Gender differences in resilience, meaning, and purpose using factor-analytic techniques and scale scores Marcela Weber, MA, Emily Gawlik, Katelyn March, Jeffrey Pavlacic, BS, Stefan Schulenberg, PhD, & Erin Buchanan, PhD Resilience Con, May 2018, Nashville, TN

Background: Psychometric Issues Brief measures not as well-validated (Windle et al., 2011) Popular resilience scales lack sufficient validation (Windle et al., 2011) Meaning and Resilience measures used with populations they were not developed for (Ahern et al., 2006; Cosco et al., 2016) Masood et al. 2016, greater psy distress and less resilience in females Evangelista et al. 2001, females more likely to derive sense of meaning from illness Windle - “no gold standard found yet” for resilience measures, calls for further investigation, more validation work Ahern - reviewed use of resilience measures in adolescent populations, like Cosco suggests more work needs to be done in regards to looking at these measures in the context of different populations as well as at factor structure Cosco - Looked to validate a number of measures in an elderly population, see if they were appropriate for assessing resilience in older populations; found sufficient support for several, but also acknowledged need for further validity in different populations and more attention in research to factor structure.

Background: Gender Differences FOR RESILIENCE Resilience in burn victims (Masood et al., 2016) Resilience in an elderly population (Gulbrandsen, 2016) FOR MEANING IN LIFE Meaning in life in patients living with heart failure (Evangelista et al., 2001) Meaning in life in four stages of life (Steger et al., 2009) Masood et al. 2016, greater psy distress and less resilience in females Evangelista et al. 2001, females more likely to derive sense of meaning from illness Gulbrandsen, 2016 - literature indicates distinct differences in kinds of adversity contended with by older women as opposed to older men (e.g. example), which warrants investigation, differences in resilience between older men and women? Windle - “no gold standard found yet” for resilience measures, calls for further investigation, more validation work Ahern - reviewed use of resilience measures in adolescent populations, like Cosco suggests more work needs to be done in regards to looking at these measures in the context of different populations as well as at factor structure Cosco - Looked to validate a number of measures in an elderly population, see if they were appropriate for assessing resilience in older populations; found sufficient support for several, esp RS, but also acknowledged need for further validity assessment in different populations and more attention in research to factor structure

Purpose of Studies 1. Examine the validity of well-used measures of resilience and meaning in life, across three samples, for both men and women 2. Investigate gender differences in resilience and meaning in life across three samples

Method

Measures Brief Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith et al., 2008) Meaning in Life Questionnaire - Presence subscale (MLQ-P; Steger et al., 2006) Purpose in Life Test - Short Form (PIL-SF; Schulenberg et al., 2011)

Study 1: Missouri State Students Distributed online questionnaire to students at a midwestern university N = 1457; collected 2015-2016 40% male 60% female Measures Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) Meaning in Life Questionnaire – Presence (MLQ-P) Purpose in Life Test – Short Form (PIL-SF) Part of a larger study with many other measures Completion time: approx. 10 minutes

Study 2: Univ. of Mississippi Students Distributed online questionnaire to students at a southeastern university N = 408; collected in 2015 69% female 31% male Measures Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) Purpose in Life Test – Short Form (PIL-SF) Part of a larger study with many other measures Completion time: approx. 10 minutes

Study 3: Univ. of Mississippi Employees Distributed online questionnaire to faculty and staff at a southeastern university N = 336; data collected in 2015 61% female, 39% male 68% between age 45 and 65 (range 18 to 65+ years) Measures Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) Meaning in Life Questionnaire – Presence (MLQ-P) Part of a larger study with many other measures Completion time: approx. 10 minutes

Results

PIL-SF Norms Missouri State Sample Median Mean SD Min. Max. Overall 23 22.57 4.21 6 28 Men 22.04 3.84 10 Women 24 22.86 4.38   UM Student Sample 23.66 3.49 4 23.32 3.82 25 23.81 3.32 11

PIL-SF Factor Analysis Missouri State student sample Model X2(df) RMSEA SRMR CFI All Groups (N = 296) (2) = 4.90 .07 .02 .994 Male (N = 103) (2) = 2.62 .06 Female (N = 193) (2) = 2.65 .04 .01 .998 Univ. of Mississippi student sample Model X2(df) RMSEA SRMR CFI All Groups (N = 408) (2) = 2.57 .03 .01 .999 Female (N = 281) (2) = .59 .00 1.000 Male (N = 127) (2) = 4.38 .10 .02 .990

MLQ-P Norms Missouri State Sample Median Mean SD Min. Max. Overall 26 25.29 6.39 5 35 Men 25 24.75 6.09 Women 27 25.65 6.57   UM Employee Sample 30 28.41 5.46 28.26 5.77 28.52 5.26

MLQ-P Factor Analysis Missouri State student sample Model X2(df) RMSEA SRMR CFI All Groups (N = 882) (5) = 9.06 .03 .01 .999 Male (N = 355) (5) = 5.72 .02 Female (N = 527) (5) = 7.56 Univ. of Mississippi employee sample Model X2(df) RMSEA SRMR CFI All Groups (N = 336) (5) = 18.64 .09 .01 .990 Male (N = 135) (5) = 15.02 .12 .02 .983 Female (N = 201) (5) = 13.01

UM Faculty/ Staff Sample BRS Norms Missouri State Sample Median Mean SD Min. Max. Overall 18 18.36 2.25 6 30 Men 18.32 2.27 Women 18.38 2.23 10   UM Faculty/ Staff Sample 22 22.14 3.95 9 24 22.72 4.10 21.76 3.80 UM Student Sample 21.56 4.59 23 23.24 4.11 12 20.79 4.60

BRS Factor Analysis Missouri State student sample Model X2(df) RMSEA SRMR CFI All Groups (N = 1457) (9) = 313.21 .15 .05 .922 Male (N = 574) (9) = 112.04 .14 .913 Female (N = 883) (9) = 210.36 .16 .04 .923 Univ. of Mississippi student sample Model X2(df) RMSEA SRMR CFI All Groups (N = 408) (9) = 147.63 .19 .05 .896 Female (N = 281) (9) = 58.84 .14 .04 .944 Male (N = 127) (9) = 133.43 .33 .12 .707 Univ. of Mississippi employee sample Model X2(df) RMSEA SRMR CFI All Groups (N = 336) (9) = 95.74 .17 .05 .914 Male (N = 135) (9) = 48.30 .18 .06 .904 Female (N = 201) (9) = 55.21 .16 .920

Gender Comparisons Sample t p Difference Effect Size (d) PIL-SF Missouri State 1.667 0.097 --- UM Students 1.25 0.212   MLQ-P 2.073 0.038 Higher for women .147 (negligible) UM Employees 0.417 0.677 BRS 0.497 0.620 -5.364 <.001 Higher for men 0.653 (medium) -2.171 0.031 0.263 (small)

Discussion & Conclusions

Learning Objectives 1. Demographic differences, particularly gender differences, in resilience and meaning in life are not uncommon. For the Mississippi employee and student studies, men reported higher resilience than women on the Brief Resilience Scale. For the Missouri State students, women self-reported greater meaning in life. Both these findings are consistent with the literature, which has shown greater resilience in men and higher meaning in life in women, for other populations. Secondly, demographic differences could also be regional. For example, our findings for midwestern and southeastern university students were not the same.

Learning Objectives 2. Gender differences must be accounted for in each study on these constructs, particularly if gender and trauma victimization are correlated in the sample. Many researchers control for gender in order to address gender differences. If gender is correlated with both outcome and predicting variables, then researchers need to be very careful about the conclusions they draw regarding trauma or stressors and their relationships to resilience, meaning, and purpose.

Learning Objectives 3. Sometimes there are demographic differences not just in the scale scores of measures, but in their factor structure and thereby their validity, even for well-validated measures. However, it is important to check and make sure that the measures used are reliable and valid for demographic groups in the study. It could be useful to check the reliability or even factor structure for different age groups and genders studied.

Future Research Directions Examining validity and gender differences in other populations Systematic review of validity, for Meaning/Purpose measures Update review for Resilience measures Continuing brief measure development For 4th point: create new measures, if necessary, drawing from review of existing measures and validity work with those.

References Ahern NR, Kiehl EM, Sole ML, Byers J: A review of instruments measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 2006,29(2):103– 125. 10.1080/01460860600677643 Cosco, T. D., Kaushal, A., Richards, M., Kuh, D., & Stafford, M. (2016) Resilience measurement in later life: a systematic review and psychometric analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(16). doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0418-6 Evangelista, L.S. Kagawa-Singer, M., Dracup, K. (2001). Gender differences in health perceptions and meaning in persons living with heart failure. Issues in Cardiovascular care, 30(3), 167-176 Gulbrandsen, C. (2016). Measuring older women’s resilience: Evaluating the suitability of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and the Resilience Scale. Journal of Women & Aging, 28(3), 225-237. doi:10.1080/08952841.2014.951200 Masood, A., Masud, Y., & Mazahir, S. (2016). Gender differences in resilience and psychological distress of patients with burns. Burns, 42(2), 300-306. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2015.10.006 Schulenberg, S. E., Schnetzer, L. W., & Buchanan, E. M. (2011). The Purpose in Life Test-Short Form: Development and Psychometric Support. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(5), 861-876. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9231-9 Smith, B. W., Dalen, J. Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., Bernard, J. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194-200. Steger, M. 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, 80-93. Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 43–52.