What is it about?
This paper briefly reviews the problematic psychometric qualities of existing spirituality/religiosity measures. Specifically, virtually all current measures i) contain questions/items that confound non-spiritual and spiritual constructs, and ii) have skewed distributional properties when tested samples include non-believers. The factor analysis results reported (exploratory and confirmatory) in this article show that an alternatively scored 6-item version of spirituality sub-scale (contained within the Character Strength Inventory) is uni-dimensional, correlates with other measures of the faith/spirituality (and related personality constructs) and is normally distributed in samples that contain a large number of agnostics/atheists.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
How concepts are defined and measured often drives the ensuing relationships that they "seem" to predict. Many researchers, possibly because they are keen to find significant statistical relationships confirming their prior expectations, have developed and/or implemented questionnaires purportedly tapping spirituality but on closer inspection actually contain items that are so wide-ranging (e.g. covering pro-sociality, positive moods and virtues) that atheists and agnostics can appear spiritual. Clarifying the definition and measurement of spirituality is at the heart of the current debate. Many believers would of course retort that spirituality is intimately virtuous and prosocial. Some go so far as to proffer the notion of "secular spirituality" (that many critics regard as an oxy moron) in an attempt to subtly "shift" the terminology away from "faith in the supernatural/transcendent" to something akin to "goodness/civility". It is hardly surprising, or at all informative, then that responses to questionnaires supposedly measuring secular spirituality tend to predict prosociality and well-being. They do so, only because they themselves are measures that presuppose these constructs and thus include items tapping virtue and goodness. It can be argued further that such broad conceptualizations—those that mistakenly (and dangerously) usurp distinct-yet-related psychological traits/concepts under the umbrella of spirituality—are utterly redundant. Existing words/concepts such as virtue, philanthropy and humanism—which free-thinkers who eschew the ideas of spirituality, mysticism and the numinous can equally endorse—already neatly describe what most theorists mean to convey by the term "secular spirituality". The confusion created by such sloppy conceptualizing is entirely unnecessary and unhelpful to those genuinely seeking to understand what impact, if any, faith-based/transcendent beliefs have on human functioning, health and well-being. I would go so far as to say most unidimensional instruments purporting to measure spirituality are invalid because they are a melange of loosely related phenomena. The measure scrutinized in the article appears to clearly capture the core belief in a "supernatural/transcendent" force which is the the unique essence of spirituality. It does so without being contaminated by non-spiritual concepts such as morality, virtues and goodness (which I do not deny may very well correlate with spirituality ... but in the end that is the important empirical question that needs to be carefully examined).
Perspectives
Based on the explosion in the number of articles published in recent years, spirituality and religiosity are very hot topics among social scientists. Moreover, findings from this area of research have the very real potential to shape important public policy (e.g. tax-concessions, education, health services and cultural integration policy). Yet, the proliferation of confused and muddled definitions of spirituality appear to make past findings profoundly unintelligible. Why the lack of clarity? Some argue spirituality is itself is deeply amorphous; meaning specific and different things to different people. If that is truly the case, then researchers should immediately quit their search for 'general laws' and associative and predictive relationships because any findings from such studies could only ever be representative of the "spirituality" of those included in the sample (each of which would be labeling their unique - and thus dissimilar - understanding as "spirituality"). Another, probably more likely, potential reason for the lack of consensus over what spirituality actual reflects, may be because research in this field—especially results from North America—is often funded by theological institutions or politicized agencies that are very closely aligned with religious organizations. Readers would do well to consider the empirical claims made in light of this fact, as these funding bodies have a large economic and political stake in obtaining "favorable" results. This funding arrangement alone may potentially "explain" the ongoing lack of consensus and use of a vast array of diverse and "overly broad" conceptualizations of spirituality by researchers in the past. Those genuinely interested in scientifically identifying the unique effects of faith/spirituality are encouraged to consider using more focused/precise measures. I suggest that the scale (and scoring method) offered in this article is one such option.
Dr James Benjamin Schuurmans-Stekhoven
Charles Sturt University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Measuring Spirituality as Personal Belief in Supernatural Forces: Is the Character Strength Inventory-Spirituality subscale a brief, reliable and valid measure?, Implicit Religion, August 2014, Equinox Publishing,
DOI: 10.1558/imre.v17i2.211.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
