I am writing because last year you participated in our online study. For the study, you completed several measures of personality, psychopathology, and meaning in life. You indicated that you were interested in knowing the results of the study when available.

First, let me provide a bit of background and refresh your memory about the study. The study you participated in was part of a series of studies designed to develop and validate a self-report scale (i.e. questionnaire) for measuring subjective emptiness. Subjective emptiness is associated with a variety of psychiatric disorders, functional impairments, and serious complications including suicide. Despite the prevalence and risks associated with emptiness, particularly among psychiatric populations, this symptom is poorly understood, understudied, and treatments are not widely available. Difficulty defining and measuring emptiness may hinder research and treatment. The purpose of this series of studies was to extend existing work by using qualitative studies with psychiatric patients, collaboration with experts and more comprehensive validity testing to develop an emptiness scale with stronger evidence of validity (i.e. evidence that the scale measures emptiness rather than another construct). This was the primary issue we were investigating in this series of studies in which you participated.

This series of studies consisted of three components. First, an 88-item Subjective Emptiness Scale (SES) was created based on descriptions of emptiness published in the scholarly literature and quotes and themes found in transcripts from conversations on public message boards and blogs as well as in-depth interviews with 18 adults diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. The initial 88-item SES was then pilot tested using a sample of 53 undergraduate students to assess the clarity of items and instructions. Experts (n = 13) and clinical participants (n = 11) also reviewed the emptiness scale items and primarily evaluated whether the items appeared relevant to emptiness rather than other constructs such as depression. Based on the data collected, the 88-item SES was reduced to 53 items. This 53-item SES, as well as scales measuring depression, borderline personality disorder, meaning in life, and impulsivity, were completed by undergraduate student (n = 550) and clinical samples (n = 1,425) via an online survey website. Data from this study were used to assess the dimensionality (i.e. are the questionnaire items measuring a single construct?), homogeneity (i.e. are all of the questionnaire items measuring the same construct?), validity (i.e. is there strong evidence that the emptiness questionnaire is measuring emptiness and not some other construct?), reading level, and item characteristics of the SES. Data from these analyses informed the reduction of the 53-item SES to a 10-item scale. Finally, the 10-item SES as well as scales measuring various personality traits and identity disturbance were administered to a clinical sample (n = 1,716) via an online survey website. Data from this study were used to evaluate the dimensionality, homogeneity, and validity of the 10-item SES. Based on the results from this study, three items were removed yielding a final 7-item SES.

The results demonstrated that items in the 7-item SES were highly internally consistent (α = .93) (i.e. all items appeared to measure the same construct) and measured a single construct. We also found two pieces of evidence to support the validity of the 7-item emptiness questionnaire. First, all the items discriminated between clinical and student participants. In other words, scores on the emptiness scale were significantly higher among clinical participants than among student participants (p < 0.01, F > 2.64) which was expected given the positive association between emptiness and mental illness. Second, the pattern of associations between the emptiness scale and measures of other constructs were generally as expected. As hypothesized, participants who scored higher on the 7-item SES were also more likely to score higher on measures of anhedonia (p < .01), depressivity (p < .01), borderline personality disorder (p < .01), and identity disturbance (p < .01). They were also more likely to report lower levels of meaning in life (p < .01) and identity consolidation (e.g. construction of a coherent identity) (p < .01), as expected. As anticipated, grandiosity (p < .05), attention-seeking (p < .05), and manipulativeness (p > .05) were not related to scores on the emptiness questionnaire.

These findings provide support for the reliability and validity of the 7-item SES. In other words, these results suggest that the 7-item SES may measure a single construct and, based on the pattern of relationships with other phenomena, there is evidence that this construct may be subjective emptiness. This brief scale can now be used to conduct further research, which may in turn one day lead to better treatment. This scale may also be utilized in clinical settings.

We would not have been able to conduct this important work if not for the generosity of individuals such as you. Your willingness to take the time to participate in this project was invaluable in the effort to develop and validate a self-report scale for measuring subjective emptiness.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Stephanie