人生意义问卷的测量等值性：考研者vs不考者
Measurement Invariance of Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Postgraduate Entrance Exam Candidates vs Non-Candidates
DOI: 10.12677/ap.2024.143169, PDF,  被引量    科研立项经费支持
作者: 黄 端*, 陈李双*, 李 琼#：武汉体育学院心理学系，湖北 武汉；王 铭：武汉理工大学心理健康教育中心，湖北 武汉
关键词: 人生意义感；测量等值性；探索性结构方程模型；多组探索性结构方程模型；Meaning in Life； Measurement Invariance； Exploratory Structural Equation Model； Multiple-Group Exploratory Structural Equation Models
摘要: 研究旨在考察人生意义感量表在考研和不考研大学生之间的测量等值性，检验两者在人生意义感上的差异。研究招募1338名大学生，施测人生意义问卷，并询问“是否决定将来考研？”，以将其分为考研组和不考研组。结果发现，人生意义问卷的双因子结构良好地拟合数据，且在考研组和不考研组之间达到严格等值。t检验显示，考研组在人生意义体验分量表上得分显著高于不考研组：t(1, 1336) = 5.968，p = 0.000，d = 0.33，但两组在人生意义寻求分量表上没有显著差异：t(1, 1336) = 0.142，p = 0.887，d = 0.01。总之，人生意义问卷在考研和不考研者之间严格等值，而考研者比不考研者的人生意义体验更多。
Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate the measurement invariance of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire between Postgraduate Entrance Exam candidates and non-candidates in college students, and test the difference in meaning in life between the two groups. A convenience sample of 1338 college students completed the Meaning in Life Questionnaire and were asked whether they had decided to take National Postgraduate Entrance Examination, which divided them into two groups: Postgraduate Entrance Exam candidates and non-candidates. The results showed that the two-factor structure of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire fit the data well and was strict invariance across the two groups. The t-tests revealed a significant difference between Postgraduate Entrance Exam candidates and non-candidates on the presence of meaning subscale (t(1, 1336) = 5.968, p = 0.000, d = 0.33). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups on the search for meaning subscale (t(1, 1336) = 0.142, p = 0.887, d = 0.01). In conclusion, the Meaning in Life Questionnaire was strict invariance across Postgraduate Entrance Exam candidates and non-candidates, and candidates reported more meaning in life than non- candidates.
文章引用：黄端, 陈李双, 王铭, 李琼 (2024). 人生意义问卷的测量等值性：考研者vs不考者. 心理学进展, 14(3), 366-374. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2024.143169

参考文献

[1] 程春燕, 张琴, 李正赤(2013). 考研事件对医学生心理健康的影响. 现代预防医学, 40(23), 4372-4374 4377.
[2] 耿译航, 王双玲, 李昱莹, 谢琼, 张旻, 孙炜(2022). 临床医学生学习动机现状及其影响因素分析. 中国卫生统计, 39(2), 257-259.
[3] 刘思斯, 甘怡群(2010). 生命意义感量表中文版在大学生群体中的信效度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 24(6), 478-482.
[4] 罗腾, 马蓉, 杨亚薇(2020). 影响本科生考研学习投入的主要因素调查分析. 新教育时代电子杂志(学生版), (38), 260-261.
[5] 王孟成, 戴晓阳(2008). 中文人生意义问卷(C-MLQ)在大学生中的适用性. 中国临床心理学杂志, 16(5), 459-461.
[6] 中国教育在线(2022). 2022年全国研究生招生调查报告.
https://www.eol.cn/e_ky/zt/report/2022/detail.html#titel1_1_pc
[7] 周婷(2007). 考研毕业生心理健康状况调查. 中国成人教育, (9), 100-101.
[8] 赵雪娇(2023). 基于二元逻辑回归的考研动机影响因素分析. 统计学与应用, 12(4), 998-1008.
[9] Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397-438.[CrossRef] 
[10] Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indices to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504.[CrossRef] 
[12] Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.[CrossRef] 
[13] Costin, V., & Vignoles, V. L. (2020). Meaning Is about Mattering: Evaluating Coherence, Purpose, and Existential Mattering as Precursors of Meaning in Life Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 864-884.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014). Life Is Pretty Meaningful. American Psychologist, 69, 561-574.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2018). Routines and Meaning in Life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 688-699.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.[CrossRef] 
[17] Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting Practices in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: An Overview and Some Recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6-23.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the Number of Variables on Measures of Fit in Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333-351.[CrossRef] 
[19] King, L. A., Heintzelman, S. J., & Ward, S. J. (2016). Beyond the Search for Meaning: A Contemporary Science of the Experience of Meaning in Life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 211-216.[CrossRef] 
[20] King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006). Positive Affect and the Experience of Meaning in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179-196.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.
[22] Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: An Integration of the Best Features of Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The Three Meanings of Meaning in Life: Distinguishing Coherence, Purpose, and Significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 531-545.[CrossRef] 
[24] Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement Invariance, Factor Analysis and Factorial Invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.[CrossRef] 
[25] Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory: Two Approaches for Exploring Measurement Invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. Simon & Schuster.
[27] Steger, M., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the Presence of and Search for Meaning in Life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80-93.[CrossRef] 
[28] Ward, S. J., & King, L. A. (2017). Work and the Good Life: How Work Contributes to Meaning in Life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 59-82.[CrossRef]