Development and Validation of the Youth Purpose Orientation Scale Among Chinese Sample

Figures & data

Table 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of Purpose Orientation

Item	Communality	Personal Growth	Social Promotion	Family Well-Being	Personal Well-Being
27. Improve your personal abilities.	0.75	0.83	−0.12	0.07	−0.05
29. Increase your own experience.	0.66	0.80	0.03	0.08	0.06
21. Have a satisfying job.	0.63	0.74	0.06	−0.16	0.13
32. Improve your personal character and cultivation.	0.65	0.67	0.11	0.12	0.10
23. Realize your ambitions.	0.63	0.62	0.22	0.10	0.07
8. Make a significant contribution to society.	0.73	0.04	0.82	−0.15	0.14
20. Make the hometown more prosperous and robust.	0.68	−0.01	0.77	0.04	0.05
4. Make society a better place.	0.61	−0.02	0.71	0.11	0.09
10. Help others.	0.65	0.11	0.64	0.06	0.03
30. Caring for those who have suffered misfortune.	0.60	0.28	0.52	0.10	−0.11
17. Have a satisfying marriage.	0.72	−0.06	−0.07	0.84	0.24
13. Have a sweet relationship.	0.78	0.14	−0.03	0.80	0.03
31. Have children of my own.	0.53	0.17	0.09	0.64	−0.06
1. Have a happy family.	0.47	−0.14	0.22	0.51	−0.07
11. Live an interesting and exciting life.	0.69	0.01	−0.09	0.17	0.80
3. Live a colorful life.	0.55	−0.02	0.12	−0.15	0.76
7. Live a passionate life.	0.68	−0.03	0.05	0.05	0.72
19. Live a very colorful life.	0.72	0.18	−0.06	0.09	0.60
14. Live a creative life.	0.67	0.11	0.14	0.03	0.56
Eigenvalues		7.76	1.76	1.55	1.26
Variance explained		41.42%	9.14%	7.74%	6.97%

Note: Bold represented items’ factor loadings were over 0.45.

Table 2 Measurement Invariance of YPQ Across Sex

Model	S-Bχ^2	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	Model Comparison	ΔCFI	ΔTLI
Model 1	58224.90	285	0.940	0.928	0.067[0.066, 0.067]	0.047
Model 2	59982.33	301	0.938	0.929	0.066[0.065, 0.066]	0.054	2vs.1	−0.002	0.001
Model 3	61115.78	316	0.937	0.931	0.067[0.066, 0.067]	0.056	3vs.2	−0.001	0.002
Model 4	63713.21	335	0.929	0.925	0.069[0.069, 0.070]	0.061	4vs.3	0.008	−0.006

Note: Model 1= Configural Invariance; Model 2= Metric Invariance; Model 3= Scalar Invariance; Model 4= Error Variance Invariance.

Table 3 Measurement Invariance of YPQ Across Age Groups

Model	S-Bχ^2	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	Model Comparison	ΔCFI	ΔTLI
Model 1	64947.82	429	0.934	0.921	0.067[0.066, 0.067]	0.051
Model 2	68383.35	459	0.931	0.922	0.068[0.067, 0.068]	0.053	2vs.1	−0.003	0.001
Model 3	69394.20	489	0.930	0.926	0.067[0.066, 0.067]	0.056	3vs.2	−0.001	0.004
Model 4	73350.69	527	0.922	0.919	0.069[0.069, 0.070]	0.059	4vs.3	−0.006	−0.007

Note: Model 1= Configural Invariance; Model 2= Metric Invariance; Model 3=Scalar Invariance; Model 4= Error Variance Invariance.

Table 4 Criteria Correlation Analysis

	Personal Growth	Social Promotion	Family Well-Being	Personal Well-Being
PMP-self-transcendence	0.25***	0.50***	0.41***	0.30***
PMP-achievement	0.50***	0.39***	0.39***	0.33***
PMP-Intimate Relationship	0.43***	0.42***	0.57***	0.39***
PMP-interpersonal relationship	0.17**	0.25***	0.44***	0.20***
PMP-spirituality	0.19**	0.34***	0.39***	0.24***
PMP-self-acceptance	0.23***	0.32***	0.32***	0.22***
PMP-fair shake	0.23***	0.42***	0.33***	0.26***
MLQ-presence of meaning	0.25***	0.29***	0.41***	0.24***
MLQ-search for meaning	0.35***	0.30***	0.31***	0.34***
SWLS	0.21***	0.26***	0.56***	0.21***

Note: **p <0.01 ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: PMP, Personal Meaning Profile; MLQ, Meaning in Life Questionnaire; SWLS, Satisfaction with Life Scale.