Abstract
Scale development, validation, and translation are complicated and often arduous procedures that involve considerable cost, time, personnel, and skills necessary to perform the complex statistical analyses required. The need to follow a standard procedure when developing new scales and translating old scales into new languages is essential in order to ensure that researchers accurately measure what they are claiming to measure. Well-designed scales form the foundation for much of the quantitative research conducted today in the psychological, social, behavioral and physical health sciences. This is also true for studies that examine the relationship between religiosity and/or spirituality (R/S) and health. The relationship between R/S and health is a complex one, requiring the development of measures that comprehensively, sensitively, reliably, and accurately measure R/S. As with many other emerging areas in the health sciences, quantitative measurement using psychometrically sound scales and the translation of existing scales into other languages is essential for advancement of the field of religion and health. In this article, a standard procedure for developing, validating, and translating multi-item scales is described.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al Zaben, F., Khalifa, D. A., Sehlo, M. G., Al Shohaib, S., Binzaqr, S. A., Badreg, A. M., Alsaadi, R. A., & Koenig, H. G. (2015). Religious involvement and health in dialysis patients in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(2), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-014-9962-8
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Büssing, A. (Ed.). (2019). Measures of Spirituality/Religiosity. MDPI-Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
DeCarlo, M., Cummings, C., & Agnelli, K (2020). Quantitative measurement (Ch 2). In Graduate research methods in social work: A project-based approach. VIVA: Virtual Library of Virginia. Retrieved on April 4, 2021 from https://viva.pressbooks.pub/mswresearch/chapter/11-quantitative-measurement/.
Garssen, B., & Visser, A. (2016). Spiritual wellbeing predicting depression: Is it relevant? Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 39(2), 369–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9719-9
Garssen, B., Visser, A., & de Jager Meezenbroek, E. (2016). Examining whether spirituality predicts subjective well-being: How to avoid tautology. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000025
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of Religiosity. Religious Education Press.
Hoge, R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(4), 369–376. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384677
JORH. (2021a). Journal of Religion and Health, 60 (1) https://link.springer.com/journal/10943/volumes-and-issues/60-1
JORH. (2021b). Journal of Religion and Health, 60 (5). https://link.springer.com/journal/10943/volumes-and-issues/60-5
Kaiser, H. F. (1991). Coefficient alpha for a principal component and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Psychological Reports, 68, 855–858. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1991.68.3.855
Koenig, H. G. (2008). Concerns about measuring “spirituality” in research. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196(5), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e31816ff796
Koenig, H. G., Al Zaben, F., Khalifa, D. A., & Al Shohaib, S. (2015a). Measures of religiosity. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 530–561). Academic Press.
Koenig, H. G., Hill, T. D., Pirutinsky, S., & Rosmarin, D. H. (2021). Commentary on “does spirituality or religion positively affect mental health?” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 31(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1766868
Koenig, H. G., Nelson, B., Shaw, S. F., Al Zaben, F., Wang, Z., & Saxena, S. (2014). Belief into action scale: A brief but comprehensive measure of religious commitment. Open Journal of Psychiatry, 5(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpsych.2015.51010
Koenig, H. G., Parkerson, G. R., Jr., & Meador, K. G. (1997). Religion index for psychiatric research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(6), 885–886. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.154.6.885b
Koenig, H. G., Smiley, M., & Gonzales, J. A. (1988). Religion, health, and aging: A review and theoretical integration (pp. 171–179). Greenwood Press.
Koenig, H. G., Wang, Z., Al Zaben, F., & Adi, A. (2015b). Belief into Action Scale: A comprehensive and sensitive measure of religious involvement. Religions, 6(3), 1006–1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel6031006
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 985–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00080
Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Rutledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
Tsuang, M. T., & Simpson, J. C. (2008). Commentary on Koenig (2008): “Concerns about measuring ‘spirituality’ in research”. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196(8), 647–649. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181813570
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., Ma, H., Rong, Y., & Koenig, H. G. (2016). Psychometric properties of belief into action scale among university students in China. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v4i3.1363
Watson, J. C. (2017). Establishing evidence for internal structure using exploratory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1336931
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElory, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient- reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., Schmitt, M. M., Berry, J. T., Bursley, K. H., & O’Connor, L. (2003). The religious commitment inventory—10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.84
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koenig, H.G., Al Zaben, F. Psychometric Validation and Translation of Religious and Spiritual Measures. J Relig Health 60, 3467–3483 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01373-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01373-9