Titre
Systematic review of meaning in life assessment instruments.
Type
article
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Brandstätter, M.
Auteure/Auteur
Baumann, U.
Auteure/Auteur
Borasio, G.D.
Auteure/Auteur
Fegg, M.J.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
Liens vers les unités
ISSN
1099-1611
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2012
Volume
21
Numéro
10
Première page
1034
Dernière page/numéro d’article
1052
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal ArticlePublication Status: ppublish
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The construct of "meaning in life" (MiL) has raised the interest of clinicians working in psycho-oncology and end-of-life care. It has become a topic of scientific investigation where diverse assessment approaches have been applied. Aims: We present a comprehensive systematic review of existing MiL assessment instruments.
METHODS: Electronic searches of articles published in English peer-reviewed journals were performed in Psycinfo, Medline, Embase and Cinahl. Instruments are appraised with regard to ten measurement properties.
RESULTS: In total, 59 nomothetic and idiographic MiL instruments were identified. Most instruments were developed in North America and meet basic psychometric criteria. They assess presence of and search for MiL, crisis and sources of MiL, meaning making, meaningful activity, MiL in the context of illness, breadth, depth, and other structural indicators. These aspects are largely consistent with existing MiL definitions. Nine out of 59 instruments included cancer populations in test development.
CONCLUSIONS: This overview of available instruments underscores the complexity of the construct and might assist researchers to select an appropriate instrument for their research needs. Finally, it points to the need for more integrative theorizing and research on MiL. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
METHODS: Electronic searches of articles published in English peer-reviewed journals were performed in Psycinfo, Medline, Embase and Cinahl. Instruments are appraised with regard to ten measurement properties.
RESULTS: In total, 59 nomothetic and idiographic MiL instruments were identified. Most instruments were developed in North America and meet basic psychometric criteria. They assess presence of and search for MiL, crisis and sources of MiL, meaning making, meaningful activity, MiL in the context of illness, breadth, depth, and other structural indicators. These aspects are largely consistent with existing MiL definitions. Nine out of 59 instruments included cancer populations in test development.
CONCLUSIONS: This overview of available instruments underscores the complexity of the construct and might assist researchers to select an appropriate instrument for their research needs. Finally, it points to the need for more integrative theorizing and research on MiL. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_6D6E9FE92CA8
PMID
Date de création
2012-11-08T17:24:04.574Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-21T00:30:23Z