Advertisement

Pastoral Psychology

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 271–284 | Cite as

Identifying an Empirically-Derived 10-item Religiousness Measure from Lipsmeyer’s Personal Religious Inventory: Psychometric Properties of the PRI-10

  • John W. Lace
  • Paul J. HandalEmail author
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Although it is used throughout social scientific research and is psychometrically robust, Lipsmeyer’s (1984) 45-item Personal Religious Inventory (PRI) is notably lengthy and may be less suitable than other more compendious measures of religiousness. The present study sought to identify, describe, and validate a brief yet comprehensive measure of religiousness derived from the PRI. Nine hundred twenty-one university students (M age = 19.24) participated online. Through parallel analyses and exploratory factor analyses, the authors developed a 10-item, four-factor scale (the PRI-10) that measures aspects of Religious Integration; Religious and Social Morality; Nonritual Social Religious Activity; and; Ritual Attendance. Excellent internal validity was identified for the PRI-10 through confirmatory factor analysis (CFI = .991; RMSEA = .041), and robust convergent validity emerged from moderate to strong correlations with well-validated measures of religiousness and spirituality. Divergent validity emerged from nonsignificant and negligible correlations with participants’ age and grade point average. Further, individuals who reported low religiousness on the PRI-10 tended to have higher levels of psychological distress and need for treatment on the Langner Symptom Survey. Moreover, women who reported low levels of religiousness tended to report psychological distress above a clinically validated cutoff score denoting distress and need for treatment. The authors discuss the benefits and limitations of the novel measure, propose future psychometric validation, and suggest ways other researchers might utilize it.

Keywords

Measurement of religion Psychometric properties Religion and mental health Emerging adults 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Altman, N., & Krzywinski, M. (2015). Association, correlation and causation. Nature Methods, 12, 899.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3587.Google Scholar
  2. Arbuckle, J. L. (2015). AMOS (Version 23.0). Chicago: IBM SPSS.Google Scholar
  3. Aten, J., O’Grady, K., & Worthington Jr., E. (2013). The psychology of religion and spirituality for clinicians: Using research in your practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bergin, A. E. (1983). Religiosity and mental health: A critical reevaluation and meta-analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14(2), 170–184.Google Scholar
  5. Cochrane, R. (1980). A comparative evaluation of the symptom rating test and the Langner 22-item index for use in epidemiological surveys. Psychological Medicine, 10(01), 115–124.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700039647.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Dooley, D., & Catalano, R. (1979). Economic, life, and disorder changes: Time-series analyses. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7(4), 381–396.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00894381.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  12. Fabricatore, A. N., Handal, P. J., Rubio, D. M., & Gilner, F. H. (2004). 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. Google Scholar
  13. Francis, L. J. (1997). The psychology of gender differences in religion: A review of empirical research. Religion, 27(1), 81–96.  https://doi.org/10.1006/reli.1996.0066.Google Scholar
  14. Franklin, S. B., Gibson, D. J., Robertson, P. A., Pohlmann, J. T., & Fralish, J. S. (1995). Parallel analysis: A method for determining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6(1), 99–106.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3236261.Google Scholar
  15. Gallup Jr, G., & Lindsay, D. M. (1999). Surveying the religious landscape: Trends in U.S. beliefs. Harrisburg: Morehouse.Google Scholar
  16. Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Measurement: The boon and bane of investigating religion. American Psychologist, 39(3), 228–236.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.3.228.Google Scholar
  17. Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 43–55.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160.Google Scholar
  18. Handal, P. J. (1987). A factor analysis of the personal religiosity inventory. Unpublished manuscript. St. Louis, MO: Saint Louis University.Google Scholar
  19. 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), 13611370–13611370.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0343-3.Google Scholar
  20. Handal, P. J., Black-Lopez, W., & Moergen, S. (1989). Preliminary investigation of the relationship between religion and psychological distress in black women. Psychological Reports, 65(3 Pt 1), 971–975.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1989.65.3.971. Google Scholar
  21. Handal, P. J., Gist, D., Gilner, F. H., & Searight, H. R. (1993). Preliminary validity for the Langner symptom survey and the brief symptom inventory as mass-screening instruments for adolescent adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(3), 382–386.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2203_9.Google Scholar
  22. Handal, P. J., Creech, C. A., Pashak, T. J., Caver, L., Perez, E. J., Schwendeman, M. G., & Griebel, C. (2014). Distinguishing between self-classified religious and spiritual emerging adults: Conceptual and operational challenges. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, X(Y), 1–11 Retrieved from: https://www.atiner.gr/journals/social/2014-1-X-Y-Handal.pdf.Google Scholar
  23. Handal, P. J., Peri, A., & Pashak, T. J. (2015). Calibration of the Langner symptom survey for the college population. Current Psychology, 34(2), 389–400.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9264-z.Google Scholar
  24. Handal, P. J., Creech, C. A., Schwendeman, M. G., Pashak, T. J., Perez, E. J., & Caver, L. (2017). Distinguishing between self-classified religious and spiritual groups of emerging adult males: Conceptual and psychometric challenges. Journal of Religion and Health, 56(6), 1971–1980.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0304-x.Google Scholar
  25. Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2017). Measurement tools and issues in the psychology of religion and spirituality. In R. Finke & C. D. Bader (Eds.), Faithful measures: New methods in the measurement of religion (pp. 48–77). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Idler, E. L. (1987). Religious involvement and the health of the elderly: Some hypotheses and an initial test. Social Forces, 66(1), 226–238.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2578909.Google Scholar
  29. Kenny, D. A. (2012). Identification. https://perma.cc/FK2N-2DGE.
  30. Koenig, H., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University religion index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078.Google Scholar
  31. Koenig, H. G., King, D., & Carson, V. B. (2012). Handbook of Religion and Health, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Koenig, H., Parkerson Jr., G. R., & 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. Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Lace, J. W., & Handal, P. J. (in press). Confirming the tripartite structure of the Duke University religion index: A methodological approach. Journal of Religion and Health, 57(2), 704–716.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0556-0.
  35. Lace, J. W., Haeberlein, K. A., & Handal, P. J. (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.Google Scholar
  36. Lace, J. W., Haeberlein, K. A., & Handal, P. J. (in press). Multidimensionality of the Langner symptom survey and replication of a cutoff score in emerging adults. Psychological Reports. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118755112.
  37. Langner, T. S. (1962). A twenty-two item screening score of psychiatric symptoms indicating impairment. Journal of Health and Human Behavior, 3(4), 269–276.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2948599.Google Scholar
  38. Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (1999). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 2.Google Scholar
  39. Lipsmeyer, M. E. (1984). The measurement of religiosity and its relationship to mental health/impairment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saint Louis University, St. Louis.Google Scholar
  40. Low, C. A., & Handal, P. J. (1995). The relationship between religion and adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 36(5), 406–412.Google Scholar
  41. Mosher, J. P., & Handal, P. J. (1997). The relationship between religion and psychological distress in adolescents. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(4), 449–457.Google Scholar
  42. Mukaka, M. M. (2012). A guide to appropriate use of Correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal : The Journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 24(3), 69–71.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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. Google Scholar
  45. Ross, K., Handal, P. J., Clark, E. M., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2009). The relationship between religion and religious coping: Religious coping as a moderator between religion and adjustment. Journal of Religion and Health, 48(4), 454–467.Google Scholar
  46. Saroglou, V. (2013). Religion, personality, and social behavior. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  47. 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. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, E. H. (1991). Beneath the status characteristic: Gender variations in religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(4), 381–394.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1387275. Google Scholar
  52. Underwood, L. G. (2011). The daily spiritual experience scale: Overview and results. Religions, 2(4), 29–50.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010029.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Watterson, K., & Giesler, R. B. (2012). Religiosity and self-control: When the going gets tough, the religious get self-regulating. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(3), 193–205.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027644.Google Scholar
  56. Wright, E. W. (2002). An exploratory study of rape myth acceptance among African American women. State College: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations