1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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, 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

4. 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

5. Method

6. 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)

7. Study 1: Missouri State Students
Distributed online questionnaire to students at a midwestern university
N = 1457; collected
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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Results

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. Discussion & Conclusions

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. References
Ahern NR, Kiehl EM, Sole ML, Byers J: A review of instruments measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 2006,29(2):103– /
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: /s
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),
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), doi: /
Masood, A., Masud, Y., & Mazahir, S. (2016). Gender differences in resilience and psychological distress of patients with burns. Burns, 42(2), doi: /j.burns
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), doi: /s
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,
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,
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.