target was exceeded. The study participants were recruited from an Australian university student research participation pool. Students were provided with course credit for participating in the study. Our sample consisted of 312 participants. Nine cases were deleted due to more than 10% missing data. The remaining dataset had less than 5% missing random data, a sufficiently low threshold to avoid a meaningful impact on the results [31]. Missing values were replaced using expectation maximization. The final dataset comprised 303 participants, exceeding minimum recommended sample sizes for factor analysis of 10 participants per item [32]. Age, gender, and ethnic information are presented in

Table 1. Study 1 demographic information.

Variable	Value	%
Age
Mean years	28.31	-
Range	17 to 62	-
SD	10.05	-
Prefer not to answer or invalid response, n (%)	6	2%
Gender, n (%)
Female	250	82.5%
Male	45	14.9%
Non-binary	2	0.7%
Prefer not to answer or invalid response	6	2%
Ethnicity *, n (%)
Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander	16	5.3%
Asian	38	12.5%
Black or African	9	4.0%
Hispanic, Latino, Spanish Origin	3	3.0%
Māori or Other Pacific Islander	4	1.3%
Middle Eastern or North African	7	2.3%
White	238	78.5%
Prefer not to answer or invalid response	4	1.3%

Note. N = 303; * Participants were permitted to select more than one answer for this question.

.

The MMOP-II Items were administered to participants embedded in a pool of 60 items developed by the research team and aimed at measuring purpose in life, in line with the purpose in life system. Twenty items were designed to begin with the cue ‘when I reflect on the past…’ to measure constructs relevant to purpose in past experiences. Twenty items were designed to begin with the cue “when I reflected on the present…” to target the constructs relevant to purpose in life with a present orientation. The final 20 items were designed to begin with the cue “when I reflect on the future…,” designed to measure future-oriented purpose in life constructs. Items were then piloted with a mixed group of 21 community members and psychologists recruited through convenience sampling (e.g., social media and researchers’ personal networks) who provided qualitative feedback on item clarity, ambiguity, and relevance to the participant’s perception of purpose in life. These comments were used to inform changes to the instructions (e.g., additional instructions were included to differentiate purpose in life from purpose of life) and items (e.g., changing ‘key events’ to ‘important events’ to reduce ambiguity).

2.2. Item Selection

We selected MMOP-II items from the initial pool of 60 items based on a series of preliminary exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) conducted across two rounds of item elimination. The EFAs used a principal axis extraction to identify the latent variables underlying the item pool, with a Promax rotation method allowing factors to correlate [33]. In both rounds, item selection was guided by both statistical and theoretical considerations. We systematically removed items that cross-loaded significantly across factors and had poor factor loadings (<0.3). Removed items were also conceptually redundant with other items, conceptually inconsistent with the emerging factor structure, or had comparatively weaker loadings on factors that contained an excess number of items.

During the first round, separate EFAs on past-, present-, and future-oriented items were conducted. The number of factors was determined based on eigenvalues >1 and examination of scree plots. Additionally, we aimed for an even representation of items across past-, present-, and future-oriented dimensions, while also ensuring that each construct specified in the purpose in life system (Figure 1) was represented by at least one item. The analyses indicated that past-oriented purpose in life items were represented by two factors, present-oriented purpose in life items by two factors, and future-oriented purpose in life items by a single underlying factor.

In the second round, an EFA was conducted on the combined pool of items retained from the first round using a fixed five-factor solution based on the factor structure identified in the initial analysis. The full item pool and rationale for item exclusion at each stage are provided in Supplementary Materials File S1. The EFA output for the final MMOP-II items is presented in Supplementary Materials File S2.

Through the abovementioned process, we refined the item pool to the final 18 items of the MMOP-II across five distinct factors (CIPE, SIPE, MEAC, ISRC, and FPIL), which were then carried over into a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Hence, while we used the purpose in life system (Figure 1) to provide a conceptual basis to guide item development and construction, the components of the model were not assumed to correspond directly to the dimensions of the MMOP-II.

2.3. Materials

Demographic questions included questions regarding participants’ age, gender, and ethnicity. The 18-item MMOP-II (as described above) was administered. The MMOP-II items are available and presented in Supplementary Materials File S3.

2.4. Analysis

All data used in this analysis are publicly available and can be accessed at https://osf.io/9nbu3/overview?view_only=7977700bd3804c8b92f5b8e07f9bd9a5 (accessed on 27 August 2026). CFAs and heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio [34] were conducted using R (version 4.4.0) and the package Lavaan 0.6-17 [35]. All other analyses were conducted using Jamovi (version 2.5.3).

2.5. Descriptive Analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated for the total MMOP-II and its subscales.

2.6. Internal Consistency Reliability

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to assess internal consistency reliability. Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.70 was judged to be acceptable, ≥0.80 was considered good, and ≥0.90 was considered excellent [36].

2.7. Factor Analysis

To evaluate the factorial validity of the MMOP, CFAs were conducted to test the following three models. See Figure 2.

(1)

Model 1 is a unidimensional model where all items loaded onto a single factor.

(2)

Model 2 is a three-factor higher order model resembling the original version of the MMOP [26]. Items are grouped into past- (Past-PIL; 6 items), present- (Present-PIL; 6 items), and future-oriented (Future-PIL; 6 items) factors. These three factors loaded onto a single higher-order purpose in life factor.

(3)

Model 3 is five-factor high order model that emerged from the preliminary EFA. In this model, six past-oriented items loaded evenly onto two distinct factors: CIPE (3 items) and SIPE (3 items). Present-oriented items loaded onto two factors: ISRC (3 items) and MEAC (3 items). The future-oriented items load onto a single factor: FPIL (6 items). All five factors load onto a single higher-order purpose in life factor.

2.8. Goodness of Fit

Goodness of fit was estimated using maximum likelihood (ML) which is recommended for CFAs involving 7-point Likert scale data [37]. In line with recommendations, we calculated and reported on robust maximum likelihood (MLR), which provides more accurate estimates when data deviate from normality [38,39]. Skewness ranged from −1.54 to −0.72, while kurtosis ranged from 0.12 to 2.89, falling within recommended guidelines (skewness < 2.0, kurtosis < 7.0) [40], indicating that the items did not fall under severe non-normality and supporting the treatment of the 7-point items as approximately continuous. Model fit was assessed using five fit indices: chi-squared statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean residual (SRMR). However, given that the chi-squared statistic can over-reject parsimonious models and is sensitive to sample sizes exceeding 200 participants [41,42], consideration was primarily given to CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR when evaluating model fit [43]. Following established conventions, models were considered acceptable if the CFI and TLI values were ≥0.90 and the RMSEA and SRMR values were ≤0.08 [43,44]. First- and second-order factor loadings above 0.40 were considered good. Inter-factorial relationships were assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Supporting the robustness of our model comparison, a sensitivity analysis was also conducted using variance-adjusted weighted least mean squares (WLSMV).

3. Study 1: Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Reliability

Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for the MMOP-II subscales, composites, and total score are reported in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha for the MMOP-II for Studies 1 and 2.

MMOP-II	α	M	SD	Range
		Study 1
Subscales
CIPE	0.71	18.13	2.284	3–21
SIPE	0.83	17.58	3.113	3–21
MEAC	0.75	17.75	2.659	3–21
ISRC	0.80	16.21	3.422	3–21
FPIL	0.92	33.47	6.688	6–42
Composites
Past-PIL	0.79	35.72	4.557	6–42
Present-PIL	0.82	35.33	5.038	6–42
MMOP-II Total	0.93	104.51	14.305	18–126
		Study 2
Subscales
CIPE	0.81	17.656	2.434	3–21
SIPE	0.85	17.125	3.209	3–21
MEAC	0.77	16.688	2.944	3–21
ISRC	0.84	15.467	3.778	3–21
PEXP	0.95	29.815	8.390	6–42
Composites
PIPE	0.84	34.781	4.871	6–42
PREF	0.82	32.155	5.731	6–42
MMOP-II Total	0.87	96.750	16.381	18–126

Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha. CIPE = Coherence in past experiences. SIPE = Significance in past experiences. ISRC = Identity and social role contentment. MEAC = Motivated exploration and commitment. FPIL = Future-oriented purpose in life. Past-PIL = Past-oriented purpose in life. Present-PIL = Present-oriented purpose in life. MMOP-II = Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II.

.

As seen in Table 2, internal consistency reliabilities were acceptable to excellent across all subscales and composites with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.71 to 0.92.

3.2. Factor Analysis

Model 1 showed, overall, a poor fit to the data, suggesting that a single-factor model does not adequately capture the underlying structure of purpose in life. The chi-squared statistic for Model 1 was significant, χ2 (135) = 3233.449, scaled = 710.218, p < 0.001. Additionally, CFI (0.755, robust = 0.762), TFI (0.719, robust = 0.731), and RMSEA (0.119, robust = 0.133, SRMR (0.093) did not meet the thresholds for acceptable fit. Although all items loaded significantly onto a single purpose in life factor, a distinct pattern emerged across items of different temporal orientations. Future-oriented items demonstrated the strongest standardized factor loadings (0.753 to 0.827), suggesting they were the most reliable indicators of higher order construct compared to past-oriented (0.346 to 0.581) and present-oriented items (0.523 to 0.680). This pattern of scoring suggests that the unidimensional model is insufficient and supports a multidimensional factor structure with distinct latent factors reflecting different temporal orientations of purpose in life.

The 3-factor higher order model (Model 2) showed an improved fit compared to the single-factor model. The chi-squared statistic remained significant, χ2 (132) = 516.807, scaled = 419.034, p < 0.001. While CFI (0.876, robust = 0.883), TLI (0.857, robust = 0.865), and RMSEA (0.098, robust = 0.094) approached an acceptable fit, SRMR (0.066) fell within acceptable range. At the first-order level, Past-PIL, Present-PIL, and Future-PIL items showed good fit to the data with adequate factor loadings (Past-PIL = 463 to 0.824, Present-PIL = 0.569 to 0.731; Future-PIL = 0.779 to 0.858). At the higher order level, all three latent factors (Past-PIL, Present-PIL, Future-PIL) loaded significantly onto overarching purpose in life construct. While Past-PIL and Future-PIL loaded strongly onto purpose in life (0.718 and 0.818, respectively), Present-PIL loadings surpassed 1.0 (1.029), indicating model misspecification and suggesting that further adjustments to the model are warranted [45].

Consistent with our preliminary EFA results, the five-factor higher-order model (Model 3) showed the best fit to the data compared to single-factor and three-factor model structures. Although the chi-squared statistic was significant, χ2 (130) = 294.690, scaled = 238.096, p < 0.001, all other fit indices demonstrated an excellent model fit. CFI (0.953, robust = 0.956) and TLI (0.945, robust = 0.948) exceeded the recommended 0.90 threshold. RMSEA (0.052, robust = 0.058) and SRMR (0.058) also fell within acceptable limits (<0.08). First- and second-order factor loadings are presented in

Table 3. Model 3 factor loadings of the MMOP-II for Studies 1 and 2.

	Factor and Item	Study 1	Study 2
CIPE	When I reflect on my past, I understand how I have been shaped by my experiences	0.891	0.882
	When I reflect on my past, I can see how I have been influenced by the things that have happened to me.	0.767	0.848
	When I reflect on my past, I can recognize themes that describe the nature of my life	0.441	0.593
SIPE	When I reflect on my past, I value the importance of experiences that made me the person I am today	0.998	0.847
	When I reflect on my past, I find value in the lessons I have learned	0.930	0.785
	When I reflect on my past, I view both positive and negative experiences as opportunities for growth	0.905	0.783
MEAC	When I reflect on my present, I notice myself wanting to delve deeper into what interests me	0.748	0.586
	When I reflect on my present, I feel drawn toward opportunities to grow as a person	0.709	0.743
	When I reflect on my present, I see areas of my life that I am committed to developing	0.748	0.830
ISRC	When I reflect on my present, I find it easy to be grateful	0.599	0.641
	When I reflect on my present, I value myself and the role I have in the lives of others	0.864	0.922
	When I reflect on my present, I have a good sense of my role amongst others	0.829	0.843
FPIL	When I reflect on my future, I find value the direction I have chosen in life	0.824	0.881
	When I reflect on my future, I see a path that supports a life meaningful to me	0.801	0.921
	When I reflect on my future, I appreciate the plans I have made for a meaningful future	0.782	0.827
	When I reflect on my future, I notice how my actions are contributing to a meaningful life	0.829	0.885
	When I reflect on my future, I feel on track toward living a meaningful life	0.854	0.915
	When I reflect on my future, I feel a sense of purpose in life	0.832	0.867
MMOP-II	CIPE	0.579	0.422
	SIPE	0.725	0.763
	MEAC	0.900	0.768
	ISRC	0.808	0.841
	FPIL	0.847	0.846

Note. CIPE = Coherence in Past Experiences. SIPE = Significance in Past Experiences. ISRC = Identity and social role contentment. MEAC = Motivated Exploration and Commitment. FPIL = Future-oriented purpose in life. MMOP-II = Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II.

. Correlation coefficients between subscales are presented in

Table 4. Pearson’s correlation matrix between MMOP-II subscales for Study 1.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
CIPE	-
SIPE	0.41	-
MEAC	0.29	0.56	-
ISRC	0.45	0.52	0.56	-
FPIL	0.40	0.48	0.66	0.62	-
MMOP-II	0.61	0.82	0.70	0.78	0.86	-

Note. All correlations were significant at p < 0.001. CIPE = Coherence in Past Experiences. SIPE = Significance in Past Experiences. ISRC = Identity and social role contentment. MEAC = Motivated Exploration and Commitment. FPIL = Future-oriented purpose in life. MMOP-II = Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II.

. WLSMV sensitivity analysis further supported the superiority of the five-factor model, which demonstrated better fit than the one- and three-factor models. WLSMV fit indices are presented in Supplementary Materials File S4.

As seen in Table 3, all factor loadings were significant. First-order loadings ranged between 0.441 to 0.891, and second-order loadings ranged from 0.579 to 0.900. These results indicate that the each of the five first-order factors (CIPE, SIPE, ISRC, MEAC, and FPIL) contributed uniquely and meaningfully to higher order purpose in life. Table 4 shows that all subscale correlations are positive and significant.

Given high correlations between MEAC and FPIL (0.66) and between ISRC and FPIL (0.62), discriminant validity was further assessed using HTMT ratio. HTMT values ranged between 0.383 and 0.768, with all values below the recommended threshold (0.850) [34], supporting discriminant validity among the MMOP-II subdimensions.

4. Study 2: Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants and Procedure

Participants were Australian residents recruited from a research recruitment service (Prolific). Replicating Study 1, we aimed for a sample size of 300 and ceased data collection when this target was exceeded. Data were collected from 305 participants. Fourteen participants were excluded for failing attention checks, and one participant was removed for having more than 10% missing data. The final sample comprised a total of 290 participants. Missing data ranged from 0.8% to 1.7% which were replaced with expectation maximization. Information regarding sample’s age, gender, ethnicity, and education are presented in

Table 5. Study 2 demographic information.

Variable	Value	%
Age
Mean	38.66
Range	18 to 79
SD	130.21
Prefer not to answer/Invalid Response n (%)	1	0.3%
Gender, n (%)
Female	159	54.8%
Male	122	42.1%
Gender Fluid	2	0.7%
Non-Binary	2	0.7%
Agender	1	0.3%
Prefer not to answer or invalid response	4	1.4%
Ethnicity *, n (%)
Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander	9	3.1%
East Asian	45	15.5%
Black or African	5	1.7%
Hispanic, Latino, Spanish Origin	1	0.3%
Māori or Other Pacific Islander	1	0.3%
Middle Eastern or North African	3	1.0%
South Asian	6	2.1%
White	222	76.6%
Prefer not to answer or invalid response	5	1.7%
Education, n (%)
Attended high school	1	0.3%
High School Diploma or equivalent	26	8.9%
Vocational Training	4	1.4%
Certificate or Diploma	30	10.3%
Some TAFE/College/University	23	7.9%
Bachelor’s Degree	108	37.2%
Some post undergraduate education	20	6.9%
Master’s Degree	63	21.7%
Doctorate Degree	14	4.9%
Prefer not to answer or invalid response	1	0.3%

Note. N = 290, * Participants were permitted to select more than one answer for this question.

.

4.2. Materials

In addition to the MMOP-II, the following measures were used to study the concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity of the MMOP-II.

4.2.1. Life Engagement Test (LET)

The LET is a 6-item (e.g., “to me, the things I do are all worthwhile”) unidimensional measure of purpose in life [15]. Response options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Scores on the LET range from 6 to 42 with higher scores indicating higher levels of purpose in life. The LET has demonstrated good reliability and validity in past research [15,46]. The internal consistency reliability for the LET in the current study was 0.88.

4.2.2. The Purpose in Life Scale—Short Form (PILS-SF)

The PILS-SF is a 4-item self-report unidimensional measure of purpose in life. Each item is rated on a scale from 1 (e.g., I have discovered no mission or Purpose in life) to 7 (e.g., I have discovered a satisfying life Purpose) [14]. Total PILS-SF scores range from 4 to 28 with higher scores indicating higher purpose in life. The PILS-SF has demonstrated good reliability and validity in past research [14,47]. The internal consistency reliability of the PILS-SF in the current study was 0.88.

4.2.3. Curiosity and Exploration Inventory II (CEI-II)

The CEI-II is a 10-item, self-report measure of trait curiosity [48]. CEI-II items are scored on a scale from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. Scores of the CEI-II can be summed to form two dimensions of trait curiosity: (1) stretching, the motivation to seek out new experiences (e.g., “I frequently seek out opportunities to challenge myself and grow as a person); and (2) embracing, the willingness to embrace novel life experiences (e.g., “I like to do things that are a little frightening”). Subscales can then be summed to produce an overall CEI-II score ranging from 5 to 50 with higher scores indicating greater levels of trait curiosity. The CEI-II has shown good psychometric properties in past research [48]. The internal consistency reliability of the CEI-II in the current study was 0.80 for the stretching subscale, 0.86 for the embracing subscale, and 0.90 for the total CEI-II scale.

4.2.4. Goal Adjustment Scale (GAS)

The GAS is a 10-item self-report measure of goal adjustment capacities, the ability to adapt to unobtainable goals [49]. GAS items are rated from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree with higher scores indicating higher goal adjustment capacities. The GAS consists of two dimensions: (1) goal disengagement is the ability to abandon unobtainable goals (e.g., “It’s easy for me to stop thinking about the goal and let it go”); and (2) goal reengagement is the ability to reengage with an alternate, meaningful goal following disengagement (e.g., “I think about other new goals to pursue”). The GAS has demonstrated good psychometric properties in the past [49]. In the current study, goal disengagement had an internal consistency reliability of 0.78, and goal reengagement had an internal consistency reliability of 0.88.

4.2.5. Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE)

The SPANE is a 12-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure emotionality [50]. SPANE items are rated from on a five-point scale from 1 = Very rarely/Never to 5 = Very Often/Always with higher scores indicating higher levels of emotionality. The SPANE comprises two subscales, one that measures pleasant emotions (e.g., happiness) and the other that measures unpleasant emotions (e.g., sadness). The SPANE has shown good validity and reliability in past research [50]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the SPANE in the current study were 0.93 and 0.89 for the positive and negative subscales, respectively.

4.2.6. Awareness of Narrative Identity Questionnaire (ANIQ)

The ANIQ is a 20-item self-report measure of coherence of autobiographical memories [51]. ANIQ items are rated on a scale ranging from 0 = completely disagree to 10 = completely agree with higher scores indicating greater coherence. The ANIQ consists of four subscales of five items each: awareness, temporal coherence, causal coherence, and thematic coherence. Subscales can also be combined to produce an overall score of global coherence of autobiographical memories. The ANIQ has demonstrated good psychometric properties in past studies [51,52]. The current study showed internal consistency reliability scores of 0.91 for the awareness subscale, 0.97 for temporal coherence, 0.94 for causal coherence, 0.95 for thematic coherence, and 0.95 for the overall ANIQ scale.

4.2.7. Adult Hope Scale (AHS)

The AHS is a 12-item self-report measure of hope [53]. Each item of the AHS is rated on an eight-point scale ranging from 1 = definitely false to 8 = definitely true. The AHS comprises two dimensions: (1) agency, goal-directed determination (e.g., “I energetically pursue my goals); and (2) pathways, the planning of ways to achieve goals (e.g., “There are lots of ways around any problems”). Subscale scores can be summed for a total AHS score, with higher scores indicating higher levels of hope. The AHS has shown to be a valid and reliable instrument in past research [53,54]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in the current study were 0.87 for the agency subscale, 0.84 for the pathways subscale, and 0.90 for the overall AHS.

4.2.8. Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9)

The PHQ-9 is a 9-item self-report measure of depression experienced by the responder over the previous two weeks [55]. PHQ-9 items are measured on a four-point scale from 0 = not at all to 4 = nearly every day with higher scores indicating higher levels of depression. Scores can be further categorised into four levels of severity, minimal (0 to 4), mild (5 to 9), moderate (10 to 14), moderately severe (15 to 19), and severe (20 to 27). The PHQ-9 has shown psychometric properties in past research [55,56]. In the current study, the PHQ-9 had an internal consistency reliability of 0.89.

4.2.9. General Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7)

The GAD-7 is a 7-item self-report measure of anxiety experienced by the responder over the previous two weeks [57]. Items of the GAD-7 (e.g., “worrying too much about different things”) are rated on a four-point scale ranging from 0 = not at all to 4 = nearly every day. Scores for the GAD-7 fall into four levels of severity: minimal anxiety (0 to 4), mild anxiety (5 to 9), moderate anxiety (10 to 14), and severe anxiety (15 to 21). The GAD-7 has shown good validity and reliability [57,58]. In the present study, the GAD-7 showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics, Factor Analysis, Internal Consistency Reliability

We calculated descriptive statistics, factor structure, and internal consistency reliability using the same process as described in Study 1.

4.4. Factor Analysis and Goodness of Fit

Replicating the procedure in Study 1, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test three models (as shown in Figure 2): a unidimensional model, a three-factor (Past-PIL, Present-PIL, FPIL) model, and a five-factor model (CIPE, SIPE, MEAC, ISRC, and FPIL). Model estimation was performed using MLR, goodness of fit was evaluated using the chi-squared statistic, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Adequate fit thresholds were ≥0.90 for CFI and TLI and ≤0.08 for RMSEA and SRMR. The use of MLR was supported by skewness (−0.53 to −1.44) and kurtosis (−0.06 to 4.58) values falling within recommended guidelines (skewness < 2.0, kurtosis < 7.0) [40]. A sensitivity analysis using WLSMV was carried out to support comparison of models if items were treated as ordinal.

4.5. Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity was assessed with Pearson’s correlation coefficient on the relationships between the MMOP-II, PIL-SF, and LET. Though both the PIL-SF and the LET have limitations due to their narrow operationalizations of purpose in life, as noted earlier this paper, they were nonetheless selected as comparators, given the relative preciseness of scales, good item relevance, and strong psychometric properties. We predicted that both the PIL-SF and LET would correlate significantly with the MMOP-II total score, thereby supporting the MMOP-II’s concurrent validity.

4.6. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by examining correlations between the MMOP-II and theoretically related measures: CEI-II, the GAS goal-reengagement subscale, the SPANE’s positive subscale, the ANIQ, and the AHS. While we expected significant correlations between the MMOP-II across all of these convergent validity measures, stronger associations were predicted among constructs with greater conceptual overlap. Specifically, the CIPE and SIPE were expected to show stronger associations with ANIQ subscales given the focus on autobiographical memories. MEAC was predicted to correlate strongest with the CEI-II as both involve curiosity and explorative processes. The ISRC was expected to show strong correlations with SPANE’s positive subscale given the joint focus on present-oriented pleasure. Finally, the AHS was expected to show strong correlations with FPIL subscale as both of these constructs involve future-oriented perspective.

4.7. Divergent Validity

Divergent validity was assessed by examining the MMOP-II’s subscales and negative correlations with measures of theoretically opposing constructs. Goal disengagement as measured by the goal disengagement subscale of the GAS. Negative affect as measured by SPANE’s negative subscale. Depressive symptoms measured by the PHQ-9, and anxiety measured by the GAD-7. Goal disengagement and negative affect theoretically contrast against goal-processes and pleasure-oriented aspects of purpose in life. Purpose in life has been identified in a past meta-analysis as a reliable predictor of reduced anxiety and depression [59].

5. Study 2: Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Reliability

All internal consistency reliabilities for the MMOP-II subscales and composite scales were within the acceptable range, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.73 to 0.93. Cronbach’s alphas, means, and standard deviations of all MMOP-II subscales and composite scales tested in the factor analyses are presented in Figure 2 above.

5.2. Goodness of Fit

Model 1 showed a poor fit to the data with none of the fit indices meeting the cut-off for adequate fit. The chi-squared statistic was significant, χ2 (135) = 1171.167, scaled = 914.448, p < 0.001, while CFI (0.721, robust = 0.731) and TLI (0.684, robust = 0.695) fell below the 0.90 threshold. Both RMSEA (0.141, robust = 0.160) and SRMR (0.126) exceeded the 0.08 cut-off. Item loadings varied significantly with a range between 0.197 to 0.908. Consistent with the results in Study 1, future-oriented items loaded the heaviest onto the general purpose in life factor with standardized loadings between 0.825 to 0.903.

Model 2 showed an improved fit to the data relative to the unidimensional model. However, the results suggested further refinement is needed for a reliable structure. All fit indices fell outside of acceptable threshold: χ2 (132) = 640.198, scaled = 504.960, p < 0.001, CFI (0.867, Robust = 0.873), TLI (0.844, Robust = 0.852), RMSEA (0.099, Robust = 0.111), and SRMR (0.084). Most first-order items loaded adequately onto the respective scale (≥0.4) with one present-oriented item exception, which loaded below the set criterion (0.388). Second-order loadings of past, present, and future dimensions of purpose in life loaded significantly onto the general purpose in life. However, replicating the Model 2 results in Study 1, the present-oriented dimension (Present-PIL) produced a loading exceeding 1.00 (1.012). This finding may suggest potential issues with model specification and the need for further refinement for a good model fit. Alternatively, there may be substantial overlap between present-oriented dimension and the other two temporal dimensions of purpose in life.

The five-factor model demonstrated the best fit among the three tested models. Although the chi-squared statistic, χ2 (153) = 3150.488, scaled = 2500.511, p < 0.001 was significant, all other fit indices indicated an excellent model fit. Both CFI (0.957, Robust = 0.959) and TLI (0.949, Robust = 0.952) exceeded the recommended 0.90 threshold. RMSEA (0.057, Robust = 0.063) and SRMR (0.068) fell within the 0.08 criteria for adequate fit. As shown in Table 3, all first- and second-order loadings exceeded the 0.40 threshold. HTMT values between MMOP-II subscales ranged from 0.249 to 0.800, all below the recommended 0.850 [34] threshold, supporting discriminant validity among these constructs. WLSMV analyses showed that the five-factor model remained superior when items were treated as ordinal. WLSMV fit indices are presented in Supplementary Materials File S4.

5.3. Concurrent Validity

Supporting the MMOP-II’s concurrent validity,

Table 6. Pearson’s correlations between MMOP-II subscales and measures of concurrent, convergent, and divergent validity for Study 2.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
CIPE	-
2. SIPE	0.48	-
3. MEAC	0.37	0.54	-
4. ISRC	0.24	0.53	0.45	-
5. FPIL	0.22	0.53	0.53	0.72	-
6. Total MMOP-II	0.47	0.76	0.71	0.82	0.91	-
7. PILT-SF	0.25	0.51	0.5	0.69	0.85	0.82	-
8. LET	0.17	0.52	0.43	0.71	0.74	0.75	0.76	-
9. CEI II Stretching	0.2	0.41	0.57	0.38	0.43	0.52	0.44	0.31	-
10. CEI II Embracing	0.14	0.4	0.49	0.36	0.41	0.48	0.4	0.3	0.75	-
11. CEI II Total	0.18	0.43	0.57	0.4	0.45	0.53	0.45	0.33	0.93	0.94	-
12. GAS GD	−0.05	−0.15	−0.25	−0.15	−0.29	−0.27	−0.34	−0.21	−0.27	−0.15	−0.22	-
13. GAS GR	0.22	0.31	0.41	0.37	0.37	0.44	0.33	0.36	0.36	0.28	0.34	0.09	-
14. SPANE Positive	0.11	0.41	0.34	0.67	0.62	0.63	0.61	0.66	0.35	0.34	0.37	−0.09	0.3	-
15. SPANE Negative	0.03	−0.28	−0.15	−0.55	−0.49	−0.46	−0.48	−0.54	−0.2	−0.19	−0.21	0.11	−0.19	−0.72	-
16. ANIQ Awareness	0.48	0.42	0.31	0.33	0.31	0.44	0.37	0.28	0.27	0.22	0.26	−0.20	0.24	0.23	−0.06	-
17. ANIQ Temporal	0.17	0.11	0.08	0.26	0.1	0.17	0.11	0.14	0.09	−0.00	0.04	−0.07	0.07	0.11	−0.12	0.29	-
18. ANIQ Causal	0.48	0.42	0.31	0.36	0.32	0.46	0.35	0.3	0.28	0.18	0.24	−0.17	0.24	0.2	−0.10	0.64	0.56	-
19. ANIQ Thematic	0.51	0.41	0.29	0.26	0.25	0.4	0.29	0.21	0.28	0.2	0.25	−0.20	0.23	0.12	−0.04	0.73	0.33	0.7	-
20. ANIQ Total	0.49	0.41	0.3	0.38	0.29	0.44	0.33	0.28	0.28	0.17	0.24	−0.19	0.29	0.2	−0.10	0.8	0.72	0.89	0.83	-
21. AHS Agency	0.23	0.51	0.48	0.66	0.75	0.76	0.81	0.67	0.56	0.51	0.57	−0.28	0.35	0.62	−0.49	0.24	0.14	0.36	0.29	0.34	-
22. AHS Pathways	0.25	0.41	0.39	0.46	0.58	0.59	0.56	0.42	0.59	0.5	0.58	−0.16	0.29	0.47	−0.39	0.34	0.17	0.4	0.35	0.38	0.71	-
23. AHS Total	0.25	0.5	0.48	0.62	0.73	0.74	0.76	0.61	0.61	0.54	0.62	−0.25	0.35	0.6	−0.48	0.37	0.16	0.41	0.34	0.39	0.95	0.9	-
24. PHQ-9	0.05	−0.26	−0.18	−0.57	−0.50	−0.46	−0.53	−0.59	−0.17	−0.16	−0.17	0.01	−0.16	−0.71	0.77	−0.08	−0.22	−0.17	0.02	−0.15	−0.55	−0.38	−0.51	-
25. GAD 7	−0.02	−0.26	−0.15	−0.49	−0.43	−0.41	−0.41	−0.49	−0.13	−0.14	−0.15	0.05	−0.12	−0.66	0.75	−0.05	−0.15	−0.14	−0.04	−0.12	−0.47	−0.38	−0.47	0.83	-

Note. Effect sizes > 0.11 are significant at the p < 0.05 level. Effect sizes > 0.15 are significant at the p < 0.01 level. Effect sizes > 0.19 are significant at the p < 0.001 level. CIPE = Coherence in Past Experiences. SIPE = Significance in Past Experiences. ISRC = Identity and social role contentment. MEAC = Motivated Exploration and Commitment. FPIL = Future-oriented purpose in life. MMOP-II = Multidimensional Measure of Purpose in Life II. PILT-SF = Purpose in Life Test—Short Form. LET = Life Engagement Test. CEI-II = Curious Exploration Inventory. GAS = Goal Adjustment Scale. SPANE = Scale of Positive and Negative Experience. ANIQ = Awareness of Narrative Identity Questionnaire. AHS = Adult Hope Scale. GAD 7 = Generalized Anxiety Disorder. PHQ 9 = Patient Health Questionnaire.

results show significant positive relationships between the PIL-SF and the LET across all MMOP-II subscales as well as the total MMOP-II score.

5.4. Convergent Validity

As shown in Table 6, the MMOP-II subscales predominantly showed significant, positive correlations with convergent validity measures. As predicted, past-orientated dimensions (CIPE and SIPE) showed the strongest relationships with the ANIQ subscales of awareness, causal coherence, and thematic coherence. The MMOP-II measure of motivated exploration and commitment exhibited particularly strong relationships with curious exploration, reflecting the overlap between these constructs. Identity and social role contentment showed a large positive correlation with the SPANE positive affect subscale. Additionally, both AHS subscales (agency and pathways) and the composite AHS score were strongly and positively correlated with future-oriented purpose in life.

Contrary to our predictions, the ANIQ temporal coherence dimension showed a stronger positive relationship with identity and social role contentment than with CIPE and SIPE, both of which showed small and insignificant effect sizes, respectively. This suggests that the general sense of coherence or significance regarding past experience may not necessarily imply temporal organization of those experiences [51]. Instead, the stronger correlation between temporal coherence and the ISRC dimension may reflect the important role of temporally structured self-narratives in identity formation, as highlighted in past research [60].

Additionally, no significant relationships were observed between coherence of past experiences and measures of positive affect. One explanation for this finding is that coherence in past experiences is a predominantly cognitive construct, whereas the other MMOP-II subscales contain more emotional or value-laden elements.

5.5. Divergent Validity

Divergent validity was largely supported in the present study with measures of goal disengagement, negative affect, depression, and anxiety showing significant, negative correlations with several MMOP-II subscales, namely SIPE, MEAC, ISRC, and FPIL, as well as the overall MMOP-II score. The CIPE subscale did not show significant correlations with measures of goal disengagement, negative affect, or psychological symptoms, aligning with interpretation of the CIPE as primarily a cognitive orientation rather than an affective of evaluative construct.

6. Discussion

In the present paper, we aimed to develop and evaluate the MMOP-II, a new measure based on a holistic, systems-based perspective of purpose in life. The MMOP-II was designed to target all nine constructs included in the purpose in life systems model, with balanced representation across past-, present-, and future-based orientations. Study 1 tested the factor structure and internal consistency reliability of the MMOP-II among Australian university students. Study 2 replicated this procedure in a community adult population and included additional measures to test the MMOP-II’s concurrent, convergent, and divergent validity.

Across the two studies, the five-factor higher order model of the MMOP-II was found to be the best fitting model to the data. All 18 items loaded significantly onto one of five dimensions of purpose in life that emerged from the exploratory factor analysis (CIPE, SIPE, MEAC, ISRC, and FPIL). Together, these subscales loaded significantly onto a higher order purpose in life construct. Purpose in life therefore appears to be a coherent, multidimensional, and higher-order construct. Hence, our findings show that the MMOP-II is both statistically supported and theoretically consistent with the systems model of purpose in life, comprising two past-oriented (CIPE and SIPE), two present-oriented (MEAC and ISRC), and one future-oriented (FPIL) component of purpose in life. Notably, the nine-component theoretical model of purpose in life differentiated from the five-factor structure of the MMOP-II, reflecting differences between conceptual and empirical organization of purpose in life. Specifically, the separation of significance and coherence in past experiences suggest that they represent distinct dimensions of past-oriented purpose in life. Moreover, ideal conceptions of the future self, self-concordant goals, goal-directed actions, and eudaimonic pleasure all converged to a single construct, suggesting these processes may be experienced as closely interconnected aspects of future-oriented purpose in life.

The MMOP-II also correlated with established measures of specific cognitive and affective patterns in theoretically expected ways. High MMOP-II total scores correlated significantly and positively with other purpose in life scales (PIL-SF and LET), indicating that these measures are likely tapping into a common underlying construct. The particular value of the MMOP-II lies in its multidimensional assessment of purpose in life, providing greater specificity regarding the past-, present-, and future-oriented dimensions underlying the broader purpose in life construct. At the subscale level, we observed stronger associations with constructs most directly aligned with each dimension. For instance, MMOP-II’s measures of coherence and significance in past experience showed strongest correlations with awareness of narrative identity. Motivated exploration and engagement aligned with our measure of curious exploration. Identity and social role contentment correlated highest with positive affect, given the overlap in contentment and hedonic (i.e., present-oriented) pleasure. Future-oriented purpose in life showed strongest associations with hope. As expected in terms of divergent validity, measures of negative affect, depression, and anxiety showed significant negative relationships with all purpose in life dimensions, except with coherence in past experiences. This exception may be explained by the primarily cognitive rather than affective focus of the coherence in past experiences dimension which does not prioritize positive or negative emotion (e.g., Item 1: I understand how I have been shaped by my experience).

Limitations and Future Research

Overall, the present study provides important and novel contributions through the development and validation of the MMOP-II. Nonetheless, key limitations deserve comment. We designed the MMOP-II with adults in mind. However, the evidence was derived solely from Australian university students and general community adults recruited from research recruitment agency. Consequently, samples for this study were Australian, predominantly white (>76%), and highly educated, with the majority of participants across both studies having attended some tertiary education. These demographic characteristics limit the generalizability to the broader population, particularly from non-WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) contexts. Further research is needed with culturally diverse samples to strengthen the applicability of the MMOP-II.

Moreover, the present study did not examine test–retest reliability of the MMOP-II. Consequently, it remains unclear how stable the results are over time and whether the measure is sensitive to change. Therefore, future research should evaluate the MMOP-II longitudinally, including its responsiveness to significant life events (e.g., onset of illness and retirement) or following psychological interventions targeting purpose in life.

Although beyond the scope for the current study, other important areas for future research would be to test the MMOP-II assessing and comparing different age groups. Existing research suggests that the structure and salience of different aspects of purpose in life may change over the course of the lifespan. For example, Pfund and Lewis [4] suggest an emergence of purpose in adolescence and early adulthood and greater stability in middle to older adulthood. Similarly, Erikson’s [61] psychosocial stages suggest that purpose can start developing from as young as three years old, with the sense of identity and social roles developing in adolescence, and contentment representing a primary concern in old age. Additionally, the present study highlights opportunities to explore clinical applications of purpose in life. The MMOP-II could be used to determine whether purpose in life fluctuates in response to cognitive affective mechanisms (e.g., awareness of narrative identity, curious exploration, and hope), and whether these fluctuations lead to psychological distress (e.g., anxiety and depression). This line of research would support the development of logic models that clarify if specific mechanisms can be targeted to support purpose in life and alleviate symptoms of distress.

7. Conclusions

The findings indicate that the MMOP-II is a psychometrically sound self-report measure of purpose in life. While further research is needed to examine the MMOP-II’s validity across diverse populations and longitudinally, the present findings indicate that the MMOP-II is a promising tool for a holistic, multidimensional, systems-based examination of purpose in life.