Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectancies Scale (HOPES)
(Nunn et al., 1996 ).
Variable
Nunn et al. (1996) defined hope as, ‘that construction of, and response to, the perceived future, in which the
desirable is subjectively assessed to be probable’ (p. 532). Accordingly, hope has three domains including tempo-
rality (e.g., future oriented), desirability (desirable outcome), and expectancy (probability of that outcome
occurring).
Description
HOPES consists of 20 statements to which respondents indicate their degree of agreement. Ten of these items
reflect the hope subscale and 10 reflect the despair subscale. Item response-format is on a five-point scale from 0
‘describes me not at all’ to 4 ‘describes me extremely well,’ and total scores can range from 0 to 80 (hope score 5
hope subscale minus despair subscale plus 40).
Sample
The HOPES was developed using three separate samples ( N5307) including a medical school sample
(N5211), an adolescent male sample ( N52157), a hospital staff sample ( N5318), and a post-earthquake com-
munity sample ( N51089). Overall mean hope scores were high ( M558.72, SD510.89).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for each sample have been reported ( αs5.80 to .92) ( Nunn et al., 1996 ).
Test/C0Retest
A stability coefficient (r 5.71) after 15 months has been reported ( Nunn et al., 1996 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
HOPES scores correlate positively with a measure of extraversion ( r5.39) ( Nunn et al., 1996 ).
Discriminant Validity
HOPES scores correlate negatively with trait anxiety ( r52.64), neuroticism ( r52.46), locus of control
(r52.46), and depression (Beck Depression Scale) ( rs52.51 to2.67) ( Nunn et al., 1996 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
A principal components analysis yielded five dimensions when combining the HOPES with EPI neuroticism,
Spielberger’s Trait Anxiety Scale, Beck Depression Scale, and Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale, suggesting the
uniqueness of the HOPES instrument ( Nunn et al., 1996 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Individuals with the lowest HOPES scores also exhibit lower general health scores than those with the highest
HOPES scores. Similarly, individuals with the lowest HOPES scores are affected more by catastrophic events
(e.g., earthquakes) than those with the highest HOPES scores ( Nunn et al., 1996 ).
Location
Nunn K.P., Lewin T.J., Walton J.M., & Carr V.J. (1996). The construction and characteristics of an instrument to
measure personal hopefulness. Psychological Medicine, 26 , 531/C0545.
Results and Comments
Of all the measures of hope reviewed, the HOPES was validated in a uniquely iterative process and as such, is
perhaps the most thoroughly developed of the hope scales. HOPES is also unique in that is was validated with a
wide range of sample populations, making it extremely versatile.57 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS