Chapter 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality: Issues, Existing Measures, and the Implications for Education and Wellbeing

Transcription

1 Chapter 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality: Issues, Existing Measures, and the Implications for Education and Wellbeing Peter C. Hill and Lauren E. Maltby Abstract This chapter consists of three major parts. The first part discusses general issues related to measurement in the psychology of religion. The second part reviews major measures of religiousness and spirituality by general religious and spiritual domain, concentrating on those areas and measures that have been (or might be) associated with educational processes and outcomes as well as general wellbeing. Only those measures judged to meet adequately acceptable standards for research purposes on the following criteria are discussed: theoretical basis, representative sampling and generalization, reliability, and validity. The final section talks about new developments in the measurement of religion and spirituality and alternatives to self-report or paper-and-pencil measures and offers guidance in choosing a measure for research in education and wellbeing. In 1770, Pieter Camper, a Dutch scholar and one of the first proponents of craniometry, invented the concept of the facial angle as a way to measure intelligence among various races. A facial angle was formed by drawing two lines one horizontally from the nostril to the ear and another perpendicularly from the upper jawbone to the forehead. Camper maintained that the closer the angle of the lines was to 90, the more intelligent a person was. He claimed that Europeans consistently had angles of 80, Africans of 70, and orangutans of 58. Samuel George Morton extended Camper s work by using cranial capacity (the volume of the interior of the skull) as a measure of intelligence. He, too, concluded that European Americans were the most intelligent, followed by African-Americans and Native Americans. These scientific findings were used to perpetuate racial stereotypes and justify racist practices for decades. Clearly, measurement matters. As the means by which one tests a hypothesis or an idea, measurement is often the bridge between theory and practice; it not only allows us to test our conceptual framework and assumptions, but often does so in various practical and applied settings. How a particular concept is defined and measured significantly impacts understandings of the world, and influences not P.C. Hill (B) Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, CA 90639, USA peter.hill@biola.edu M. de Souza et al. (eds.), International Handbook of Education for Spirituality, Care and Wellbeing, International Handbooks of Religion and Education 3, DOI / , C Springer Science+Business Media B.V

2 34 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby only subsequent research questions, but also the answers found in relation to those questions. This is especially true in a field such as the psychology of religion, which in essence looks at the measurable effects of such abstract experiences as religion and spirituality (RS). If, indeed, interest in and attention to measurement is a sign of a field s scientific development (see Hill, 2005), then the psychology of religion has achieved some degree of maturity, though not without the experience of growing pains. It is now a quarter century since Gorsuch (1984) claimed that the dominant paradigm in psychology of religion was then one of measurement. Although near obsession with measurement by RS researchers meant that there existed a measure for virtually any RS research question, it also led to a proliferation of scales, some of which certainly overlap conceptually. Gorsuch (1990) later suggested that new scales should not be established unless (a) existing measures are not psychometrically sound; (b) new conceptual or theoretical advances require changes to current measures; (c) a measure is needed for use with a new population; or (d) a new construct needs to be measured. Hill (2005) also dissuaded researchers from constructing unnecessary new scales and suggested modifying current measures to adapt to new needs if at all possible. That being said, as the psychology of religion grows and is applied to an ever increasing set of questions and to more heterogenous RS populations, we should expect some continued development of new scales. To be sure, any inability of the field to move forward will not be due to a lack of attention to issues of measurement. By 2003, Emmons and Paloutzian suggested that the psychology of religion was operating by a multilevel interdisciplinary paradigm that recognizes the value of data at multiple levels of analysis while making non-reductive assumptions concerning the value of spiritual and religious phenomena (p. 395). Some (e.g., Belzen & Hood, 2006), it should be noted, have questioned whether the psychology of religion is, in fact, operating by an interdisciplinary paradigm. At the very least, it can be argued that the substantial increase in recent years of various publications (such as this volume) suggests that the application of RS research to various domains is gaining momentum. For the implications of RS research to such applied domains, such as education and wellbeing, to be fully realized, issues of measurement must be seriously considered. To this end, this chapter will first discuss general issues to be considered in relation to measurement of RS variables, then review some existing RS scales, and finally discuss the application of measurement in psychology of religion to education and wellbeing. General Issues Related to Measurement Although researchers with applied interest in RS variables may choose to use any of the measures reviewed in this chapter, as they all represent good (or good enough) measures, any educator knows that this is only a temporary solution. As the old maxim goes, give a man a fish and you ve fed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you ve fed him for life. And so the more important question than which measures

3 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality 35 are good measures? is what makes a measure good? There are three major issues with which all measures must interact. Their successful navigation of these issues is what makes them good. Theoretical Considerations Without conceptual clarity about what one is measuring, the significance of one s findings is severely constrained. Although the 1980s and the 1990s saw a continued proliferation of RS measures, a conceptual or theoretical focus to provide a coherence and unity to the field was often missing. During the measurement paradigm, the pull toward establishing a strong empirical framework often led to measures that, while psychometrically sound, were lacking a clear theoretical grounding. As a result, there are many empirical findings that lack the theoretical coherence necessary for real scientific progress. For example, the most dominant theoretical framework of psychology of religion has no doubt been Allport s (1950) distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation. Although it was promising, systematic research did not further elucidate these orientations, and by 1990, Kirkpatrick and Hood claimed that the model was theoretically impoverished and has really taught us little about the psychology of religion (p. 442), largely because the intrinsic extrinsic framework had become enmeshed in psychometric issues with little, if any, theoretical guidance. Without well-defined conceptual frameworks, systematic, top-down research programs are difficult to maintain. As a result issues of scale validity are difficult to assess, and there is almost a complete absence of normative data for many scales. 1 However, as the field matures, we are beginning to see notable exceptions, where systematic programs of research are emerging: religious questing (see Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993), mysticism (see Hood, 1975, 1995, 1997), religious coping (see Pargament, 1997), forgiveness (see Worthington, Berry, & Parrott, 2001), and attachment processes (see Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2004). The strong theoretical base of such systematic research programs will yield measures used with greater frequency across a broader population range. When choosing an RS measure, theoretical clarity cannot be emphasized enough. No one scale will be the most appropriate for every study, and it is important that the concept which the researcher intends to study is well represented in the measure. Of course one can only be certain that this is the case if the scale itself and the research to which the scale is applied, were both designed from clear, conceptual frameworks. Thus, when choosing a measure, theoretical clarity is essential. Psychometric Considerations If theoretical considerations seem broad and abstract, the additional psychometric considerations that a scale must address are at the other end of the spectrum. The two most important psychometric considerations are that of validity and reliability.

4 36 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby Validity refers to whether a scale is measuring the thing it is trying to measure. A careful read-through of the scale s items should give you some idea of what the scale is measuring, and this is referred to as face validity. However, this is not an objective or empirical form of validating a scale and therefore not as useful as other types of validity. For instance, convergent validity refers to the extent to which a given scale is correlated with measures of similar or related construction. For example, one would expect religious identification to correlate with what type of religious institution one attends. Hand in hand with convergent validity is discriminant validity. This is the degree to which a given scale is not correlated with measures of constructs that it should not, in theory, be similar to. Two other important types of validity are criterion and content. The former refers to the correlation between a given scale and some other standard or measure of the construct of interest. The latter, content validity, refers to the degree to which a given scale includes all the facets of the construct under investigation. For example, if one wanted to measure spiritual practices, but only asked questions about prayer and attendance at religious services, one would have neglected other spiritual practices such as reading a holy text, giving alms, etc. A validity concern unique to RS scales pertains to construct validity. Because RS correlates highly with other constructs (such as physical and mental health; Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001), it is important to establish RS construct validity in order to avoid faulty conclusions. Consideration of reliability, or the extent to which a scale is consistent, is also important. Ideally, a scale should be both internally consistent and consistent across time, though typically the reliability of a scale is measured by only one of these two criteria. Internal consistency refers to the degree to which all of the items on the scale are measuring the same thing. It is measured by the statistic Cronbach s alpha, and can have a value ranging from zero to one; the higher the value the more internally consistent. Additionally, scales should ideally be consistent across time. This is referred to as test retest reliability, and is generally measured by the correlation coefficient between individual s scores on the same test given on separate occasions (the time elapsed between testing can range from 2 weeks to 6 months; Hill, 2005). For practical reasons, Cronbach s alpha is used much more frequently than test retest reliability when establishing the reliability of a scale. Sample Representativeness and Cultural Sensitivity The proliferation of measures in RS research has not protected the psychology of religion from one of measurement s most baleful banes: unrepresentative samples. Although psychology of religion has amassed quite an impressive amount of information throughout its development, perhaps there is no group we know more about than young, middle class, American (and to a lesser extent British) college students (Hill & Pargament, 2003). Such convenience samples, so called because they are easily accessible for study purposes at academic institutions, are highly problematic since age, SES, and education are three variables quite strongly correlated with religious experience (Hill, 2005). Therefore the unrepresentative sample upon which

5 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality 37 a large number of measures have been validated may fail to represent accurately the population at large with which the measures are eventually used. Age and education are not the only two variables biasing samples, however. Most RS research and measuring instruments have, until recently, assumed a Judeo-Christian context, with a disproportionate focus on White Protestants (Gorsuch, 1988; Hill, 2005; Hill & Hood, 1999). Caution is necessary should one choose to use such a scale for a population with a different demographic or outside the Judeo-Christian context. Scales created on the basis of either unrepresentative samples or samples representing a narrow population (e.g., a single denomination) are usually insensitive or inapplicable to broader groups. Furthermore, RS scales are certainly not exempt from a lack of cultural sensitivity (Chatters, Taylor, & Lincoln, 2002). For example, Protestant African Americans emphasize community service (Ellison & Taylor, 1996) as well as the notion of reciprocal blessings with God (Black, 1999), both of which are often overlooked in traditional measures of Protestantism in favor of other issues that may even be irrelevant in these religious communities. The difficulty of generalizing scales to other groups is not only a problem when measuring tradition-specific constructs within a religious group (such as Protestantism), or when using scales in the United States or Great Britain. Many RS scales, although purporting to measure a trans-religious construct, are culturally insensitive and do not generalize well to other cultures and religious traditions outside of that with which it was first created. For example, Hill and Dwiwardani (in press) have chronicled their difficulty in applying the widely used Religious Orientation Scale (ROS; Allport & Ross, 1967) with an Indonesian Muslim population. In order to make the scale applicable, more than just the language of the scale needed to change (e.g., changing church to mosque). Because Islam is such a strong pillar in the overall collectivistic culture in Indonesia, the concept itself of extrinsic-social religious orientation was not as applicable to Muslims as to Christians. However, careful research has yielded the Muslim Christian Religious Orientation Scale (MCROS; Ghorbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Morris, & Hood, 2002), with which researchers demonstrated incremental validity of their new... [s]cale (MCROS) beyond the Allport and Ross s (1967) ROS when the extrinsic social dimension was measured in relation to the broader community and culture rather than to the mosque (Hill & Dwiwardani, in press). RS research must continue to move in this direction in order to create measures that can be utilized in more applied and diverse settings than has traditionally been the case. Sample representativeness when creating a measure and its cultural sensitivity are important factors to examine when picking a measure for use with a new population. Review of Measures Clearly the theoretical framework, the psychometric properties, and the sample representativeness/cultural sensitivity of a scale are all important aspects to consider when choosing a measure. Although a basic understanding of these issues will aid researchers in picking a measure independently, we offer some guidance by

6 38 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby reviewing measures which we feel have successfully navigated the three issues discussed above. Of course, a thorough review of all or even most of the RS scales available is beyond the scope of this chapter, and the reader looking for a scale to serve an already specified purpose is pointed toward Hill and Hood s (1999) comprehensive review for scales developed prior to 1999, and Hill (2005), for a more updated list. Here, however, we will utilize Tsang and McCullough s (2003) two-level hierarchical model as a way to organize RS measures conceptually. Tsang and McCullough (2003) propose that RS researchers think about RS variables on two levels. Level I represents a trait-like quality of religiousness or spirituality. This level represents a higher level of organization, or a disposition of, religiousness. Level II, on the other hand, represents a more behavioral or functional quality of religiousness or spirituality. This level includes measures that assess how RS functions in people s lives: the motivation toward RS, utilization of RS to cope with life demands, etc. Of course Level I and Level II interact, as dispositions influence behaviors and vice versa. The measures reviewed here will be grouped into Level I and Level II categories. Only measures that have met three criteria are included for review. First, all scales reviewed in this chapter were grounded in at least some sort of theoretical framework (which was at least plausible, if not necessarily consensual). Second, all scales have demonstrated at least good reliability (alpha > 0.70) across two or more studies, and have demonstrated a good correlation (r > 0.70) across multiple samples on at least two of the five types of validity. And lastly, the measures we review represent a more broadly construed population (e.g., the scales do not apply only to Mormons, only to Evangelicals, etc.). Measures of Dispositional Religiousness Tsang and McCullough (2003) argue for a disposition of general religiousness or spirituality based on three factors. First, various indicators of religiousness are consistently correlated in research (e.g., attendance at a religious service, prayer, reading of sacred text, etc.). Second, factor analytic studies on measures of religiousness reveal factors that are intercorrelated, suggesting the presence of a higher order factor, such as a disposition toward religiousness. Third, some research has suggested that religiousness may be heritable to some degree. Finding and including a measure of dispositional religiousness in a study of RS variables is especially important for researchers in the study of education and wellbeing. By statistically controlling for dispositional variables, the relationship between other more functional RS variables and outcomes is better clarified. In order to design appropriate interventions or strategies in the fields of education and wellbeing, one must be able to disentangle specific factors from more general dispositional differences between individuals. Assessment of General Religiousness or Spirituality Scales assessing general religiousness or spirituality often use very broad language, thereby increasing the likelihood that they would be appropriate for use with a diverse sample. Measures such as these are often used in conjunction with measures

7 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality 39 of other constructs, and used to correlate religiosity with some over variable. For instance, researchers in education may consider using any of the following scales as predictors of various educational outcomes, or test for interactions between general levels of religiosity and type of educational intervention. Of all the scales designed to measure a general religious disposition, perhaps the best-validated and most widely used is the Spiritual Wellbeing Scale (SWBS; Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). The SWBS consists of two, 10-item subscales measuring Existential Wellbeing (EWB) and Religious Wellbeing (RWB). The 10 items comprising the RWB subscale consistently load together in factor analytic studies, which suggest that it is indeed measuring a general RS factor. Although some may be put off by the scale s title as a measure of wellbeing, it has been used as a general RS measure in many studies. The Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) developed by Piedmont (1999) measures the ability of an individual to stand outside of their immediate sense of time and place to view life from a larger more objective perspective (p. 988). Overall, the STS has demonstrated good reliability and validity. It consists of three subscales measuring universality, prayer fulfillment, and connectedness. Although the STS was originally tested with American Christian samples, recent research has demonstrated its generalizability to populations in India (Piedmont & Leach, 2007), Malta (Galea, Ciarrocchi, & Piedmont, 2007), and the Philippines (Piedmont, 2007). And finally, Hood s Mysticism Scale (1975) has also been widely used and is applicable across religious traditions. Assessment of Religious or Spiritual Commitment Although many people identify themselves with a given religious tradition, the importance of that identification varies from person to person. Measures of RS commitment seek to ascertain how invested a person is in their given RS beliefs, whether within or outside a religious tradition. RS commitment measures often conceptualize the religiously or spiritually committed person as having developed a spiritual lens through which they perceive and understand the world and their circumstances. People who filter the majority of their experience through an RS lens may have a higher meaning-making potential (Park, 2005; Silberman, 2005), and the ability to create meaning has been significantly related to subjective and physical wellbeing (Brady, Peterman, Fitchett, Mo, & Cella, 1999). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10) measures religious commitment outside of a specific religious tradition (Worthington et al., 2003). The RCI-10 has demonstrated excellent test retest and internal reliabilities, as well as criterion, construct, convergent, and discriminant validity. It has also fared well on student samples of Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims. The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (Plante & Boccaccini, 1997) is another measure of RS commitment, and uses language that is broad enough to apply to the general public (as opposed to simply the religious ). Although the original scale was comprised of only 10 items, a shortened 5-item version of the Santa Clara scale has been developed (Plante, Vallaeys, Sherman, & Wallston, 2002). Both the original and shortened forms have demonstrated good reliability and validity (Storch et al., 2004), although some research has suggested that it is susceptible to a ceiling effect among the religiously committed (Plante & Sherman, 2001).

8 40 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby Assessment of Religious or Spiritual Development In as much as education is the process of growth, change, and maturity, educators should be interested in RS development. The broader question regarding RS development and maturity is one of conceptualizing growth, change, and maturity in spiritual and religious terms. How one conceives of RS maturity should certainly guide their choice of measure. The psychometrically sound Faith Maturity Scale (Benson, Donahue, & Erickson, 1993) is recommended if one defines religious maturity through mainstream Protestant traditions. The Religious Maturity Scale (Leak & Fish, 1999) measures religious maturity as conceptualized by Allport (1950). Within Allport s framework, religious maturity is marked by a commitment that directs one s life, a deep understanding of religious issues, the ability to doubt, and tolerance. Empirical studies have shown the scale to have excellent convergent, discriminant and predictive validity, as well as internal and test retest reliabilities. It also appears that the scale can be used across denominations in Christianity. However, the degree to which it is generalizable to other religious traditions, even in modified form, has yet to be tested. The Faith Development Scale (FDS; Maiello, 2005) is based on the assumption that there exists a core set of beliefs that transcends religious and cultural differences. Therefore, the FDS measures a participant s level of core religious belief, and uses this as an indication of maturity. The scale was initially developed on a sample of various European nationalities and religious traditions. Despite this, the scale requires additional research to verify its psychometric properties. However, because this scale was designed to transcend cultural differences the verification of its psychometric properties would offer another promising measure for cross-cultural RS research. Two measures of reported RS experiences with the transcendent are worth noting. First, the 23-item Spiritual History Scale (SHS; Hays, Meador, Branch, & George, 2001) measures four dimensions (God-helped, Family History of Religiousness, Lifetime Religious Social Support, and Cost of Religiousness). Its validity and reliability are adequate among samples from a theistic background. Interestingly, it was developed on samples consisting primarily of the elderly, and was intended to be used as a measure of the relationship between its four factors and health in later-life. Therefore, its continued use with the elderly and/or in health research is strongly recommended. The degree to which it is useful with other populations has yet to be well established. Second, the Daily Spiritual Experience Scale (DSES; Underwood & Teresi, 2002) measures reported RS experience with the transcendent among those who do not necessarily come from a theistic background. The developers claimed that spirituality exists as a more stable internal construct than religiousness, and therefore attempted to design a scale that would measure the extent to which one feels the transcendent is a part of their daily lives (as opposed to extraordinary or miraculous encounters with the transcendent) as manifested in such experiences as awe, joy, and inner peace. Two measures of religious maturity based on theories of development include the Attachment to God Inventory (AGI; Beck & McDonald, 2004) and the Spiritual

9 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality 41 Assessment Inventory (SAI; Hall & Edwards, 1996, 2002). The AGI measures attachment to God based on Bowlby s (1969/1973) notion of infant attachment; it assesses the degree to which one exhibits fear of abandonment and/or avoidance of intimacy with God. Although attachment theory provides a rich conceptual framework from within which to develop measures and conduct research, the AGI has yet to receive much interest from outside a Western, Judeo-Christian tradition. However, within this population, evidence of internal reliability and convergent and construct validity have been consistently demonstrated. The SAI, designed for a Christian population, is a closely related measure based in object-relations theory. Specifically it measures awareness, instability, grandiosity, realistic acceptance, and defensiveness in the participant s relationship to God. The SAI has shown incremental validity above and beyond Paloutzian and Ellison s (1982; Ellison, 1983) Spiritual Wellbeing Scale (SWBS) and Gorsuch and McPherson s (1989) Intrinsic Extrinsic Religious Motivation Scale. Measures of Functional Religiousness Assessment of Religious Motivation As any educator knows, a major factor in successful education and development is the motivation of the individual; how one approaches the task is paramount in predicting the outcome. The same is true for RS. Among frameworks for understanding RS motivation and orientation, Allport s (1950) distinction between intrinsic (I) and extrinsic (E) motivation has been the most widely accepted. Allport s original Religious Orientation Scale (ROS; Allport & Ross, 1967) is still widely used, despite many well-documented methodological and theoretical criticisms and problems (Hill & Hood, 1999). Researchers have tried to improve on the ROS (see Hill & Hood, 1999 for a description of these measures) with perhaps the Revised Religious Orientation Scale (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) emerging as the most psychometrically sound. This does not mean it has escaped criticism, however. The entire I E concept has been criticized by Batson and colleagues (Batson et al., 1993) as too simplistic, and they propose religious questing as an overlooked process necessary for religious maturity. During this quest, people ask challenging questions of their own faith and must ultimately reconcile themselves to the realization that the answers to such penetrating questions are often not black and white. In order to measure religious quest, the Batson and Schoenrade (1991a, 1991b) Quest Scale measures whether an individual s religion involves an open-ended, responsive dialogue with existential questions raised by the contradictions and tragedies of life (Batson et al., 1993, p. 169). Assessment of Religious or Spiritual Practices Researchers are often interested in the practical and applied questions of how outcomes are affected by what one does. As a result, several measures exist to assess

10 42 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby both the public and private aspects of RS participation and activities. The Religious Involvement Inventory (RII; Hilty & Morgan, 1985), for example, measures participation in church activities beyond Sunday attendance for those who identify with the Christian tradition. The scale consists of 14 items and has demonstrated reasonably good validity and reliability. Similarly, the Christian Spiritual Participation Profile (CSPP; Thayer, 2004) measures one s involvement with each of the four spiritual development modes (which consist of both private and corporate spiritual disciplines). The Springfield Religiosity Scale (Koenig, Smiley, & Gonzales, 1988) also distinguishes between regular service attendance and additional involvement in religious group activities (e.g., Bible study groups, Sunday school class, and religious discussion groups). However, like the RII and the CSPP, the Springfield Religiosity Scale was created only for use with a Christian population. None of these scales have been modified and validated for use outside of this religious tradition. By way of measuring more private RS practices, such as reading a sacred text, meditation, and solitary prayer, the Duke Religious Index (DUREL; Koenig et al., 1988) uses only one item. The entire DUREL consists of only five items, but the brevity of this measure has not diminished its psychometric properties, and it has continued to demonstrate strong reliability and validity. The Religious Background and Behavior Scale (RBB; Connors, Tonigan, & Miller, 1996), developed for use with a clinical population, is not tradition specific and measures more solitary RS behaviors. Assessment of Religious and Spiritual Supports Researchers have frequently posited social support as a mediator in the oft found linkage between religion and positive health outcomes. Measures of religious and spiritual supports attempt to get at the unique benefits of religious support, which may extend beyond just general social support. For example, Kahn and Antonucci (1980) described a collection of like-minded people with compatible worldviews who function to support each other through prayer and companionship as a support convoy. Because people within the same religious tradition are likely have similar or compatible worldviews, fellow congregants may be uniquely suited to function as a support convoy. The Religious Support Scale (RSS; Fiala, Bjorck, & Gorsuch, 2002) was created to measure perceived religious support among those in the Christian tradition. The scale consists of three subscales support from God, support from the congregation, and support from church leaders. The RSS demonstrated adequate validity and excellent reliability. More research with scales such as these are needed to ascertain the unique contribution of religious support above and beyond general social support. Assessment of Religious and Spiritual Coping Education is more than the transmission of information; it is also the process whereby an individual is changed by the gained information, and good education always involves the teaching of how to apply that information appropriately.

11 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality 43 Although many people hold RS beliefs and values, how they use and apply their RS to cope with demanding life circumstances is equally important as the other variables previous discussed. In fact, the ability of the individual to apply their RS framework successfully to cope with demands of life is likely a significant factor in the adaptiveness or maladaptiveness of their RS. Perhaps the most comprehensive and frequently used measure of RS coping is the Measure of Religious Coping (RCOPE; Pargament, Koenig, & Perez, 2000). The RCOPE has been tested on both physically healthy and ill patients and has moderate to high reliability and good validity. Recently, alternative versions of the RCOPE have been created and validated for use among Asian Indians in the United States (Tarakeshwar, Pargament, & Mahoney, 2003) and Pakistani Muslims (Khan & Watson, 2006). Not all use of RS to cope with circumstances outside of one s control is adaptive, however. In order to assess maladaptive religious coping, Pargament and colleagues created the Negative Religious Coping Scale (Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998). Both the RCOPE and the Negative Religious Coping Scale assess styles of religious coping. Wong-McDonald and Gorsuch (2000) suggested a surrender style of coping in addition to the styles represented in the RCOPE. The Surrender Scale has good psychometric properties and has demonstrated incremental validity above and beyond the RCOPE. Among groups frequently studied in conjunction with religious coping are the chronically ill. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Spiritual Wellbeing Scale (FACIT-Sp; Peterman, Fitchett, Bardy, Hernandez, & Cella, 2002) was designed for use specifically with this population and is applicable across religious traditions. The FACIT-Sp consists of two subscales: Faith and Meaning/Peace, both of which have sound psychometric properties. The Faith subscale has been associated with religiousness, while the Meaning/Peace subscale seems to measure RS independent of specific religious identification. Given that religiousness has some overlap with spirituality, but also some distinctiveness (Hill et al., 2000), this measure is useful for assessing RS in association with a religious tradition and that which is independent from it. Alternatives to Self-Report Up until this point, only paper-and-pencil self-report measures of RS have been reviewed. In addition to the use of such measures as standard fare in much social scientific research, the extensive reliance on self-report measures in RS research may be in part due to a Western Protestant paradigmatic belief that RS is personal and subjective (Cohen & Hill, 2007). Furthermore, self-reports are based on the assumption that (a) participants have the ability to self-assess accurately, and (b) participants are willing to disclose the results of their self-assessment to the investigator two assumptions that may seriously limit the validity of scientific research. Psychologists, particularly social psychologists, have spoken to both issues extensively and have concluded that (a) self-assessment is biased by both intentional and unintentional distortions, and (b) honest disclosure is especially

12 44 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby vulnerable to such common impediments as evaluation apprehension, demand characteristics, and impression management. Self-report measures may be especially limited when studying RS due to the importance of RS beliefs and practices and the power of the RS social context (i.e., persons may feel a certain social pressure to affirm certain religious beliefs; Burris & Navara, 2002). Finally, self-report measures may require a reading and comprehension level beyond that of some targeted participants, and may sometimes fail to engage the interest of the respondent thus making the measure more vulnerable to a response set (e.g., agreeing with every item, even when logically inconsistent). In light of this, alternatives to self-report measures are needed in order for RS research to progress and expand. Implicit Measurement Implicit measures attempt to use indirect measurement techniques to assess a given variable. RS researchers have just begun to use techniques from social and cognitive sciences. Researchers in social cognition (e.g., Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986) proposed that an attitude s accessibility is representative of underlying cognitive structures. In RS research, judgment speed has drawn strong interest, where participants are asked to identify an object as good or bad. Hill, as early as 1994, recommended that this technique of measuring attitude accessibility be extended to the psychology of religion. This recommendation was taken by Gibson (2006), whose findings indicated that reaction time is a good indicator of the accessibility of one s God schema. Cohen, Shariff, and Hill (2008) found that participants who held stronger religious opinions (i.e., clearly a religious or non-religious ideology) had more accessible attitudes as measured by response times, again offering support for the use of implicit measures of RS attitudes. The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) is one such cognitive timing measure, but is still in its early stages of use with RS research. Another form of implicit assessment involves memory recall. Symons and Johnson (1997) demonstrated that people recall a higher number of adjectives when describing a target if the target is intimate (as opposed to familiar, but not intimate). In applying this notion to RS experience, Gibson (2006) found that evangelicals, whose image of God was more intimate (but not necessarily more familiar) than non-evangelicals and atheists, recalled adjectives that describe God at the same rate as self-reference adjectives, assumed to be both intimate and familiar. In contrast, non-evangelical and atheist participants recalled adjectives related to the self (again, assumed to be both familiar and intimate) with higher frequency than those related to God (familiar but not intimate). These findings tentatively suggest that memory recall can be used to assess certain qualities, such as intimacy and familiarity, in one s relationship to God. However, not all are in agreement that such measures are useful. Kinoshita and Peek-O Leary (2005) raise doubt about what implicit and indirect measurements are actually assessing, and the lack of empirical research on RS variables using such measures suggests caution in using implicit and/or indirect measures for purposes other than research.

13 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality 45 Other Alternative Forms of Measurement RS research generally has not relied on other forms of measurement, but extending RS research into other, more applied fields may warrant reconsideration of alternative research methodologies. For example, qualitative research can be useful in fleshing out quantitative findings or for developing a theory, which can then be tested quantitatively. The complex nature of RS suggests that mixed-method designs may be useful in studies taking a more robust approach. Reports from others (e.g., friends, family members, and fellow members of a religious organization) are rarely used in RS research and may be beneficial to the study of religious practices and behaviors. Physiological indicators (e.g., fmri and immunology) of RS experience are another method of measurement that would likely add significantly to the body of RS research. As the psychology of religion is applied in more diverse settings, one can expect the methods of measurement to expand as well. Guidance in Choosing a Measure There are several factors that must be considered with choosing a measure (Hill, Kopp, & Bollinger, 2007). First, one must choose a measure that serves the purpose of the research. For example, if one is conducting a study for experimental purposes only, a new or less validated measure, though less than desirable, may be used if nothing else is available. Again, however, one should thoroughly review the literature, since there is a vast array of measures now available. In contrast, if one is working in a more applied setting and hoping to use an RS measure to screen or identify participants with certain characteristics, then a more psychometrically sound and well-validated measure is likely necessary. Second, one must have a well-articulated notion of what RS construct they hope to study. Because RS is a robust and multidimensional construct, one must be sure to select a measure that coincides with the way one s hypotheses have defined the said construct. For instance, researchers who think that religiousness is manifested in religious behaviors (e.g., attendance at weekly religious services, prayer, and meditation) may choose a measure of religious behavior and draw conclusions about general religiousness. This would be a faulty conclusion, as their findings relate to only one dimension of RS religious practices and behavior. Because RS is so broad and complex, it is wise to conceptualize it along various dimensions. However, in so doing, one must be sure to choose a measure that matches the said dimension. Third, the psychometric properties of the scale are important. If a scale has not demonstrated at least two types of validity beyond face validity, it is probably unwise to select it for use in other than experimental research. Fourth, researchers should select measures which are appropriate for their given sample and/or population. As discussed throughout this chapter, there are relatively few RS measures that have been cross-culturally validated, or are applicable outside of one or two religious traditions. This will likely change in the years ahead, not only as many cultures become increasingly religiously pluralistic, but as RS research itself continues to grow and is conducted in different cultures. RS exists within a

14 46 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby social and cultural context, and researchers would be wise to consider the context of their sample as compared to the context in which the measure was created in judging the appropriateness of the measures they intend to use. Lastly, researchers are admonished to be flexible. Although there has been a proliferation of measures in psychology of religion, it is still not guaranteed that one will find a scale that was created for the exact purpose of one s own research. Therefore, it is imperative that researchers have a strong conceptual understanding of both their own research and the measures they consider. Pilot studies may be necessary to confirm the applicability of the measure on one s sample or population of interest. If a scale is assessing a construct of interest, it may be worth the added effort to test ways of altering the measure to make it applicable to one s targeted population. Conclusion Colonel Jessep, the fictional character played by Jack Nicholson in the movie AFew Good Men, will long be identified by his statement You want answers? You can t handle the truth! RS researchers not only want answers, but are firmly convinced they can handle the truth about the complex and sometimes paradoxical nature of religion and spirituality. Frequently, that research has important implications for education and wellbeing. The quality of such empirical research is only as good as the quality of the measurement instruments that it utilizes. Though not breathtakingly exciting with widespread appeal, good measurement is absolutely necessary not only to move the field forward, but also to help understand and handle the truth. Note 1. It should be noted, however, that such normative data are usually not necessary for research purposes and since most scales are used for research, it is unlikely that norms for most instruments will ever be established. References Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal and religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991a). Measuring religion as quest: I. Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991b). Measuring religion as quest: II. Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A socialpsychological perspective (revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The attachment to God inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32,

15 2 Measuring Religiousness and Spirituality 47 Belzen, J. A., & Hood, R. W. (2006). Methodological issues in the psychology of religion: Toward another paradigm? The Journal of Psychology, 140, Benson, P. L., Donahue, M.., & Erickson, J. A. (1993). The faith maturity scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and empirical validation. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (Vol. 5, pp. 1 26). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Black, H. K. (1999). Poverty and prayer: Spiritual narratives of elderly African-American women. Review of Religious Research, 40, Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment, Vol. 1 of attachment and loss. London: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation, Vol. 2 of attachment and loss. London: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books. Brady, M. J., Peterman, A. H., Fitchett, G., Mo, M., & Cella, D. (1999). A case for including spirituality in quality of life measurement in oncology. Psycho-Oncology, 8, Burris, C. T., & Navara, G. S. (2002). Morality play or playing morality: Intrinsic religious orientation and socially desirable responding. Self and Identity, 1, Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Lincoln, K. D. (2002). Advances in the measurement of religiosity among older African Americans: Implications for health and mental health researchers. In J. H. Skinner & J. A. Teresi (Eds.), Multicultural measurement in older populations (pp ). New York: Springer. Cohen, A. B., & Hill, P. C. (2007). Religion as culture: Religious individualism and collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. Journal of Personality, 75, Cohen, A. B., Shariff, A. F., & Hill, P. C. (2008). The accessibility of religious beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality, Connors, G. J., Tonigan, J. S., & Miller, W. R. (1996). A measure of religious background and behavior for use in behavior change research. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10, Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. F. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, Ellison, C. G. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, Ellison, C. G., & Taylor, R. J. (1996). Turning to prayer: Social and situational antecedents of religious coping among African-Americans. Review of Religious Research, 38, Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, Fiala, W. E., Bjorck, J. P., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2002). The Religious Support Scale: Construction, validation, and cross-validation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, Galea, M., Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Piedmont, R. L. (2007). Child abuse, personality, and spirituality as predictors of happiness in Maltese college students. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18, Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Ghramaleki, A. F., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (2002). Muslim- Christian religious orientation scales: Distinctions, correlations, and cross-cultural analysis in Iran and the United States. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 12, Gibson, N. J. S., (2006). The experimental investigation of religious cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation [available from nicholas.html#phd], University of Cambridge, England. Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Measurement: The boon and bane of investigating religion. American Psychologist, 39, Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Measurement in psychology of religion revisited. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 9(2), Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Religious conversion and perceived childhood attachment: A meta-analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14,

16 48 P.C. Hill and L.E. Maltby Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). The initial development and factor analysis of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24, Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2002). The Spiritual Assessment Inventory: A theistic model and measure for assessing spiritual development. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, Hays, J. C., Meador, K. G., Branch, P. S., & George, L. K. (2001). The Spirituality History Scale in Four Dimensions (SHS-4): Validity and reliability. The Gerontologist, 41, Hill, P. C. (1994). Toward an attitude process model of religious experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, Hill, P. C. (2005). Measurement in the psychology of religion and spirituality: Current status and evaluation. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp ). New York: Guilford. Hill, P. C., & Dwiwardani, C. (in press). Measurement at the interface of psychiatry and religion: Issues and existing measures. In P. J. Verhagen, H. M. Van Praag, & J. J. Lopez-Ibor (Eds.), Psychiatry and religion: Pushing back the boundaries. Explorations at the interface.newyork: Wiley & Sons. Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press. Hill, P. C., Kopp, K. J., & Bollinger, R. A. (2007). A few good measures: Assessing religion and spirituality in relation to health. In T. G. Plante & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Spirit, science and health: How the spiritual mind fuels physical wellness (pp ). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality. American Psychologist, 58, Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., Jr., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., et al. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, Hilty, D. M., & Morgan, R. L. (1985). Construct validation for the Religious Involvement Inventory: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24, Hood, R. W., Jr. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported mystical experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, Hood, R. W., Jr. (1995). The facilitation of religion experience. In R. W. Hood, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of religious experience (pp ). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press. Hood, R. W., Jr. (1997). The empirical study of mysticism. In B. Spilka & D. N. McIntosh (Eds.), The psychology of religion: Theoretical approaches (pp ). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brin (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (pp ). New York: Academic Press. Khan, Z. H., & Watson, P. J. (2006). Construction of the Pakistani Religious Coping Practices Scale: Correlations with religious coping, religious orientation, and reactions to stress among Muslim university students. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16, Kinoshita, S., & Peek-O Leary, M. (2005). Does the compatibility effect in race Implicit Association Test reflect familiarity or affect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29,