Assessment of mental health, religion and culture: the development and examination of psychometric measures (Part II)

Introduction

Recently, Mental Health, Religion & Culture has commenced a Special Issue series entitled Assessment of mental health, religion and culture: The development and examination of psychometric measures … (Lewis, 2016a, 2016b). The aim of this series is to provide a forum for researchers to publish data on newly developed measures or indeed established measures that are of practical value for researchers interested in examining the relationship between the constructs of mental health, religion, and culture. In doing so, it is expected that over time these editions will provide a rich resource for researchers interested in the development and evaluation of such measures. The series was conceived originally as being published annually. However, in response to the publication of Part I of the series earlier in 2016, it soon became apparent that by specifically highlighting this area of research within the journal, it had encouraged the submission of a number of psychometric focused manuscripts. Given the influx of this type of manuscript, it was decided to publish Part II also in 2016.

The first Special Issue (Lewis, 2016a, 2016b) in this series contained articles representing three particular areas of development and evaluation. First, some articles focused on reporting the psychometric properties of recently developed new scales. Second, some articles focused on the evaluation of the psychometric properties of published scales translated into another language. Third, some articles focused on the evaluation of the psychometric properties of scales employed in various cultural contexts and religious samples. In addition to this Editorial, this Special Issue comprises of 13 empirical articles and one brief research note. These 13 articles have been divided into three areas of development in line with those established in Part I (Lewis, 2016a, 2016b).

First, three articles are presented that have focused on the development of new scales. Deng and Li (2016) report among samples of 180 and 550 university students in China, the development of the Buddhist Patience Questionnaire. Garey, Siregar, Hood, Agustiani, and Setiono (2016) report among samples of 170 and 770 adolescent students in Indonesia, primarily Muslim, the development of the Religious Attribution Scale. Sears and Hood (2016) report among a sample of 192 Nepali Christians, and 311 Hindus in Nepal, the development of the Dreaming Mysticism Scale.

Second, seven articles are presented that have focused on the evaluation of the psychometric properties of previously published scales that have been translated into another language. Alakhdhair, Sheets, Geib, Alkhuwaildi, and Koenig (2016) report among a sample of 211 Arabic-speaking Muslims, largely in Saudi Arabia, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the Arabic language version of the Belief into Action Scale (Koenig et al., 2015). Crea (2016) reports among a sample of 585 adults in Italy, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the Italian language version of the Purpose in Life Scale (Robbins & Francis, 2000). Gómez, Jimenez-Leal, and Finck (2016) report among samples of 350 general population and 84 breast cancer patients in Colombia, satisfactory psychometric properties of the Spanish language translation of the 18-item short version Post Critical Belief Scale (Duriez, Soenens, & Hutsebaut, 2005). Gamaiunova, Brandt, and Kliegel (2016) report among a sample of 260 French-speaking meditation practitioners, mostly from France, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the French language version of the Insight Scale (Ireland, 2012). Gonçalves, Fagulha, and Ferreira (2016) report among a sample of 932 Portuguese, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the Portuguese language version of the Age-Universal I/E Scale (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). Mohammadzadeh and Najafi (2016) report among a sample of 339 university students in Iran, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the Persian language version of the Brief Religious Coping Scale (Brief – RCOPE; Pargament, 1997; Pargament, Koenig, & Perez, 2000). Ryu and Lee (2016) report among a sample of 159 Asian-American older adults, 76 were of Chinese heritage and 83 of Korean heritage, satisfactory psychometric properties of the Chinese and Korean languages versions of the Multidimensional Measures of Religion and Spirituality (National Institute on Aging/ Fetzer Institute, 1997).

Third, three articles are presented that have focused on the reporting of supplementary psychometric data on developed scales in different cultural contexts and religious samples. Francis, Village, and Powell (2016) report among Catholic (N = 626) and Mainstream Protestant (N = 505) churchgoers participating in the 2011 Australian National Church Life Survey, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the short form of the New Indices of Religious Orientation (Francis, 2007), and the development of the 7-item abbreviated form of the Francis–Louden Mystical Orientation Scale (Francis & Louden, 2000) and the 7-item abbreviated form of the Francis–Littler Charismatic Orientation Scale (Francis & Littler, 2011). Singh, Junnarkar, and Jaswal (2016) report among samples of 789 adults, 608 adolescents, and 786 adults in India, satisfactory psychometric properties of the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010) and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (Diener et al., 2010). Lewis and Musharraf (2016) provide a critique and response to the recent empirical work of Hamid, Robbins, Nadeem, and Khan (2016) using the Sahin–Francis Scale of Attitude towards Islam (Sahin & Francis, 2002). In contrast to Hamid et al. (2016), Lewis and Musharraf (2016) urge caution in using the Sahin–Francis Scale of Attitude towards Islam (Sahin & Francis, 2002) as it includes negative valence items, and in light of their previous work (e.g., Musharraf & Lewis, 2016; Musharraf, Lewis, & Sultan, 2014), commend the use of the Sahin–Francis Scale of Attitude towards Islam Revised (Francis, Tekke, & Robbins, 2016), a measure that contains only positive valence items.

It is clearly evident that this Special Issue has illustrated the wide diversity and richness of the contemporary international research that is being undertaken on scale development and evaluation that is relevant to those working in the field of mental health, religion, and culture, and indeed beyond. This collection clearly attests to the ongoing momentum of this specific research tradition, and itself serves as a further springboard for future research, some of which, we hope, may be included in future editions of Mental Health, Religion & Culture.

This Special Issue would not have been possible without the assistance of a number of people. We wish to acknowledge the authors who provided stimulating articles and efficient revisions, and our reviewers for their judicious and insightful evaluations of the manuscripts submitted. We are particularly grateful to the regular Co-Editors of Mental Health, Religion & Culture for their enthusiasm for this on-going initiative.