BELIEF IN DIVINE INTERVENTION SCALE

Abstract

The Belief in Divine Intervention Scale (BOIS) is a concise, self-report instrument designed to measure an individual’s general belief in direct divine intervention across various situations. The scale consists of six items selected from an initial pool of ten, intended to tap specific categories of intervention, such as physical healing, direct communication with humans, and influence over natural events. The BOIS is reported to be psychometrically unidimensional. Responses are captured using a 6-point rating scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” with anchors provided for every point. Two of the six items are reverse scored.

Keywords

Divine Intervention, Religious Belief, Unidimensional Scale, Spirituality, Religious Psychology, Locus of Control, Psychometric Scale, Self-Report.

Authors

Degelman, D., Lynn, D.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Belief in Divine Intervention Scale (BOIS) is to provide a standardized, general measure of the extent to which an individual believes that a deity actively and directly intervenes in human affairs and the physical world. This measure is intended for use across a variety of populations and research contexts where quantifying this specific religious belief is required.

The scale is straightforward in its administration and scoring, requiring minimal training for examiners. Its explicit goal is to capture an individual’s self-reported conviction regarding the reality and frequency of divine intervention.

Construct

The BOIS measures the psychological construct of belief in active, direct divine intervention. This construct is defined by the belief that a higher power, typically God, physically or spiritually influences specific outcomes in life, such as healing from disease, communicating directly with people, and altering natural phenomena.

The six items retained for the final scale address four specific thematic categories: divine healing (two items), divine communication (two items, including via dreams), divine intervention in nature (one item), and a global statement regarding the belief in intervention (one item). Preliminary validation evidence suggests that the scale measures a unitary, unidimensional construct.

Validity

The BOIS demonstrates high face validity, as all items are clearly and directly related to the target construct of belief in divine intervention. Preliminary support for construct validity was established through a Principal Components Analysis, detailed further in the Factor Analysis section.

Support for concurrent validity was examined by correlating BOIS scores with three related psychological variables. BOIS scores were found to be significantly and positively related to the self-rated importance of religion (r = .78, p < .001). However, the scores were not significantly related (p > .10) to either external locus of control or a belief in a just world. For future validation efforts, comparison with similar measures, such as the God as Causal Agent scale or the Divine Influence scale, is recommended, alongside an investigation into the potential influence of social desirability bias.

Reliability

Internal consistency of the BOIS was estimated by Degelman and Lynn (1995) using Cronbach’s alpha across the sub-samples and the combined sample. The reliability estimates were consistently high, supporting the scale’s internal consistency.

• The community college sample yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .898.
• The Christian college sample yielded an alpha of .924.
• The total combined sample achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .910.

The authors noted that the high reliability found in the Christian college subsample might be attributable to the restricted range of scores resulting from a ceiling effect observed in that specific homogeneous group. Estimates of test-retest reliability were not reported in the initial validation study.

Factor Analysis

The authors conducted a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) using the combined sample (N = 209) to assess the factor structure of the scale. This analysis provided strong evidence supporting the unidimensional nature of the BOIS. All six items showed high loadings on the primary component, with factor loadings ranging from .811 to .845.

Similar findings supporting a unitary construct were reported when the PCA was performed exclusively on the community college subsample. No factor analysis was reported for the Christian college subsample, likely due to the limited variance in scores caused by the observed ceiling effect, which limits the scale’s ability to discriminate within highly religious or extreme groups.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale.

Format: Paper-and-pencil; 6 items utilizing a 6-point Likert-type rating scale.

Language Available: English (Original development).

Population Group: General populations, validated initially on college students.

Age Group: Adults (College-aged and older).

Population Details: Initial standardization involved two distinct subsamples of students enrolled in introductory psychology courses: a community college group (n = 145) and a Christian liberal arts college group (n = 59, associated with the Assemblies of God). Both groups were predominantly middle and upper-middle class, though ethnically diverse. The community college mean score was 20.38 (SD = 10.49), significantly lower than the Christian college mean score of 32.92 (SD = 3.64; p < .001). No significant gender differences were found in BOIS scores.

Test Methodology: The scale is scored by converting the 6-point rating scale to a 1-6 point scale and then summing the scores of the six items. Items 3 and 5 must be reverse scored before summation. Administration time is minimal, taking only a few minutes.

Keywords

Psychological Assessment, Religious Healing, Divine Communication, Internal Consistency, PCA, Self-Report, Psychometrics, Ceiling Effect.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: [Information not provided in source]

Affiliation Email addresses: [Information not provided in source]

Correspondence Address: [Information not provided in source]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: Information regarding commercial or large-scale use permissions should be directed to the authors, D. Degelman and D. Lynn, or the publisher of the Journal of Psychology and Theology.

Fee: Not specified; typically free for academic use as published in the journal literature.

Test Year: 1995 (Year of initial development and validation publication).

Reference’s

Degelman, D., & Lynn, D. (1995). The development and preliminary validation of the Belief in Divine Intervention Scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23, 37-44.

DeVellis, R. F., DeVellis, B. M., Revicki, ID. A., Lurie, S. J., Runyan, D. K., & Bristol, M. (1985). Development and validation of the Child Improvement Locus of Control (CILC) scales. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 307-324.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McFarland, S. G. (1972). Single vs. multiple-item scales for measuring religious values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 53–64.

Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. l, pp. 15-63). New York: Academic Press.

O’Neill, P., Duffy, C., Enman, M., Blackmer, E., Goodwin, J., & Campbell, E. (1988). Cognition and citizen participation in social action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1067-1083.

Ritzema, R. J. (1979). Attribution to supernatural causation: An important component of religious commitment. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 7, 286–293.

Ritzema, R. J., & Young, C. (1983). Causal schemata and the attribution of supernatural causality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 36–43.

Items of the BELIEF IN DIVINE INTERVENTION SCALE

Directions: Please respond to each statement by circling the number that best reflects the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement.

• strongly agree +3
• somewhat agree +2
• slightly agree +1
• slightly disagree -1
• somewhat disagree -2
• strongly disagree -3

1. God sometimes directly intervenes to heal individuals of diseases like cancer.
2. God sometimes communicates directly with individuals.
3. God does not intervene directly in our lives. (R)
4. God sometimes directly intervenes to change the course of damaging weather conditions like hurricanes.
5. Real miracles of healing from God do not occur today. (R)
6. God sometimes uses dreams to communicate with us.