Identifying an Empirically-Derived 10-item Religiousness Measure from Lipsmeyer’s Personal Religious Inventory: Psychometric Properties of the PRI-10
- 33 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMeasurement of religion Psychometric properties Religion and mental health Emerging adults
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- Arbuckle, J. L. (2015). AMOS (Version 23.0). Chicago: IBM SPSS.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.Google Scholar
- Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
- Gallup Jr, G., & Lindsay, D. M. (1999). Surveying the religious landscape: Trends in U.S. beliefs. Harrisburg: Morehouse.Google Scholar
- Handal, P. J. (1987). A factor analysis of the personal religiosity inventory. Unpublished manuscript. St. Louis, MO: Saint Louis University.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kenny, D. A. (2012). Identification. https://perma.cc/FK2N-2DGE.
- Koenig, H. G., King, D., & Carson, V. B. (2012). Handbook of Religion and Health, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Saroglou, V. (2013). Religion, personality, and social behavior. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Wright, E. W. (2002). An exploratory study of rape myth acceptance among African American women. State College: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar