‘Generic’ Versus ‘Mature’ Measures Of Christian Religiosity: Comparing Two Quantitative Measures of Religiosity

IF 0.6 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL European Journal of Mental Health Pub Date : 2019-06-03 DOI:10.5708/ejmh.14.2019.1.2
Erin P. O’Connell, R. Abbott, R. White
{"title":"‘Generic’ Versus ‘Mature’ Measures Of Christian Religiosity: Comparing Two Quantitative Measures of Religiosity","authors":"Erin P. O’Connell, R. Abbott, R. White","doi":"10.5708/ejmh.14.2019.1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A wide range of survey-based tools has been developed to measure religiosity, although the most commonly applied approaches tend to focus on ‘generic’ interpretations of religiosity for practical and generalising reasons. However, these generic approaches have not always been satisfactory due to the lack of variation in responses and the potential for poor correlation between the generic religiosity measure and the overall impact of faith in respondents’ lives, particularly in less secular \ncontexts. This led us to explore whether there is a difference between measuring religiosity using a ‘generic’ versus a ‘mature’ approach using 227 Christian respondents on Bantayan Island, the Philippines. The findings suggest that overall religiosity among our respondents was high for both measures, that the measures are strongly correlated, and that there was no statistically significant difference between the scores for each scale; however, there was evidence to suggest that the two scales are examining different dimensions of religiosity. When correlating the two religiosity scores to other scales on our survey, there was no statistically significant difference among the correlations when using the mature or generic measure of religiosity. This has important implications for mental health and care research methodologies, for which we highlight the importance of using contextually appropriate measures that incorporate various dimensions of religiosity.","PeriodicalId":42949,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Mental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5708/ejmh.14.2019.1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A wide range of survey-based tools has been developed to measure religiosity, although the most commonly applied approaches tend to focus on ‘generic’ interpretations of religiosity for practical and generalising reasons. However, these generic approaches have not always been satisfactory due to the lack of variation in responses and the potential for poor correlation between the generic religiosity measure and the overall impact of faith in respondents’ lives, particularly in less secular contexts. This led us to explore whether there is a difference between measuring religiosity using a ‘generic’ versus a ‘mature’ approach using 227 Christian respondents on Bantayan Island, the Philippines. The findings suggest that overall religiosity among our respondents was high for both measures, that the measures are strongly correlated, and that there was no statistically significant difference between the scores for each scale; however, there was evidence to suggest that the two scales are examining different dimensions of religiosity. When correlating the two religiosity scores to other scales on our survey, there was no statistically significant difference among the correlations when using the mature or generic measure of religiosity. This has important implications for mental health and care research methodologies, for which we highlight the importance of using contextually appropriate measures that incorporate various dimensions of religiosity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基督教宗教性的“一般”与“成熟”度量:比较两种宗教性的定量度量
人们已经开发了一系列基于调查的工具来测量宗教虔诚度,尽管最常用的方法往往侧重于出于实际和概括原因对宗教虔诚度的“一般”解释。然而,这些通用方法并不总是令人满意的,因为在回应中缺乏变化,并且在通用宗教虔诚度测量和信仰对受访者生活的总体影响之间可能存在较差的相关性,特别是在非世俗背景下。这让我们对菲律宾班塔扬岛的227名基督徒受访者进行了调查,探讨使用“一般”和“成熟”方法衡量宗教虔诚度之间是否存在差异。研究结果表明,在我们的受访者中,两种测量方法的总体宗教虔诚度都很高,这些测量方法是强相关的,并且每个量表的得分之间没有统计学上的显著差异;然而,有证据表明,这两个量表是在考察宗教信仰的不同维度。当将这两种宗教虔诚度得分与我们调查中的其他量表相关联时,在使用成熟的或通用的宗教虔诚度测量时,相关性之间没有统计学上的显著差异。这对心理健康和护理研究方法具有重要意义,为此,我们强调使用结合宗教信仰各个方面的上下文适当措施的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Mental Health
European Journal of Mental Health PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Mental Health, an open-access, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary, professional journal concerned with mental health, personal well-being and its supporting ecosystems that acknowledge the importance of people’s interactions with their environments, established in 2006, is published on 280 pages per volume in English and German by the Semmelweis University Institute of Mental Health. The journal’s professional oversight is provided by the Editor-in-Chief and an international Editorial Board, assisted by an Advisory Board. The semiannual journal, with issues appearing in June and December, is published in Budapest. The journal aims at the dissemination of the latest scientific research on mental health and well-being in Europe. It seeks novel, integrative and comprehensive, applied as well as theoretical articles that are inspiring for professionals and practitioners with different fields of interest: social and natural sciences, humanities and different segments of mental health research and practice. The primary thematic focus of EJMH is the social-ecological antecedents of mental health and foundations of human well-being. Most specifically, the journal welcomes contributions that present high-quality, original research findings on well-being and mental health across the lifespan and in historical perspective.
期刊最新文献
Factor Structure of the Shortened Six-Item Version of the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGLS-6) : A Systematic Review and Testing Factor Models in a Nationally Representative Sample The Impacts of Alexithymia and Sexual Distress on Sexual Functioning Among Portuguese Women The Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Frontline Healthcare Workers : A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis Adolescents’ Perceptions About Non-Suicidal Self-Injury, Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts Candidate Biomarkers to Evaluate the Association Between Psychosocial Stressors and Cardiovascular Diseases : A Short Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1