Abstract
The present study provided a methodological critique regarding psychometric investigations of the Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) and its variants. Nine hundred seventeen (630 females and 287 males) university students (M age = 19.24) completed the DUREL, the Personal Religious Inventory, and the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale online. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to assess a three-factor (organizational religious activity; non-organizational religious activity; and intrinsic religiosity) and a unidimensional model of the DUREL. Chi-square difference tests were performed, and Akaike information criterion values and Bayesian information criterion values were compared between the models, each of which supported the three-factor model for the DUREL over the unidimensional model. Convergent validity for the three factors of the DUREL emerged through Spearman’s rho correlations with measures of personal prayer, ritual religious attendance, religious integration, Closeness to the Divine. This study concluded that the DUREL is a multidimensional measurement of religion for use in English-speaking university students, and it provided a broad methodological note regarding future investigations of measures of religion or spirituality that possess an existing theoretical model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agishtein, P., Pirutinsky, S., Kor, A., Baruch, D., Kanter, J., & Rosmarin, D. H. (2013). Integrating spirituality into a behavioral model of depression. Journal of Cognitive & Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13(2), 275–289.
Bergh, D. (2015). Chi squared test of fit and sample size-a comparison between a random sample approach and a chi square value adjustment method. Journal of Applied Measurement, 16(2), 204–217.
Chen, H., Wang, Z., Phillips, M. R., Sun, Y., & Cheng, H. G. (2014). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the Chinese version of the 5-item Duke University Religion Index. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(5), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.214088.
Crawford, M. E., Handal, P. J., & Wiener, R. L. (1989). The relationship between religion and mental health/distress. Review of Religious Research, 31(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511020.
Creech, C. A., Handal, P. J., Worley, S. A., Pashak, T. J., Perez, E. J., & Caver, L. (2013). Changing trends in ritual attendance and spirituality throughout the college years. Psychology, 4(12), 994–997. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.412143.
Cruz, J. P., Reyes, R. W. P., Colet, P. C., Estacio, J. C., Caldeira, S., Vitorino, L. M., et al. (2017). Psychometric evaluation of the filipino versions of the Duke University Religion Index and the Spiritual Coping Strategies Scale in Filipino Hemodialysis Patients. Journal of Religion and Health, 56(4), 1381–1396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0355-z.
de Paula, J. J. (2015). Propriedades psicométricas do Índice de Religiosidade de Duke aplicado em plataforma virtual. Cadernos Saúde Coletiva, 23, 276–279.
Deb, S., McGirr, K., & Sun, J. (2016). Spirituality in Indian university students and its associations with socioeconomic status, religious background, social support, and mental health. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(5), 1623–1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0207-x.
Dobrowolska, B., Jurek, K., Pilewska-Kozak, A. B., Pawlikowski, J., Drozd, M., & Koenig, H. (2016). Validation of the Polish version of the Duke University Religion Index (PolDUREL). Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, 126(12), 1005–1008. https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.3721.
Ellison, C. G., & Fan, D. (2007). Daily spiritual experiences and psychological well-being among US adults. Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9187-2.
Fabricatore, A. N., Handal, P. J., Rubio, D. M., & Gilner, F. H. (2004). RESEARCH: Stress, religion, and mental health: Religious coping in mediating and moderating roles. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1402_2.
Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2013). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gonzales, L., Koci, A., Gee, R. M., Noji, A., Glaser, D., Marsh, A. K., et al. (2015). Caring for women globally: Psychometric testing of two instruments translated into five languages for use in cardiovascular recovery. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 21, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12393.
Hafizi, S., Memari, A. H., Pakrah, M., Mohebi, F., Saghazadeh, A., & Koenig, H. G. (2013). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): Validation and reliability of the Farsi version. Psychological Reports, 112(1), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.2466/08.07.17.pr0.112.1.151-159.
Hall, D. E., Meador, K. G., & Koenig, H. G. (2008). Measuring religiousness in health research: Review and critique. Journal of Religion and Health, 47(2), 134–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-008-9165-2.
Handal, P. J., Creech, C. A., Pashak, T. J., Caver, L., Perez, E. J., Schwendeman, M. G., et al. (2014). Distinguishing between self-classified religious and spiritual emerging adults: Conceptual and operational challenges. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, X(Y), 1–11.
Handal, P. J., Creech, C. A., Schwendeman, M. G., Pashak, T. J., Perez, E. J., & Caver, L. (2016). Distinguishing between self-classified religious and spiritual groups of emerging adult males: Conceptual and psychometric challenges. Journal of Religion and Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0304-x.
Handal, P. J., & Lace, J. W. (2017). Differential effects of family structure on religion and spirituality of emerging adult males and females. Journal of Religion and Health, 56(4), 1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0343-3.
Ho, R. (2014). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., et al. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(6), 667–683.
Hyman, C., & Handal, P. J. (2006). Definitions and evaluation of religion and spirituality items by religious professionals: A pilot study. Journal of Religion and Health, 45(2), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-006-9015-z.
Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572.
Kattimani, S., Sarkar, S., Bharadwaj, B., & Rajkumar, R. P. (2015). An exploration of the relationship between spirituality and state and trait anger among medical students. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(6), 2134–2141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-014-9933-0.
Kenny, D. A. (2012). SEM: Identification. Retrieved from https://perma.cc/FK2N-2DGE.
Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from https://perma.cc/YT4M-QPJQ.
Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078.
Koenig, H., Parkerson, G. R., Jr., & Meador, K. G. (1997). Religion index for psychiatric research. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(6), 885–886. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.154.6.885b.
Lac, A., Austin, N., Lemke, R., Poojary, S., & Hunter, P. (2017). Association between religious practice and risk of depression in older people in the subacute setting. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 36(2), E31–E34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12384.
Lace, J., Haeberlein, K., & Handal, P. (2017). Five-factor structure of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale and its relationship with clinical psychological distress in emerging adults. Religions, 8(10), 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8100230.
Lace, J. W., & Handal, P. J. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale: Support for a two-factor solution, concurrent validity, and its relationship with clinical psychological distress in university students. Religions, 8(7), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8070123.
Lipsmeyer, M. E. (1984). The measurement of religiosity and its relationship to mental health/impairment. St. Louis: Saint Louis University.
Lucchetti, G., Granero Lucchetti, A. L., Peres, M. F., Leão, F. C., Moreira-Almeida, A., & Koenig, H. G. (2012). Validation of the Duke Religion Index: DUREL (Portuguese version). Journal of Religion and Health, 51(2), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-010-9429-5.
Mulaik, S. A. (2004). Objectivity in science and structural equation modeling. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 422–446). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Newman, C. (2014). The relationships between spirituality and religiosity, trait mindfulness, and health outcomes in a Jewish community sample (3662301 Ph.D.), Yeshiva University.
Ng, S.-M., Fong, T. C. T., Tsui, E. Y. L., Au-Yeung, F. S. W., & Law, S. K. W. (2009). Validation of the Chinese version of Underwood’s Daily Spiritual Experience Scale—Transcending cultural boundaries? International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-009-9045-5.
Peltzer, K., Pengpid, S., Amuleru-Marshall, O., Mufune, P., & Zeid, A. A. (2016). Religiosity and health risk behaviour among university students in 26 low, middle and high income countries. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(6), 2131–2140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0260-5.
Plante, T. G., Vallaeys, C. L., Sherman, A. C., & Wallston, K. A. (2002). The development of a brief version of the Santa Clara strength of religious faith questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 50(5), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014413720710.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063.
Saffari, M., Zeidi, I. M., Pakpour, A. H., & Koenig, H. G. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A study on Muslims. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(2), 631–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-012-9639-0.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.
Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00055-5.
Short, M. B., Kasper, T. E., & Wetterneck, C. T. (2015). The relationship between religiosity and internet pornography use. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(2), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-014-9849-8.
Storch, E. A., Roberti, J. W., Heidgerken, A. D., Storch, J. B., Lewin, A. B., Killiany, E. M., et al. (2004a). The Duke Religion Index: A psychometric investigation. Pastoral Psychology, 53(2), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:pasp.0000046828.94211.53.
Storch, E. A., Strawser, M. S., & Storch, J. B. (2004b). Two-week test-retest reliability of the Duke Religion Index. Psychological Reports, 94(3), 993–994. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3.993-994.
Suhr, D. (2008). Step your way through path analysis. Retrieved from https://perma.cc/W6SM-Q2TA,
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, P. W. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Duke University Religion Index, English and Spanish versions, for Hispanic-American women. San Diego: San Diego State University.
Underwood, L. G. (2011). The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale: Overview and results. Religions, 2(4), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010029.
Underwood, L. G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale: Development, theoretical description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using health-related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2401_04.
Wang, Z., Rong, Y., & Koenig, H. G. (2014). Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Duke University Religion Index in College Students and Community Residents in China. Psychological Reports, 115(2), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.2466/08.17.PR0.115c19z8.
Werner, C., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2010). Deciding between competing models: Chi square difference tests. Retrieved from https://perma.cc/2RTR-8XPZ.
Wilson Van Voorhis, C. R., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043.
Zangiacomi Martinez, E., dos Santos Almeida, R. G., Garcia Braz, A. C., & Duarte de Carvalho, A. C. (2014). Association between religiousness and blood donation among Brazilian postgraduate students from health-related areas. Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia, 36(3), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjhh.2014.03.012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lace, J.W., Handal, P.J. Confirming the Tripartite Structure of the Duke University Religion Index: A Methodological Approach. J Relig Health 57, 704–716 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0556-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0556-0