Adaptation, Further Elaboration, and Validation of a Scale to Measure Hope as Perceived by People: Discriminant Value and Predictive Utility Vis-à-Vis Dispositional Hope

Abstract

Against the background of different psychological conceptualizations of hope, this article elaborates and validates a measure to assess hope as perceived by the general public adapting it from the hope and optimism subscale of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Spirituality, Religion and Personal Beliefs Questionnaire. The results presented here are part of a yearly Internet-based cross-sectional survey in Germany and Switzerland called Hope-Barometer, from which 4 samples of 3 different years with about 17,500 participants have been used. Following the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as convergent validity, discriminant value, and predictive utility, our findings suggest that the six items of the resulting Perceived Hope Scale exhibits robust psychometric properties, and that perceived hope is distinct and broader than dispositional hope, in which it relates not only to cognitive but also to spiritual, religious, and altruistic dimensions.

Psychometric properties of Hope Scales: A systematic review

“…Fewer papers assessed the psychometric properties of the Herth Hope Scale (n = 4), the Miller Hope Scale (n = 3), the Schrank Hope Scale (n = 3), the Staats Hope Scale (n = 3), and the Nowotny Hope Scale (n = 2). Finally, each of the following scales were evaluated only in one paper: the Comprehensive Hope Scale, the Gottschalk Hope Scale, the Hope Scale for young women in South Africa, the Leyva Theological Hope Scale (LTHS), Faith, Hope and Charity Questionnaire (FHCQ), the Narrative Hope Scale, the Hope Differential‐Short Scale (HDS), the Hope Indicator Questionnaire (HIQ), the Raleigh Hope Scale, the Perceived Hope Scale, and the Indices of Hope Questionnaire…”

“…Eleven studies examined the psychometric properties of the 11 remaining hope scales. The scales used within the studies were as follows: the Hope Scale for young women in South Africa, the Gottschalk Hope Scale, the Leyva Theological Hope Scale (LTHS), the Faith, Hope, and Charity Questionnaire (FHCQ), the Hope Differential‐Short scale, the Indices of Hope Questionnaire, the Multidimensional Hope Scale, Comprehensive Hope Scale, the Hope Indicator Questionnaire‐New, the Perceived Hope Scale, and the Narrative Hope Scale . Five of these studies were dissertations, in which new scales were proposed, with no other papers following up on them.…”

“…Furthermore, one scale was a modified version of the Stoner Hope Scale, and one scale was an abbreviated version of the Hope Differential . Each of these 11 studies were conducted in the following locations: one (9%) in South Africa, one (9%) in Germany, one (9%) in Poland, one (9%) in Canada, six (55%) in the United States and one (9%) did not report the location of the study . Furthermore, nine of these studies (82%) were conducted in English one (9%) in Polish, and one (9%) in German.…”

“…Of these 11 studies; four (36%) were directed at individuals in palliative care or institutionalised because of medical conditions or incarceration . A portion of these studies (n = 5; 45%) were conducted in general populations . The remaining studies included the following settings: one in primary care, one in a hospital outpatient programme, one in a mental health clinic, one in a university, one in a nursing home, and one in a household setting…”

“…Regarding the quality of the studies, of the 10 (91%) scales that evaluated internal consistency, two scales were rated excellent, three scales were rated good, four scales were rated fair, and one scale was rated poor (details of this information can be found in Table ).…”