An assessment of the structural validity of the Russian adaptation of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS)

Context and relevance. The study aims to clarify the structural validity of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS) developed by V. Costin and V. Vignoles, which represents a variation and further development of the original Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale proposed by L. George and C. Park. The questionnaire comprises separate subscales assessing coherence, purpose, mattering, and meaning in life judgments. Instruments of this kind have been widely used in international research and adapted into many languages. To our knowledge, this is the first study of the three-dimensional structure of meaning in life conducted on a Russian-speaking sample. Objective. To investigate the structural validity of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale developed by V. Costin and V. Vignoles. Hypothesis. The factor structure of the original questionnaire is reproduced in a Russian-speaking sample. Methods and materials. The study was conducted on two samples: (1) participants in an international study of psychological coping with the COVID-19 threat aged 25—67 years (N = 116; M = 45.1; SD = 9.79; 92.24% female), and (2) first-year students of a Moscow university aged 17—24 years (N = 280; M = 18.8; SD = 1.22; 90.71% female). The questionnaire structure was examined using exploratory structural equation modeling and cluster analysis. Results. The results allowed refinement of the questionnaire’s factor structure in a Russian-speaking sample. The purpose and mattering subscales were fully reproduced across both samples, whereas the coherence subfactor was reproduced only in the student sample, which was the more homogeneous of the two. In addition, bifactor models were used to examine the multidimensionality of the scale. Conclusions. The findings generally support the structural validity of the Russian version of the questionnaire. At the same time, the evidence regarding the multidimensionality of the scale remains inconclusive. Further refinement and development of the coherence subscale are also warranted.

1. Леонтьев, Д.А. (1999). Психология смысла: природа, строение и динамика смысловой реальности. М.: Смысл.
   Leontiev, D.A. (1999). Psychology of meaning: the nature, structure, and dynamics of semantic reality. : Smysl. (In Russ.).
2. Леонтьев, Д.А., Рассказова, Е.И., Тараненко, О.В., Кошелева, Н.В. (2022). Изменение субъективного благополучия в ситуации пандемии: роль копинг-стратегий и реакции на пандемию. В: Психология стресса и совладающего поведения: устойчивость и изменчивость отношений, личности, группы в эпоху неопределенности: материалы VI Международной научной конференции (с. 9—13). Кострома: Изд-во КГУ.
   Leontiev, D.A., Rasskazova, E.I., Taranenko, O.V., Kosheleva, N.V. (2022). Changes in subjective well-being during a pandemic: the role of coping strategies and responses to the pandemic. In: Psychology of stress and coping behavior: stability and variability of relationships, personality, and groups in an era of uncertainty: Proceedings of the VI International Scientific Conference (pp. 9—13). Kostroma: Izd-vo KGU. (In Russ.).
3. Alsaadi, F., Maldonado, M.A., Erfanikia, M., Molinario, E., Moyano, M. (2025). Systematic review of search for meaning in life assessment tools: Highlighting the need for a quest for significance scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1513720. https://doi.org/3389/fpsyg.2025.1513720
4. Costin, V., Vignoles, V. (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(4), 864—884. https://doi.org/1037/pspp0000225
5. Eisenbeck, , et al. (2022). An international study on psychological coping during COVID-19: Towards a meaning-centered coping style. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100256
6. George, , Park, C.L. (2016). The Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546
7. Gerymski, R., Krok, D. (2020). A Polish adaptation of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale: Internal structure, reliability, and validity. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 23(2), 173—190.
8. Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In: Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future. Scientific Software International (pp. 195—216).
9. Haputpong, L., Dudsdeemaytha, J. (2023). The Tripartite Meaning in Life Scale: Assessing Meaning in Life in Three Dimensions. In: Proceedings of the 17th National and International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences (p. 10). Phranakhon Rajabhat University, Thailand.
10. Marco, J.H., García-Alandete, J., Pérez Rodríguez, S., et al. (2022). Spanish validation of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale: Which dimension of meaning in life is more associated with psychopathology in people with mental disorders? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, Article 832934. https://doi.org/3389/fpsyt.2022.832934
11. Martela, F., Steger, M.F. (2023). The role of significance relative to the other dimensions of meaning in life: An examination utilizing the Three Dimensional Meaning in Life Scale (3DM). Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(4), 606—626. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2022.2070528
12. Martela, , Steger, M.F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 531—545. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623
13. Qi, W., Zhou, Z., Miao, M. (2023). Quadripartite existential meaning among Chinese: Internal conceptual structure and reciprocating relationship with psychological flexibility and inflexibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 202(4). https://doi.org/1016/j.paid.2022.111961
14. Reise, S.P., Bonifay, W.E., Haviland, M.G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129—140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
15. Reise, S.P., Moore, T.M., Haviland, M.G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Pers. Assess., 92(6), 544—559.
16. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S.P., Haviland, M.G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting the statistical indices. Methods, 21(2), 137—150.
17. Steger, F., 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(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
18. Stucky, B.D., Edelen, M.O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In: S.P. Reise, D.A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183—206). New York: Routledge.
19. Subasi, M., Karaman, H., Bulut, S., Osin, E.N. (2024). Turkish Validation of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS): A Bifactor Model Approach. Current Psychology. Submitted manuscript (revision submitted).
20. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J., Billiet, J., Cambré, B. (2003). Adjustment for acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type score items. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 702—722. https://doi.org/1177/0022022103257070
21. Wong, T.P. (2012). Toward a dual-systems model of what makes life worth living. In: P.T.P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 3—22). New York, NY: Routledge.
22. Zhou, Z., Qi, W., He, Q., Wen, J., Miao, M. (2024). Which one is the best for evaluating the multidimensional structure of meaning in life among Chinese: A comparison of three multidimensional scales. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 19, 1791—1810. https://doi.org/1007/s11482-024-10307-y