Advertisement

Validation of the Spirituality Scale for Chinese Elders (SSCE)

  • Vivian W. Q. LouEmail author
Chapter
  • 472 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research book series (BRIEFSWELLBEING)

Abstract

After the Delphi process, the proposed spiritual well-Being framework for Chinese older adults was further contextualized to reflect the interdependency of how the self is constructed and the influences of social orientation of behaviors in the Chinese context. This chapter reports the development and validation of the Spiritual Scale for Chinese Elders (SSCE). It starts from describing the development process of the draft SSCE, follows by reporting on a pilot study and the main survey. The final SSCE contains 44-items showed satisfactory reliability and validity.

Keywords

Positive Affect Residential Care Item Pool Delphi Process Residential Facility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bjørner, J. B., Kristensen, T. S., Orth-Gomér, K., Sullivan, M., & Westerholm, P. (1996). Self-rated health: A useful concept in research, prevention and clinical medicine. Report No. 96, Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  2. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabrera-Nguyen, P. (2010). Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(2), 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Census and Statistics Department. (2013). Hong Kong 2011 population census thematic report: Older persons. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong SAR.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, H. C., & Holt, G. R. (1991). More than relationship: Chinese interaction and the principle of Kuan-hsi. Communication Quarterly, 39(3), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Huang, S. (2013). Chinese Guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. 中国人的关系: 综合文献回顾及未来研究方向. Management and Organization Review, 9(1), 167–207.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, I., & Boey, K. (1993). Hong Kong validation of measuring instruments of mental health status of the elderly. Clinical Gerontologist, 13(4), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chou, K., & Chi, I. (1999). Determinants of life satisfaction in Hong Kong Chinese elderly: A longitudinal study. Aging and Mental Health, 3(4), 328–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chuengsatiansup, K. (2003). Spirituality and health: An initial proposal to incorporate spiritual health in health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawford, J., & Henry, J. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delgado, C. (2005). A discussion of the concept of spirituality. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18(2), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Frankl, V. (1966). Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 6(2), 97–106. doi: 10.1177/002216786600600201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192. Google Scholar
  16. Gómez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1097–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ho, D. Y. F. (1998). Filial piety and filicide in Chinese family relationships: The legend of Shun and other stories. In U. P. Gielen & A. L. Comunian (Eds.), The family and family therapy in international perspective (pp. 134–149). Trieste: Edizioni LINT.Google Scholar
  18. Hwang, K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hwang, K.-K. (1998). Guanxi and mientze: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7, 17–42.Google Scholar
  20. Leung, K., Wong, W., Tay, M., Chu, M., & Ng, S. (2005). Development and validation of the interview version of the Hong Kong Chinese WHOQOL-BREF. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1413–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lou, V. W. Q., & Ng, J. W. (2012). Chinese older adults’ resilience to the loneliness of living alone: A qualitative study. Aging and Mental Health, 16(8), 1039–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peterman, A. H., Fitchett, G., Brady, M. J., Hernandez, L., & Cella, D. (2002). Measuring spiritual well-Being in people with cancer: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy—spiritual well-Being scale (FACIT-Sp). Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed, P. G. (1991). Self-transcendence and mental health in oldest-old adults. Nursing Research, 40(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reed, P. G. (2003). Theory of self-transcendence. In M. J. Smith & P. R. Liehr (Eds.), Middle range theory for nursing (pp. 145–165). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  27. Shek, D. (1988). Reliability and factorial structure of the Chinese version of the purpose in life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(3), 384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shek, D. T. L. (2010). The spirituality of the Chinese people: A critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 343–366). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Su, S. K., Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., Leung, K., Peng, K., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Self organization and social organization: American and Chinese constructions. In T. R. Tyler, R. Kramer, & O. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 193–222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Tanyi, R. A. (2002). Towards clarification of the meaning of spirituality. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39(5), 500–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. The WHOQoL Group. (1998). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46(12), 1569–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tianchen, L. (2003). Confucian ethics and the environment. Culture Mandala: The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies, 6(1), 4.Google Scholar
  33. Tucker, M. E., & Berthrong, J. H. (1998). Confucianism and ecology: The interrelation of heaven, earth, and humans. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wenger, G., Davies, R., Shahtahmasebi, S., & Scott, A. (2008). Social isolation and loneliness in old age: Review and model refinement. Ageing and Society, 16(03), 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang, W. D., Jing, D., & Schick, C. (2004). The cross-cultural measurement of positive and negative affect examining the dimensionality of PANAS. Psychological Science, 27(1), 77–79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Work and Social Administration, Sau Po Centre on AgeingThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong SAR

Personalised recommendations