FAITH DEVELOPMENT SCALE

Abstract

The Faith Development Scale is an objective assessment instrument developed by Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson (1989) to measure “styles” of faith corresponding to the developmental stages proposed in the influential faith development theory articulated by James Fowler (1981). Fowler’s original theory posited that individuals progress through six structural stages, paralleling the cognitive and moral developmental theories of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, moving from highly literal interpretations of belief to abstract, symbolic understanding. Because Fowler relied on complex interview methodology and failed to produce a simple, quantifiable assessment, the scale was created using nine sets of paired items. Each set requires the respondent to express a preference for one statement, with each statement representing a distinct faith style indicative of one of Fowler’s developmental stages.

Keywords

faith development, James Fowler, stage theory, symbolic faith, literal faith, religious measurement, psychological scale, developmental psychology

Authors

Barnes, M., Doyle, D., Johnson, B.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Faith Development Scale (FDS) is to provide an efficient, quantifiable measure of an individual’s orientation toward faith, specifically assessing their preference for styles corresponding to the stages of faith development theory proposed by James Fowler. While Fowler’s original work utilized time-intensive interviews, this scale seeks to differentiate individuals along a continuum from holding literal faith to embracing symbolic, abstract faith interpretations. It serves as an objective alternative to subjective clinical assessments of developmental religious maturity.

Construct

The scale measures an individual’s structural style of faith, which is the underlying way a person constructs meaning and holds their beliefs, rather than the content of those beliefs. This construct is based on James Fowler‘s theory, which outlines six distinct stages:

• Stage 1: Projective-Intuitive Faith (primitive style of early childhood).
• Stage 2: Mythical-Literal Faith (uncritical acceptance of traditional faith stories).
• Stage 3: Synthetic-Conventional Faith (alignment with group norms and complex social stories).
• Stage 4: Individuative-Reflective Faith (abstract, individually reasoned universal faith).
• Stage 5: Conjunctive Faith (recognition of the symbolic nature of truth and paradox).
• Stage 6: Universalizing Faith (focus on justice and needs of others, characterized by a decentered self).

The scale developed by Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson reframed these stages into measurable “styles,” utilizing paired forced-choice items to gauge the respondent’s preference for literal versus symbolic theological perspectives, aligning the resulting scores with the theoretical progression of Fowler’s developmental model.

Validity

The developers, Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson (1989), focused on establishing concurrent validity. This involved using discriminant analysis to predict membership in groups hypothesized to exhibit different faith styles (e.g., prayer groups vs. academic theologians). The analysis successfully predicted group membership with high accuracy (ranging from 61% to 94% correct prediction across groups), suggesting the scale successfully differentiated between groups along the literal-symbolic faith continuum.

Further evidence of validity was demonstrated through a correlation study using a survey of religious beliefs consisting of twenty pairs of statements (one literal, one symbolic). Individuals identified by the scale as having Faith Style 2 or 3 consistently preferred the literal statements, while those identified as Faith Style 4 or 5 consistently preferred the symbolic statements. Additionally, subsequent research by Goldsmith and Bayless (1991) reported a moderate correlation between the Faith Development Scale and Rest’s Defining Issues Test (DIT), which is consistent with the theoretical connection posited between Fowler’s faith stages and Lawrence Kohlberg‘s moral development stages. Higher faith stages were also found to correlate with a more intrinsic religious orientation and lower levels of dogmatism.

Reliability

A significant limitation of the Faith Development Scale, as noted in the original research, is the lack of reported reliability metrics. Neither the scale developers (Barnes, Doyle, & Johnson, 1989) nor researchers utilizing the instrument in subsequent studies have addressed or published findings concerning the crucial issue of statistical reliability (e.g., internal consistency or test-retest reliability).

Factor Analysis

While traditional factor analysis was not explicitly reported, the scale’s development relied heavily on discriminant analysis. This statistical technique was employed to confirm that the scale items could effectively differentiate between distinct criterion groups (e.g., highly devout prayer group members versus academic theologians). This approach served to validate the scale’s underlying structure by confirming its ability to map respondents onto the theoretical continuum of faith styles, suggesting that the items successfully captured variance related to literal versus symbolic faith orientation.

Instrument

Test Type: Paper-and-pencil self-report inventory (Forced-choice style assessment)

Format: Nine sets of paired items. Respondents must express a preference for one statement in each pair. The items represent different faith “styles” indicative of Fowler’s stages.

Language Available: English (Original development)

Population Group: Adults who have engaged in logical, cognitive reflection regarding their religious participation.

Age Group: Adult population (specific age range not defined, but requires cognitive maturity).

Population Details: Originally normed on mainstream Catholic and Protestant adults. The instrument is considered potentially inappropriate for agnostics, children, intellectually challenged individuals, or those whose religious experience is primarily affective or behavioral. Due to the inherent “God and Christ” language, the scale is not appropriate for adherents of non-Western religions (e.g., Hindu, Islamic, Jewish) who might reject the theological tenets assumed in its construction.

Test Methodology: The scale is typically administered as an easy paper and pencil test, though oral administration is possible. The individual’s score is determined by analyzing their preferences across the nine paired items.

Keywords

psychological assessment, religious orientation, moral development, Kohlberg, Erikson, symbolic thinking, quantitative measurement, Catholic, Protestant

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Information regarding specific permissions or commercial fees is not available in the source material. The instrument was first published and assessed empirically in 1989.

Reference’s

• Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (1989). The formulation of a Fowler Scale: An empirical assessment among Catholics. Review of Religious Research, 30(4), 412-420.
• Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for faith. San Franciso: Harper and Row.
• Fowler, J. (1991a). The vocation of faith development theory. In J. W. Fowler, K. E. Nipkow, and F. Schweitzer (Eds.), Stages of faith and religious development: Implications for church, education, and society. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company.
• Fowler, J. (1991b). Weaving the new creation: Stages of faith and the public church. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
• Goldsmith, W. M., & Bayless, S. L. (1991, August). Male and female seminarians’ personality and moral reasoning: Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
• Goldsmith, W. M., Bayless, S. L., & Hynes, V. J. (1992, August). Faith development, moral development and values. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
• Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Rest, J. R. (1979). The Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Manual for the Defining Issues Test: An objective test of moral development (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Items of the FAITH DEVELOPMENT SCALE

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. Those who do what God wants are given special rewards.
2. God grants comfort and strength to those who are loyal and faithful.

1. God can do whatever God wants without any particular reason.
2. It is important to try to make sense out of how God acts and why.

1. A good way to relate to God is to do what God wants, so that God will help you in return.
2. It is best to think of God as utterly and freely giving.

1. Following Christ with loving devotion is more important than having a thorough and correct understanding of true doctrine.
2. It is important to reflect on one’s beliefs to make them reasonable and logically coherent.

1. True followers of Christ will often find themselves rejected by the world.
2. Most people in the world are doing their best to live decent lives.

1. God’s revealed truth is meant for all people everywhere.
2. No set of religious beliefs is the whole and final truth for everyone.

1. It is important to follow the leaders to whom God has entrusted his church.
2. Religious leaders must respect the need for reasonableness, consistency, and coherence in their interpretation of doctrines.

1. It is often hard to understand why people are disloyal to their family and religion.
2. People have to make their own best choices about religion, even if it means following new ways.

1. The moral teachings of the church are objectively valid for all people, even though many do not realize this.
2. Love of neighbor requires being open to new ideas and values.

The respondents were asked to express a preference for one of the two statements on each of the nine items. The individual’s pattern of preferences determines their assigned faith style.