Meaning Self-Efficacy Scale

MEANING SELF-EFFICACY 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 self-efficacy 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. Test-Retest 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). Viktor Frankl 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

Load more