Purpose in Life Test

1. Abstract

The Purpose in Life Test (PIL) is one of the earliest and most extensively researched psychometric instruments designed to evaluate existential meaning and purpose within human life. Developed by James C. Crumbaugh and Leonard T. Maholick in 1964, the scale was created to operationalize the foundational tenets of logotherapy and existential analysis formulated by Viennese psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl. Specifically, the PIL operationalizes Frankl’s central thesis that the “will to meaning” represents a primary, irreducible human drive, the frustration of which precipitates an “existential vacuum” manifested clinically as existential boredom, apathy, alienation, and noogenic neurosis. While the complete clinical battery consists of three distinct parts (Part A: objective psychometric scale; Part B: 13-item sentence completion; Part C: free-form personal life narrative), Part A represents the standard 20-item instrument deployed across psychological research and psychometric assessments.

Part A utilizes a 7-point semantic differential scale where each item is anchored by unique, construct-specific bipolar verbal descriptors with an explicit neutral midpoint (rating 4). Cumulative raw scores range from 20 to 140, where higher scores reflect greater existential fulfillment and crystallized personal meaning. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust reliability, with split-half coefficients ranging from .81 to .92 (Spearman-Brown corrected) and test-retest coefficients spanning .68 to .83 across various intervals. Construct and criterion-related validity have been confirmed across normal, psychiatric, incarcerated, and medical populations, effectively differentiating clinical cohorts from non-clinical groups. Despite debates surrounding its structural dimensionality and potential affective overlap with depressive symptomatology, the PIL remains an enduring gold-standard psychometric benchmark in existential psychology, behavioral health, and psychiatric research.

2. Keywords

Purpose in Life Test, PIL, Viktor Frankl, logotherapy, will to meaning, existential vacuum, noogenic neurosis, existential psychology, meaning in life, psychometrics, semantic differential, scale validation

3. Authors

The Purpose in Life Test was originally developed by James C. Crumbaugh, Ph.D., and Leonard T. Maholick, M.D.

• James C. Crumbaugh, Ph.D. (1912–2001) served as Clinical Psychologist and Chief of the Psychological Service at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi. Crumbaugh studied directly with Viktor Frankl, serving as a prominent American advocate for logotherapy and existential psychology. His research focused extensively on the psychometric quantification of existential constructs and the development of complementary instruments, including the Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) test.
• Leonard T. Maholick, M.D. was a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and Medical Director at The Bradley Center in Columbus, Georgia. Maholick collaborated closely with Crumbaugh to formulate an empirical methodology capable of translating European existential philosophy and clinical phenomenological psychiatry into operational, standardized psychological measurements suitable for empirical and diagnostic research.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Purpose in Life Test is to quantify the extent to which an individual experiences their existence as possessing ontological significance, coherence, and directional purpose, as opposed to experiencing existential frustration or an inner void (Frankl, 1955, 1960). According to logotherapeutic theory, psychological distress frequently emerges not merely from psychodynamic conflicts, biochemical abnormalities, or maladaptive behavioral conditioning, but from the existential frustration of humanity’s fundamental “will to meaning.” When an individual is unable to discover authentic significance, value, or personal mission in their life, they succumb to the existential vacuum, which manifests phenomenologically as profound boredom, apathy, existential malaise, and feelings of ultimate futility.

Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) designed the PIL specifically to provide clinicians and researchers with an objective psychometric index to identify, monitor, and treat noogenic neurosis—a form of psychological disorder originating in spiritual or existential despair rather than conventional psychological complexes. Consequently, the scale measures whether an individual has successfully discovered meaning, rather than measuring their active motivation or striving to search for it (which is measured by its sister instrument, the Seeking of Noetic Goals [SONG] test; Crumbaugh, 1977).

In clinical practice, the PIL serves as an indispensable baseline assessment and longitudinal treatment-monitoring instrument. It is widely employed in:

• Psychiatric and Mental Health Treatment: Assisting clinicians in differentiating between purely psychogenic or affective disorders and existential crises that require existential, philosophical, or meaning-centered interventions.
• Addiction and Substance Use Rehabilitation: Frankl posited that substance dependence often represents a maladaptive compensatory coping mechanism attempting to drown out the existential vacuum. Empirical studies (e.g., Waisberg, 1994) routinely utilize the PIL to evaluate changes in existential coherence during addiction recovery.
• Palliative Care, Psycho-Oncology, and Gerontology: Assisting clinicians in understanding how individuals navigate end-of-life crises, terminal diagnoses, and retirement transitions, wherein meaning constructs undergo profound restructuring (Florian, 1989–1990; Meier & Edwards, 1974).
• Incarcerated Populations: Evaluating institutional rehabilitation, personal accountability, and cognitive restructuring among inmates (Reker, 1977).

In empirical research, the PIL remains the foundational yardstick for validating novel meaning constructs, investigating subjective well-being, exploring religious and spiritual orientations, and conducting cross-cultural comparative analyses of existential health.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the Purpose in Life Test is multidimensional in phenomenological scope, yet traditionally unified under the overarching operational definition of existential meaning. At its core, the PIL measures the subjective realization of life’s value, the formulation of tangible personal aims, and the conviction that individual existence holds unique significance within the broader universal order. In Frankl’s structural framework, this construct represents the antithesis of the existential vacuum.

To fully operationalize this construct, Crumbaugh and Maholick embedded several interconnected thematic facets within the 20 items of Part A:

5.1. Ontological Meaningfulness vs. Existential Futility

This facet assesses the individual’s baseline perception of whether their personal existence is endowed with inherent purpose or characterized by total void. Items evaluating this facet explore feelings of vitality, enthusiasm, and cosmic belonging versus sensations that life is routine, absurd, or empty. Prototypic items include assessments of whether existence feels “utterly meaningless, without purpose” versus “very purposeful and meaningful” (Item 4) and whether personal existence is viewed as an empty despair or overflowing with positive experiences (Item 9).

5.2. Goal Direction and Purposeful Engagement

Possessing existential purpose demands not merely an abstract philosophical worldview, but active cognitive intentionality directed toward concrete future objectives. This dimension evaluates the presence of well-articulated life aims, ambitions, and intentional tasks. Individuals lacking this dimension display purposeless drift and an inability to project themselves meaningfully into the future, whereas high-scoring respondents report well-defined milestones and purposeful daily engagement (e.g., Item 3: “no goals or aims at all” versus “very clear-cut goals and aims”).

5.3. Personal Autonomy, Freedom, and Internal Locus of Control

Logotherapy emphasizes that while humans are invariably constrained by biological, psychological, and environmental conditions, they retain the ultimate freedom to choose their attitude and stance toward any given circumstance. Items within the PIL specifically tap this logotherapeutic tenet, measuring the respondent’s perceived internal control over their destiny versus feelings of fatalistic determinism and helplessness (e.g., Item 14 regarding human freedom to make life choices, and Item 18 evaluating whether life is “in my hands” or controlled by external forces).

5.4. Existential Responsibility and Self-Transcendence

According to Frankl, meaning is discovered through self-transcendence—directing attention toward someone or something outside oneself, such as a loved one, a creative creation, or an ethical obligation. This construct requires accepting personal responsibility for one’s conduct and realizing that one is fundamentally responsible to life. The PIL probes this psychological readiness through explicit self-characterizations of responsibility (Item 13) and the discovery of an overarching personal life mission (Item 20).

5.5. Equanimity in Facing the Tragic Triad (Pain, Guilt, and Death)

Authentic meaning must remain resilient even when confronting unavoidable human suffering, moral failure, and mortality. The PIL directly samples attitudes toward death, suicide, and existential evaluation. It examines whether an individual would view their life as worthwhile or a complete waste if they faced immediate death (Item 10), whether death evokes serene acceptance or overwhelming terror (Item 15), and whether suicide has been contemplated as an escape from existential despair (Item 16).

6. Theoretical Framework

The Purpose in Life Test is fundamentally grounded in the theoretical framework of Logotherapy and Existential Analysis (Existenzanalyse), frequently referred to in psychiatric literature as the “Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy,” succeeding the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud and the individual psychology of Alfred Adler.

6.1. The Three Pillars of Logotherapy

Logotherapy rests upon three philosophical and anthropologic premises formulated by Viktor Frankl (1955, 1958, 1960):

• Freedom of Will (Freiheit des Willens): Frankl rejected deterministic reductionism that portrayed human beings as helpless products of instinctual drives, conditioning, or socio-biological matrices. Logotherapy posits that the human spirit (the noëtic dimension) possesses an intrinsic capacity for self-detachment, enabling people to take a decisive stand toward internal impulses and external adversities.
• Will to Meaning (Wille zum Sinn): In contrast to Freud’s “pleasure principle” (will to pleasure) and Adler’s “will to power” (striving for superiority), Frankl argued that the primary motivational force in humanity is the striving to discover and fulfill concrete meaning in one’s unique existence.
• Meaning in Life (Sinn im Leben): Meaning is not an arbitrary subjective illusion invented by the psyche; it is an objective reality woven into the fabric of the universe that must be actively detected and realized by the individual in concrete situations.

6.2. The Three Pathways to Meaning

Logotherapeutic doctrine dictates that individuals can actualize meaning in life through three distinct value dimensions:

1. Creative Values: Actualized by what a person contributes to the world through work, artistic production, innovation, or fulfilling occupational and daily duties.
2. Experiential Values: Realized through what a person absorbs from the world, particularly by experiencing truth, beauty, nature, culture, and deep authentic relationships (most notably love).
3. Attitudinal Values: The highest value category, actualized when confronting unalterable suffering, tragedy, or an unavoidable fate (the “tragic triad” of pain, guilt, and death). Even when stripped of creative and experiential opportunities, an individual maintains the freedom to choose their attitude toward adversity, thereby transforming tragedy into personal triumph.

6.3. The Noögenic Neurosis and the Existential Vacuum

When the will to meaning is frustrated (existential frustration), individuals experience an existential vacuum. In modern industrialized societies, where traditional instincts no longer guide behavior and cultural traditions are progressively weakened, people often experience deep disorientation. The existential vacuum primarily manifests as chronic boredom (the inability to find an interest) and apathy (the lack of initiative).

If prolonged, this vacuum can precipitate a noögenic neurosis. Unlike somatogenic or psychogenic neuroses, which arise from physiological insults or intrapsychic emotional conflicts, noögenic neurosis originates in the spiritual or value-oriented core of human personality. Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) conceptualized the PIL as a standardized clinical scale to measure this exact noögenic spectrum—quantifying the presence of realized meaning and flagging the severity of the existential vacuum.

7. Validity

The Purpose in Life Test has been submitted to extensive psychometric scrutiny to establish its construct, criterion-related (concurrent and predictive), convergent, and discriminant validity across numerous diagnostic and demographic cohorts.

7.1. Criterion and Known-Groups Validity

The most compelling initial evidence for the PIL’s criterion validity is its demonstrated ability to discriminate reliably between populations hypothesized to possess divergent levels of existential meaning:

• Clinical vs. Non-Clinical Cohorts: In their foundational validation study, Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) demonstrated statistically significant differences across stratified groups: non-patient samples (Harvard undergraduates, Frankl seminar participants, Junior League members) yielded a mean score of 119.0, whereas clinical outpatients and hospitalized alcoholic patients averaged 99.0. In a broader cross-validation study, Crumbaugh (1968) reported that normal populations achieved a mean of 112.4 ($SD = 14.1$), whereas psychiatric patients demonstrated a markedly depressed mean of 92.6 ($SD = 21.3$; $p < .001$).
• High-Purpose Vocations: Groups engaged in dedicated, value-congruent service exhibit exceptionally high PIL means. Religious order trainees and motivated business professionals scored averages of 119.3 and 118.9, respectively (Crumbaugh, Raphael, & Shrader, 1970).
• Incarcerated Samples: Reker (1977) corroborated the scale’s discriminative validity within correctional institutions, showing that prison inmates repeatedly registered lower aggregate scores, averaging approximately 100.0, indicative of existential frustration and lack of forward-looking life structure.
• External Clinician Ratings: In Crumbaugh’s (1968) cross-validation analysis, PIL scores correlated moderately to strongly with external ratings of existential purpose conducted by independent psychotherapists ($r = .38$) and ordained clergy ($r = .47$).

7.2. Convergent Validity

The PIL demonstrates strong theoretical convergence with measures of subjective well-being, internal locus of control, and psychological health:

• Depression and Psychopathology: The PIL demonstrates strong negative correlations with depression inventories. Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) initially observed an inverse association of $r = -.39$ with depressive symptomatology, which escalated to $r = -.65$ in heterogeneous normal and psychiatric populations (Crumbaugh, 1968). Dyck (1987) noted this persistent inverse relationship, demonstrating that individuals in deep existential vacuums manifest significant dysphoria.
• Values and Intrinsic Religiosity: Crandall and Rasmussen (1975) linked the PIL to the Rokeach Value Survey, finding that high PIL scores corresponded with elevating “salvation” and self-transcendent goals. High PIL scores also correlate positively with Allport and Ross’s (1967) intrinsic religious orientation, while demonstrating independence from extrinsic, utilitarian religious motivations.
• Life Satisfaction and Adjustment: Substantial positive correlations are consistently reported between the PIL and scales assessing general life satisfaction, self-actualization, and positive affect (Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Shek, 1994).

7.3. Discriminant Validity and Methodological Critiques

Discriminant validity analyses show that the PIL is distinct from generalized psychopathology batteries such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), with the PIL displaying low, non-redundant correlations across clinical subscales outside the depressive spectrum (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964). Furthermore, the PIL correlates only moderately with Crumbaugh’s (1977) Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) test, confirming that possessing purpose is conceptually distinct from the drive to search for purpose.

Nonetheless, the scale has faced psychometric criticism. Dyck (1987) questioned the degree of conceptual contamination within the PIL, arguing that because several items explicitly probe boredom, enthusiasm, and despair, the scale risks acting as an indirect proxy for generalized depression or affective well-being rather than a pure index of existential philosophy. Furthermore, Crumbaugh and Henrion (1988) reviewed mixed evidence regarding social desirability bias, concluding that while normal administrations show minimal contamination, highly evaluative or competitive contexts (e.g., job screenings or forensic parole hearings) can prompt respondents to inflate scores.

8. Reliability

The Purpose in Life Test displays exceptional internal consistency and stable temporal reliability across varied populations and timeframes.

8.1. Internal Consistency and Split-Half Reliability

In the original instrument development study, Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) established split-half reliability using the odd-even technique, obtaining an uncorrected correlation of .81, which rose to a Spearman-Brown corrected reliability coefficient of $r = .90$ across a mixed sample of 225 non-patient and patient respondents. Subsequent empirical replications confirmed these findings:

• Crumbaugh (1968) replicated the split-half analysis in a specialized cohort of 120 active Protestant parishioners, yielding a corrected reliability of $r = .92$.
• Reker (1977) evaluated the PIL among institutionalized adult male offenders, discovering an uncorrected split-half coefficient of .85 and a Spearman-Brown prophecy estimate of $r = .92$.
• Contemporary investigations assessing internal consistency via Cronbach’s alpha routinely report alpha values between $lpha = .86$ and $lpha = .93$ (Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Harlow et al., 1987; Shek, 1994).

8.2. Test-Retest Stability

Because meaning in life is theorized to function as an enduring psychological trait while remaining malleable under intense existential crisis or logotherapeutic intervention, test-retest correlations reflect both stability and responsivity:

• 1-Week Interval: Meier and Edwards (1974) documented a short-term test-retest reliability coefficient of $r = .83$ among college undergraduate respondents.
• 6-Week Interval: Reker and Cousins (1979) established a longitudinal stability coefficient of $r = .79$ across a six-week retest window.
• 12-Week Interval: Reker (1977) demonstrated a 12-week test-retest stability coefficient of $r = .68$ in institutionalized adult samples, suggesting adequate long-term trait stability alongside sensitivity to environmental stressors.

9. Factor Analysis

Although Crumbaugh and Maholick originally conceptualized the PIL as a strictly unidimensional instrument reflecting general existential purpose, subsequent exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have sparked ongoing debate regarding its latent structure.

9.1. Exploratory Factor Analytic Findings

Multiple psychometricians have extracted multiple factors within Part A:

• Reker and Cousins (1979): Conducting principal factor analysis with varimax rotation, Reker and Cousins identified a distinct two-factor solution. Factor 1 (“Purpose and Meaning”) gathered items tapping existential engagement, personal aims, and ontological clarity (e.g., Items 3, 4, 8, 11, 20). Factor 2 (“Freedom and Locus of Control”) coalesced around perceived autonomy, fatalism, and self-determination (e.g., Items 14, 18). In secondary analyses, they identified further sub-dimensions including “Future Goals,” “Enthusiasm for Life,” and “Acceptance of Death.”
• Dyck (1987): Dyck performed structural re-analyses and argued that the PIL lacks unified conceptual coherence. His models demonstrated that the scale splits across an affective dimension (boredom vs. vitality), an intentional dimension (goals vs. aimlessness), and an existential evaluation dimension (worthwhile vs. wasted existence). Dyck argued that treating the PIL as an undifferentiated unifactorial measure risks conflating psychological affect with existential philosophy.
• Shek (1994): In an extensive factor study among non-Western midlife adults in Hong Kong, Shek extracted two robust dimensions accounting for the majority of common variance: (1) Quality of Existence and Life Purpose, and (2) Sense of Autonomy and Personal Freedom, corroborating the cross-cultural dual-core framework.

9.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Modeling

Harlow, Newcomb, and Bentler (1987) conducted rigorous confirmatory factor analyses using latent variable structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the structural integrity of the PIL. Their findings confirmed that while a single general second-order factor (Overall Existential Meaning) accounts for significant variance, first-order models demonstrate superior fit when specifying correlated multidimensional factors: (a) Life Purpose and Goals, (b) Vitality and Enthusiasm, and (c) Autonomous Control. Researchers who require an uncompromisingly pure construct of meaning often isolate the high-loading goal/direction items (e.g., Items 3, 4, 8, 11, 20) or incorporate higher-order hierarchical modeling.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete Purpose in Life battery is an examiner-guided, self-administered assessment comprising three distinct operational parts:

• Part A (Standard Quantitative Inventory):
  • Item Count: 20 items.
  • Format: Written, self-administered questionnaire.
  • Response Format: 7-point semantic differential scale (1 to 7). Rather than using uniform Likert labels (e.g., “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”), each individual item features unique, customized bipolar verbal anchors tailored to that statement, with 4 universally designated as “neutral.”
  • Administration Time: Typically completed in 10 to 15 minutes.
  • Reading Level: Fifth-grade reading proficiency (Crumbaugh & Henrion, 1988).
• Part B (Sentence Completion):
  • Item Count: 13 incomplete sentence stems (e.g., “To me, thinking about death makes me…”).
  • Format: Qualitative projection interpreted clinically. It does not factor into the standardized quantitative Part A scoring algorithm.
• Part C (Personal Life Narrative):
  • Format: Free-form biographical essay wherein respondents summarize their life goals, personal ambitions, major past achievements, and sources of existential significance. Designed exclusively for qualitative clinical diagnosis.
• Scoring and Directionality Rules (Part A):
  • Theoretical Score Range: 20 to 140 points.
  • Directionality: Items are scored such that higher aggregate numerical values indicate greater levels of purpose, fulfillment, and meaning in life.
  • Reversal Protocol: In the standard test layout, the scale alternates anchor orientations to reduce acquiescence response bias. In half of the items (e.g., Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20), rating 1 denotes low meaning / existential vacuum and rating 7 denotes high purpose. In remaining items (e.g., Items 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19), anchor 7 represents the high-purpose anchor on the page and anchor 1 denotes low purpose, or vice-versa depending on the printed sheet layout. The clinical scoring rule requires summing all items such that every item contributes 1 (lowest purpose) to 7 (highest purpose) to the final composite score.
• Diagnostic Interpretation and Cutoff Scores (Crumbaugh & Henrion, 1988):
  • Scores $ge$ 113: Definite Purpose and Meaning. Indicates well-crystallized life direction, strong existential fulfillment, clear personal values, and absence of an existential vacuum.
  • Scores between 92 and 112: Indecisive / Intermediate Range. Reflects existential uncertainty, borderline purpose, ambivalence, or unintegrated life goals. Suggests susceptibility to existential distress under severe life stressors.
  • Scores $le$ 91: Lack of Clear Purpose / Existential Vacuum. Indicates prominent existential frustration, chronic boredom, aimlessness, and high clinical probability of noögenic neurosis or underlying psychological malaise.
  • General Population Normative Benchmarks: Healthy normal community adults average approximately $M = 112.4$ ($SD = 14.1$), whereas psychiatric patient populations average $M = 92.6$ ($SD = 21.3$). The critical threshold of 102 represents the central mathematical demarcation separating non-clinical from psychiatric populations.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Purpose in Life Test was originally published in an empirical journal article in 1964 by James C. Crumbaugh and Leonard T. Maholick (Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 200–207). An expanded psychometric test manual was formally published in 1969, followed by expanded clinical administration revisions in 1988.

The standardized test forms, test booklets, and administrative scoring manuals were originally published and commercially distributed by:

Psychometric Affiliates
P.O. Box 807
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37133, USA

Archival and authorized clinical copies were also managed through the Viktor Frankl Institute of Logotherapy (formerly located in Berkeley, California). In academic and scientific research contexts, Part A of the Purpose in Life Test has been widely treated as an open-access research scale due to its exhaustive publication within peer-reviewed scientific journals (e.g., Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Nackord & Fabry, 1983). However, clinical diagnostic practitioners, commercial evaluators, and institutional administrators intending to use proprietary scoring templates, official test packets, or commercial manuals must respect existing publishing copyrights and seek official licensing authorization from Psychometric Affiliates or the Viktor Frankl Institute.

12. References

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212

Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Measuring meaning in life: An examination of three scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(3), 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(88)90155-2

Crandall, J. E., & Rasmussen, R. D. (1975). Purpose in life as related to specific values. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31(3), 483–485. 3.0.CO;2-V” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197707)33:3<900::AID-JCLP2270330362>3.0.CO;2-V

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Henrion, R. (1988). The PIL Test: Administration, interpretation, uses theory and critique. The International Forum for Logotherapy, 11(2), 76–88.

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20(2), 200–207. 3.0.CO;2-2″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197004)26:2<206::AID-JCLP2270260222>3.0.CO;2-2

Dyck, M. J. (1987). Assessing logotherapeutic constructs: Conceptual and psychometric status of the Purpose in Life and Seeking of Noetic Goals Tests. Clinical Psychology Review, 7(4), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(87)90021-3

Florian, V. (1989–1990). Meaning and purpose in life of bereaved parents whose son fell during active military service. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 20(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.2190/731E-G83U-K45G-2K1X

Frankl, V. E. (1955). The doctor and the soul: From psychotherapy to logotherapy. Alfred A. Knopf.

Frankl, V. E. (1958). The will to meaning. Journal of Pastoral Care, 12(2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234095801200203

Frankl, V. E. (1960). Beyond self-actualization and self-expression. Journal of Existential Psychiatry, 1, 5–20.

Harlow, L. L., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1987). Purpose in Life Test assessment using latent variable methods. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(3), 235–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1987.tb01258.x

Meier, A., & Edwards, H. (1974). Purpose-in-Life Test: Age and sex differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30(3), 384–386. 3.0.CO;2-T” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197707)33:3<688::AID-JCLP2270330317>3.0.CO;2-T

Reker, G. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1979). Factor structure, construct validity and reliability of the Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) and Purpose in Life (PIL) Tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01093.x

13. Items of the Scale