Frankl has argued that humans are characterised by a “will to meaning,” an inherent drive to find meaning and significance in their lives, and that defailment to achieve meaning results in psychological distress. Meaning in life is associated with many important variables such as depression, anxiety, hope and satisfaction. It is related to satisfaction, enjoy from work and happiness, while absence of the meaning in life is related to many disorders as depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and substance use. Moreover, it is associated with purposes positively which makes studying the meaning in life crucial. This study investigates the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger, Frazier, Oishi & Kaler, 2006). Primarily the Meaning in Life Questionnaire was translated into Turkish by two academicians from English Languageand Literature department. Before validity and reliability studies, to examine the language equivalency of the scale the correlations between Turkish and English forms were calculated. In this study exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the factor structure of the scale according to the data obtained from the Turkish students andconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was executed to confirm the original scale's structure in Turkish culture. As reliability analysis re-test and internal consistency coefficients, and the item-total correlations were examined. Meaning in Life Questionnaire and authenticity scale have been calculated for the convergent validity. The authenticity scale developed by Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis and Josep (2008) has been composed of three subscales called self-alienation, to be open to outer affections, and authentic life. Akın and Dönmezoğulları have performed the study for the Turkish adaptation of validity and reliability analysis. The authenticity scale has been composed of 12 articles and likert with7 (1: It does not identify me at all, 7: It identifies me very well). The validity and reliability analysis of Meaning in Life Questionnaire for Turkish form have been practiced on two workgroups. The first group has included 356 undergraduate students. 151 of thesestudents have also been practiced this test after four weeks by means of the test-retest method. The second group at which linguistic equivalence has been carried out includes 58 English teachers. For the construct validity of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire,firstly, sampling adequacy and Barlett Sphericity test have been applied. It has been found that total variance explained by of 10 items is 57%. The items have been gathered under two sub-dimensions called the present meaning and the searched meaning. The factor loadings of the scale have been varied between .54 and .77, and the item-total correlation coefficients have been varied between .42 and .68. In confirmatory factor analysis it has been found that two-dimensional model was fitted well (x²= 77.77, df= 31, RMSEA= .065, NFI= .95, CFI= .97, GFI= .96, AGFI= .93, RFI= .93, SRMR= .065). The data obtained from linguistic equivalence in Meaning in Life Questionnaire show that correlation coefficient among articles taking place in Turkish and original form range from .65 to .91. Linguisticequivalence coefficient has been found .88 for the present meaning subscale, .76 for the searched subscale. The findings obtained from scale’s English and Turkish forms of linguistic equivalence studies show that the articles taken place in both forms have been found to be quite interrelated with each other. In other words, the translated articles andthe original ones in English have been quite similar and the scale has been at sufficient level in terms of linguistic equivalence. This result also illustrates that the translation process has been completed successfully. The correlations between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and authenticity scale have been calculated for the convergent validity. Afterhaving been calculated the correlations between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and the authenticity scale, it has been deduced that there is a positive relationship between life meaning and authenticity. The reliability coefficients for the internal consistency of Meaning in Life Questionnaire has been .77 for the present meaning subscale, .83 forthe searched meaning subscale. The reliability coefficients of test-retest method that have been performed after four weeks have been .89 for the present meaning subscale and .92 for the searched meaning subscale. These correlations are important proofs for the validity of the scale. The results taken from the validity of construction and adaptation show thevalidity of Turkish form of Meaning in Life Questionnaire. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire’s high reliability proportion show that the reliability is sufficient. According to the results obtained from the validity and reliability studies, it can be said that the scale is ready to be used. However, for the validity and the reliability of the scale, it is necessary to perform the study on different groups. Furthermore, to practice studies, in whichthis scale will be used, would provide important contributions to the power of measurement. Finally, with the aim of determining the scale’s validity of adaptation, the relationships between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and the scales which may be related with the life meaning, evaluate the various emotional and cognitive constructionsrelated with life, and have been proved to be valid and reliable. Finally, it is possible to analyze the relationships between Meaning in Life Questionnaire and the scales, of which validity and reliability have been proven and which evaluates various emotional and cognitive structures that could be related with the life meaning.