The multidimensional structure of the quest construct.
Edwards, Keith J. ; Hall, Todd W.
The study of religious motivation has been an important area of
research in the psychology of religion since Allport and Ross (1967)
developed their measure of intrinsic/extrinsic religion. Batson (1976)
expanded the model of religious motivation by proposing the quest
construct and its measurement with the Interactional Scale. Two
additional measures of quest were developed by Altemeyer and Hunsberger
(1992) and Dudley and Cruise (1990). Questions have been raised about
the reliability and validity of the quest construct and its measures.
The present study investigates the dimensionality and convergence of
three measures of quest using a sample of 1200 undergraduates from nine
Christian liberal arts colleges. Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses identified five quest dimensions. The correlations of the five
quest dimensions with several measures of religious functioning and
religious fundamentalism were examined. Differences across four college
classes on the quest dimensions were also tested. The three quest
measures converged on two dimensions labeled Belief Change Expected and
Doubts Value. These dimensions were uncorrected with measures of God
awareness and religious well-being and negatively correlated with
religious fundamentalism. The three other dimensions identified were
unique to one of the measures. The dimension regarding existential
questions was not well sampled by our pool of items. The dimensions
Reason versus Faith and Religion as Quest were correlated negatively
with God awareness and religious well-being as well as religious
fundamentalism. The quest dimensions of change and doubt are core facets
of Batson's original formulation and our results validate these two
dimensions of his model. Measurement of the questions dimension requires
further development. The validity and utility of the other two
dimensions as aspects of quest will require further investigation.
The empirical study of religion as an important social and personal
variable has been a viable, if somewhat less than mainstream, pursuit in
psychology for several decades. Psychology of religion research
increased substantially when Allport and Ross (1967) developed their
measure of intrinsic (I) and extrinsic (E) motivation (the Religious
Orientation Scale, ROS). The measure was based upon Gordon
Ailport's (Ailport, 1950) conceptualization of mature versus
immature religious motivation. Allport (1950) proposed his model
distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as a way to
understand the observed association between prejudice and religious
belief. While the intrinsic and extrinsic constructs and the ROS measure
have been subjected to extensive review and critique (Donahue, 1985;
Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; Kirkpatrick, 1988), the I/E model of
religious motivation has proved to be useful (Kirkpatrick & Hood,
1990) for psychology of religion research.
Batson and his colleagues (Batson, 1976; Batson & Ventis, 1982;
Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) provided another advance in
psychology of religion with their proposal of a third dimension of
religious motivation, which they called religion as Quest. They argued
that the Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) did not adequately measure
all facets of Allport's original model of mature religion.
Specifically, they suggested that the ROS excluded salient facets such
as openness, flexibility, tentativeness, and doubt (Batson, Schoenrade,
& Ventis, 1993). They argued that these facets were particularly
important for understanding the relationship between religion and
prejudice. The quest motivation describes individuals for whom religion
is an on-going, open-minded exploration of existential questions,
acceptance of the fact that many important religious questions do not
have clear-cut answers, and a tentativeness of belief that remains open
to change as one grows and develops. Batson & Ventis (1982) proposed
a six-item measure of quest called the Interactional Scale (IS). The
items were formulated to measure the three quest facets: openness,
doubt, and questioning. The authors offer the following description of
their original scale:
The six items in the scale were written to tap three different
aspects of this dialogue. Three items tap a person's readiness to
face existential questions without reducing their complexity: "I
have been driven to ask religious questions out of a growing awareness
of the tensions in my world and in my relation to my world";
"My religious development has emerged out of my growing sense of
personal identity"; and "God wasn't very important to me
until I began to ask questions about the meaning of my own life."
Two items tap a person's self-criticism and perception of religious
doubts as positive: "It might be said that I value my religious
doubts and uncertainties"; and "Questions are far more central
to my religious experience than are answers." One item taps a
person's openness to change: "I do not expect my religious
convictions to change in the next few years" (reverse scored, p.
432). The construct of quest was formulated to be independent of cither
the extrinsic (means) or intrinsic (end) dimensions. Batson and
Schoenrade (1991b) summarized several studies that support the
independence of their quest measure from the ROS intrinsic and extrinsic
dimension.
Since it was originally published, both the quest construct and the
Interactional Scale (IS or the Quest Scale) have been subjected to
criticism regarding both its reliability and validity (e.g., Donahue,
1985; Hood & Morris, 1985; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990), Batson has
provided extensive responses to the critics of quest (Batson &
Ventis, 1985; Batson & Schoenrade, 1991a, 1991b). Batson &
Schoenrade (1991a) conducted a systematic review of research on quest
that supports its construct validity. They reviewed studies showing that
the Quest scale significantly differentiated among known groups in ways
consistent with the theory. In addition, they identify several studies
in which quest scores correlated significantly with important social
variables such as principled moral reasoning, lower levels of racial and
sexual prejudice, and higher levels of helping behavior (p. 426). They
ended their review with the following conclusion:
After reviewing the major validity concerns raised about the Quest
scale, and considering that, in light of the available empirical
evidence, we find the results quite reassuring. The Quest scale does
seem to be measuring a dimension of religious orientation distinct from
that measured by the Extrinsic or Intrinsic scale, and moreover, this
dimension seems to be very much like the one the scale was designed to
measure, (p. 427)
Another persistent criticism of the quest measure has been the
scales reliability. Almost all of the estimates of the quest
scale's reliability have been based on Coefficient Alpha. A number
of studies have found that the Interactional scale had very low internal
consistency with coefficients between.45 and.50. Gorsuch (1988)
suggested that "until studies accrue that use more reliable
measures of Quest ... few conclusions can be theoretically
meaningful" (p.213). A problem with the reliability criticisms of
the Quest scale is that Coefficient Alpha is a statistical measure of
internal consistency. It provides an estimate of reliability, but it is
not a direct measure of reliability. The gold standard for estimating
reliability is the test-retest paradigm. However, test-retest research
takes time and resources. The model also assumes the stability of the
construct over the test-retest period and the independence of error
between the two assessments. Alternatives to the test-retest model have
been proposed. These include alternate forms and internal consistency
estimates of reliability. Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha is the most
widely used internal consistency statistic. It can be readily calculated
using most standard statistical packages for any sample with a single
administration of a questionnaire using scores on individual items. The
value of Alpha is a function of the average of the correlations among
the items in a measure. It is also a function of the number of items in
a scale. Alpha is an indication of how homogeneous, or internally
consistent, a set of items are. It can be used as an
"estimate" of test "reliability" under certain
assumptions (see Cortina, J.M., 1993; Clark, L.A. & Watson, D., 1995
for a more technical discussion of Coefficient Alpha).
A test can be reliable in the test-retest paradigm and have a low
coefficient alpha. Under such circumstances, one would conclude that the
test is reliable but consists of a heterogeneous pool of items. The
total score derived from a set of heterogeneous items can be shown to be
statistically valid in either criterion-related or construct validity
paradigms. Such a test would be said to have low item homogeneity (low
internal consistency) but high validity. It would not make sense, in
light of positive validity evidence, to say a measure with low Alpha is
"unreliable."
The challenge in construct validity studies with heterogeneous
tests (with low coefficient alpha) is primarily one of conceptual
interpretation rather than low reliability. The task in construct
validity research is to identify the underlying dimensions (latent
variables) that account for the observed relationship between the total
score and the other constructs serving as criteria. When heterogeneous
sets of items representing related but distinct latent variables are
combined into a single score and used to predict other phenomenon, you
cannot tell which of the constructs accounts for the observe
relationship.
We maintain that this is the potential state of affairs with regard
to the quest construct as defined and measured by Batson's original
six-item measure, the reformulated 12-item version, as well as two other
measures that are examined in the present study. After reviewing
numerous studies on the validity of quest, Batson & Schoenrade
(1991a) concluded that "in spite of its low internal consistency,
the six-item Quest scale appears to be a valid measure of the construct
it was designed to measure" (p. 434). They also note that the few
studies that report test-retest reliabilities "give reassurance
that it (the Quest scale) is reliable" (p. 434). It is a
fundamental truth in psychometrics that the reliability of a measure is
a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to be valid. If a test
is unreliable, it cannot be shown to be valid. On the other hand, if a
test is shown to be valid you can assume it is reliable. It is our
contention that the 12-item Quest scale has low coefficient alphas
because the items are heterogeneous, not because it is unreliable.
It's clear from their earliest descriptions of quest, that
Batson and his colleagues envisioned quest as consisting of three
related clusters of items or facets: readiness to face existential
questions, self-criticism and doubt, and openness to change. They have
referred to these as the "three subdimensions" of quest (p.
434). Batson and Schoenrade (1991b) proposed a revision of IS with their
primary goal being to improve its reliability as measured by Coefficient
Alpha. Their revised scale had 12 items. They reported a principal
components analysis of the 12 items that clearly identified three and
four factors, respectively, in two different samples. The factors they
identified corresponded to the three facets of quest identified in their
original formulation: openness to change, asking existential questions,
and religious doubts as positive. Three similar components were
previously identified for the six-item measure by Watson, Morris, and
Hood (1989). They summarized their view on the dimensionality of quest
as follows: First, the new 12-item Quest scale is certainly not perfect.
To mention just one problem, the split- and cross-loadings of many items
when the 12 items are factor analyzed indicates that we do not yet have
clear measures of the three hypothesized subdimensions of the quest
orientation. This limitation is not especially troubling if one wishes
to examine the relationship between the quest dimension and some
personal or social variable, but it is troubling if one wishes to
consider whether one or another of the subdimensions is primarily
responsible for the relationship. At present, factor scores derived from
factor analyses like those presented in Table 4 could be used to measure
the subdimensions in large samples. More items tapping each subdimension
would be needed to provide clearly distinct scales measuring the three
subdimensions. (p. 445)
Table 4
Principle Component Loadings for Dudley & Cruise (RMS) Items
Dudley & Cruise RMS Items RMSF1
Beliefs
Satisfying
Open to
Change
Beliefs satisfying/ open to new RMS1 0.718
info
Happy w beliefs/ open to new RMS2 0.716
insight
Beliefs true, but could be RMS3 0.682
mistaken
Questions/ hesitant to be RMS9 0.552
dogmatic
No easy answers, faith RMS4 0.509
developmental process
struggled to understand evil & RMS6 0.417
suffering
beliefs not certain, act on RMS8 0.409
probably true
beliefs same as 5 years ago RMS11 0.37
[R]
people relationships as RMS10 0.303
important as God
Need certainty religion RMS5
completely true [R]
preach, NO involvement in RMS7
politics [R]
[R] Item is reversed scored.
Batson has consistently argued for measuring the quest construct as
a single score. While there is substantial empirical support for the
validity of the quest as a single score, the dimensionality of that
construct remains in question. That the total Quest scale scores
correlated with other variables in the predicted direction does not mean
the Quest construct is a single dimension. We contend that the
investigation of sub-dimensions is an important direction for future
research on quest motivation. Identifying the items that measure these
sub-dimensions is an important first step. That is the purpose of the
present study.
Around the same time Batson & Schoenrade (1991b) developed the
12-item Quest scale, two other groups of researchers offered scales
purporting to be improvements on the original 6-item IS scale. We also
examined the convergence and divergence of items across three different
measures of quest.
Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) proposed a measure of quest out of
their work on authoritarianism, religion, and prejudice. Building on a
modification of the IS scale by McFarland (1989), they developed a 16
item measure that they called "balanced quest." It was called
balanced because they sought to include negatively keyed
"antiquest" items to control for response sets. The negative
items were worded to reflect closed-minded faith and beliefs that were
not part of Batson's original model. The balanced quest scale has
only one item in common with Batson's measure. The authors
conducted a factor analysis of the balanced quest items in an item pool
that also included 20 religious fundamentalism items. The analysis
demonstrated that the quest and RF items were separate dimensions, but
it did not shed any light on the possible dimensionality of the quest
construct. Our preliminary analysis of their 16-item measure suggests
that it is multidimensional (Edwards at al., 2002). We are not aware of
any systematic investigation of the dimensions of quest that underlie
the revised Batson measure and the balanced quest scale. Such an
analysis will shed light on the convergence and divergence of these two
measures.
Dudley & Cruise (1990) formulated a third approach to measuring
quest that is included in our dimensional analysis. They objected to
Batson's theoretical model of quest as independent of intrinsic
religion. They sought to create a measure that combined the best of both
the intrinsic and quest concepts to assess mature religion. They created
a pool of 58 items, including intrinsic, extrinsic and quest related
items which were subjected to factor analysis. Separate factors were
identified for intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest (mature) religion. They
identified 11 items as quest-related in these analyses. They call their
measure the Religious Maturity Scale (RMS). It correlated 0.37 with the
original IS scale. Since the RMS items were analyzed in combination with
other non-quest items, their factor analysis does not provide any
definitive information on the dimensionality of the RMS items.
Another group studying the dimensionality of quest reported their
findings after our data gathering project was finished. Beck and his
colleagues have pursued their study of the dimensions of quest by
developing their own measures (Beck, Baker, Robbins, & Dow, 2001;
Beck & Jessup, 2004). In their first study, Beck's group
developed 10 items designed to measure the sub-dimensions of quest
labeled Tentativeness and Change. A principal components analysis of the
tentativeness and change items revealed two distinct dimensions.
Subscales scores for the tentativeness and change dimensions correlated
0.35 and 0.31 with the IS scale, respectively. A version of
Batson's IS scale did not correlate with any of the religious
variables in their study. However, both of their quest subscales
produced significant correlations with other religious variables.
Specifically, tentativeness was positively correlated with intrinsic
religiosity and existential well-being. Change was negatively correlated
with intrinsic religiousness, existential and spiritual well-being and
positively correlated with extrinsic religiousness (Beck, et al, 2001,
p.289). These results indicate that Batson's suggestion of
combining the separate clusters of quest items into a total score may
obscure important relationships with other variables.
Beck & Jessup (2004) proposed a nine dimensional measure of
quest, which included both tentativeness and change as sub-dimensions.
In this study, tentativeness was not significantly correlated with other
religiosity measures. Change was positively correlated with extrinsic
religiosity and negatively correlated with intrinsic religiosity,
existential well-being, religious well-being, and orthodoxy. The
subscale scores of tentativeness and change correlated significantly
with the 12-item quest scale at the 0.36 and 0.51, respectively. Results
from the Beck group research supports the utility of measuring the
sub-dimensions of quest separately. However, the question of how many
dimensions are needed remains to be answered.
The present study reports an analysis of the dimensionality of the
Quest construct at the item level using items from three quest-related
measures: the 12 quest items (B Quest) developed by Batson &
Shoenrade (1991b), the 16 balanced quest items (AQuest) developed by
Altemeyer & Hunsberger (1992), and the 11 religious maturity items
(RMS) Dudley & Cruise (1990). No study has been conducted which
examines the dimensionality of quest by including items from three
existing Quest-related measures. Prior analyses of quest dimensions have
relied on exploratory procedures and examination of the Scree Plot to
estimate the number of dimensions. In the present study we employ both
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The latter provides a
statistical test of the goodness of fit for a specific dimensional
solution. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992), after reviewing the
controversy in the literature regarding quest stated that "it is
possible that matters of controversy would be clearer 25 years after
Allport and Ross (1967) if constructs had been defined and measured with
greater precision" (p. 117). We intend for our analyses of
different quest measures to move us closer to a clearer definition and
more precise measurement of the quest construct.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
The sample consisted of 1024 undergraduate students from 8
Christian liberal arts colleges from across the United States. Subjects
were recruited from a variety of courses, mostly in the social sciences,
and participation was voluntary. The sample consisted of students from
all four years in school, with the largest groups coming from the
freshman and senior classes. There were 346 Freshman, 179 Sophomores,
189 Juniors, and 299 Seniors. There were 540 who identified themselves
as females, 264 as males with the remaining subjects giving no
indication of gender. Each subject completed the booklet containing the
various measures in one sitting. We called the booklet the Faithful
Change Questionnaire.
Instruments
Items from three different Quest measures were included in the
factor analysis. All of the questionnaire items were rated on a scale
from 1 to 6, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The measures included
in this study were as follows:
B Quest. The Batson & Shoenrade Quest Scale consists of 12
items developed to tap three different facets of quest religious
motivation: L Readiness to face existential questions without reducing
their complexity; 2. Self-criticism and perception of religious doubt as
positive; 3. Openness to change. Batson and Schoenrade (1991b) developed
the B Quest scale to improve the reliability of the original six item
Interactional scale. They added 7 items and dropped one original item
resulting in the 12 item revised scale (see Table 1), which had an
internal consistency reliability of between.75 and.8L The new scale
correlated with the old one.87.
A Quest. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992), building on the work of
McFarland (1989), developed a 16 item self-report scale of Quest. This
scale (see Table 1) uses only one of the Quest items (1) from Batson
& Schoenrade (1991b) and three of the four McFarland items (2, 4
& 6). It contains several con-trait-items (2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13
& 15), which they formulated to create a scale balanced for
positively and negatively stated attitudes. Their new scale had an
internal consistency reliability of.88. The new scale proved to be a
robust correlate with measures of fundamentalism, authoritarianism, and
prejudice. We call this scale A Quest in the present study. Since this
scale has one item in common with Quest B, there are 15 unique A Quest
items.
MLIIDIMENSIONAL STRUCTURE OF QUEST CONSTRUCT
TABLE 1 Quest. Iterns from Three Quest Measures
QB1 I was not very interested in religion until I began to
ask questions about the meaning and purpose of life
QB2 I have been driven to ask religious questions out of a
growing awareness of the tensions in my world and in my
relation to my world
QB3 My life experiences have led me to rethink my religious
convictions
QB4 God wasn't very important for me until I began to ask
questions about the meaning of my own life
QB5 It might be said that I value my religious doubts and
uncertainties
QB6 For me, doubting is an important part of what it means
to be religious
QB7 I find religious doubts upsetting
QB8 Questions are far more central to my religious
experience than are answers.
QB9 As I grow and change, I expect my religion also to grow
and change.
QB10 I am constantly questioning my religious beliefs
QB11 I do not expect my religious convictions to change in
the next few years
QB12 There are many religious issues on which my views are
still changing
QA1 It is better for a person's religious beliefs to be firm
and free of doubt
QA2 You don't find the true religion by studying all the
facts in the universe; you find it by praying to God for
grace, humility, and enlightenment
QA3 Religious doubts allow us to learn
QA4 When my religious beliefs are challenged by famine,
disease, and other evils in the world, it only makes me
believe in God's goodness more fervently than ever.
QA5 My religious beliefs may change in the future as I
mature and learn
QA6 Religion should just be an aspect of a more basic quest
to discover the truth about everything, without
prejudice and taking nothing on faith
QA7 My religious beliefs are far too important to me to be
jeopardized by a lot of skepticism and critical
examination
QA8 The point of life is to search for the truth, with as
open a mind as you can, NOT to memorize the "eternal
truths" that he been handed down from generation to
generation as matters of faith
QA9 I am glad my religious beliefs are based upon faith; it
would not mean as much to God, and to me, if these
beliefs could be "scientifically proven" beyond a
doubt.
QA10 We were NOT put on this earth to go "searching for the
truth, whatever it is", but instead to live our lives
according
to the revealed word of God
QA11 If an honest quest for the truth leads to the conclusion
that there is no God, then that is what one must
conclude
QA12 The human mind is too limited to discover God and the
Truth by itself; we simply have to accept the truths
that
have been revealed
QA13 The real goal of religion ought to be to make us wonder,
think, and search, NOT take the word of some earlier
teachings
QA14 When my religious beliefs are challenged by personal
unhappiness, or by some clever argument, it just makes
me believe stronger than ever
QA15 My goal is to discover the truth, even if that means
changing my religious beliefs
RMS1 My religious beliefs provide me with satisfying answers
at this stage of my development, but I am prepared to
alter them as new information becomes available
RMS2 I am happy with my present religion but wish to be open
to new insights and ways of understanding the meaning of
life
RMS3 As best I can determine, my religion is true, but I
recognize that I could be mistaken on some points
RMS4 Important questions about the meaning of life do not
have simple or easy answers; therefore faith is a
developmental process
RMS5 I could not commit myself to a religion unless 1 was
certain that it is completely true
RMS6 I have struggled in trying to understand the problems of
evil, suffering, and death that mark this world
RMS7 Churches should concentrate on proclaiming the gospel
and not become involved in trying to change society or
political action
RMS8 While we can never be quite sure that what we believe is
absolutely true, it is worth acting on the probability
that
it may be
RMS9 I have found many religious questions to be difficult
and complex so I am hesitant to be dogmatic or final in
my
assertions
RMS10 In my religion my relationships with other people are as
fundamental as my relationship with God
RMS11 My religious beliefs are pretty much the same today as
they were five years ago
QB Batso& Schoenrade (1991b). QA Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992). RMS
Religious Maturity Scale Dudley & Cruse(1990).
38 item is scored on two subscales: FMS-Vertical, total scale. Scale
development was informed by
Religious Maturity Scale. Dudley and Cruise (1990) developed the
Religious Maturity Scale (RMS) in an attempt to improve on the ROS and
Quest as measures of Allport's conception of religious maturity
(Allport, 1950). Dudley and Cruise believe that the following statement,
of what a mature religionist might say, reflects a better conception of
what Allport actually meant by intrinsic religion:
I have studied the evidence available to me and have developed some
satisfying answers to existential questions. My religion makes sense to
me; more sense than anything else I have considered. Therefore I am
committed to believing it and advancing it. However, I realize that it
is incomplete. I will continue to study, and as new information becomes
available to me as I grow in understanding, it is very possible that I
will see things in a somewhat different light. I want to be ready to
progress in my understanding when a new piece of "truth'
becomes clear to me. In the meantime I will live by the light I have.
And while on the basis of my present experience I prefer my religious
beliefs over any others, I fully recognize that other people have a
right to their beliefs and, given their perspective on truth may be
closer to reality than I am. This recognition however, does not make me
any less committed to my faith as I now understand it. (Dudley and
Cruise, 1990, p. 101)
They defined mature religion as holding contrasting ideas in
tension. The contrast is not as Batson suggests one of faith versus
doubt but one of commitment versus tentativeness and open-mindedness.
The RMS scale attempts to measure a faith that holds in tension both
commitment and openness to further growth in religious understanding.
The RMS is an 11 item self-report instrument. It has rather low internal
consistency estimates of reliability ranging from.58 to.70 (Dudley and
Cruise, 1990). The 11 RMS items are shown in Table 1
Religious Fundamentalism. Paloutzian (1996) has noted that there
has been an advance in the measurement of fundamentalism. In the past,
fundamentalism has been measured by the content of one's beliefs.
However, this makes it difficult to differentiate between fundamentalism
and orthodoxy. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) define fundamentalism as,
The belief that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly
contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, essential, inerrant truth
about humanity and deity; that this essential truth is fundamentally
opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought; that this
truth must be followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable
practices of the past; and those who believe and follow these
fundamental teachings have a special relationship with the deity, (p.
118)
This method of defining fundamentalism is hypothetical neutral with
respect to belief content and applies equally well to fundamentalism in
differentreligions. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) have developed a 20
item self-report measure of fundamentalism (RFS). The scale was found to
be uncorrelated with a measure of Christian Orthodoxy. The RFS was
included in the present study.
Several other measures of religious functioning were included in
the Faithful Change Questionnaire. This provided an opportunity to
determine how the various facets of quest correlated with these
measures. The measures used in the present analyses are described below.
Faith Maturity Scale. The FMS was developed by Benson, Donahue, and
Erickson (1993). It consists of 38 items scored on two subscales:
FMS-Vertical, which measures experience of God and FMS- Horizontal which
measures attitudes about personal, social, and relationship issues.
Rather than measuring faith itself, the FMS focuses on what Benson,
Donahue, and Erickson (1993) describe as "the degree to which a
person embodies the priorities, commitments, and perspectives
characteristic of vibrant and life-transforming faith, as these have
been understood in mainline Protestant traditions (p. 14)." Thus,
in this model, faith is a way of living, not just knowledge of or
adherence to doctrine, dogma, or tradition.
At the core of the FMS is an understanding of faith as having
"vertical" and "horizontal" dimensions, with faith
maturity being the integration of the two (integrated faith). The
vertical dimension emphasizes the self and its relationship to God or
the divine, or the inward journey. The horizontal dimension emphasizes
obligation and action on the human plane through acts of service and
justice, or the outward journey.
Spiritual Experience Index. Genia (1991) developed the SEI to
measure Western theistic spiritual maturity. The original version
consisted of 38 items with coefficient alphas from 0.87 to 0.92 for the
total scale. Scale development was informed by faith development theory
and definitions of spiritual maturity by a number of researchers and
theorists. Genia (1997) revised the SEI and reduced it to 23 items. She
defined spiritual maturity as a balance of Spiritual Support (SSS) from
the divine and Spiritual Openness (SO) defined as an open and inclusive
approach to faith. Genia reported that regression analyses suggested
that SO is distinct from quest. Edwards et al. (2001) had identified a
subset of the SOS items that appeared to be similar in content to those
in the quest construct. In the present study, the SSS and SOS scales
were correlated to the quest measures.
Spiritual Assessment Inventory. The SAI was developed by Hall &
Edwards (1996; 2001) as a multidimensional, theistic measure of
spiritual maturity based on object relations and attachment theories. It
consists of 51 items scored on 5 subscales: Awareness (A), which
assesses one's awareness of God's presence and communication;
Realistic Acceptance (RA), which assesses one's capacity to work
through difficult experiences with God; Disappointment (D), which
assesses disappointment with God; Grandiosity (G), which assesses an
inflated view of oneself presumed to be a defense against feelings of
inadequacy; and Instability (I), which assesses instability in
relationship with God. The SAI has exhibited its theoretically derived
factor structure across numerous studies (Hall &: Edwards, 1996,
2002). In addition, construct and incremental validity have been
demonstrated in numerous studies (Hall & Edwards, 1996, 2002).
Spiritual Maturity Index. The Spiritual Maturity Index (SMI) is a
30-item instrument developed by Ellison (1983) to assess spiritual
maturity within a theistic, and specifically Christian, religious
framework. I he items generally assess Christian faith being central to
one's life (e.g., "My relationships with others are guided by
my desire to express the love of Christ."). Several items are
reverse scored (e.g., "I don't regularly have times of deep
communion with God in personal (private) prayer."). Although there
is some evidence that the SMI may be factorially complex (Edwards,
Slater, Hall, Oda, & Eck, 2001), we used a total score for all 30
items as intended by the original development of the SMI.
Spiritual Well-Being Scale. The Spiritual Weil-Being Scale (SWBS;
Ellison, 1983; Ellison & Smith, 1991) is a 20-item self-report scale
in which participants rate item endorsement on a 1 to 6 Likert scale.
The SWBS has two 10-item subscales assessing Religious Well-Being and
Existential Well-Being. The Religious Well-Being subscale is intended to
assess one's perception of the quality of their relationship with
God. Alternatively, the Existential Well-Being subscale assesses
one's perception of having a sense of life meaning and satisfaction
with life. Although some questions have been raised concerning the
factor structure of the SWBS (Scott, Agresti, & Fitchett, 1998), it
has generally demonstrated good reliability and validity coefficients
(Bufford, Paloutzian, & Ellison, 1991). Specifically, the SWBS has
demonstrated good convergent validity with other measures of general
well-being (Bufford et al., 1991).
Data Analyses
Each of the three quest measures were subject to a principal
components analysis (PCA) of their separate item pools. Each analysis
followed the same procedure. The plot of the eigenvalues for each set of
items was examined using Catell's Scree Test for determining the
number of factors to extract. Determining the number of factors to
extract from a given set of data in PCA is not an exact science. The
Scree Test provides only an approximation based on the relative change
in eigenvalues, which must be determined from a plot. An estimate of the
number of components is provided by locating a clear change in the plot
from a rapidly descending line to a gradually sloping horizontal line.
Once we determined the number of components to extract, each solution
with more than one factor was subject to oblique rotation. The goodness
of fit of each rotated solution was tested with the Confirmatory Factor
Analysis described by Asparouhov & Muthen (2009). The goal of the
within-scale analyses was to estimate the dimensionality of each
measure.
We then conducted an exploratory PCA on a pool of selected quest
items from all three scales. Items that had loadings less than 0.4 or
loaded on more than one within-scale factor were omitted from the
component analysis of the combined items. Deleting items in this manner
does not mean they are not useful for measuring quest. It just means
they may not be pure measures of a sub-dimension of quest in their
current form. In fact, Batson & Schoenrade (1991) acknowledged that
they wrote some of the items for their revised quest scale trying to
capture the complexity of the quest construct.
The Scree test was again used to estimate the number of components
to extract. The components were subject to oblique rotation. CFA
goodness of fit statistics were calculated for the number of components
extracted. Quest sub-dimension scale scores were computed for each of
the components using the average of student responses to the items with
pattern coefficients above 0.40.
The correlation among these component scales and their correlations
with the original quest scale scores were calculated. The original and
quest component scales were correlated with several other religious
variables including Religious Fundamentalism (RF). Finally, differences
among students classified by year in school on the derived quest
sub-dimension scales were examined using a mixed-model repeated-measures
ANOVA followed by a series of within-measures, pair-wise comparisons
between means by year in school on each scale when the main effects were
significant.
Table 2
Principle Component Loadings for the Batson & Schoenrade (BQuest) Items
Batson & Schoenrade
Quest Items BF1 BF2 BF3
Change Questions Doubts
Religious views still QB12 0.72
changing
NO belief change expected QB11 0.72
Expect religious growth QB9 0.70
and change
Constantly question my QB10 0.60
beliefs
Questions more central QB8 0.36 0.34
than answers
Questions increased QB1 0.84
religious interest
Questions increased QB4 0.83
importance of God
Awareness of tension QB2 0.58
>asked questions
Life experiences > QB3 0.34 0.46
rethink belief
Doubting important in QB6 0.81
religion
I value religious doubts QB5 0.72
Religious doubts upsetting QB7 0.67
[R]
[R] Item is reversed scored.
Results and Discussion
In the present study, we wanted to identify the sub-dimensions of
quest using three different scales claiming to measure the quest
construct. We used a sequence of Principal Components Analyses (PCA) to
identify homogeneous clusters of quest items within each measure. We
then examined the convergence of these items across the three measures
using PCA on a combined pool of items. All of the items for each of the
three quest scales included in the analyses are shown in Table 1.
Separate Principal Components Analyses (PCA) were conducted for each of
the three quest scales. The Scree plots of the eigenvalues are shown in
Figure 1 For the 12-item BQuest scale and the 16-item for AQuest, three
components were extracted and subject to oblique rotation. The pattern
loadings for the obliquely rotated components are shown in Tables 2
& 3. The plot for the RMS items indicated only one component was
warranted. The related component loadings are shown in Table 4. A brief
paraphrase of each item is given in the tables to identify the content
of the items.
The three BQuest components correspond to some degree to the three
facets Batson & Schoenrade (1991b) designed into the scale. We
labeled the first component, "Change expected" (BF1) since the
items with the three highest loadings explicitly mention growth and
change. The item, "I am constantly questioning my religious
beliefs" also loaded on this factor. Even though the word
"questioning" is in this item, the instability of one's
beliefs implied by this question may explain why it loads on the change
component. The second component consisted of two items that emphasized
the role of questions in increasing religious interest and one on how
life experience motivated rethinking (questioning) beliefs. We labeled
this component, "Questions good." (BF2). The third component
consisted of three items that indicate the importance of doubt. We
labeled this component, "Doubt valued" (BF3). The correlation
between pairs of the three components were modest: BF1-BF2 = 0.24;
BF1-BF3 = 0.26; BF2-BF3 = 0.13, Items 3 and 8, with their low,
cross-loadings were not used in the dimensional analysis of the combined
item.
Next, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the
3-component model of BQuest items. Four indices that are used to
evaluate goodness of fit for CFA models are shown in Table 6. While the
Chi-Square statistic is reported, methodologists acknowledge that it is
almost always significant with large sample sizes. (Camp-bell-Stiles
& Brown, 2005; Methuen &C Methuen, 2004; Steiger, 1990). As
expected, all the chi-square statistics reported in Table 6 are
significant at p ----- .0001. All three of the goodness of fit
statistics in Table 6 for the BQuest items indicate the three factor
model is a good fit. Since the BQuest items have been used to obtain a
single score for the quest concept, we calculated the goodness of fit
statistics for the 1-factor model. All the indexes in Table 6 indicate
the one factor model is a poor fit. The chi-square difference statistic
is useful to compare two CFA models on the same set of items. The
difference in chi-squares between the 1-factor and 3-factor models is
929 with 21 degrees of freedom, p ----- .0001, indicating that the
3-factor model is a significantly better fit. The 1-factor model is not
a good fit for the BQuest items.
Table 6.
Goodness of Fit Statistics for Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Measure Model Chi-Square DF CFI RMSEA SRMR
Goodness > < <
of Fit .90 .08 .05
Criteria
Bquest 1 1092 54 0.62 0.14 0.09
Items Factor
3 163 33 0.95 0.06 0.03
Factor
Aquest 3 307 63 0.89 0.06 0.03
Items Factor
RMS 1 214 44 0.86 0.06 0.05
Items Factor
Combined 4 1141 227 0.85 0.06 0.04
Items Factor
5 813 205 0.90 0.05 0.03
Factor
Note. All Chi-Square values are significant at p ----- .0001
The three components of the AQuest items are shown in Table 3.
Component B includes items that we summarize with the label,
"Reason vs faith." (AF1) All the items loading on this
component reflect the triumph of faith over challenges or doubts. The
items are reversed scored to measure the Quest construct, so a high
score on this component would reflect the importance of reason over
faith. The items on AF1 were uniquely developed by Altemeyer &
Hunsberger to measure antiquesting, reflecting authoritarian beliefs
about faith. The second component consists of four items valuing doubt
and two expecting change. Note that the item labeled QAO is the same as
item QB5 from the Batson scale. We labeled this component, "Doubts
valued." (AF2) We labeled the third component for AQuest
"Religion is a Quest." (AF3) The items all emphasize religion
as a quest with a skeptical stance toward truth. Items 7, 11, 12, and 15
with their low, cross-loadings were not used in the combined dimensional
analyses. The statistics in Table 6 indicate that the 3-factor model is
a reasonably good fit for the AQuest items with the CFI on the
borderline (CFI=0.89).
Table 3
Principle Component Loadings for Altmeyer [??] Hunsberger
(AQuest) Items
Altmeyer & Hunsberger
AF1 AF2 AF3
Quest Items Reason Doubts Religion
v Valued a Quest
Faith
Beliefs challenged, believe more QA4 0.67
fervently [R]
Beliefs challenged, believe stronger QAM 0.66
[R]
Religion not facts, pray for QA2 0.65
enlightenment [R]
Beliefs based on faith, not proof, a QA9 0.62
virtue [R]
No search for truth, believe QA10 0.61
revelation [R]
Don't jeopardize beliefs with QA7 0.47 0.39
skepticism [R]
Mind limited, accept revealed truth QA12 0.39
[R]
Doubts allow learning QA3 0.73
Better/ beliefs firm, NO doubt [R] QA1 0.67
I value religious doubts QAO 0.62
Beliefs may change as mature, learn QA5 0.56
Goal is truth/ would change beliefs QA15 0.33 0.35
Religion a quest, take nothing on QA6 0.70
faith
Open mind, no eternal truth QA8 0.70
Religion a search, NOT earlier QA13 0.65
teachings
Honest quest -- > No God, QA11 0.32 0.47
believe it
[R] Item is reversed scored.
The loadings for the single component derived from the RMS items
are shown in Table 4. These items all express the idea of satisfaction
with beliefs along with openness, tolerance of uncertainty, and
willingness to change. Seven of the RMS items with loadings above 0.40
were retained for the combined analyses. The statistics in Table 6
indicate that the 1-factor model is a less-than-optimum fit for the 11
items with the CFI at 0.86. Dropping the 4 items that load below 0.40
would improve the goodness of fit.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
The 32 quest items that were retained for the combined analysis
were subject to exploratory PCA with oblique rotation. The Scree test
was again used to estimate the number of components to extract and
rotate. The Scree test for the combined group of selected items is shown
in Figure 2. The plot appears to support the extraction of 4-components.
The four components were extracted and rotated. The 3 items that loaded
on the AQuest component Religion a Quest (AF3) had low loadings in the
4-component solution, so we also examined a 5-component solution. The
5-component solution had a component containing these 3 items not
accounted for in the 4-component solution, so we retained the
5-components. The goodness of fit statistics for both the 4-component
and 5-component solutions are shown in table 6. The chi-square
difference between the two models is 227 which is significant at the p
----- .0001 and the CFI for the 5-component model is above 0.90. The
5-component model is a better fit for the data than the 4-component
model.
The pattern loadings for the 5 oblique components are shown in
Table 5. The first component (QF1) has six items from RMS, four from
BQuest, and one from AQuest. The content conveys a dynamic,
developmental view of faith as satisfying but changing over time as a
result of growing/maturing. The second component (QF2) corresponds to
the Reason versus Faith dimension (AF2) of the AQuest measure. The third
component (QF3) has three items from the BQuest scale that have to do
with the value of questions for faith motivation. Specifically, two of
the items with the highest loadings express the value of questions for
making one's religious quest more interesting and important. These
are the same items that loaded on BF2. Component QF3 also contained item
RMS6, "struggle to understand evil and suffering." It seems
reasonable to assume that such a struggle would reflect motivation,
tension, and questioning. Component 4 (QF4) is a convergence of items
from the BQuest and AQuest measure that affirm the value of doubt (BF3
and AF2). The last component (QF5) has the three items from the AQuest
component (AF3) that explicitly identifies religion as an open-minded
quest with a skeptical attitude regarding eternal truths.
Table 5
Principle Component Analysis of Combined Quest Items
COMBINED QUEST ITEMS Pattern
Coefficients
QF1
Beliefs
Tentative
Open to
Change
Beliefs may change as QA5 0.63
mature, learn
Expect religious growth QB9 0.55
and change
Constantly question my QB10 0.34
beliefs
NO belief change expected QB11 0.42
[R]
Religious views still QB12 0.47
changing
Beliefs satisfying/open to RMS1 0.66
new information
Happy with beliefs/ open RMS2 0.63
to new insight
Beliefs true, but could be RMS3 0.63
mistaken
No easy answers, faith RMS4 0.44
developmental process
beliefs not certain, act RMS8 0.47
on probably true
Questions/ hesitant to be RMS9 0.44
dogmatic
QF2 Reason
versus
Faith
Religion not facts, pray QA2 0.57
for enlightenment [R]
Beliefs challenged, QA4 0.75
believe more fervently
[R]
Beliefs based on faith, QA9 0.60
not proof, a virtue [R]
No search for truth, QA10 0.55
believe revelation [R]
Beliefs challenged, QA14 0.74
believe stronger [R]
QF3
Questions
Good
Questions increased QB1 0.76
religious interest
Awareness of tension QB2 0.56
> asked questions
Questions increased QB4 0.75
importance of God
struggled to understand RMS6 0.50
evil & suffering
QF4 Doubts
Valued
Better/ beliefs firm, NO QA1 0.67
doubt [R]
Doubts allow learning QA3 0.53
Constantly question my QB10 0.35
beliefs
I value religious doubts QB5 0.63
Doubting important in QB6 0.74
religion
Religious doubts upsetting QB7 0.64
[R]
QF5
Religion a
Quest
Religion a quest, take QA6 0.70
nothing on faith
Open mind, no eternal QA8 0.64
truth
Religion a search, NOT QA13 0.54
earlier teachings
Note. [R] Items reversed scored. QB10 is the only item loading
on 2 components > .30/
We calculated scale scores for the components within each quest
measure and five components from the combined items. In each case, the
component score (QF) was the average of the items with loadings above
0.40. Table 7 shows the correlations of the components derived from the
combined set of items with the component scores from the separate quest
scales. The QF1 component shows convergence on items from the BQuest,
AQuest, and RMS items that measure Beliefs Tentative Open to Change. The
QF4 component shows a convergence on items which come from the BQuest
and AQuest measures that express the Value of Doubts. The other three QF
components from the combined set of items (QF2, QF3, & QF5)
correspond to components AF1, BF2, and AF3, respectively. Table 8 lists
the names of the QF components and shows the correspondence with the
components from the separate scales. The correlations among the
individual components are shown in Table 9. The correlations among the
components from the combined items are shown in Table 10. The
coefficient alphas for each of the component scales are shown on the
diagonals of the correlation matrices in the two tables. The alphas for
the QF scales ranged from 0.57 for the 3-item Religion as a Quest (QF5)
to 0.78 for the Beliefs Tentative Open to Change component (QF1). Table
11 shows the correlation of all the quest components with the original
quest scale.
TABLE 7. Correlation of Separate Quest Scale Combined whth
Combined Item Components
Separate
Quest Scale
Components
Combined BF1 RMSF1 AF2 AF1 BF2 BF3 AF3
Quest
Items
Components
QF1 0.78 0.88 0.63 0.10 0.18 0.31 0.30
QF2 0.15 0.1 0.13 1 0.02 0.19 0.15
QF3 0.22 0.35 0.20 0.04 0.94 0.18 0.23
QF4 0.43 0.33 0.85 0.19 0.11 0.92 0.14
QF5 0.24 0.29 0.18 0.15 0.24 0.15 1
Table 8.
Correspondence of Combined Item Components to Separate Quest
Scale Components
Sub-Dimension Combined Separate
Items Scales
Component Components
Beliefs QF1 BF1 AF2 RMSF1
Tentative Open
to Change
Reason versus QF2 AF1
Faith
Questions QF3 BF2
Good
Doubts Valued QF4 BF3 AF2
Religion a QF5 AF3
Quest
Table 9.
Correlation of Separate Quest Components
BFl RMSF1 AF2 AF1 BF2 BF3 AF3
BFl (.67)
RMSF1 .48 (.69)
AF2 .61 .48 (.60)
AF1 .15 .10 .13 (.69)
BF2 .18 .21 .13 .02 (.66)
BF3 .34 .28 .69 .19 .14 (.65)
AF3 .24 .29 .18 .15 .24 .15 (.57)
Note: Coefficient Alpha for each component is on the diagonal
Table 10.
Correlation of Combined Item Components
QF1 QF2 QF3 QF4 QF5
QF1 (.78)
QF2 .10 (.69)
QF3 .24 .04 (.63)
QF4 .39 .19 .17 (.72)
QF5 .30 .15 .23 .14 (.57)
Note: Coefficient Alpha for each component is on the diagonal
Table 11.
Correlation of Quest Components with Original Quest
Measures and Religious Maturity Scale
QUEST BATSON ALTEMEYER RELIGIOUS MATURITY
COMPONENTS QUEST QUEST SCALE
QF1 0.66 0.48 0.85
BF1 0.78 0.46 0.52
RMSF1 0.50 0.42 0.90
AF2 0.69 0.61 0.54
QF2 = AF1 0.18 0.70 0.14
QF3 0.61 0.18 0.31
BF2 0.59 0.13 0.20
QF4 0.66 0.55 0.38
BF3 0.65 0.46 0.32
QF5 = AF3 0.33 0.40 0.27
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
Taken together, the data in Tables 7 through 11 shows the following
patterns. The subcomponents of each quest scale are distinct enough to
be represented as separate subscales. The only one of the three quest
scales that can be considered a 1-component measure psychometrically is
the RMS. The correlations among the QF2 through QF5 components is quite
low with only one over 0.20 (0.23 between the Questions Good and
Religion a Quest). The QF1 component, Beliefs Tentative and Open to
Change, correlated 0.31 with Doubts Valued (QF4/BF3) and 0.30 with
Religion a Quest (QF5/AF3).
The quest items that were omitted from the dimensional analysis of
the combined items were correlated with the QF component scores. The
results are shown in Table 12. The omitted items tended to have one of
two characteristics. Four of the items (RMS items 5, 7, 10 &c QA12)
had very low correlations with all or most of the five QFs. These items
do not appear to measure any of the quest sub-dimensions and could be
omitted from future assessment of quest. The remaining six items in
Table 9 have significant correlations with four or five of the QF
component dimension. For example, item QB10, "I constantly question
my beliefs," QA11 "If honest quest concludes 'no God/
believe it," and RMS 11 "Beliefs same as 5 years ago,"
have significant correlations with all 5 QFs. Items QB3, "Life
experiences led to rethink belief," QB8, "Questions more
central than answers," and QA15, "Goal is truth/ would change
beliefs," correlated with 4 of the 5 QFs. These items do not show
simple structure so they could be omitted from an investigation using
sub-dimensions but could be useful in a global assessment of quest
(single score).
Table 12.
Correlation of Omitted Quest Items with Combined Item Components
QUEST COMPONENTS
Omitted Quest QF1 QF2 QF3 QF4 QF5
Items
Constantly QB10 0.50 0.21 0.20 0.39 0.28
question my
beliefs
Honest quest QA11 0.19 0.32 0.17 0.13 0.26
> No God,
believe it
Beliefs same RMS 0.38 0.12 0.23 0.25 0.11
as 5 years ago 11
[R]
Life QB3 0.42 0.38 0.28 0.23
experiences >
rethink
belief
Questions more QB8 0.34 0.14 0.34 0.27
central than
answers
Goal is truth/ QA15 0.39 0.16 0.17 0.21
would change
beliefs
Need certainty RMS5 0.18 0.17 0.14
religion
completely
true [R]
Preach, NO RMS7 0.14 -0.11
involvement in
politics [R]
People RMS 0.18 0.10 0.14
relationships 10
as import as
God
Mind limited, QAU 0.28
accept
revealed truth
[R]
Note. [R] Items reversed scored. Correlation shown are significant
at p----- .01, two-tailed test.
Complex items used to calculate total quest scores may be effective
for prediction studies. Global quest scores may predict prejudice or
other conceptually related behavior or attitudes. Factorially
homogeneous subscales allow for investigating which sub-dimensions of
quest account for the observed prediction. It is possible that two
sub-dimensions could correlate in opposite directions with a dependent
variable and the total quest score would correlate zero with the DV.
This is what Beck et al. (2001) found when using their two subscales of
quest (Tentativeness and Change) and Batson's scale total score to
predict religious well-being. The correlations for Tentativeness were
positive and for Change were negative with religious well-being but the
total quest score had zero correlation with well-being.
We correlated the five Quest components and the three original
quest scales with several measures of religious functioning. The results
of these analyses are shown in Table 13. Three of the religious
variables in Table 13 have two distinct subscales. In each case, one
subscale has a vertical orientation emphasizing spiritual well-being and
God-awareness (e.g., I have a personally meaningful relationship with
God; FM_V, SW-B, & SEI-SS) and the other subscale has a horizontal
orientation emphasizing social openness or personal well-being (e.g., I
am active in efforts to promote world peace; FM_H, EW-B, 8c SEI-SO). The
horizontal scales stress social responsibility, social inclusion, and
personal well-being. The SEI-SO scale has several items that are very
similar to the quest items of openness and tentativeness of personal
beliefs. The table also includes correlations of both the quest
variables and the religious functioning variables with Religious
Fundamentalism (RF).
Table 13.
Correlation of Religious Variables with Quest Components and
Original Quest Measures
Quest Components
Religious Measures QF1 QF2 QF3 QF4
Religious Fundamentalism (RF) -0.34 -0.41 -0.13 -0.26
SEI-Spiritual Openness 0.50 0.21 0.18 0.31
Faith Maturity-Horizontal 0.15 -0.17 0.18 0.10
Existential Well-Being 0.18 -0.15 0.18
SAI-Disappointment 0.18 0.21 0.15
SAI-Grandiosity -0.10 0.14 -0.10
SAI-Instability 0.18 0.2
Faith Maturity-Vertical -0.43
Spiritual Well-Being -0.34
SEI-Spiritual Support -0.47
Spiritual Maturity Index -0.47
SAI-Awareness -0.46
SAI-Realistic Acceptance -0.37
Quest Scales
Religious Measures QF5 BQUEST AQUEST RMS
Religious Fundamentalism (RF) -0.38 -0.36 -0.46 -0.37
SEI-Spiritual Openness 0.41 0.46 0.39 0.52
Faith Maturity-Horizontal 0.14 0.21
Existential Well-Being 0.11 0.18 0.16
SAI-Disappointment 0.24 0.14 0.18
SAI-Grandiosity 0.18
SAI-Instability 0.13 0.20 0.15
Faith Maturity-Vertical -0.24 -0.11 -0.34
Spiritual Well-Being -0.21
SEI-Spiritual Support -0.24 -0.31
Spiritual Maturity Index -0.31 -0.16 -0.38
SAI-Awareness -0.16 -0.13 -0.36
SAI-Realistic Acceptance -0.17 -0.13 -0.29
Religious Measures RF
Religious Fundamentalism (RF)
SEI-Spiritual Openness -0.61
Faith Maturity-Horizontal
Existential Well-Being
SAI-Disappointment
SAI-Grandiosity
SAI-Instability
Faith Maturity-Vertical 0.47
Spiritual Well-Being 0.29
SEI-Spiritual Support 0.47
Spiritual Maturity Index 0.50
SAI-Awareness 0.37
SAI-Realistic Acceptance 0.37
Note. Only correlations significant at p -----.01,
two-tailed are displayed
The patterns of relationships show some differences in correlations
of the quest components. Genia's SEI-Spiritual Openness had
significant correlations with all of the quest components and the
original quest scales. The highest correlation of SEI-SO is with QF1,
the tentative/open component (0.50). These results support our
observation that SEI-SO is the most quest-saturated of the religious
functioning variables in Table 13. The other two horizontal religious
variables had low positive or non-significant correlations with the
quest variables, with the exception of QF2. Faith Maturity - Horizontal
and Existential Well-Being had low significant negative correlations
with QF2. All of the spiritual well-being and God-awareness measures had
significant negative correlations with QF2 (Reason versus Faith) and QF5
(Religion as Quest) (-0.21 to -0.47). It appears that two of Altemeyer
& Hunsberger's quest sub-dimensions (QF2 &C QF5) measure a
questioning attitude toward religious authority that is at odds with
personal spiritual well-being.
The spiritual well-being and God-awareness variables had no
significant correlations with the other three quest dimensions (QF1,
QF3, & QF4). The lack of correlation of vertical religious
well-being with quest is consistent with Bateson's original claim
that quest is an independent, third dimension of religious motivation.
We did not include a specific measure of Intrinsic or Extrinsic
motivation so our results offer tentative support for the Batson's
theory. The spiritual well-being and God-awareness scales we did use
contain a number of items expressing intrinsic religious motivation.
Five of the six correlations of the SAI Disappointment and
Instability subscales with QF1, QF3, & QF4 were low and
significantly positive. These two SAI scales measure negative aspects of
vertical religious experience. These results tentatively suggest that
the uncertainty of belief reflected in these quest dimensions has a
modest negative impact on vertical religious experience. The SAI
Grandiosity scale had low significant negative correlations with QF2 and
QF4 and low significant positive correlations with QF3 and QF5. The
Grandiosity sub-scale was designed to assess a narcissistic approach to
personal religion (Hall & Edwards, 1996). These results suggest that
a narcissistic tendency in personal religion corresponds to valuing
faith over reason and devaluing doubt while endorsing one's
questions as contributing to faith and endorsing faith as a quest. This
is offered as a very tentative interpretation of the results since the
correlations are very modest.
The pattern of correlations of Religious Fundamentalism (RF) with
quest, spiritual well-being, and God-awareness measures shown in Table
13 is interesting. RF has significant negative correlations with all of
the quest measures and SEI-SO. This finding is consistent with the
formulation of the quest concept as an open-minded approach to religion.
On the other hand, RF has significant positive correlations with all of
the spiritual well-being and God-awareness scale. The correlations of RF
scale with the vertical religious scales are parallel to the
correlations of the quest components QF2 and QF5. Altemeyer and
Hunsberger (1992) explicitly formulated their measure of quest as an
extension of their work on religious fundamentalism. They found that RF
was not correlated with orthodox beliefs. Our results show that RF is
positively correlated with vertical religious variables in a sample of
Evangelical Christians. The questions that load on the QF2 were
formulated as anti-quest items expressing belief over reason which also
taps a fundamentalist mentality. It is reasonable to assume that
individuals who hold orthodox beliefs, when faced with a conflict
between their faith and seemingly contradictory information, would place
their faith in religious authority. So it is also possible QF2 confounds
orthodoxy and rigid fundamentalism. The pattern of correlations for the
three other quest components (QF1, QF3, and QF4) suggests an alternative
to direct measures of religious fundamentalism among Evangelical
Christians. The three components correlated negatively with the RF scale
validating the quest construct as a measure of openness versus rigidity
in religious motivation. The fact that these same three components did
not correlate with the spiritual well-being and God-awareness scales
suggests that they are measuring openness, tentativeness, and doubt in
the religious domain in a way that is not biased against vertical
religious experience.
We had information on the student respondent's year in school.
Since quest is considered to be a developmental process that is either
enhanced or impeded by education, we expected differences in the level
of quest across classes with quest scores being higher in the
upper-class years. We compared the mean scores on the quest components
as a function of year in school using a mixed-model Year-by-Quest Scale
repeated measures ANOVA. We were able to treat the quest scales as a
repeated measures factor because we were using the average score across
items within each scale. So even though the subscale scores had
different numbers of items, they were all measured on a scale of 1 to 5.
There was a significant Year effect (F = 15.85; dfl= 3, dfl = 988; p
----- .001), Quest effect (F - 444; dfl = 4, dfl - 3952; p -----.001)
and a Year by Quest interaction (F = 3.29; dfl = 12, dfl - 3952; p -----
.001). The interaction effect indicated that the pattern of means varied
across year as a function of the quest sub-dimension. The means for each
quest sub-dimension by year are shown in Table 14 and Figure 4. The
differences among the quest components within each year are the largest
effects. The mid-point of the scale is 3.5 with scores above this point
indicating average agreement with the quest items. Two of the five
components had averages about 3.5 across all four classes. Change
Expected (QF1) means were around 4.0 with juniors significantly higher
than the other three classes and seniors higher than freshman and
sophomores. Doubt Valued (QF4) means were around 3.75 for freshman and
sophomores, which were significantly less than juniors and seniors whose
means were around 4.03. Means for Questions Good (QF3) were third
highest with the means falling just below the mid-point of the rating
scale (around 3.3). There were no differences between classes on QF3.
Means for Religion a Quest (QF5) were next also averaging around 3.3.
Juniors were significantly higher than freshman and sophomores. Seniors
were not significantly different from the other three classes. The means
for Reason over Faith (QF2) were the lowest across all classes with
means averaging around 2.7. Seniors were significandy higher than the
other three classes, which were not significantly different from each
other. With the exception of QF2, Juniors had the highest scores within
the other four scales and were significandy higher than FR or SO on 3 of
the 5 scales. Seniors tended to be equal to or lower than Juniors. The
general pattern was for the Quest scores to increase between the
Sophomore and Junior year and then decrease from the Junior to Senior
years. These are only cross-sectional data so the actual pattern of
change across years needs to be studied in a longitudinal design. But
these cross-sectional differences do support the concept of quest
developing as a result of education. The fact that QF2, Reason versus
Faith, is so low is disconcerting. Altemeyer & Hunsberger
specifically formulated the balanced quest scale to measure an
anti-questing attitude that would predict prejudice. As was noted above,
in this sample of Evangelical Christians in higher education, a common
working assumption in liberal arts education is that "all truth is
God's truth." But when there is a conflict between secular
authority and religious authority, such students are typically taught to
give precedence to the latter.
Table 14.
Means on Quest Components by Year in School
Year
Quest Component FR SO JR
QF1 Open to Change 3.90 (a) 3.89.(a) 4.33 (b)
QF2 Reason vs Faith 2.54 (a) 2.68 (a)
2.66 (a)
QF3 Questions Good 3.26 (a) 3.26 (a) 3.41 (a)
QF4 Doubts Valued 3.72 (a) 3.77 (a) 4.05 (b)
QF5 Religion a Quest 2.97 (a) 2.91 (a) 3.23 (b)
Year
Quest Component SR F-Ratio
QF1 Open to Change 4.12 (C) 14.89 *
QF2 Reason vs Faith 2.92 (b)
2.45 (*)
QF3 Questions Good 3.28 (a) 1.02
QF4 Doubts Valued 4.01.(b) 10.23 *
QF5 Religion a Quest 3.11 (ab) 4.56+
Note. F-Ratio for Year Effect levels of significance are:
* p ----- .001; + p ----- .01
Means with different superscripts are significantly different
at p ----- .01
Conclusion
While sub-dimensions of the quest concept have been acknowledged
from its inception, almost all of the research on quest to date has used
a single total score. The results of our component analyses within each
quest measure and across the measures indicate that these items are
measuring distinct constructs. The components for the BQuest measure
show a high degree of convergent validity with factors identified by
Batson and Shoenrade (1991b). Dudley and Cruise (1992) formulated their
Religious Maturity Scale as an alternative to Batson's original
model. Our results show that the RMS converges with BQuest openness to
change dimension. The BQuest and AQuest measures converge on the Doubts
Valued dimension. Both of these components had Coefficient Alpha values
above 0.70. They are the two components with the most number of items,
which affects the value of alpha.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
The third sub-dimension of quest originally identified by Batson
emphasized the value of questions in promoting religious interest. This
dimension is not as well measured by the current pool of quest items.
The two items related to questions consistently loaded on the same
distinct component in Batson and Schoenrade's (1991b) analysis and
ours. The two items (QB1 & QB2) state that questions increased
religious interest and increased importance of God, respectively. We
would suggest that these questions do not differentiate levels of quest
motivation. This suggestion is supported by the fact that QF3 was the
only dimension with no significant difference among the four classes of
students.
Two items related to questioning from BQuest, QB8 and QB10, did not
consistently fit in the multidimensional model. In the dimensional
analysis of the BQuest items, QB10 (I am constantly questioning my
religious beliefs) loaded on the openness to change component. QB10 did
not fit on this component in the combined item analyses, which included
the more moderately worded RMS openness to change items. We would
suggest that dropping the adjective "constantly" might improve
the item's fit in the multidimensional model. Item QB8
"questions more central than answers" did not have simple
structure. It has a more skeptical tone of valuing questions as an end
rather than a means to faith.
In our preliminary study of religious measures (Edwards et al.
2001), we speculated that the dimensions of quest could be classified as
assessing a "soft" and a "hard" version of the
construct. The soft version corresponds to components QF1 and QF4, which
allow for satisfying belief while remaining open to change and embracing
doubts as an inevitable component of religious belief. The "faith
with openness and doubt" perspective was the emphasis offered by
Dudley and Cruise (1992) in their formulation of the RMS. We would
suggest that components QF1 (Beliefs Tentative Open to Change) and QF4
(Doubts Valued) provide an excellent model for assessing the
"soft" version of quest. The fact that these two scales
correlate negatively with Religious Fundamentalism validates them as a
measure of an open cognitive style specified in the quest construct. The
fact that these two scales did not correlate with measures of vertical
faith indicates they are not biased against individuals with satisfying
faith commitments. The "hard" version of quest would
correspond to components QF2 and QFS where faith and truth seeking are
presented in a more polarized way. These two components had significant
negative correlations with various measures of spiritual well-being and
God-awareness.
One of the main purposes of the present study was to determine if
the quest construct as measured by three existing instruments is
multidimensional. The answer appears to be yes, both within the BQuest
and AQuest measures as well as in the combined set of items. Identifying
the specific sub-dimensions of quest remains a challenge. The only
component showing convergence across all three measures was QF1, Beliefs
Tentative Open to Change. The component QF4, Doubts Valued, showed
convergence of items from BQuest and AQuest. We suavest that these two
components may tentatively be viewed as core latent dimensions of the
quest construct as formulated by Batson. It is noteworthy that these two
dimensions represent what we have called soft quest. It appears that a
conception of quest that is inversely related to a rigid
(fundamentalist) cognitive style, and independent of--and thus not
biased against--faith commitments and spiritual well-being, captures
more of the essence of the original theory of quest as a dimension of
mature religiousness. Our results suggest that hard quest is an
indicator of immature religiousness.
Two of the approaches to measuring the quest construct investigated
in this study are different in important ways. Some of the BQuest and
AQuest items are taping different sub-dimensions and are not equivalent.
The AQuest factor, QF2 Reason versus Faith, appears to primarily be a
measure of Religious Fundamentalism that potentially confounds orthodoxy
with rigid thinking. The AQuest factor, QF5 Religion as Quest, is a more
direct measure of religion as a process of questing. The BQuest factor,
QF3, on the importance of questions, needs further development with an
expanded set of items. Beck and colleagues have taken yet another
direction andhave developed their own multidimensional measure of quest
(Beck et al.., 2OO1; Beck & Jessup, 2OO4). Fur ther research is
needed on the convergence of these various measures of quest to identify
a set of core latent constructs that can be used to investigate the
validity and utility of each construct.
Is it important to measure the dimensions of quest separately? For
the dimensions of change
(QF1) and doubt (QF4), we did not find differential correlations
with other religious variables. Beck and his colleagues did find
differential correlations (Beck et al., 2001; Beck & Jessup, Z004).
We will need additional research on the convergence of all of these
measures with other samples to provide a comprehensive conceptual map of
the quest domain.
The primary focus of the present study has been on psychometric
issues regarding the various measures of quest available today. The
results are derived from a sample of college students at Evangelical
Christian colleges. The fact that they represent a relatively
homogeneous sample has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is
that the variation on the quest variables would be primarily a function
of personal factors relevant to quest as a psychological construct. The
disadvantage is that there may be some restriction in range of the
variables measured which could attenuate the size of correlations
observed. A major limitation is that the homogeneous sample limits the
external validity of our results. Another limitation of the present
study is that we did not include specific measures of Intrinsic and
Extrinsic faith. Future research on the dimensions of quest should
include these measures as well.
As noted earlier, the original measure of quest, the Interactional
Scale, was subjected to a great deal of criticism regarding its validity
and reliability in the 198O's. Batson and Shoenrade (1991a, 1991b)
responded to their critics with an extensive defense of the quest
construct. They also offered a revision of the IS scale to its current,
more psychometrically sound 12-item version. They also made the appeal
that researchers should move beyond psychometric preoccupation to doing
substantive research on the functioning of quest in individual lives. We
agree that psychometric research should be a means to achieving better
measures of our constructs, which then facilitates better research on
substantive questions. A multidimensional model of quest may provide a
framework that integrates the quest literature and resolves some of the
questions and doubts raised by quest critics. However, in the spirit of
quest, such answers will need to be pursued with openness and
tentativeness as we seek to map the domain of personal religious faith
motivation.
Please address correspondence to Keith J. Edwards, Ph.D., Rose-mead
School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Ave., LaMirada, CA
90639. Email: keith.edwards@biola.edu.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious
orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
5, 432-443.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism,
religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory Structural
Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397-438,
Beck, R., Baker, L., Robbins, M, & Dow, S. (2001). A second
look at quest motivation: Is Quest unidimensional or multidimensional?
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 148-157.
Beck, R., & Jessup, R. K. (2004). The Multidimensional Nature
of Quest Motivation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 283-294.
Bassett, R. L., Camplin, W., Humphrey, D., Dorr, D., Biggs, S.,
Distaffen, R., Doxator, I., Flaherty, M., Hunsberger, P. J., Poage, R.,
& Thompson, H. (1991). Measuring Christian maturity: A comparison of
several scales. Journal of Psychology and Tbeology, 19, 84-93.
Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double agent?
Journal for the scientific study of religion, 15, 29-45.
Batson, C. D.. & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Measuring religion
as quest: Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 30, 416-429.
Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991), Measuring religion
as quest: Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 30, 430-447.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A., & Ventis, W. L. (1993).
Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious
experience: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Benner, D. G. (1988). Psychotherapy and the spiritual quest. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. J., & Erickson, J. A. (1993). The
Faith
Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and empirical
validation. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 5,
1-26.
Buhrow, W., Calkins, P., Haws, J. & Rost, K. (1986). The
Spiritual Maturity Index: A study of reliability and validity.
Unpublished manuscript, Ailiance Theological Seminary.
Bufford, R. K., Paloutzian R. F., & Ellison C. W. (1991). Norms
for the spiritual well-being scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
19,56-70.
Bufford, R. K. (1984, April). Empirical correlates of Spiritual
Well-Being and Spiritual Maturity scales. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, Dallas
TX.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Brown, T. A. (2005). Latent variable
approaches to studying the psychopathology and classification of
emotional disorders. In F. Andrasik (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of
personality and psychopathology (Vol.11: adult psychopathology, pp.
21-35). New York: John Wiley & and Sons.
Cannon, M. M. (1994). The psychological development of and
spiritual development of women: An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Loyola College, Maryland.
Cooper, R. L. (1987). An empirical examination of the construct
validity of the Spiritual Maturity Index. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 4645B. (University Microfilms International,
87-04712)
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social
desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting
Psychology; 24, 349-354.
Davis, W. W., Longfellow, D. R., Moody, A. V., & Moynihan, W.
S. (1987). Spiritual Maturity Index: Construct validation.
Unpublished manuscript, presented at Western Conservative Baptist
Seminary, Portland, OR.
Dudley, R. L., & Cruise, R. J (1990). Measuring religious
maturity: A proposed scale. Review of Religious Research, 32, 97-109.
Edwards, K. J., Slater, W., Hall, T. W., Oda, A., & Eck, B.
(August, 2001). Spiritual change among college students: A National
Study. Paper presented at the 109th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and
measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 330-340.
Ellison, C. W.,& Smith, J. (1991). Toward an integrative
measure of health and well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
19,35-48.
Genia, V. (1991). The spiritual experience index: A measure of
spiritual maturity. Journal of Religion and Health, 30, 337-347.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Measurement: The boon and bane of investigating
religion. American Psychologist, 39, 228-236.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of
Psychology, 39, 201-221.
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic
measurement: B/E revised and single-item scales. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-354.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). The initial development
and factor analysis of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 24, 233-246.
Hood, R. W., Jr., & Morris, T. J. (1985). Conceptualization of
Quest: A critical rejoinder Batson. Review of Religious Research, 26,
391-397.
Kauffman, J. H. (1979). "Social correlates of spiritual
maturity among North American Mennonites." In David 0. Moberg
(Ed.). Spiritual well-being: Sociological perspectives. Washington, DC:
University Press of America, Pp. 237-254.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1988). A psychometric analysis of the
AllportRoss and Feagin measures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious
orientation. In D. O. Moberg & M. L. Lynn (Eds.), Research in the
social scientific study of religion (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, it W. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic
religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of
religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442-462.
Methuen, L. K., & Methuen, B. 0. (2004). Mplus users guide (3rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Methuen & Methuen.
McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientations and the targets of
discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28,
324-336.
Moberg, D. 0. (1971). Spiritual well-being: Background issues.
Washington, DC: White House Conference on Aging.
Moberg, D. 0. (1984). Subjective measures of spiritual well-being.
Review of Religious Research, 25, 351-364.
Palouttian, R. F. (1996). Invitation to the psychology of religion
(2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Ailyn and Bacon.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. Loneliness, spiritual
well-being and quality of life. In U A. Peplau and D. Perlman (Eds.),
Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New
York: Wiley 1nterscience, 1982.
Pargament, K. 1. (1999). The psychology of religion and
spirituality? Yes and no. The International Journal for the Psychology
of Religion, 9, 3-16.
Pargament, K. 1. (1992). Of means and ends: Religion and the search
for significance. The International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 2, 201-229.
Rummel, It L. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Slater, W. E. (1999, August). Defining and measuring spiritual
health: An investigation of the psychometric properties of measures of
spiritual well-being and spiritual maturity.
Paper presented at 107th Annual Convention of American
Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
Slater, W. E. (1998, March). Measures of spiritual maturity: An
investigation of their psychometric properties. Paper presented at the
Coalition for Christian Colleges and Universities National Assessment
Conference, Cleveland, TN.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and
modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 25, 173 -- 180.
Strahan, R. & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous
versions of the Marlowe-C:rowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 28, 191-193.
Ventis, W. L (1995). The relationship between religion and mental
health. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 33-48.
Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, it W., Jr. (1989).
Interactional factor correlations with Means and End religiousness.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 337-347.
Yeasts, J. R., & Asher, W. (1982). Factor analysis of religious
variables: Some methodological considerations. Review of Religious
Research. 24, 49-54.
KEITH J. Edwards and Todd W. Hall Rosemead School of Psychology,
Biola University
Will Slater Bluffton College
Jonathan Hill Calvin College
AUTHORS
EDWARDS, KEITH, J. Address: 13800 Biola Ave., Rosemead School of
Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, CA 90639. Degrees: BEd,
Mathematics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater; MS, PhD, Quantitative
Methods, New Mexico State University; PhD, Social and Clinical
Psychology, University of Southern California. Title: Professor of
Psychology. Areas of Specialization: quantitative methods, individual
and couple emotion focused therapy, psychology of religion,
interpersonal affective neuroscience of attachment, missionary member
care.
HALL, TODD. Address: 13800 Biola Ave., Rosemead School of
Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, CA 90639. Titles: Professor of
Psychology, Director, Institute for Research on Psychology and
Spirituality. Degree: Ph.D. Areas of specialization: Christian
spirituality, spiritual development, attachment theory, relational
psychoanalysis.
SLATER, WILL. Address: Bluffton University, 1 University Drive
Bluffton, OH 45817. Titles: Professor of Psychology, Chair, Social
Sciences Department. Degree: Ph.D. Areas of specialization: Christian
spirituality, mindfulness, positive psychology.
HILL, JONATHAN, P. Address: Department of Sociology and Social
Work, Calvin College, 3201 Burton SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546. Titles:
Assistant Professor of Sociology. Degree: Ph.D. Areas of specialization:
Sociology of religion, quantitative methods, higher education.
