Hope test- Adult

Abstract

The State Hope Scale – Adult, also recognized in psychometric literature as the Comprehensive Hope Scale (State form; Scioli et al., 2011), is a multidimensional self-report inventory designed to assess momentary and short-term operational hope across four distinct experiential domains: Mastery, Attachment, Survival, and Spirituality. Diverging fundamentally from unidimensional or strictly cognitive paradigms—most notably C. R. Snyder’s two-component goal-directed model comprising pathways and agency—Scioli and colleagues conceptualize hope as an integrative biopsychosocial and spiritual capacity evolved for human adaptation, social bonding, existential meaning-making, and trauma resilience. The adult state instrument consists of three initial contextual/qualitative orientation questions followed by 40 primary state items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type intensity metric ranging from 0 (None) to 4 (Extremely Strong). Respondents evaluate their cognitive, affective, and relational states over the preceding two weeks. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding α = .84 and the full-scale composite surpassing α = .92. Confirmatory factor analyses corroborate a four-factor correlated or hierarchical structure that possesses strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity against measures of depression, acute anxiety, resilience, social support, and therapeutic alliance. The scale provides clinicians and clinical researchers with a granular, ecologically sensitive diagnostic tool suitable for tracking state fluctuations in palliative care, spiritually integrated psychotherapy, psychiatric rehabilitation, and general adult positive psychology interventions.

Keywords

Comprehensive Hope Scale, State Hope Scale, Anthony Scioli, Mastery, Attachment, Survival, Spirituality, Psychometrics, Hope Theory, Biopsychosocial Model

Authors

The Comprehensive State Hope Scale was developed and standardized by a research collaborative led by:

• Anthony Scioli, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Keene State College, University System of New Hampshire, Keene, NH, USA. (Corresponding contact: [email protected]).
• Matthew Ricci, B.A. — Department of Psychology, Keene State College, Keene, NH, USA.
• Truc Nyugen, B.A. — Department of Psychology, Keene State College, Keene, NH, USA.
• Ernest R. Scioli, Ph.D. — Clinical Psychologist, Private Practice, Boston, MA, USA.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the State Hope Scale – Adult is to operationalize and quantify current, dynamic states of hope across four theoretically derived dimensions. For decades, psychometric research in positive psychology predominantly utilized narrow conceptualizations of hope. Chief among these was Snyder’s cognitive formulation, which limited hope to goal-directed determination (agency thinking) and planning to meet goals (pathways thinking). While useful in academic and performance settings, Snyder’s framework faced persistent critique from developmental, clinical, and existential psychologists for omitting crucial relational, affect-regulatory, and transcendent resources that individuals mobilize during acute suffering, trauma, or existential crisis.

Scioli and colleagues addressed these limitations by establishing a measurement tool grounded in an integrative, evolutionary model. The scale evaluates hope not merely as an individualistic, self-contained achievement drive, but as an ecological matrix that buffers against demoralization, facilitates psychological recovery, and fosters human flourishing. Specifically, the instrument seeks to capture:

• Dynamic Clinical Responsiveness: Assessing state hope allows practitioners to evaluate week-by-week shifts in psychological well-being, monitoring the immediate impact of clinical interventions, crisis de-escalation, and therapeutic rapport.
• Differentiation of Hope Deficits: The scale enables clinicians to discern the precise locus of a client’s despair. A patient may exhibit robust spiritual faith yet suffer from profound relational detachment (attachment collapse), or display high individual ambition while feeling completely trapped and unable to regulate trauma-related distress (survival deficit).
• Spiritual and Relational Integration: Unlike secularized cognitive instruments, this scale honors the empirical reality that millions of individuals draw primary coping strength from perceived connection to the transcendent, sacred, or communal networks.

Its research and applied utility spans clinical psychology, psycho-oncology, palliative medicine, addiction recovery, pastoral counseling, and organizational stress management.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the scale is a four-dimensional architecture encapsulated by the MASS Model of hope: Mastery, Attachment, Survival, and Spirituality. Each domain represents an evolutionarily selected psychological need and coping system:

1. Mastery Hope

Mastery hope corresponds to empowerment, personal agency, perceived competence, and goal attainment. It reflects the belief that one possesses the skills, support, and internal efficacy required to achieve meaningful life objectives and triumph over external barriers. Unlike isolated self-efficacy, mastery hope incorporates collaborative achievement—the recognition that goals are often realized through outside assistance, mentoring, and communal empowerment (e.g., Item 1: “I feel hopeful about achieving a major life goal”; Item 26: “I’m accomplishing a lot because of the help I get from family and friends”).

2. Attachment Hope

Rooted in attachment theory, this dimension reflects perceived relational security, interpersonal trust, mutual love, and social belonging. Attachment hope serves as an interpersonal buffer against loneliness and alienating despair. Individuals high in attachment hope perceive themselves as valued by others and feel secure reaching out for emotional co-regulation during periods of distress (e.g., Item 2: “I feel loved by someone”; Item 30: “I feel that I matter to someone”). Conversely, attachment deficits manifest as hyper-vigilance, betrayal aversion, and pervasive interpersonal mistrust (e.g., Item 13: “I’m finding it hard to trust people”; Item 33: “I worry that someone may betray me”).

3. Survival Hope

Survival hope constitutes the fundamental human defense against dread, helplessness, entrapment, and emotional dysregulation. It governs the capacity to remain calm under existential threat, regulate negative affect, tolerate acute distress, and preserve psychological equilibrium when circumstances appear overwhelmingly bleak. Deficits in survival hope emerge as the subjective perception of being trapped, experiencing psychological collapse, or running out of viable alternatives (e.g., Item 3: “My emotions are under control”; Item 11: “I feel ‘trapped’ in some part of my life”; Item 19: “I feel like I’ve ‘dug myself into a hole’, and there is ‘no way out'”).

4. Spirituality Hope

Spirituality hope reflects an orientation toward the sacred, transcendent, or universal cosmic order. It captures the extent to which an individual draws inspiration, meaning, and emotional solace from prayer, meditation, or perceived communion with a higher power or spiritual presence. In Scioli’s framework, spirituality is an integral psychological subsystem that provides existential coherence, moral grounding, and ultimate security beyond immediate physical contingencies (e.g., Item 4: “I have felt a spiritual presence”; Item 28: “My spiritual beliefs give me a feeling of security”; Item 40: “My spiritual beliefs are a source of emotional comfort”).

Theoretical Framework

The Comprehensive State Hope Scale is anchored in an interdisciplinary theoretical synthesis uniting evolutionary biology, psychoanalytic attachment theory, existential philosophy, and contemporary affective neuroscience.

Evolutionary and Developmental Foundations

Scioli and colleagues propose that hope is not merely a cognitive style, but an essential evolutionary adaptation designed to preserve human physical and mental integrity in the face of suffering, predation, illness, and mortality. The four pillars map directly onto foundational human survival challenges:

• Attachment: Mapped to the mammalian bonding system elucidated by John Bowlby. Hope originates in infancy through reliable, warm maternal scaffolding, forming the basis of basic trust versus basic mistrust as described by Erik Erikson.
• Survival: Grounded in evolutionary defense mechanisms and neurobiological stress systems (e.g., sympathetic nervous system modulation and fronto-limbic emotional regulation). When external stressors escalate, survival hope provides the subjective buffering required to avoid autonomic freeze and psychogenic death.
• Mastery: Aligned with Robert White’s effectance motivation and Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. It represents the human evolutionary need to manipulate tools, master environments, and secure food and safety through strategic planning and collaborative agency.
• Spirituality: Informed by William James’s exploration of religious experience and Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy. The search for ultimate meaning and communion with the transcendent enables humans to withstand physical deprivation and suffering when mundane physical mastery is completely compromised.

Contrast with Alternative Models

Classical models of hope, such as Snyder’s Hope Theory, treat hope almost exclusively as a goal-directed cognitive mechanism composed of pathways (planning) and agency (determination). Scioli’s framework contends that Snyder’s paradigm essentially operationalizes only the Mastery component of hope, entirely neglecting the affective and relational bedrock of human existence. When individuals face irreversible terminal diagnoses or severe bereavement, goal-directed agency may fail, yet hope can remain extraordinarily vibrant through spiritual surrender, deep relational connection (attachment), and peaceful emotional equilibrium (survival). The Comprehensive Hope Scale was constructed specifically to capture this holistic phenomenological breadth.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations conducted across non-clinical college populations, community adults, and clinical cohorts provide robust empirical evidence for the validity of the Comprehensive Hope Scale (Scioli et al., 2011).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating the Comprehensive Hope Scale and its subscales with well-validated psychological inventories:

• Snyder State Hope Scale: The Mastery subscale shows high positive correlations with Snyder’s agency and pathways dimensions (r = .68 to .76, p < .001), corroborating that Snyder’s model predominantly measures mastery-related constructs.
• Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R): Full-scale state hope demonstrates substantial positive correlations with dispositional optimism (r = .62, p < .001).
• Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS): The Attachment subscale correlates strongly with perceived support from family, friends, and significant others (r = .71, p < .001).
• Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) and FACIT-Sp: The Spirituality subscale exhibits strong convergent validity with measures of spiritual well-being, prayer frequency, and perceived sacred connection (r = .74 to .82, p < .001).
• Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): The Survival subscale demonstrates strong positive convergence with emotional resilience, distress tolerance, and psychological hardiness (r = .65, p < .001).

Discriminant and Incremental Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by strong negative correlations with measures of psychopathology:

• Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): Total state hope correlates inversely with depressive symptom severity (r = -.64, p < .001), with the Survival and Attachment subscales showing particularly potent negative associations with depressive hopelessness and cognitive despair.
• State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): Survival hope demonstrates an inverse correlation with state anxiety (r = -.58, p < .001), validating its theoretical status as an affective stabilizer.
• Incremental Utility: Hierarchical multiple regressions indicate that the Comprehensive Hope Scale accounts for significant unique variance in psychological well-being, life satisfaction, and recovery indices over and above Snyder’s Hope Scale, the LOT-R, and general self-efficacy measures (Scioli et al., 2011; Goetsch, 2015).

Reliability

The Comprehensive State Hope Scale exhibits exemplary psychometric reliability across diverse testing environments and demographic samples.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates, evaluated via Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω), consistently fall well within the upper bounds of psychometric acceptability:

• Full Composite Hope Scale: α = .92 to .95 across multiple standardization cohorts.
• Mastery Subscale: α = .84 to .89.
• Attachment Subscale: α = .86 to .91.
• Survival Subscale: α = .83 to .88.
• Spirituality Subscale: α = .91 to .96, reflecting high item homogeneity within transcendent and spiritual coping domains.

Temporal Stability and State Sensitivity

Because this instrument evaluates state hope (specifically referencing “today and over the past two weeks”), test-retest reliability reflects expected dynamic psychological shifts while maintaining acceptable structural stability:

• Two-week Test-Retest Reliability: In non-interventional baseline controls, stability coefficients range between r = .72 and .79, reflecting moderate-to-high relative rank-order stability.
• Sensitivity to Clinical Change: Longitudinal and intervention trials (e.g., spiritually guided prayer, psychotherapy, and mindfulness-based stress reduction; Goetsch, 2015) reveal that state scores show statistically significant, sensitive upward shifts following therapeutic interventions (effect sizes d = 0.45–0.78), demonstrating the scale’s high responsiveness as a clinical outcome metric.

  Factor Analysis

  The structural integrity of the Comprehensive Hope Scale was established via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse development samples (Scioli et al., 2011).

  Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

  Initial principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation cleanly resolved a four-factor solution accounting for over 56% of the total item variance. The scree plot and parallel analysis supported the extraction of four correlated primary factors: Mastery, Attachment, Survival, and Spirituality. Reverse-scored items loading on the Survival and Attachment factors clearly separated along their substantive conceptual themes (entrapment, betrayal, emotional dysregulation) rather than producing an uninterpretable method effect.

  Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

  Subsequent CFA validation compared the theoretical four-factor correlated model against competing structural configurations (e.g., unidimensional general hope model, two-factor cognitive vs. non-cognitive model, and orthogonal models). The four-factor correlated model and the second-order hierarchical model (wherein Mastery, Attachment, Survival, and Spirituality load onto a higher-order overarching Hope factor) demonstrated superior goodness-of-fit indices:

  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92 to .94
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .91 to .93
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .056 (90% CI [.043, .061])
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051

  All 40 primary state items exhibited robust standardized factor loadings ranging from λ = .52 to λ = .88 on their designated latent factors, with no problematic cross-loadings surpassing .25. Inter-factor correlations ranged from moderate (r = .38 between Spirituality and Mastery) to high (r = .62 between Attachment and Survival), supporting the conceptual distinctiveness yet shared existential commonality of the four pillars.

  Instrument / Measurement Tool

  • Tool Name: State Hope Scale – Adult (Comprehensive Hope Scale, State Form)
  • Authors: Anthony Scioli, Matthew Ricci, Truc Nyugen, & Ernest R. Scioli (2011)
  • Assessment Type: Multidimensional self-report state inventory
  • Target Population: Adults aged 18 and older (adapted forms exist for adolescents/children)
  • Timeframe of Reference: Current states (“how you feel today and over the past two weeks”)
  • Structure:
    • Section 1: Background Questions: 3 exploratory contextual items capturing philosophy of life (Item A), locus of faith (Item B), and preferred coping strategies (Item C).
    • Section 2: Primary State Scale: 40 substantive items evaluating Mastery, Attachment, Survival, and Spirituality.
  • Item Format & Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type intensity metric:
    • 0 = None
    • 1 = Little
    • 2 = Weak
    • 3 = Strong
    • 4 = Extremely Strong
  • Subscale Breakdown:
    • Mastery Items: Focus on personal efficacy, outside resources, and collaborative achievement (e.g., Items 1, 6, 9, 15, 21, 26, 29, 35).
    • Attachment Items: Focus on love, belonging, mutual support, and interpersonal trust (positively keyed: Items 2, 5, 10, 14, 22, 25, 30, 34; negatively keyed: Items 7, 13, 27, 33).
    • Survival Items: Focus on emotional regulation, psychological hardiness, and freedom from entrapment (positively keyed: Items 3, 17, 23; negatively keyed: Items 11, 19, 31, 37, 39).
    • Spirituality Items: Focus on transcendent connection, meditation, prayer, and sacred comfort (e.g., Items 4, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 38, 40).
  • Scoring Procedures:
    • Negatively worded items (Items 7, 11, 13, 19, 27, 31, 33, 37, 39) must be reverse-scored prior to calculation: 0 → 4, 1 → 3, 2 → 2, 3 → 1, 4 → 0.
    • Subscale scores are generated by summing or averaging the items within each domain.
    • The Total State Hope Score is computed by summing all 40 recoded items (theoretical range: 0 to 160), with higher scores reflecting greater global state hope.
  • Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.

  Permissions & Fee and Test Year

  The State Hope Scale – Adult was officially published in its validated comprehensive psychometric form in 2011 by the American Psychological Association in the journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (Scioli et al., 2011). The instrument is widely accessible for non-commercial scientific, academic, and clinical research purposes. In accordance with standard open-science and academic dissemination norms established by the primary author, researchers and clinicians may utilize the scale in clinical and empirical investigations. The interactive assessment and supplementary clinical scoring materials have historically been made accessible through academic portals and educational resources hosted by the authors (e.g., GainHope.com). Individuals interested in commercial deployment, electronic integration into proprietary health-record platforms, or formal translation adaptations should contact the principal investigator directly: Anthony Scioli, Ph.D. ([email protected]).

  References

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  • Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
  • Erikson, E. H. (1993). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Simon & Schuster.
  • Goetsch, B. L. (2015). Effects of an electronically guided prayer intervention (Doctoral dissertation, George Fox University). Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) Paper 162. http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/psyd/162
  • James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Longmans, Green, & Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10018-000
  • Scioli, A., & Biller, H. B. (2009). Hope in the age of anxiety: A guide to understanding and unleashing our most powerful emotion. Oxford University Press.
  • Scioli, A., & Biller, H. B. (2010). The power of hope: A doctor’s perspective. Health Communications, Inc.
  • Scioli, A., Ricci, M., Nyugen, T., & Scioli, E. R. (2011). Hope: Its nature and measurement. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(2), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023223
  • Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570
  • White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934

  13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

  Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:

  1

  I feel hopeful about achieving a major life goal.

  2

  I feel loved by someone.

  3

  My emotions are under control.

  4

  I have felt a spiritual presence.

  5

  I can turn to a good friend or family member to help me relax.

  6

  I am able to rely on outside help to achieve my goals.

  7

  I feel let down by someone that I trusted.

  8

  I’m able to rely on my spiritual beliefs to lesson my anxiety.

  9

  Everyday I’m getting closer to achieving my dreams.

  10

  I feel very close to a friend or family member.

  11

  I feel “trapped” in some part of my life.

  12

  I draw inspiration from my spiritual beliefs.

  13

  I’m finding it hard to trust people.

  14

  A good way for me to reduce stress is to spend time with my friends and/or family.

  15

  I feel supported in reaching my goals.

  16

  I have felt connected to a spiritual force.

  17

  I feel calm and collected.

  18

  I have used prayer or meditation to help me accomplish an important goal.

  19

  I feel like I’ve “dug myself into a hole”‚ and there is “no way out”.

  20

  I have used prayer or meditation to help me reduce my worries.

  21

  I’m making progress towards important goals.

  22

  I feel part of a group.

  23

  I can handle any current or future difficulties.

  24

  I felt very close to a higher power or spiritual force.

  25

  My friends or family are helping me to lower my anxiety.

  26

  I’m accomplishing a lot because of the help I get from family and friends.

  27

  I question whom I can trust.

  28

  My spiritual beliefs give me a feeling of security.

  29

  I’m succeeding in ways that really matter to me.

  30

  I feel that I matter to someone.

  31

  With each day‚ I feel that some of my freedom is slipping away.

  32

  My faith in a higher power gives me the strength to pursue my dreams.

  33

  I worry that someone may betray me.

  34

  My family or friends have a calming effect on me.

  35

  There are people in my life that are inspiring me to do my best work.

  36

  I have felt “at one” with a spiritual force or presence.

  37

  I might get rattled if my life gets any tougher.

  38

  Spiritual guidance is contributing to my success in life.

  39

  I’m running out of options for improving my life.

  40

  My spiritual beliefs are a source of emotional comfort.
  ★

  Rate This Scale

  5.0 / 5 • 1 vote