Domain Specific Hope Scale (DSHS)

Abstract

The Domain Specific Hope Scale (DSHS) is a specialized psychometrics instrument developed by S. C. Sympson to measure an individual’s level of hope across six distinct life domains: Social Relationships, Academics, Romantic Relationships, Family Life, Work, and Leisure Activities. The DSHS is grounded in C. R. Snyder’s Hope Theory, which conceptualizes hope as a cognitive process involving pathways thinking (the ability to generate routes to goals) and agency thinking (the motivation to use those routes). Unlike global measures of hope, the DSHS provides a nuanced assessment, demonstrating that an individual’s hope level can vary significantly depending on the specific context, thus allowing for more targeted psychological interventions.

Keywords

Hope, Domain Specific Hope Scale, DSHS, Agency, Pathways Thinking, Social Psychology, Assessment, Hope Theory, Psychological Measurement.

Authors

S. C. Sympson, C. R. Snyder (underlying theory and related works).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the DSHS is to provide a granular and context-specific evaluation of an individual’s goal-directed determination. Traditional hope scales often measure hope as a unitary, dispositional trait. The DSHS, conversely, was created to test the hypothesis that hope is highly dependent on the domain in which a person is pursuing goals, thereby offering six separate scores reflecting different facets of life success.

The scale serves clinical and research purposes by identifying specific areas where an individual experiences deficits in generating pathways or applying motivational energy (agency). This specificity makes the DSHS a valuable tool for designing interventions that target particular challenges, such as improving goal setting skills in academic or vocational contexts, or enhancing relational confidence in social domains.

Construct

The DSHS measures the psychological construct of hope, defined as a positive motivational state based on an interactively derived sense of successful goal-directed thinking. This construct is composed of two primary components, both assessed by items within each domain:

• Pathways: The perceived ability to generate multiple successful routes to achieve desired goals (e.g., “I can think of many ways to make friends”).
• Agency: The motivational component, reflecting the belief that one can initiate and sustain the effort required to follow those pathways (e.g., “I actively pursue friendships”).

By focusing on six distinct domains—Social, Academic, Romance, Family, Work, and Leisure—the instrument confirms that hope is not merely a global outlook but a dynamic cognitive process modulated by situational demands and personal relevance within those specific life areas.

Validity

Initial validation studies, centered around Sympson’s 1999 doctoral research, supported the scale’s construct validity. The DSHS demonstrated moderate correlations with established measures of overall dispositional hope, suggesting overlap while confirming its distinct, domain-specific nature. Furthermore, the instrument showed significant correlations with relevant outcome variables; for example, Academic Hope scores were found to be strong predictors of academic performance (such as GPA) among college students.

The scale has also exhibited robust discriminant validity, showing that scores across the six domains are distinct from each other, reinforcing the domain-specific nature of the construct. Cross-cultural validation, including studies in non-Western populations, further supports the generalizability and utility of the DSHS as a measure of goal-directed success in life areas.

Reliability

The reliability of the DSHS is generally high across its subscales. Internal consistency, typically measured using Cronbach’s alpha, usually registers in the acceptable to good range (coefficients typically between .70 and .90) for the six individual domain scores (Social Hope, Academic Hope, etc.). This indicates that the set of items within each domain reliably measures the intended underlying construct.

The stability of the scale has been demonstrated through test-retest reliability assessments, which show consistent scores over short intervals. This consistency supports the DSHS’s use as a measure of a relatively stable, yet context-dependent, psychological trait.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis procedures, including both exploratory and confirmatory techniques, have been used to examine the underlying structure of the DSHS. These analyses consistently support a multi-factor model.

Specifically, the results validate the scale’s design, confirming a clear separation into six distinct factors corresponding precisely to the six domains (Social, Academic, Romance, Family, Work, and Leisure). This multi-factor structure empirically supports the central premise that hope is not a singular psychological dimension but rather a composite of domain-specific capacities for pathways and agency.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire.

Format: The scale consists of 49 items across six subscales. Responses are measured on an 8-point Likert scale, where:

1. Definitely false
2. Mostly false
3. Somewhat false
4. Slightly false
5. Slightly true
6. Somewhat true
7. Mostly true
8. Definitely True

Language Available: English, Persian.

Population Group: Adults, primarily college students and general adult populations.

Age Group: Typically 18 years and older.

Population Details: Developed and validated primarily using samples of college students at the University of Kansas.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the extent to which each statement describing their goal-directed thoughts and behaviors within a specific domain is true for them.

Keywords

Hope Assessment, Domain Specificity, College Student Research, Psychological Scales, Social Hope, Academic Hope, Work Hope, Factor analysis.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The DSHS was first validated in 1999 as part of S. C. Sympson’s doctoral research. The scale is generally available for non-commercial academic research use, often requiring permission from the primary author or the holders of the C. R. Snyder Hope Theory instruments for clinical or commercial applications.

The original PDF instrument, as published in Simmons & Lehmann (2013), can be downloaded here: http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780123745170/Chapter%203/Chapter_3_Worksheet_3.6.pdf

Reference’s

Ahmadi Tahour Soltani, Mohsen., Karaminia, Reza., Ahadi, Hassan., Moradi, Ali Reza. (2012). Validation of the Adult Domain-Specific Hope Scale in Iranian Postgraduate Students. Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 14(9), 35-41.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321-335.

Sympson, S. C. (1993). Construction and validation of a state hope measure: A month in the lives of college students. Unpublished ma‎ster’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Sympson, S. C. (1997) Domain specific hope: An exploratory study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Sympson, S. C. (1999). Validation of the Domain Specific Hope Scale: Exploring hope in life domains. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Sympson, S. C. (1999). Domain Specific Hope Scale. In: Simmons C. A., Lehmann P. (eds). Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 191-194. (2013). Google Scholar

Items of the Domain Specific Hope Scale (DSHS)

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS (FRIENDSHIPS, CASUAL ACQUAINTANCE)

1. I can think of many ways to make friends.
2. I actively pursue friendships.
3. There are lots of ways to meet new people.
4. I can think of many ways to be included in the groups that are important to me.
5. I’ve been pretty successful where friendships are concerned.
6. Even when someone seems unapproachable, I know I can find a way to break the ice.
7. My past social experiences have prepared me to make friends in the future.
8. When I meet someone I want to be friends with, I usually succeed.

ACADEMICS (SCHOOL, COURSE WORK)

1. I can think of lots of ways to make good grades.
2. I energetically pursue my school work.
3. There are lots of ways to meet the challenges of any class.
4. Even if the course is difficult, I know I can find a way to succeed.
5. I’ve been pretty successful in school.
6. I can think of lots of ways to do well in classes that are important to me.
7. My past academic experiences have prepared me well for the future.
8. I get the grades that I want in my classes.
9. If you read this question, place an X on the line.

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

1. I can think of many ways to get to know someone I’m attracted to.
2. When I am interested in someone romantically, I actively pursue him or her.
3. There are lots of ways to convince someone to go out with me.
4. I’ve been pretty successful in my romantic relationships.
5. I can think of many ways to keep someone interested in me when they are important.
6. My past romantic relationships have prepared me well for future involvements.
7. Even when someone doesn’t seem interested, I know I can fi nd a way to get their attention.
8. I can usually get a date when I set my mind to it.

FAMILY LIFE

1. I can think of lots of things I enjoy doing with my family.
2. I energetically work on maintaining family relationships.
3. I can think of many ways to include my family in things that are important to me.
4. If you can read this, place an X on the line. (at Simmons & Lehmann, 2013)
5. I have a pretty successful family life.
6. Even when we disagree, I know my family can find a way to solve our problems.
7. I have the kind of relationships that I want with family members.
8. There are lots of ways to communicate my feelings to family members.
9. My experiences with my family have prepared me for a family of my own.

WORK

1. I can think of many ways to find a job.
2. I am energetic at work.
3. There are lots of ways to succeed at a job.
4. Even if it’s a lousy job, I can usually find something good about it.
5. I have a good work record.
6. My previous work experiences have helped me prepare for future success.
7. I can always find a job if I set my mind to it.
8. I can think of lots of ways to impress my boss if the job is important to me.

LEISURE ACTIVITIES

1. I can think of many satisfying things that to do in my spare time.
2. I energetically pursue my leisure time activities.
3. If my planned leisure time activities fall through, I can find something else that I enjoy.
4. I can think of lots of ways to make time for the activities that are important to me.
5. Even if others don’t think my activities are important, I still enjoy doing them.
6. My experiences with hobbies and other leisure time activities are important for my future.
7. I have satisfying activities that I do in my leisure time.
8. When I try to perform well in leisure time activities, I usually succeed.