MEANING SELFEFFICACY SCALE (MSE): DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MEASURE OF THE PERCEIVED ABILITY TO GENERATE MEANING AFTER TRAUMATIC LIFE EVENTS

A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

By

Edward E. Waldrep

May, 2011

Thesis written by Edward E. Waldrep B.A., University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, 2008 M.A., Kent State University, 2011

Approved by

Joel W. Hughes, PhD Advisor

Maria S. Zaragoza, PhD Chair, Department of Psychology

Timothy Moerland, PhD Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... VII INTRODUCTION...... 1

CURRENT INVESTIGATION...... 16 STUDY 1 ...... 17 METHODS ...... 18 PARTICIPANTS ...... 18 MEASURES ...... 18 DATA ANALYSES ...... 23 RESULTS ...... 25 DISCUSSION ...... 31 STUDY 2 ...... 33 METHODS ...... 34 PARTICIPANTS ...... 34 MEASURES ...... 34 DATA ANALYSES ...... 41 RESULTS ...... 43 DISCUSSION ...... 50 STUDY 3 ...... 51 METHODS ...... 52 PARTICIPANTS ...... 52 MEASURES ...... 52 DATA ANALYSES ...... 57 RESULTS ...... 58 DISCUSSION ...... 60 GENERAL DISCUSSION...... 61

iii

REFERENCES ...... 68

iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Demographic information for the sample of participants administered the initial 19 item MSE scale...... 19

Table 2. Correlation coefficients for the MSE, CSE, MCSDS, and PCL measures...... 26

Table 3. Component loadings for Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation ...... 28

Table 4. Demographic information for the sample of participants administered the reduced 9 item MSE scale ...... 35

Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the MSE scale and variables investigated for convergent and divergent validity...... 44

Table 6. Factor loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with oblique rotation.....……46

Table 7. Regression analysis examining the relationship between meaning selfefficacy and posttraumatic distress after controlling for social support (N = 291)……..49

Table 8. Demographic information for the sample of participants that completed the test retest reliability study…………………………………………………….…….53

Table 9. TestRetest correlation coefficients for the MSE, CSE, PCL, SOC, and STAI measures………………………………………………………………………..59

v

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Joel Hughes for mentoring me throughout this project. I could not have accomplished this project without the love and support from my wife

Windy and daughter Zoe. I would also like to thank the members of my committee:

Douglas Delahanty, John Gunstad, and John Updegraff. I would also like to thank my labmates Bryce Hruska, Crystal Gabert, Maria Pacella, Leah Irish, and Adam Morris for their support. I accomplish this goal in memory of my parents whose unwavering support and encouragement have fueled my drive to achieve more in life. Finally, I would like to thank my sisters for the love and support they have given to me throughout my life.

vi

Introduction

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious and debilitating mental health

consequence following traumatic events that affects a substantial portion of the population (Breslau, Kessler, Chilcoat, Schultz, Davis, & Andreski, 1998; Kessler,

Sonnega, Bromet, & Nelson, 1995). Breslau and colleagues (1998) determined that as

much as 89.6 percent of the population has experienced some type of trauma (e.g. combat

exposure, assault, sexual assault); however, merely experiencing atraumatic event is not

sufficient to explain the development of PTSD (Ozer & Wiess, 2004). On average, seven percent of the population will go on to develop the disorder following a traumatic event

(Kessler et al., 1995). Understanding the reason why only a small percentage of those

exposed to traumatic events go on to develop PTSD long been a topic of debate among

researchers.

The perceived meaning of the traumatic event is an important aspect of the

response (Ehlers & Clark, 2000). highlighted the importance of meaning

following his experience as a Holocaust survivor in the Nazi concentration camps. In his book Man’s Search for Meaning (1959), Frankl described his own survival as dependent

upon his ability to find meaning to survive. He also noted that even the strongest prisoners appeared to die quickly if they lost a sense of purpose, such as finding out that

one’s family had been killed. Those who were not able to find a new source of meaning

1

2

were unable to adapt to the stress of the concentration camp. He coined the term “will to

meaning” to describe the continual process of finding meaning when what was once

meaningful is lost.

Meaning is a subjective phenomenon and is relative to each individual and may

change over time. The subjective nature of meaning makes it difficult to assess across populations (Reker & Fry, 2003). Despite its difficulties, the concept of meaning has begun to resurface in the research literature because of its continued significance in the

human response to traumatic events (Park & Ai, 2006). It has also been recently

reintegrated as an adjunct treatment to clinical interventions for PTSD (Southwick,

Gilmartin, McDonough, & Morrissey, 2006). In a sample of 9/11 terrorist attack

survivors, the ability to find meaning two months after the attack was associated with

reduced fear and posttraumatic stress symptoms (Updegraff, Silver, & Holman, 2008).

For the purposes of this research study, meaning will be defined in a manner

consistent with the conceptualization put forth by Steger and colleagues (2006) as those

aspects of life that give one a sense of purpose and provide an explanation for their own

existence. Frankl described one essential aspect for all humans is the will to meaning.

Every human being will strive to understand the world they live in and work to attain the

things that give their life value. As a Holocaust survivor, Frankl observed that individuals

that maintained a reason to live, had some meaning in life, survived better than those who

felt that life had lost all meaning. Thus, the concept of meaning in life is idiosyncratic to 3

each individual. The definition of meaning adopted should allow for individual

interpretation and establish a framework for the construct to be investigated.

Conceptualizations of Meaning

In order to have a sense of stability, humans generally prefer to think that the

world is organized in a certain order. This is the basis for JanoffBulman’s theory of

shattered assumptions that affect the human adaptation to traumatic life experiences

(1992). Her premise is that in order for the world to be meaningful we make assumptions

about the way the world operates. There are three fundamental assumptions, with

subcategories, that inform us about what to expect from the world around us. Those

assumptions refer to the benevolence of the world, meaningfulness of the world, and

worthiness of the self (JanoffBulman, 1989). The benevolence of the world is thought of

as a continuum where people will individually perceive the world as a generally good or bad place. Meaningfulness of the world is related essentially to justice. A meaningful

world is one where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. This assumption drives the negative cognition of “I’m a good person, this

shouldn’t be happening to me” often reported by trauma survivors. Good things also

should not happen to bad people according to this world assumption as well. The

worthiness of the self is the element that adjusts the individual’s perception of the world

and their place in it. A self perceived worthy person in a good world would expect to

4

have good things happen to them. A person that perceives themselves as not worthy in a

good world would not expect good things to happen for them. Traumatic events are

events that “shatter” those fundamental assumptions that gave our life meaning and the

upheaval potentially leads to PTSD.

Park and Folkman (1997) describe the concept of meaning in the human response

to stress in terms of an interaction between global meaning and situational meaning.

Global meaning encompasses the beliefs held by individuals that provide information

about how the world operates as well as the goals one has that provides a sense of purpose (Park & Folkman, 1997). Thus, global meaning is abstract and tenuously informs

one about general interactions with the environment. Situational meaning refers to the

specific interactions between an individual and the environment and is informed by the

higher order process of global meaning (Park & Folkman, 1997). The result of the two

interacting systems of meaning is that there is a wide spectrum of stressful events one can

encounter and not all of them require fundamental changes in global meaning. The process of searching for meaning is relegated to stressful events that are unable to be

resolved within situational meaning.

Measuring Meaning

The importance for individuals to develop meaning following a traumatic event

continues to be regarded as an integral but difficult to measure phenomenon

5

(Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Park & Folkman, 1997; Park & Ai, 2006; Steger, Frazier,

Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). The idiosyncratic nature of meaning serves to make measuring the phenomenon more difficult (Steger et al., 2006). Various methods have been developed

to measure meaning but often are qualitative and difficult to replicate or are confounded by unclear construct validity (Steger et al., 2006). In addition, there is a strong need for

valid measures of meaning making that can be used in longitudinal research (Park & Ai,

2006).

One recent measure developed to assess meaning is the Meaning in Life

Questionaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006). This measure has two five item scales

measuring searching for meaning and presence of meaning respectfully. Research

indicates that searching for and finding meaning early following stressful events is

associated with less subsequent distress (Davis et al., 1998; Updegraff et al., 2008) but searching for meaning does not always result in finding meaning (Updegraff et al., 2008).

Further, not everybody that experiences a stressful or traumatic event will need to find

meaning to foster adaptation to the stressor (Davis, Wortman, Lehman, & Silver, 2000;

Folkman, 1984; Park & Ai, 2006; Park & Folkman, 1997). The essential element missing

in the meaning making literature is the mechanism that facilitates the ability to find

meaning for those who are searching. The development of the MSE measure is an

attempt to identify a possible mechanism that can be quantitatively examined that may bridge the gap between searching for and finding meaning following traumatic events.

6

Posttraumatic Growth

The posttraumatic growth literature has been influential in understanding the

complexity of the human response to trauma (Park & Ai, 2006). Posttraumatic growth is based on the logic that traumatic events may cause individuals to reevaluate the

importance of things in life and that the reevaluation has the potential to lead to perceived benefits or growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996, 2004). Tedeschi and Calhoun

(1996) developed the posttraumatic growth inventory (PTGI) to assess the degree of

change experienced by trauma survivors in several domains: a) perceived changes in self; b) changed sense of relationship with others; c) changed philosophy in life. Posttraumatic

growth has been suggested as a possible target for clinical interventions that focus on

strengths rather than on vulnerabilities (Tedeschi & Kilmer, 2005).

The concept of posttraumatic change is very similar to the concept described as positive construal elsewhere in the literature (Davis, NolenHoeksema, & Larson, 1998).

The changes that occur in one’s life in these domains of posttraumatic growth are posited

to reflect positive outcomes but that view has come under scrutiny recently (Sumalla,

Ochoa, & Blanco, 2009). Hobfoll and colleagues (2007) found that posttraumatic growth

was related to greater psychological distress, retaliatory endorsement by Israeli trauma

survivors, and more extreme political views. Closer inspection of the items of the PTGI

reveals that changes in one’s orientation to more extreme views and perceived by the

7

individual as positive can result in this observation. It is not clear that posttraumatic

growth is necessarily a clear indicator of successful adaptation to traumatic events

(Maercker & Zoellner, 2004; Tedeschi & Kilmer, 2005). The association between posttraumatic growth and generating meaning in the context of posttraumatic sequelae is

not entirely clear a priori . It is possible that the search for, or acquisition of, meaning is

reflected in the posttraumatic growth outcomes.

The previous conceptualizations of meaning have been beneficial but appear to be

somewhat distinct from Frankl’s will to meaning. The will to meaning appears to be a

description of a proactive approach more like a coping process than a single act (Park &

Folkman, 1997). The process requires the ability to recall information that was important

to the individual prior to the traumatic event, evaluate what has changed following (or

during in some situations) the traumatic event, and integrating that information to make a

decision about what is important to the individual at that time. Thus, generating meaning

is a task without a clearly defined goal to reach and is subject to change throughout the process (Park & Folkman, 1997). This process is heavily invested in selfregulatory behaviors that are ideal targets for modification (Bandura, 1997).

This dynamic process can be investigated using social cognitive theory. Bandura

(1997) developed social cognitive theory to explain and predict a wide range of human behavior. In addition, the selfefficacy mechanisms through which social cognitive theory

has established its utility are malleable, and therefore may be targeted for intervention

8

following traumatic events (Benight & Bandura, 2004). The theoretical framework of

social cognitive theory may also serve as a means to investigate the importance of

meaning following a traumatic event without the difficulty of establishing an exact

definition of what meaning is relative to each individual. Investigating the perceived

ability of trauma survivors to generate meaning may accomplish this goal. The purpose of

this study is therefore to develop a measure that assesses the perceived ability of trauma

survivors to generate meaning following a traumatic event. The theoretical framework

underlying the development of the meaning selfefficacy scale (MSE) is described below.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory was developed with the fundamental observation that

humans are highly adaptable to their environments because of our ability to use self

regulation and forethought to plan our behavior (Bandura, 1997). Humans have the

capacity to think using abstract symbols to plan and guide behavior that is intended to bring about desirable results (Bandura, 1977). Thus, humans are agents able to interact

with their environments and our behaviors are the result of planned actions. The

experience from those actions is integrated into the planning of future actions. This

dynamic system is called triadic reciprocal determinism and consists of three primary

factors that influence each other as bidirectional determinants of human behavior: person

factors (cognitive, affective, and biological), behavior, and the environment (Bandura,

9

1986, 1997). These factors vary in the degree to which they influence each other. At a

given time, any one factor may be a stronger, or weaker, influence on individual behavior

in response to the different demands that may be present. For example, someone that is

trying to quit drinking would have very little environmental demands to abstain from

alcohol use if there were none available. On the other hand, if alcohol was readily

available (environmental), then the strength of the environmental influence and behavioral factors (i.e. past drinking) to abstain from drinking for the individual would be

much greater. The previous example also highlights the role of human agency in self

regulative behavior. The Social Cognitive framework places humans as active agents in

the of their environments and not limited to reacting to the situations in which

they find themselves (Bandura, 1986, 1989, 1997, 2001). As an agent shaping the

environment, the individual trying to quit drinking can choose to avoid environments that

may promote alcohol consumption (i.e. bars, night clubs) if they believe that they would be influenced to drink. The strength of the influence to drink or not involves the

individual’s perceived selfefficacy beliefs in their ability to abstain or not in an

environment where alcohol is available.

Selfefficacy beliefs are at the core of social cognitive theory. Perceived self

efficacy is one’s belief in their ability to use their skills and knowledge to bring about

desired results (Bandura, 1997). Selfefficacy beliefs appear on the surface to be similar

to outcome expectancy but they are quite distinct from one another. Outcome expectancy

10

is the notion that a given action will result in a particular outcome, whereas selfefficacy beliefs involve the individual’s belief in their ability to act in a manner to reach a desired

outcome. The predictive ability of selfefficacy beliefs are considerably greater than those

of outcome expectancy (Bandura, 1997). The strength of the selfefficacy belief directly

influences the likelihood and the type of action that will be performed as well as the

amount of effort put into it. If people believe they are not capable of performing an action

they are not likely to attempt it or will put forth very little effort into performing it well.

Selfefficacy beliefs arise from four main sources: mastery experiences, vicarious

experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997).

Mastery experiences are the most powerful source of selfefficacy beliefs because

they provide specific feedback to the individual for the behavior that has been performed

(Bandura, 1977, 1997). Successful mastery of specific task will raise selfefficacy beliefs

and sustained failures will reduce them (Bandura, 1977). The best way for someone to

know if they are capable of performing a task is the direct information that is gained from

attempting the task. Failures, especially if they are constant, should reduce the person’s belief in their ability to perform the task. It is important to note that the perception of the

success or failure is relevant to the effect that success or failure has on efficacy beliefs

(Bandura, 1977, 1997). Successful completion of a task will increase efficacy if the person perceives the success as a result of their own capability and not some external

factor. To further stress the importance of the cognitive realm in Social Cognitive theory,

11

sometimes successful completion of a task can undermine selfefficacy (Bandura, 1977).

Success that comes from a result of laborious effort may result in the perception of

having little aptitude for the performance of the given task.

Vicarious experiences are another important source of selfefficacy information.

There would not be enough time for every person to gain mastery experiences of every

human endeavor. By observing others successfully performing a task, or react to a

threatening situation (systematic desensitization), then the individual gain symbolically

formulated expectations for their own performance on a given task (Bandura, 1977;

Maddux, 1995). Merely seeing a model perform a task or demonstrate a particular

reaction is not sufficient to produce changes in the perception of selfefficacy beliefs.

Models that are similar to the individual viewing them will have a greater effect than

models that are different from them (Kazdin, 1974; Meichenbaum, 1971). Modeling behaviors can be accomplished cognitively by imagining the modeled behavior (Kazdin,

1974) but the effect of imagined, or “covert” modeling will not be as informative as viewing a directly observed model (Bandura, 1977). As noted before, the effect of vicarious experience is not as strong as mastery experiences, but at times that mastery experiences are not practical (i.e. war, natural disaster, or other traumatic scenarios) the availability of similar models may be useful to promote adaptation.

The third source of efficacy information is derived from verbal persuasion. Verbal persuasion has an overall weaker effect than other sources of efficacy, but if the

12

persuasion seems realistically achievable, it can have some effect (Bandura, 1977, 1997).

The characteristics of the person offering the verbal persuasion are very important for it

to have any effect on selfefficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1977, 1997; Maddux, 1995).

Someone offering support that appears to have no credibility has very little to no effect

on selfefficacy beliefs. Conversely, if the source of the support appears to be credible, an

expert, or the source is preferred, then it can increase the amount of effort that is put forth

and sustained (Maddux, 1995). To have the greatest effect on selfefficacy beliefs, performance feedback should be structured to provide the person with realistic feedback

on obtaining goals that are only minimally outside of their current capabilities (Bandura,

1997).

Physiological states provide the final source of selfefficacy information.

Emotional arousal in certain situations or activities can be a useful source of information

relating to capabilities for a specific situation (Bandura, 1977). A good example may be a person who is physiologically aroused from fear of heights. That arousal could be an

indicator to prevent that individual from working on skyscrapers. As Schachter and

Singer (1962) demonstrated, the arousal alone is not the sole determinant of the human

response to physiological responses, but how that arousal is attributed and interpreted is

much more important. The perception of our arousal is integrated into the selfregulatory

system and provides valuable information that allows the individual to make decisions

about their abilities and plan goals accordingly (Bandura, 1991, 1997).

13

Selfefficacy beliefs come from the four sources mentioned but to fully understand their predictive utility it is important that they are interpreted as appropriate given their magnitude, generality, and strength (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997; Maddux,

1995). Magnitude refers to the levels of functioning that the selfefficacy beliefs related to the level of difficulty inherent in the task. It may range from high selfefficacy in easy levels of difficulty to low selfefficacy in more difficult levels of performance. The generality of a selfefficacy belief can range from the specific situation, or it may extend to other areas of functioning. For example, belief in the ability to ride a bicycle may extend to motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or other basic riding skills. The strength of the selfefficacy belief is also very important to consider. Weak beliefs can be reduced easily, and strong beliefs may persist after continuous performance failures.

Social Cognitive Theory of Traumatic Recovery

The experience of a traumatic event can be understood as encountering an event or situation that exceeds one’s abilities to control or meet the demands of the situation.

Helplessness is one of the main diagnostic criteria for the reaction to a traumatic event

(American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000) and can result from the perception that an individual is not able to exert influence over their environment (Abromsom, Seligman,

& Teasdale, 1978). Given the unpredictable nature of traumatic events, exerting control over the situation is likely impossible. If it were possible, then people would avoid the

14

situation altogether. Social cognitive theory states that the individual’s perceived ability

to exert some control over the situation (e.g., cognitive rather than physical) will be more predictive of their reaction and adaptation to the event than the actual outcome (Benight

& Bandura, 2004). Reviewing the theories and literature surrounding the human

adaptation to traumatic stress, Benight and Bandura (2004) determined that coping self

efficacy (CSE, the perceived ability to meet the demands of posttraumatic recovery) is a

significant mediator of posttraumatic distress. CSE has been found to be an important

variable in understanding and predicting posttraumatic reactions (Benight & Bandura,

2004; Benight, Freyaldenhoven, Hughes, Ruiz, Zaschke, & Lovallo, 2000; Benight &

Harper, 2002; Benight et al., 1999; Benight, Swift, Sanger, Smith, & Zeppelin, 1999).

MSE Scale Development

The MSE scale was developed to assess the perceived ability to generate meaning

following a traumatic event. Bandura (2006) provided a guide to develop selfefficacy

scales. The recommendations include using a Likerttype scale with a range of values between 0 and 10, and formulating items specific to the construct intended to measure.

Existing scales were examined to gain an understanding about the content that should be

included and what already exists. An unpublished measure of general coping selfefficacy

(CSE), the Assumptive Worlds scale (JanoffBulman, 1989), and a measure of

meaningless (unknown title and author) were examined to formulate MSE item content.

15

The items generated for the MSE scale use language that implies the performance of a behavior (i.e. generate meaning in my life…) and are scored on an 11 point Likert type

scale ranging from 0 “not at all able” to 10 “highly able.” The items were worded directly

to investigate the construct of generating meaning (Bandura, 1992; 2006). An initial item pool of 19 items was generated by the author to investigate the construct of MSE.

Participants were prompted to rate his or her perceived ability to engage in the behavior

of each item “as of right now.”

Current Investigation

This investigation describes several studies conducted in the development and validation of the MSE scale. Study 1 describes the item pool selection and principal components analysis of the MSE as well as the convergent and criterion validity of the measure. If the MSE construct is valid, then it should be positively associated CSE and negatively associated with posttraumatic distress. The measure should not be significantly associated with social desirability. Study 2 describes the maximum likelihood investigation of the factor structure for the reduced MSE scale resulting from the principal components analysis of Study 1. The reduced form of the measure should continue to be positively associated with adaptive measures and negatively associated with measures of distress and anxiety. An additional hypothesis investigated in Study 2 is that the MSE will predict unique variance in posttraumatic distress after controlling for social support. Study 3 investigates the temporal stability of the MSE over a two week timeframe.

16

Study 1

17

Method

Participants

Data was collected from 277 undergraduate students that participated in the study to gain extra credit for psychology courses. The sample was mostly female (83%) and

Caucasian (79.1%). Further demographic information for the population is provided in

Table 1. A total of 19 participants reported not experiencing a trauma. Data analysis did not differ with the no trauma participants excluded and were therefore not excluded from the final analysis.

Measures

Demographics. A 9 item demographics questionnaire was included in the study to gather information about participants’ age, ethnicity, gender, marital status, employment, education, income, home status (i.e. rent, own), and religious preference. See table 1 for details.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL) . The Posttraumatic Stress

Disorder Checklist (Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1994) is a 17item self report measure assessing 17 core symptoms of PTSD as specified by DSMIV (APA,

1994). The PCL asks participants to rate how much they were bothered by each PTSD

18

19

Table 1

Demographic information for the sample of participants administered the initial 19 item

MSE scale.

Characteristic %

Age 23(6.81)

Female 83

Race

Caucasian 79.1

African American 6.5

Hispanic 7.9

Asian 2.5

Native American 0.7

Other 3.2

Education

Some High School 0.4

High School Graduate 8.3

Some College 83.8

College Graduate 7.2

Graduate School + 0.4

Marital Status

20

Married 20.5

Divorced 2.9

Single 63.9

Living with a Partner 11.9

Widowed 0.7

Income

$65,000 and above 13

$45,00065,000 12.3

$25,00045,000 20.2

$5,00025,000 37.9

Less than $5,000 16.6

Hours at Work per Week

None 27.4

1 – 20 37.9

21 – 40 28.9

40+ 5.8

Home Status

Rent 44

Own 26.4

Other 29.6

21

Religious Preference

Christian 64.6

Jewish 2.2

Hindu 0.4

Muslim 0.4

Other 11.6

Not Religious 20.9

Note. Age is reported as the sample mean and standard deviation in parentheses.

Numbers reported reflect the percentage of the total sample for each item.

22

symptom in the past month on a 1 5point Likerttype scale in which 1 indicates “not at all” and 5 indicates “extremely”. In the current sample, the scale reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .92.

MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS). The MCSDS (Crowne &

Marlowe, 1960) is a 33 item selfreport measure that was developed to measure the social desirability of individuals that are not undergoing assessment for psychopathology.

Participants respond true or false to items that may indicate presentation of oneself in a more favorable manner. In the current sample, the scale reported an adequate level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .76.

Coping SelfEfficacy (CSE). The CSE is a measure designed by Dr. Charles

Benight at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs to assess the selfreported competency of meeting the demands of coping following a traumatic event. The scale consists of 20 questions and utilizes a seven point Likerttype scale anchored with 1 indicating “not at all capable” and 7 indicating “I’m totally capable.” This measure was included in the study to provide information related to convergent validity. Both measures were developed using the same theoretical framework but intended for dissimilar constructs. In the current sample, the measure reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha rating of .96.

Procedure

23

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and all participants signed informed consent prior to participating in the research. Participants

signed up to participate in the study using an online research program sponsored by the

university. Participants were invited to participate in the study if they had experienced a psychological trauma during their lifetime. The criterion A1 for the DSMIVTR PTSD

diagnosis (experiencing or witnessing an event that threatened death or physical harm to

the individual or another) was given to participants to clarify what is defined as a

traumatic event(American Psychiatric Association [DSMIVTR], 2000). Participants

then responded to an online survey and were awarded extra credit for their psychology

courses when they exited the survey. Participants were not required to complete the

survey to receive credit. Exiting the system before completing the survey deleted the participant’s responses and the data was therefore not used in the analysis.

Data Analysis

Pearson product moment correlations were examined to determine the performance of the MSE scale to the related CSE measure, social desirability, and posttraumatic distress. The initial 19 items of the MSE was submitted to principal

components analysis with varimax rotation to identify the items of the measure that were

accounting for the most variance (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Stahan, 1999;

Floyd & Widaman, 1995). Component loadings greater than .40 are considered

significant (Field, 2009). Components were analyzed based on Eigen values greater than

24

one and an analysis of the scree plot. Item retention was determined based on the amount of variance accounted for by component loadings as well as the theoretical relevance to the construct of meaning selfefficacy. Cronbach’s alpha was examined for the MSE scale to investigate intercorrelations among the items as a measure of internal consistency.

Results

All analyses investigating the psychometric properties of the MSE were conducted using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS, v15). The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations for the variables investigated are presented in Table 2 below. Participants in the study reported a low level of posttraumatic distress

(M = 39.16, SD = 13.44) falling well below the recommended cutoff score of 51 on the

PCL (Ruggiero, Ben, Scotti, & Rabalais, 2003). The 19 items of the MSE reported a

Cronbach’s alpha of .89 indicating good internal consistency. Pearson correlations indicate that the MSE performed in a manner consistent with the theoretical development of the measure. The MSE was significantly positively correlated to the CSE measure indicating convergent validity. Importantly, the correlation coefficient between the MSE and the CSE was strong ( r = .67, p < .01) but low enough to indicate that the MSE is measuring something unique from the CSE measure. Participants reported high levels of meaning selfefficacy ( M = 123.08, SD = 28.73) and coping selfefficacy ( M = 103.83,

25

26

Table 2

Correlation coefficients for the MSE, CSE, MCSDS, and PCL measures.

Measure 1 2 3 4

1. MSE 1

2. CSE .67** 1

3. MCSDS .21** .31** 1

4. PCL .32** .63** .22** 1

M 123.08 103.83 15.67 39.16

SD 28.73 22.70 5.09 13.44

Note. ** indicates p < .01. MSE = Meaning SelfEfficacy scale; CSE = Coping Self

Efficacy scale; MCSDS = MarlowCrowne Social Desirability Scale; PCL =

Posttraumatic Checklist – civilian version; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Higher scores on the MSE and CSE reflect adaptive selfefficacy beliefs; higher scores on the

MCSDS reflect presenting oneself in a positive fashion; higher scores on the PCL reflect greater posttraumatic distress.

27

SD = 22.7). This result is consistent with the theory of the MSE scale’s development and the literature supporting CSE (Benight & Bandura, 2004; Benight & Harper, 2002).

Principal components analysis with orthogonal rotation indicated four components with

Eigen values greater than one accounting for 61.3% of the variance: Generating Meaning,

Perceived Meaning, Religion/Control, and Just World. Component loadings for the items are reported in Table 3. The Generating Meaning component accounted for 38.4% of the variance with 11 items reporting significant loadings: the Perceived Meaning component accounted for 9.5% of the variance and had 3 items with significant loadings; the

Religion/Control component accounted for 7.5% of the variance with 2 items loading significantly on it; the Just World component accounted for 5.8% of the variance and had

4 items with significant loadings.

28

Table 3

Component loadings for Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation.

Item Generating Perceived Religion/ Just

Meaning Meaning Control World

1. Look at my trauma in .09 .86 .05 .08 such a way as to find meaning in the event.

2. To not believe that life is .20 .21 .54 .12 ruled by chance.

3. Believe that there is a plan .11 .21 .83 .13 for all of us.

4. Generate meaning in my life .52 .56 .27 .04 after my trauma.

5. Find meaning in my life through .15 .08 .85 .08 my religious beliefs.

6. Develop some philosophy that .35 .64 .19 .06 will help me accept my trauma.

7. Believe that you can count .48 .18 .24 .55 on things in life.

29

8. Make choices that have a .69 .26 .19 .17

direct impact on my life.

9. Believe misfortune can be .45 .00 .12 .31

avoided by taking precautions.

10. Find meaning and purpose .78 .21 .23 .06 in my life.

11. Believe that my trauma had .19 .71 .24 .13 meaning.

12. Find a greater sense of purpose .69 .38 .26 .05 in my life.

13. Recognize the things that give .69 .25 .31 .01 my life value.

14. Believe that people get what .18 .16 .13 .74 they deserve in life.

15. View the world as a good place. .32 .12 .15 .68

16. Live my life as I did before the .47 .11 .01 .61 trauma.

17. Work harder for the things that .79 .13 .10 .09 are important to me.

18. Accept my trauma and continue .72 .20 .02 .22

30

on with my life.

19. Control thoughts about life being .55 .06 .18 .37

futile and absurd.

Note. Component loadings > .4 are in bold font. Data presented represents the four principal components identified using PCA with orthogonal rotation. Items were examined for retention based on component loadings, percent of variance explained, and content to be included on the reduced measure.

Discussion

The MSE scale demonstrated a significant negative relationship with posttraumatic distress providing initial evidence of criterion validity. The measure also demonstrated initial evidence of convergent validity with CSE. The PCA of the measure indicated four components that accounted for the majority of the variance in the MSE.

However, analysis of the scree plot indicates that the performance of the measure is best accounted for as one single component. In addition, three items loaded significantly on more than one component. Inspection of the items indicated that some items should be removed from the measure for several reasons. First, some of the items contained double statements making responses more difficult to respond to and interpret (Clark & Watson,

1995). For example, the item “Control thoughts about life being futile and absurd” may be confusing to answer because the respondent is asked about their perceived ability to control thoughts as well as respond to life being futile and absurd. The Religion/Control factor also appears to add little to the performance of the measure. Of the two items loading significantly on the component, one item is awkwardly phrased making it potentially open to distorted responses by individuals with lower reading levels (Clark &

Watson, 1995). There are already several good measures of religious coping in the literature so it was determined that the component could be eliminated from the measure

31

32

(see Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005). A total of 9 items of the MSE were retained for further analysis in Study 2.

Study 2

The primary goals of this study were to examine the convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity of the reduced 9 item MSE instrument. An additional goal of this study was to examine factor structure of the reduced measure in a sample of undergraduate students.

33

Method

Participants

Data was collected on 318 undergraduate students that participated in the study to gain extra credit for psychology courses. Of the overall sample, 27 participants appeared to not respond to the question content and were excluded from the final analyses.

Participants were determined to be nonresponders by invariable responses on more than one measure in the study (e.g. either maximum or minimum scores). The resulting sample consisted of 291 participants with valid data. The remaining sample was mostly female (51.9%) and Caucasian (83.8%). Further demographic information for the population is provided in Table 4.

Measures

Demographics. A 9 item demographics questionnaire was included in the study to gather information about participants’ age, ethnicity, gender, marital status, employment, education, income, home status (i.e. rent, own), and religious preferences.

Traumatic Stress Schedule (TSS). The TSS is a self report measure that assesses ten different categories of traumatic experiences including a nonspecific question. The measure consists of both open and closed ended questions scored on a 6 point Likerttype

34

35

Table 4

Demographic information for the sample of participants administered the reduced 9 item

MSE scale.

Characteristic %

N 291

Age 20.1(3.7)

Female 51.9

Race

Caucasian 83.8

African American 8.9

Hispanic 2.4

Asian 2.1

Native American 0.7

Other 2.1

Education

Some High School 0.7

High School Graduate 18.2

Some College 80.1

College Graduate 1

Marital Status

36

Married 3

Divorced 0.7

Single 90.7

Living with a Partner 5.5

Income

$65,000 and above 15.8

$45,00065,000 10.3

$25,00045,000 11.7

$5,00025,000 24.4

Less than $5,000 37.8

Hours at Work per Week

None 53.3

1 – 20 32.6

21 – 40 12.7

40+ 1.4

Home Status

Rent 34

Own 17.5

Other 48.5

Religious Preference

37

Christian 72.2

Jewish 1

Hindu 0.3

Muslim 1.7

Not Religious 18.9

Other 5.8

Note. Age is reported as the sample mean and standard deviation in parentheses.

Numbers reported reflect the percentage of the total sample for each item.

38

scale to assess the severity and impact of traumatic events. The most common trauma reported in the current sample was the death of close friend or family to accident, suicide, or murder (51.5%), followed by assault (34.7%), and seeing someone seriously injured or killed (32.6%). The majority of participants reported experiencing more than one type of trauma (69.1%).

Meaning SelfEfficacy (MSE). The MSE used in this analysis was the reduced 9 item measure resulting from the previous analysis. The scale reported a high internal consistency coefficient with a Cronbach’s alpha ratings of .89, 87, and 86 for the full scale, Generating Meaning, and Perceived Meaning subscales respectively. The high intercorrelations among the items are quite high considering the small number of items that are included in the scale. This indicated that the measure performed as well with the reduced number of items focused more closely on the construct of generating meaning.

Coping SelfEfficacy (CSE). The CSE is a measure designed by Dr. Charles

Benight to assess the selfreported competency of meeting the demands of coping following a traumatic event. The scale consists of 20 questions and utilizes a seven point

Likerttype scale with 1 (not at all capable) and 7 (I’m totally capable). This measure was included in the study to provide information about convergent validity. Both measures were developed using the same theoretical framework but intended for slightly dissimilar constructs. In the current sample, the measure reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha rating of .95.

39

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL) . The Posttraumatic Stress

Disorder Checklist (Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1994) is a 17item self report measure assessing 17 core symptoms of PTSD as specified by DSMIV (APA,

1994). The PCL asks participants to rate how much they were bothered by each PTSD symptom in the past month on a 1 5point Likerttype scale in which 1 indicates “not at all” and 5 indicates “extremely”. In the current sample, the scale reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.

MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS). The MCSDS (Crowne &

Marlowe, 1960) is a 33 item selfreport measure that was developed to measure the social desirability of individuals that are not undergoing assessment for psychopathology.

Participants respond true or false to items that may indicate presentation of oneself in a more favorable manner. In the current sample, the scale reported an adequate level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .72.

StaitTrait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) (STAI). The STAI (Spielberger, Gorsuch,

Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) is a 40 item selfreport measure that assesses state and trait characteristics of anxiety. The current study used the 20 item scale reflecting state anxiety. This measure was included to examine the relationship between trait anxiety and its relationship to MSE. This scale reported a high level of internal consistency with a

Cronbach’s alpha of .89.

40

Social Support. Social support (SOC) was analyzed in the study using a six item self report measure of the perceived emotional availability of emotional and tangible support. The measure uses a 1 5 point Likert type scale with items scaled to reflect the how often the support indicated is available. Items are coded to range from 1 “None of the time” to 5 “All of the time.” Social support is an important predictor of the development of PTSD (Ozer, Best, Lipsey, & Weiss, 2003; Ozer & Weiss, 2004). In the current sample, the scale reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90.

Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI). The PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) is a 21 item self report measure designed to investigate the positive aspects of post trauma events. The measure is intended to estimate the positive change experienced by trauma survivors in several domains: new possibilities, relating to others, personal strength, spiritual change, and appreciation of life. The PTGI reported a high level of internal consistency in the sample with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95.

Procedure

This study was approved by the IRB and all participants signed informed consent prior to participating in the research. Participants signed up to participate in the study using an online research program sponsored by the university. Participants were invited to participate in the study if they had experienced a psychological trauma during their lifetime. The criterion A1 for the DSMIVTR PTSD diagnosis (experiencing or

41

witnessing an event that threatened death or physical harm to the individual or another)

was given to participants to clarify what is defined as a traumatic event(American

Psychiatric Association [DSMIVTR], 2000). Participants then responded to an online

survey and were awarded extra credit for their psychology courses when they exited the

survey. Participants were not required to complete the survey to receive credit. Exiting

the system before completing the survey deleted the participant’s responses and the data

was therefore not used in the analysis.

Data Analysis

Pearson product moment correlations were examined to determine the performance of the reduced MSE scale to the related CSE measure, social desirability, posttraumatic distress, posttraumatic growth, and anxiety. The reduced 9 items of the

MSE were then submitted to exploratory factor analysis with maximum likelihood

estimation and promax rotation. This method of analysis was used to investigate the performance of the items of the measure while not assuming factor orthogonality

(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Stahan, 1999; Floyd & Widaman, 1995). Factor

loadings greater than .40 are considered significant. Factors were analyzed based on a

combination of factors with Eigen values greater than one and an analysis of the scree plot. Cronbach’s alpha was examined for the MSE scale to investigate intercorrelations

among the items as a measure of internal consistency. Hierarchical multiple linear

regression was utilized to investigate the strength of the relationship between MSE and

42

posttraumatic distress. Social support was included in the first block of the model to

investigate whether or not the MSE scale is accounting for a unique portion of the

variance in the outcome measure after controlling for social support.

Results

All analyses of the MSE were conducted using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS, v18). The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations for the variables investigated are presented in Table 5. Participants in the current sample reported posttraumatic distress levels below the recommended cutoff values for the PCL

(Ruggiero et al., 2003). Pearson correlations indicate that the MSE continued to perform in a manner consistent with the theoretical development of the measure with the reduced number of items. The MSE was significantly positively correlated to the CSE measure maintaining convergent validity in the current sample. Exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation and analysis of the scree plot indicated two factors with Eigen values greater than one that accounted for a total of 68.7% of the variance (see table 6). The first factor reflects Generating Meaning with 6 items reporting significant factor loadings.

Example items from this scale include “Find a greater sense of purpose in my life” and

“Generate meaning in my life after my trauma.” The second factor reflects Perceived

Meaning with 3 items reporting significant factor loadings. An example item from this scale is “Look at my trauma in such a way as to find meaning in the event.” The MSE

43

44

Table 5

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the MSE scale and variables

investigated for convergent and divergent validity.

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. MSE 1

2. CSE .56** 1

3. MCSDS .05 .18** 1

4. PCL .18** .56** .21** 1

5. SOC .32** .40** .17** .31** 1

6. PTGI .18** .04 .16** .15* .19** 1

7. STAI .30** .58** .31** .60 .38** .01 1

M 63.72 107.53 15.88 33.89 23.91 54.40 42.36

SD 17.48 22.14 4.78 11.80 5.45 23.72 9.30

Note . * indicates p < .05, ** indicates p < .01. MSE = Meaning SelfEfficacy scale; CSE

= Coping SelfEfficacy scale; MCSDS = MarlowCrowne Social Desirability Scale; PCL

= Posttraumatic Checklist – civilian version; SOC = social support; PTGI = Posttraumatic

Growth Inventory; STAI = StateTrait Anxiety Index; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Higher scores on the MSE and CSE scales represent adaptive selfefficacy; higher scores on the MCSDS reflect presenting oneself in a positive fashion; higher

45

scores on the PCL reflect greater posttraumatic distress; higher scores on the SOC reflect

more perceived social support available; higher scores on the PTGI reflect more posttraumatic change interpreted as growth; higher scores on the STAI reflect greater

state anxiety.

46

Table 6

Factor loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with oblique rotation.

Generating Perceived

Item Meaning Meaning

1. Look at my trauma in .15 1.07

such a way as to find meaning

in the event.

2. Develop some philosophy that .25 .64

will help me accept my trauma.

3. Make choices that have a .71 .06 direct impact on my life.

4. Generate meaning in my life .82 .08 after my trauma.

5. Find a greater sense of purpose .84 .01 in my life.

6. Believe that my trauma had .12 .63 meaning.

47

7. Recognize the things that give .70 .07

my life value.

8. Work harder for the things that .62 .02

are important to me.

9. Accept my trauma and continue .58 .07 on with my life.

Note. Factor loadings > .4 are in bold font.

48

resulted in Cronbach’s alphas of .89, .87, and .86 for the full scale, Generating Meaning and Perceived Meaning subscales respectively, indicating good internal consistency.

Regression indicated that social support significantly predicted less posttraumatic distress symptoms, β = .31 t(291) = 5.46, p < .001. However, when MSE was included in the next step of the model it was not significantly accounting for a unique portion of the variance in posttraumatic distress symptoms β = .09 t(291) = 1.56, ns (see Table 7).

49

Table 7

Regression analysis examining the relationship between meaning selfefficacy and posttraumatic distress after controlling for social support (N = 291).

B SE B β

______

Step 1

Social Support .66 .12 .31**

Step 2

Social Support .60 .13 .28**

MSE .06 .04 .09

2 R Change .01

F Change 2.44

Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01.

Discussion

The analysis of the reduced 9 item MSE measure indicated that the measure is best accounted for by two factors: Generating Meaning and Perceived Meaning. The

internal consistency for the total score for the measure and the subscales were good. The

MSE demonstrated convergent validity with CSE and discriminant validity with social

desirability. The MSE was significantly and negatively correlated with posttraumatic

distress in this sample providing evidence of criterion validity. However, the magnitude

of the relationship with posttraumatic distress was not as strong as it was with the larger

measure. In addition, the MSE did not account for unique variance in posttraumatic

distress in after controlling for social support.

50

Study 3

The specific goal of this study was to examine the testretest reliability of the 9 item MSE measure over a two week interval.

51

Method

Participants

Data was collected on 73 undergraduate students that participated in the study to gain extra credit for psychology courses. Of the overall sample, 43 (59%) participants provided data for both time points testretest reliability of the MSE and were included in the analyses. The remaining sample was mostly female (87.3%) and Caucasian (81.4%).

The average time between completing questionnaires was 16.5 (SD = 2.7) days. The

Further demographic information for the population is provided in Table 8.

Measures

Demographics. A 9 item demographics questionnaire was included in the study to gather information about participants’ age, ethnicity, gender, marital status, employment, education, income, home status (i.e. rent, own), and religious preferences.

Traumatic Stress Schedule (TSS). TSS is a self report measure that assesses ten different categories of traumatic experiences including a nonspecific question. The measure consists of both open ended questions and questions scored on a 6 point Likert type scale to assess the severity and impact of traumatic events. The most common trauma reported in the current sample is the death of close friend or family to accident,

52

53

Table 8

Demographic information for the sample of participants that completed the testretest

reliability study.

Characteristic %

Age 19.4(2.1)

Female 87.3

Race

Caucasian 81.4

African American 9.3

Hispanic 4.7

Other 4.7

Education

High School Graduate 39.5

Some College 60.5

Marital Status

Married 2.3

Single 93

Living with a Partner 4.7

Income

$65,000 and above 7

54

$45,00065,000 13.9

$25,00045,000 4.7

$5,00025,000 21

Less than $5,000 53.5

Hours at Work per Week

None 46.5

1 – 20 39.5

21 – 40 14

Home Status

Rent 25.6

Own 9.3

Other 65.1

Religious Preference

Christian 74.4

Jewish 2.3

Buddhist 2.3

Not Religious 14

Other 7

Note. Age is reported as the sample mean and standard deviation in parentheses.

Numbers reported reflect the percentage of the total sample for each item.

55

suicide, or murder (51.2%), followed by motor vehicle accident resulting in injury

(34.9%), and seeing someone seriously injured or killed (27.9%) and 48.7 percent

experiencing more than one type of trauma.

Meaning SelfEfficacy (MSE). The MSE used in this analysis is the reduced 9 item

measure described previously. The scale reported a high internal consistency coefficient

with a Cronbach’s alpha rating of .92, .92, and .78 for time 1 full scale, Generating

Meaning, and Perceived Meaning subscales, and .89, .91, .89 for time 2 full scale,

Generating Meaning, and Perceived Meaning subscales respectively.

Coping SelfEfficacy (CSE). The CSE is a measure designed by Dr. Charles

Benight to assess the selfreported competency of meeting the demands of coping

following a traumatic event. The scale consists of 20 questions and utilizes a seven point

Likerttype scale with 1 (not at all capable) and 7 (I’m totally capable). In the current

sample, the measure reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha

rating of .96 for time 1 and .97 for time 2.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ChecklistCivilian Version (PCL) . The

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane,

1994) is a 17item selfreport measure assessing 17 core symptoms of PTSD as specified by DSMIV (APA, 1994). The PCL asks participants to rate how much they were bothered by each PTSD symptom in the past month on a 1 5point Likerttype scale in

which 1 indicates “not at all” and 5 indicates “extremely”. In the current sample, the scale

56

reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .94 for time 1

and .97 for time 2.

StaitTrait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) (STAI). The STAI (Spielberger, Gorsuch,

Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) is a 40 item selfreport measure that assesses state and

trait characteristics of anxiety. The current study used the 20 item scale reflecting state

anxiety. This scale reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha

of .93 for both time 1 and time 2.

Social Support. Social support (SOC) was analyzed in the study using a six item self report measure of the perceived emotional availability of emotional and tangible support. The measure uses a 1 5 point Likert type scale with items scaled to reflect the how often the support indicated is available. Items are coded to range from 1 “None of the time” to 5 “All of the time.” In the current sample, the scale reported a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 for time 1 and .86 for time 2.

Procedure

This study was approved by the IRB and all participants signed informed consent prior to participating in the research. Participants signed up to participate in a two part study using an online research program sponsored by the university. Participants were invited to participate in the study if they had experienced a psychological trauma during their lifetime. The criterion A1 for the DSMIVTR PTSD diagnosis (experiencing or witnessing an event that threatened death or physical harm to the individual or another)

57

was given to participants to clarify what is defined as a traumatic event(American

Psychiatric Association [DSMIVTR], 2000). Participants then responded to an online survey and were awarded extra credit for their psychology courses when they exited the survey. Two weeks later, the participants were sent an email with a password to log in to the second part of the study to complete the second survey. Participants were not required to complete the surveys to receive credit. Participants that did not complete the first survey were not sent an email to participate in the second iteration of the study. Exiting the system before completing the survey deleted the participant’s responses and the data was therefore not used in the analysis.

Data Analysis

Pearson product moment correlations were calculated to investigate the relationship between the MSE, CSE, STAI, SOC, and the PCL variables over a two week interval.

Results

All analyses of the MSE were conducted using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS, v18). The means, standard deviations, and Pearson testretest correlation coefficients for the variables investigated are presented in Table 9. Similar to Studies 1 and 2, participants reported a low level of posttraumatic distress symptoms. The temporal stability of the two subscales was investigated as well and they were determined to be modestly correlated. The testretest correlation coefficients for the Generating Meaning and Perceived Meaning subscales were .58 and .50 respectively.

58

59

Table 9

TestRetest correlation coefficients for the MSE, CSE, PCL, SOC, and STAI measures.

Time 1 Time 2

Measure M(SD ) M(SD ) r

MSE 63.98(15.59) 61.91(14.77) .58**

CSE 107.12(21.96) 107.70(24.03) .77**

PCL 31.28(12.97) 31.60(13.82) .74**

SOC 24.12(4.44) 25.14(4.09) .58**

STAI 41.42(10.93) 40.86(10.62) .90**

Note . * indicates p < .05, ** indicates p < .01. MSE = Meaning SelfEfficacy scale; CSE

= Coping SelfEfficacy scale; PCL = Posttraumatic Checklistcivilian version; SOC = social support; STAI = StateTrait Anxiety Scale, M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

Higher scores on the MSE and CSE scales represent adaptive selfefficacy; higher scores on the SOC reflect more perceived social support available; higher scores on the PCL reflect greater posttraumatic distress; higher scores on the STAI reflect greater state anxiety.

Discussion

The testretest reliability for the MSE instrument was modest over a twoweek

interval. It is possible that the low reliability of the measure may reflect the low distress

of the sample. The participants may not have responded to the measure consistently because they have not experienced traumatic events that cause significant enough distress to prompt a need for generating meaning. It is also possible that some of the participants responded differently to the measure on the second assessment because of reflecting on the impact of the traumatic experience.

60

General Discussion

This study investigated the reliability and validity of a new selfreport measure to assess the perceived ability to generate meaning in survivors of traumatic life events. The initial pool of 19 items was generated to reflect the theoretical construct of generating meaning after trauma. Through the process of empirically examining the items and theoretical considerations, a reduced 9 item measure was produced that reflects the MSE construct. This measure can be used as a single overall measure of MSE although two subscales were identified for the instrument as well: Generating Meaning and Perceived

Meaning. Internal consistencies for the full scale measure as well as the subscales indicated were good but the testretest reliabilities were modest. The construct validity of the MSE was supported by the strong relationship with the CSE measure. The MSE and subscales were also associated negatively with posttraumatic distress symptoms and anxiety. However, the correlation coefficients with posttraumatic distress were significant but weak. The MSE was not significantly correlated with social desirability, age, ethnicity, income, or education.

The MSE was significantly and positively associated with posttraumatic growth in the current investigation. However, unlike the MSE, posttraumatic growth was associated

61

62

with greater posttraumatic distress. The reason for the differential performance of the

instruments is not selfevident but it may reflect the inconsistent association of posttraumatic growth and psychological outcomes (Maercker & Zoellner, 2004; Tedeschi

& Kilmer, 2005). Further investigation of both constructs in a clinical setting may be

useful to determine whether the observed differences are maintained.

The relationship between MSE and posttraumatic distress was significant and

associated in the conceptually derived direction but with only a weak correlation.

However, the MSE demonstrated a strong positive correlation with CSE in each of the

administrations and the CSE had stronger relationship with posttraumatic distress. That

leads to the question that if the two measures have a strong positive relationship, why is

there such a difference in the amount of posttraumatic distress variance accounted by the

two measures? One possible explanation for this is that the sample reports experiencing

overall low levels of posttraumatic distress. The majority of participants in each sample

did not report posttraumatic distress symptoms to a degree that suggests possible PTSD

(Rugiero, et al., 2003). In addition, CSE has been shown to mediate posttraumatic distress

following natural disasters (Benight & Harper, 2002) and motor vehicle accident trauma

(Benight, Cieslak, Molton, & Johnson, 2008) indicating that CSE may have a more

clearly identified role in posttraumatic recovery.

It is also clear that experiencing a traumatic event is not sufficient to develop

significant disruptions as a result of that experience (Bonano, 2004). Recent research

63

investigating the concept of resiliency following trauma has supported the notion that the

experience of a traumatic life event alone is not an efficient factor cause long term psychological distress (Bonanno, 2004) and that there are many factors that influence

resiliency such as age, gender, education, and social support among others (Bonanno,

Galea, Bucciarelli, & Vlahov, 2007). In addition, traumatic life experiences may shatter

the assumptions we have about the world (JanoffBulman, 1992), leading to posttraumatic distress, but not all events will necessitate the search for new meaning in life (Emmons, Colby, & Kaiser, 1998). For example, a severe motor vehicle accident may shatter the assumption of a just world in that someone may have positive selfperceptions and experience a negative event. However, that event may not serve as an impetus to search for a new meaning in life. Before the event, the individual may have had a relative meaning in life that was conceptualized as being a good parent (Battista & Almond,

1973) in which the event would not necessarily threaten the individual’s life meaning.

However, a traumatic event such as a rape that occurs to an individual that may consider his/her identity as a paragon of purity may have a more salient threat to personal meaning in life.

The intended role of MSE in the context of posttraumatic coping processes is to identify a possible mechanism to find meaning when the need is present. The search for meaning following traumatic life events can result in long term distress (Davis et al.,

1998; Updegraff et al., 2008). Updegraff et al. (2008) report that following the 9/11

64

terrorist attacks, individuals that were able to find meaning after the attack experienced

less psychological distress and those who were searching for meaning two years after the

event. Other measures, such as the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006)

examine the extent to which has already found or possesses a sense of meaning in life or

are actively searching for meaning. Such measures are important and have highlighted

the importance of finding meaning following trauma but are potentially limited in the

ability to connect the search for meaning to the attainment of meaning. The MSE

capitalizes on the dynamic selfregulative process of selfefficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997)

to identify a mechanism that may be modified in the response to traumatic life events.

Therefore, the MSE is an attempt to bridge the gap between the search for meaning and

the actual attainment of meaning.

How would the MSE help an individual that is searching for meaning in life

actually find meaning? Ideally, the MSE can be used as a clinical instrument to identify

an individual’s low perception of his or her ability to generate meaning. Thereby

identifying a potential area of interest in the recovery process and allow for therapy to

focus some clinical attention to enhancing MSE. Southwick et al. (2003) introduced

Logotherapy, focused on healing through meaning (Frankl, 1969), as an

adjunct therapy for treating veterans with PTSD and reported positive results with its

implementation. The implementation helped veterans find something meaningful to pursue that was relative to their own recovery process (Southwick, et al., 2003).

65

However, oneonone time in psychotherapy is a very limited resource and should be

spent in the most efficient manner possible. If the individual’s specific experience does

not indicate generating meaning is of particular interest then the clinical attention would be better focused on different aspects of posttraumatic recovery. The brief MSE

inventory can be administered to determine if clinical time spent on generating meaning

is contraindicated.

Limitations

There are several limitations in the development of the MSE scale. The methods

used to develop the scale would have been improved by including measures more

focused on meaning in life for convergent validity such as the Life Regard Index (LRI:

Battista & Almond, 1973), the Purpose in Life Test (PIL: Crombaugh & Maholic, 1964),

or the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MILQ: Steger et al., 2006). Direct comparison to

existing instruments more specifically designed to measure meaning in life could help

focus the aspects of finding meaning in which the MSE may be associated. This could

enable the identification of the specific aspects of meaning selfefficacy beliefs that can be focused on and modified. For instance, if there is an indication that the MSE

consistently associated with selfefficacy beliefs regarding identifying a sense of purpose

or acceptance, then these areas can be further developed.

66

In addition, the populations that the MSE has been used to investigate thus far

have been subclinical. The MSE is premised on the concept that it would have its most

utility in populations that have experienced a greater degree of psychological distress.

Although undergraduate college students do experience significant traumatic life

experiences and associate symptoms (Bernat, Ronfeldt, Calhoun, & Arias, 1998; Marx &

Sloan, 2003;Vrana & Lauterbach, 1994), they are still able to function at a level high

enough to approach the demands of college.

Future Directions

Future investigations of the MSE measure should include an examination of how

it performs in comparison to preestablished measures of meaning in the same population. The instrument should also be used in a more clinically distressed population

that may experience more profound reasons to generate meaning. The MSE may

demonstrate a more consistent relationship with posttraumatic distress in a clinical population where the effect of the trauma is causing more pronounced functional

impairment. In addition, prospective studies using the instrument would help clarify if the perceived ability to generate meaning is associated with actually finding meaning in a

natural context. The construct of MSE is conceptualized as a mechanism that may

facilitate how one can find meaning following trauma. To fully validate the construct of

MSE, it is necessary to identify whether individuals searching for meaning after trauma

67

are more likely to find meaning with higher scores on the MSE or less likely with lower

scores on the MSE. Future investigations should also focus on determining the source of

the modest temporal stability. The theory underlying MSE supports a construct that is

dynamic and able to change, but if the instrument is not consistently measuring the

construct in the same manner its utility in research would be questionable. There is not a

clear reason to suspect that MSE would change over a twoweek interval. In addition,

confirmatory factor analysis should be conducted to determine if the two subscales

identified in the current study are replicated in other populations.

Conclusion

The MSE instrument is a brief instrument developed to assess the perceived ability to generate meaning after experiencing traumatic life events. The MSE displayed good convergent and discrminant validity but the temporal stability of the measure over a two week period was modest. The MSE demonstrated the anticipated negative relationship with posttraumatic distress but the overall effect not strong. It is possible that the observed weak relationship between the MSE and posttraumatic distress may be a result of general low distress in the current sample. Further investigations of the measure in different populations are needed to clarify the role of MSE in meeting the demands of posttrauma adaptation.

68

References

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in

humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87 , 4974.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed. text revision). Washington DC: Author.

Ano, G. G., & Vasconcelles, E. B. (2005). Religious coping and psychological

adjustment to stress: A metaanalysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(4) , 461

480.

Bandura, A. (1977). Selfefficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84 , 191215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory .

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist,

44 , 11751184.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theoryof selfregulation. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 50 , 248287.

Bandura, A. (1992). On rectifying the comparative anatomy of perceived control:

Comments on “cognates of personal control”. Applied & Preventive Psychology,

1, 121126.

69

Bandura, A. (1997). Selfefficacy: The exercise of control . New York, Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52 , 126.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for creating selfefficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan

(Eds.), Selfefficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307337). Information Age

Publishing, Greenwich.

Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry:

Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 36(4) , 409427.

Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery:

The role of perceived selfefficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42,

11291148.

Benight, C. C., Cieslak, R., Molton, I. R., & Johnson, L. E. (2008). Selfevaluative

appraisals of coping capability and posttraumatic distress following motor vehicle

accidents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(4) , 677685.

Benight, C. C., Freyaldenhoven, R. W., Hughes, J., Ruiz, J. M., Zoschke, T. A., &

Lovallo, W. R. (2000). Coping selfefficacy and psychological distress following

the Oklahoma City bombing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1331

1344.

70

Benight, C. C., HardingTaylor, A. S., Midboe, A. M., & Durham, R. L. (2004).

Development and psychometric validation of a domestic violence coping self

efficacy measure (DVCSE). Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17 , 505508.

Benight, C. C., & Harper, M. L. (2002). Coping selfefficacy perceptions as a mediator

between acute stress response and longterm distress following natural disasters.

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 177186.

Benight, C. C., Ironson, G., Klebe, K., Carver, C. S., Wynings, C., Burnett, K.,

Greenwood, D., Baum, A., & Schneiderman, N. (1999). Conservation of

resources and coping selfefficacy predicting distress following a natural disaster:

A causal model analysis where the environment meets the mind. Anxiety, Stress,

and Coping, 12 , 107126.

Benight, C. C., Swift, E., Sanger, J., Smith, A., & Zeppelin, D., (1999). Coping self

efficacy as a mediator of distress following a natural disaster. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 29, 24432464.

Bernat, J. A., Ronfeldt, H. M., Calhoun, K. S., & Arias, I. (1998). Prevalence of traumatic

events and peritraumatic predictors of posttraumatic stress symptoms in a

nonclinical sample of college students. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11(4) , 645

664.

71

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the

human capacity to thrive after extremely adverse events? American Psychologist,

59(1) , 2028.

Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2007). What predicts

psychological resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and

life stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5) , 671682.

Breslau, N., Kessler, R. C., Chilcoat, H. D., Schultz, L. R., Davis, G. C., Andreski, P.

(1998). Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community: The 1996

Detroit area survey of trauma. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55 , 626632.

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

scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(3), 589596.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale

development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309319.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 , 349354.

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism:

The psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic . Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 20 , 200207.

72

Davis, C. G., NolenHoesema, S., & Larson, J. (1998). Making sense of loss and

benefiting from the experience: Two construals of meaning. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75 , 561574.

Davis, C. G., Wortman, C. B., Lehman, D. R., & Silver, R. C. (2000). Searching for

meaning in loss: Are clinical assumptions correct? Death Studies, 24 , 497540.

Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Behavior Research and Therapy, 38, 319345.

Emmons, R. A., Colby, P. M., & Kaiser, H. A. (1998). When losses lead to gains:

Personal goals and the recovery of meaning. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.),

The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical

applications (pp163178). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C. & Stahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the

use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological

Methods, 4(3) , 272299.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3 rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 839852.

Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and

refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3) ,

286299.

73

Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning . Boston, Beacon Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1969). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of .

New York, New York: Meridian.

Hobfoll, S. E., Hall, B. J., CanettiNisim, D., Galea, S., Johnson, R. J., & Palmieri, P. A.

(2007). Refining our understanding traumatic growth in the face of terrorism:

Moving from meaning cognitions to doing what is meaningful. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 56 , 345366.

JanoffBulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events:

Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition, Special Issue: Social

Cognition and Stress, 7 , 113136.

JanoffBulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma .

New York: Free Press.

Kazdin, A. E. (1974). Covert modeling, model similarity, and reduction of avoidance

behavior. Behavior Therapy, 5 , 325340.

Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995).

Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 52, 10481060.

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Selfefficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.) Self

efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 336). New York, Penum Press.

74

Maercker, A., & Zoellner, T. (2004). The Janus face of selfperceived growth: Toward a

two component model of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 16 , 4148.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1971). Examination of model characteristics in reducing avoidance

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17 , 298307.

Norris, F. H. (1990). Screening for traumatic stress: A scale of use in the general

population. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 17041718.

Ozer, E. J., Best, S. R., Lipsey, T. L., & Weiss, D. S. (2003). Predictors of posttraumatic

stress disorder and symptoms in adults: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin,

129(1), 5273.

Ozer, E. J., & Weiss, D. S. (2004). Who develops posttaumatic stress disorder? Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 13 , 169172.

Park, C. L., & Ai, A. L. (2006). Meaning making and growth: New directions for

research on survivors of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Loss, 11 , 389407.

Park, C. L., & Folkman S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of

General Psychology, 1 , 115144.

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

measures in cohorts of younger and older adults. Personality and Individual

Differences, 35 , 977993.

75

Ruggiero, K. J., Ben, K. D., Scotti, J. R., Rabalais, A. E. (2003). Psychometric properties

of the PTSD ChecklistCivilian Version. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16 , 495

502.

Southwick, S. M., Gilmartin, R., McDonough, P., & Morrissey, P., (2006). Logotherapy

as an adjunctive treatment for chronic combatrelated PTSD: A meaningbased

intervention. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 60 , 161174.

Speilberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983).

Manual for the statetrait anxiety inventory (Form Y) . Palo Alto, CA, Mind

Garden.

Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life

questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal

of , 53, 8093.

Sumalla, E. C., Ochoa, C., & Blanco, I. (2009). Posttraumatic growth in cancer: Reality

or illusion? Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 2433.

Tedeschi & Calhoun (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive

legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9 , 455471.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations

and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15 , 118.

76

Tedeschi, R. G., & Kilmer, R. P. (2005). Assessing strengths, resilience, and growth to

guide clinical interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

36(3), 230237.

Updegraff, J. A., Silver, R. C., & Holman, E. A. (2008). Searching for and finding

meaning in collective trauma: Results from a national longitudinal study of 9/11

terrorist attacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 , 709722.

Vrana, S., & Lauterbach, D. (1994). Prevalence of traumatic events and posttraumatic

psychological symptoms in a nonclinical sample of college students. Journal of

Traumatic Stress, 7(2) , 289302.

Weathers, F. W., Litz, B. T., Herman, D. S., Huska, J. A., & Keane, T. M. (1993,

October). The PTSD Checklist: Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Paper

presented to the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio,

TX.