Measures of Spirituality/Religiosity—Description of Concepts and Validation of Instruments
Author(s)
Büssing, ArndtKeywords
religionmeasurement
psychometric properties
DUREL
RCI-10
China
Reliance on God’s help
religious trust
faith
questionnaire
validation
chronic illness
healthy persons
life satisfaction
quality of life
well-being
Buddhism
religiosity
quantitative measure
affective religiosity
spiritual well-being
assess
SHALOM
God
complicated spiritual grief
spiritual struggle
spiritual crisis
bereavement
complicated grief
meaning making
religion
spirituality
struggle
bifactor
measurement
latent
confirmatory factor analysis
distress
depression
anxiety
cancer
spiritual care
needs
spirituality
children
measures
religion and health
spirituality
physician values
communication
medical ethics
psychology
religion
Australia
Judaism
attitude
Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism
n/a
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
https://mdpi.com/books/pdfview/book/1261https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=rid:33239
Abstract
Why do we need more questionnaires to measure aspects of spirituality/religiosity when we already have so many well-tried instruments in use? One answer is that research in this field is growing and that new research questions continuously do arise. Several of these new questions cannot be easily answered with the instruments designed for previous questions. The field is expanding and, consequently, the research topics. Meanwhile several multidimensional instruments were developed which cover existential, prosocial, religious and non-religious forms of spirituality, hope, peace and trust—and several more. The ‘disadvantage’ of these instruments is the fact that some are conceptually broad and often rather unspecific, but they might be suited quite well for culturally and spiritually diverse populations when the intention is to compare such diverse groups. This is the reason why more research on new instruments is needed as can be found in this Special Issue, and to stimulate a critical debate about their pros and cons.Date
2019Type
bookIdentifier
oai:doab-books:33239https://mdpi.com/books/pdfview/book/1261
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=rid:33239
ISBN
97830389775829783038977599
Copyright/License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcodeRelated items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Measures of Spirituality/Religiosity (2018)Büssing, Arndt (MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2019)The interest in the topic of spirituality as a more or less independent dimension of quality of life is continuously growing, and research questions are beginning to change as the field of religiosity changes, becoming more diverse and pluralistic. Addressing new topics in health research also relies on standardized questionnaires. The number of instruments intended to measure specific aspects of spirituality is growing, and it is particularly difficult to evaluate the new instruments. This Special Issue will focus on some of the established instruments (updating them to different languages and cultures), but will also describe the features and intentions of newly-developed instruments, which may potentially be used in larger studies to develop knowledge relevant to spiritual care and practice. This Special Issue will serve as a resource on the instruments used to study the wide range of organized religiosity, the individual experience of the divine, and an open approach in the search for meaning and purpose in life.
-
Development of a spiritual abuse questionnaireStabb, Sally; Harris, Jeff; Marshall, David; Mollen, Debra; Keller, Kathryn Hope (2017-02-02)Multicultural and trauma treatment competencies provide the rationale for this investigation as psychologists are charged with providing ethical and sound research and treatment embodying respect and understanding clients’ various cultural and religious experiences, particularly when negative experiences adversely impact their mental health. This study synthesized existing literature on spiritual abuse and drew from that literature in the creation of the Spiritual Abuse Questionnaire (SAQ). Participants were recruited through social media to complete the following questionnaires: (a) The SAQ, (b) the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (RSS) (Exline, Pargament, Grubbs, & Yali, 2014), (c) the National Stressful Events Survey for PTSD-Short Scale (NSESS-PTSD) (Kilpatrick, Resnick, & Friedman, 2013), (d) the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire Version 2 (IBQ.2) (Smith & Freyd, unpublished manuscript; Smith & Freyd, 2013; Smith & Freyd, 2014), and (e) the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, Form C (MCSD) (Reynolds, 1982). The original 49-item SAQ was examined through exploratory factor analysis in Study 1 (n = 535). Analysis from Study 1 resulted in shortening the SAQ to a 20-item scale, which was analyzed with a new sample in Study 2 (n = 271). It was predicted and confirmed that there would be a stable factor structure for spiritual abuse and that the SAQ would demonstrate appropriate convergent/divergent validity with other measures. Seventeen of the questions supported a two-factor structure of spiritual abuse. Further implications of spiritual abuse measurement and application are discussed.
-
Measuring Spirituality and Religiosity in Clinical Settings: A Scoping Review of Available InstrumentsPhilip Austin; Jessica Macdonald; Roderick MacLeod (MDPI AG, 2018-03-01)Aims: Numerous measures exist that assess dimensions of spirituality and religiosity in health, theological and social settings. In this review, we aim to identify and evaluate measures assessing factors relating to spirituality and religiosity in clinical settings. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases with search terms relating to spirituality, religiosity that also included well-being, needs, distress and beliefs used in self-reporting and clinician-administered measures. Only articles relating to the validation and subsequent administration of measures used in clinical settings were eligible for review. Results: Of 75 measures selected for initial screening, 25 had been validated and used in clinical settings and were reviewed for this study. Most measures were validated in oncological and palliative care settings where the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Spiritual Well-being (FACIT-Sp12) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Spiritual, Religious and Personal Beliefs (WHOQOL-SRPB) were most validated and frequently used. Only six measures were found that assessed spiritual distress and/or the needs of which only two had been investigated more than twice. Two measures assessing spirituality and religious beliefs in healthcare staff were also reviewed. Conclusions: This review provides a current summary of measures evaluating several dimensions of spirituality and religiosity used in clinical settings. Currently there is a lack of reliable measures evaluating spiritual needs and distress.