Li et al. (2021), the column "Dimensions measured" incorrectly states 'Meaning in life (MIL): Feelings of coherence, purpose, and external value (significance or mattering)'. The correct version is "Meaning in life (MIL): Feelings of coherence, purpose, and external value (significance or mattering) and internal value" 3. In Reker and Peacock (1981), the column "Dimensions measured" incorrectly states 'Life purpose, Existential vacuum Will to meaning, Goal seeking'. The correct version is "Life Purpose, Existential Vacuum, Life Control, Death Acceptance, Will to Meaning, Goal Seeking, Future Meaning to Fulfil" 4. In Schnell (2009), the column 'Scale name' incorrectly states 'Sources of Meaning (SoMe) scale'. The correct version is "Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life questionnaire (SoMe)" 5. In Schnell (2009), the column "Dimensions measured" incorrectly lists 'Meaningfulness Crisis of meaning'. The correct version is "Meaningfulness (5 items), Crisis of Meaning (5 items), and 26 sources of meaning grouped into four higher-order dimensions: Self-transcendence (vertical/horizontal), Selfactualization, Order, and Well-being/Relatedness" 6. In Schnell (2009), the column 'Psychometric properties' incorrectly lists 'Meaningfulness: α = 0.74 Crisis of Meaning: α = 0.92'. The correct version is "Internal consistency: α = .83-.93 for the four higher-order dimensions; α = .65-.95 for the 26 source scales (German representative sample, N = 603). Two-month test-retest coefficients average .81 for the scales and .90 for the dimensions; six-month stability .72/.78 for sources and dimensions (crisis of meaning = .48). Extensive evidence of construct, content, discriminant, factorial, and incremental validity has been reported" 7. In Schnell and Danbolt (2023), the column "Dimensions measured" incorrectly appears as 'Meaningfulness, Crisis of Meaning Sustainability, Faith, Security Community, Personal Growth'. The correct version is "Meaningfulness, Crisis of Meaning, and five "sources of purpose" scales: Sustainability, Faith, Security, Community, and Personal Growth" 8. In Schnell and Danbolt (2023), the column 'Psychometric properties' incorrectly states 'Internal Consistency: α = 0.70, Ω = 0.71 Correlation with MAPS Sustainability Scale: r = 0.44 (p = 0.001)'. Correlation with Other MAPS Scales: Personal Growth: r = 0.06 (ns)". The correct version is "Population-based German sample (N = 974); α = .74-.96, ω = .75-.96; all corrected item-total rs > .52; EFA/CFA support 2-factor (Meaningfulness, Crisis) and 5-factor (purpose) structure; test-retest ≥ .75 at 4 weeks and 2 months; convergent/divergent validity with SoMe, criterion validity (Sustainability with pro-environmental behaviour), and predictive validity for general mental distress"The corrected table 1 appears below. The original version of this article has been updated.There was a mistake in table 2 as published. 1. In Schnell and Danbolt (2023), the column 'External validity max score = 3' incorrectly shows '0'. The correct version is "3" 2. In Schnell and Danbolt (2023), the column 'Power max score = 5' incorrectly shows '3'. The correct version is "5" 3. In Schnell and Danbolt (2023), the column 'Score out of 32' incorrectly shows '14'. The correct version is "19"The corrected table 2 appears below. The original version of this article has been updated.Adding/removing text After finishing the sentence "Other tools, such as the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) published by Steger et al. (2006), are widely used across different demographic groups, demonstrating broad applicability" a new paragraph needs to be added.A correction has been made to the section 3. Results, 3.2 Sample characteristics:The following information should be added: "The Meaning and Purpose Scales (MAPS; Schnell McDonald's ω = .75-.96), corrected item-total correlations above .52, and stable two-and five-factor structures for meaning and sources-of-purpose scales confirmed by CFA across gender and age groups. Test-retest reliability over 4 weeks and 2 months was at least .75 for every scale, and extensive evidence of convergent and divergent validity with the SoMe, criterion validity (e.g., Sustainability predicting pro-environmental behaviour), and predictive validity for general mental distress was provided."The original version of this article has been updated.Adding/removing text After finishing the sentence "For instance, while the MLQ has been validated in multiple cultural contexts, its applicability to non-Western populations remains limited due to its emphasis on individualistic notions of meaning and purpose. Psychometric Properties." The subtitle "Psychometric Properties" It should appear separately and not as an isolated phrase.A correction has been made to the section [3. Results, 3.2 Sample characteristics:The subtitle "Psychometric Properties" should appear separately and not as an isolated phrase.The original version of this article has been updated.The following paragraph should be modified: " To ensure the quality and reliability of the included studies, we employed two well-established checklists for quality assessment: the Downs and Black checklist and the STROBE checklist. The Downs and Black checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of the 20 experimental studies that were included in our review. The total scores obtained for these studies ranged from 12 to 28. 13 studies were categorized as high quality (≥75% of the maximum score), studies with higher quality scores were given greater weight in the synthesis of findings, as they were deemed more methodologically robust and reliable.For the three non-experimental studies, namely Chamberlain and Zika (1988), Crumbaugh (1977), and Fegg et al. (2016), we utilized the STROBE checklist and found that the total scores ranged from 16 to 19. The detailed outcomes of the quality assessments for the experimental studies, conducted using the Downs and Black checklist, are summarized in Table 2. This table provides a clear and structured evaluation of the methodological quality of these studies. This dual assessment approach ensures a rigorous and systematic evaluation of the included studies, thereby enhancing the credibility and reliability of our systematic review findings."A correction has been made to the section 3. Results, 3.2 Sample characteristics:The correct paragraph is " To appraise the methodological quality of the included studies, we used two complementary checklists. First, the Downs and Black Quality Index was applied to the 20 empirical studies that reported quantitative analyses of associations or group differences, regardless of whether their design was strictly experimental or non-experimental. This instrument was originally developed to assess the methodological quality of randomized and non-randomized intervention studies, but most of its items refer to generic aspects of study quality (e.g., clarity of hypotheses and outcomes, description of participants, use of appropriate statistics). In non-experimental and psychometric validation studies, items that referred specifically to random allocation, blinding or follow-up were difficult to apply and were scored conservatively as 0, which likely leads to an underestimation of certain aspects of methodological rigour in these designs. Second, for the three studies that were purely observational and descriptive (Chamberlain Crumbaugh, 1977;Fegg et al., 2016), we did not use the Downs and Black Index and instead assessed reporting quality using the STROBE checklist. In our synthesis, higher Downs and Black scores were interpreted as indicating better overall methodological quality among the analytical studies, whereas higher STROBE adherence reflected more comprehensive and transparent reporting in the descriptive observational studies."The original version of this article has been updated.End of template. If you would like to request a correction for a reason not seen here, please contact the journal's editorial office.
AlSaadi et al. (Wed,) studied this question.