Psychometric Properties of the Seeking of Noetic Goals Test Brandy J Psychometric Properties of the Seeking of Noetic Goals Test Brandy J. Baczwaski1, Erin Buchanan2, and Stefan E. Schulenberg1 The University of Mississippi1, Missouri State University2 2011 APA Annual Convention, Washington, DC Abstract Results Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis Fit Indices: Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Loadings: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: EFA Models RMSEA RMR NNFI CFI GFI AGFI 20Qs 2-Factor 0.05 0.042 0.92 0.94 0.99 0.98 18Qs 2-Factor 0.043 18Q 1-Factor 0.09 0.096 0.73 0.76 0.93 18Q 3-Factor 0.03 0.032 0.96 0.97 CFA Models X2 df X2/df CFI RMSEA 20Qs 2-Factor 556.05 169 3.29 0.824 0.072 18Qs 2-Factor 357.06 134 2.66 0.881 0.061 18Qs 1-Factor 637.10 135 4.71 0.727 0.091 Gender Invariance Females (N=304) 299.36 2.23 0.860 0.064 Males (N=136) 218.33 1.62 0.866 0.068 Equal Form 517.93 268 1.93 0.046 Metric Invariance 528.88 284 1.86 0.869 0.044 Scalar Invariance 561.67 302 1.84 0.861 Strict Factorial 585.81 320 1.83 0.858 Ethnicity Invariance Caucasian (N=336) 323.94 2.41 0.872 0.065 Other Ethnicity (N=105) 170.36 1.27 0.900 0.051 494.66 0.878 508.18 1.78 0.879 0.042 555.65 0.863 Partial Scalar Invariance 540.65 301 1.79 0.871 0.043 This study’s purpose was to determine the factor structure of the Seeking of Noetic Goals test in addition to adding to the current literature on the reliability and validity of the measure. The SONG was administered to 908 undergraduate students drawn from medium-sized southern universities. Results found two distinct factors. One factor demonstrated strong reliability and validity correlating other measures of well-being and psychopathology. The second factor, however, did not. It is unclear, at this point, what this factor is measuring. Demographics. Dataset 1 (LOGO): N = 341, 66% Women, 83.6% Caucasian, Age M = 19.50 (SD = 1.60) Dataset 2 (MEAN): N = 298, 62.1% Women, 70.5% Caucasian, Age M = 19.67 (SD = 2.27) Dataset 3 (PRIME): N = 269, 75.5% Women, 24.5% Caucasian, Age M = 19.14 (SD = 2.05) Combined: N = 908, 67.5% Women, 76.9% Caucasian, Age M = 19.45 (SD = 1.98) Data Analytic Procedure. Assumptions of multivariate statistics (linearity, normality, homogeneity) were analyzed and determined satisfactory. The combined datasets were randomized, and split into two subsamples. Each group was then screened for multivariate outliers on the SONG answers using Mahalanobis distance. 18 outliers were removed for the following analyses. Exploratory Factor Analysis (N = 446). Recommendations from Preacher and MacCallum (2003) were followed. Preliminary screening with a scree plot and parallel analysis indicated a 2-factor structure. The first 20 question 2-factor model had good fit indices, but two questions (#s 2 and 16) split loadings across factors. They were removed from future analyses. The second 18 question 2-factor model had good fit indices, with all questions loading on only one factor. For comparison 1-factor and 3-factor models were also tested. The 2-factor model had the best combined fit indices and interpretable factor loadings. See Tables 1 and 2 for fit indices and factor loadings. Descriptive Statistics (N = 908). Correlation and Reliability Statistics. Note. Bolded items are significant at p<.001. Question Factor 1 Factor 2 3 0.427 0.003 4 0.710 0.039 5 0.459 0.000 8 0.574 0.091 9 0.650 0.016 11 0.608 -0.083 12 0.622 0.015 13 0.747 -0.018 14 0.428 17 0.652 0.053 19 0.647 -0.088 1 -0.023 0.541 6 0.097 0.440 7 0.129 0.456 10 0.245 0.415 15 0.250 0.319 18 -0.218 0.411 20 -0.164 0.769 Factor Structure: Note: Items are sorted and bolded for easier reading. Factor 1: Eleven questions loaded on factor 1, with items such as “BLAH BLAH BLAH”. These items indicate BLAH BLAH BLAH. Factor 2: Seven questions loaded on factor 2, with items such as “BLAH BLAH BLAH”. These items indicate BLAH BLAH BLAH. Purpose of This Study The Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) test was developed by Crumbaugh (1977) as a complement to the Purpose in Life test (PIL; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964). The PIL was designed to measure the amount of meaning a person perceives, while the SONG was designed to measure the need/ motivation to discover meaning. While a substantial amount of research has accumulated over the years focusing on the PIL, less research has focused on the SONG. Some data suggest that the SONG yields reliable scores (alpha coefficients in excess of .80). With respect to validity, some studies report correlations with other measures of meaning in the negative direction and with measures of psychopathology (i.e., depression, anxiety) in the positive direction. The SONG is the current focus because studies employing the measure do appear sporadically in the literature, and there is need for rigorous, systematic research of the measure’s psychometric properties. Therefore, a major goal of this study is to examine the factor structure of the SONG, as well as report reliability coefficients and correlations with other measures of well-being and psychopathology in order to provide a more complete understanding of its psychometric properties and potential utility. Discussion This study was conducted to examine the factor structure of the Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) test. Exploratory factor analysis showed that two factors are present within the measure. Additionally, the EFA found that two questions did not sufficiently load on either of these factors. It is possible that these questions are not essential to the measure. The first factor identified items that reflect an individual’s struggle or motivation for finding meaning. For example, “I feel that some element which I can’t quite define is missing from my life.” The second factor identified future-oriented items such as “I hope for something exciting in the future.” Confirmatory factor analysis supported the 2-factor model. Measurement invariance showed that the model is consistent for males and females. This was true for ethnicity as well with the exception of one item: “I daydream of finding a new place for my life and a new identity.” Within the SONG, factor 1 proved to be the most reliable and valid. This factor significantly negatively correlated with the LPQ and PIL and significantly positively correlated with the OQ, which was predicted. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha exceeded .80. The total SONG score showed similar results but with weaker correlations and alpha. Finally, factor 2 did not significantly correlate with any of the measures and possessed a weaker Cronbach’s alpha.   PIL Score LPQ Score OQ Score Cronbach's Factor 1 Total -0.166 -0.614 0.685 0.846 Factor 2 Total 0.056 0.013 -0.011 0.672 Total Score -0.103 -0.473 0.529 0.813 Item Examples: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results (N = 444). The 18 question 2-factor EFA model was programmed into SPSS AMOS 18.0. This model was compared to the Schulenberg and Gohm (2009) 20 question 2-factor model and an 18 question 1-factor model. The 18 question 2-factor model was then tested for measurement invariance on gender and ethnicity (grouping all non-Caucasian participants together) using terminology and guidelines from Brown (2006). The 18-question 2-factor model had the best fit indices for fit overall. The measurement invariance models indicated that the SONG structure, factor loadings, item intercepts, and error variance was the same across males and females. Ethnicity comparisons revealed that item 8 (new life and identify) had differential intercepts across ethnicity where other ethnicities tend to rate this question higher over Caucasians. Table 3 contains the fit indices for each model, and analysis examples are given upon request. Method Procedures. Measurements were taken at three different time points and combined into one large dataset. Participants filled out surveys for course credit or extra credit. Measures. The following measures were included in all three datasets: Measures of meaning: SONG, the Purpose in Life Questionnaire (PIL), and the Life Purpose Questionnaire (LPQ). Measures of psychopathology: Outcome Questionnaire (OQ). Contact information: Stefan E. Schulenberg, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, The University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677 Email sschulen@olemiss.edu