{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
‘Generic’ Versus ‘Mature’ Measures Of Christian Religiosity: Comparing Two Quantitative Measures of Religiosity
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.
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.