ArticlePloS one2025
Validation of the German version of the meaning in life measure.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Associations of Experiential and Reflective Dimensions of Meaning in Life With Psychopathological Symptoms.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite growing interest in meaning in life as a core construct of eudaimonic well-being, there is a lack of brief and validated self-report scales in the German language. We translated the Meaning in Life Measure (MILM) to German and examined its psychometric properties in two studies. The MILM is an 8-item self-report instrument that assesses the experience of meaning in life (MILM-E) and reflectivity about meaning in life (MILM-R) with two subscales. In Study 1 (N = 1,189), we confirmed that the German MILM-E and MILM-R load on two positively correlated latent factors, replicating the two-factor structure of the original English measure. In Study 2 we conducted a follow-up assessment (N = 300) nine months later, again confirming the fit of the two-factor structure. Additionally, we examined the nomological network of the MILM by relating both subscales to well-being, self-efficacy, satisfaction with life, preference for intuition and deliberation, rumination, and religiosity/spirituality. All hypotheses regarding the direction of associations were pre-registered. As expected, the MILM-E demonstrated strong correlations with concurrent meaning in life measures (r > .60) and substantial positive correlations with well-being indicators. The MILM-R correlated positively with search for meaning and rumination but, contrary to our expectations, was not significantly associated with well-being measures. Test-retest correlations over nine months indicated a high temporal rank-order stability of both subscales (MILM-E: r = .64; MILM-R: r = .59).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.