Religious Values Scale

Abstract

The Religious Values Scale (RVS) is a self-report instrument developed to operationalize Everett L. Worthington’s (1988) model for understanding the core religious values of highly religious clients seeking psychotherapy. The model posits that highly committed religious individuals evaluate their interpersonal world through three main dimensions: the authority attributed to sacred writings, the authority attributed to religious leaders, and the degree of identification with their specific religious group. The model also includes a concept related to a “zone of tolerance” regarding differing religious groups and views.

Keywords

Religious Values Scale, RVS, Religious Commitment, Counseling Psychology, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Religious Authority, Group Identification, Tolerance, Worthington Model

Authors

Everett L. Worthington, Jr., M. E. McCullough, K. Hsu, K. K. Gowda, E. Bleach, J. T. Berry, K. H. Bursley

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Values Scale (RVS) is to provide clinicians and researchers with a standardized measure of the core value systems held by highly religious individuals. This measurement is crucial in counseling and psychological settings, as these values significantly influence how clients perceive and interact with their interpersonal environment, particularly regarding therapeutic relationships and religious conflicts.

Construct

The RVS measures the underlying value dimensions described in Worthington’s (1988) theoretical model concerning high religious commitment. These constructs are multi-faceted and include:

• Authority of Sacred Writings: The degree of authoritative weight and practical relevance afforded to holy texts in daily life and decision-making.
• Authority of Religious Leaders: The level of unquestioning obedience or guidance sought from religious figures (e.g., pastors, priests, rabbis).
• Group Identification: The extent to which an individual identifies with, conforms to, and seeks affiliation within their specific local or overall religious organization.
• Zone of Tolerance: Initially conceived as tolerance for differing religious views, subsequent factor analysis refined this construct to measure preference for affiliation or advice from individuals (including counselors) who share similar religious attitudes.

Validity

Initial efforts to establish the construct validity of the RVS involved multiple studies. Worthington et al. (1988) conducted a Principle Components Factor analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation, which identified seven factors, generally supporting the proposed theoretical structure.

Further evidence of validity was demonstrated through correlations with established measures and behavioral indicators. Pearson correlations between RVS subscales and self-reported religious behaviors—such as church attendance, participation in religious leadership, and number of leadership positions held—showed strong associations, with 25 out of 28 correlations being statistically significant (p = .01). Furthermore, the RVS scales showed high convergence with the Basic Religiosity Scales (King & Hunt, 1972), achieving 74 significant correlations out of 77 (p = .01), with most correlations ranging between .4 and .8. Correlations with the Glock and Stark (1965) scale were also significant across the religious belief, practice, and experience subscales (19 of 21 correlations), though no significant correlation was found with biblical knowledge.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the RVS was assessed across three independent student samples using Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal consistency.

• Sample 1 (Worthington et al., 1988): Based on the seven empirical factors found via PCA, the Cronbach’s alphas ranged widely, from a high of .99 for the religious commitment factor to a low of .47 for the factor measuring preference for a counselor of similar attitudes.
• Sample 2 (Worthington et al., 1989): Using the six scales corresponding to the original theoretical model, internal consistency estimates were generally higher. Alphas ranged from .84 for authority afforded sacred writings to .64 for tolerance for others holding different views on Scripture. Items with low item-to-total scale correlations were systematically dropped to improve reliability.
• Sample 3 (McCullough & Worthington, 1995): Estimates for the seven original subscales ranged from .92 for the religious commitment subscale down to .73 for the authority afforded religious groups and the tolerance for different views of leadership subscales. Collectively, these findings suggest acceptable to good internal consistency, particularly for the core commitment and authority scales.

Factor Analysis

The psychometric development of the RVS involved several iterative rounds of factor analysis.

The initial analysis (Worthington et al., 1988) used Principle Components Factor Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation, yielding seven factors. Notably, the hypothesized “tolerance for those holding different views of Scripture” factor was not empirically supported and was replaced by a factor focusing on “preference for a counselor of similar attitudes.”

A later study (Worthington et al., 1989) attempted to confirm the theoretical structure using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). This analysis failed, as the goodness of fit index (GFI) of .61 was substantially below the acceptable threshold of .90. Subsequently, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the same data identified eight factors, revealing a more nuanced structure. This EFA suggested that certain theoretical constructs were bifactorial: the Authority of Scripture scale split into components measuring its value in daily life versus doctrinal belief, and the Authority of Group Identification split into personally valuing the group versus looking to the group for behavioral norms. The hypothetical structure related to tolerance was consistently not validated, instead resolving into three distinct factors reflecting a preference for similarly religious people who offer advice, counsel, or affiliation.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological Scale / Self-Report Inventory

Format: Paper-and-pencil measure consisting of 62 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Highly religious individuals; used primarily in counseling psychology research.

Age Group: Young Adults (18 to 25 years old in primary samples).

Population Details: Standardization was based on three samples of undergraduate student volunteers from a large southeastern university. Sample 1 (N=257, 78% Caucasian, 17% African-American); Sample 2 (N=252, top one-third selected for high religious commitment); Sample 3 (N=148, 70% Caucasian, 21% African-American). African-Americans in the first sample scored significantly higher on six of the seven subscales compared to Caucasians.

Test Methodology: Simple paper-and-pencil administration; no special skills are required for administration or basic scoring. Scoring involves dividing participants into high and low levels based on means and standard deviations of the student sample (McCullough & Worthington, 1995).

Keywords

Religiosity, Authority, Group Identification, Tolerance, Counseling Psychology, Scale Development, Internal Consistency, Cronbach’s Alpha

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address:

Dr. Everett Worthington Jr.

Department of Psychology

Virginia Commonwealth University

808 West Franklin Street

Richmond, VA 23284-2018

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: The set of materials, including specific directions for administration and scoring, is available upon request from the primary author, Dr. Worthington, at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Fee: Not specified (Contact author for details).

Test Year: 1988 (Based on the foundational model publication).

Reference’s

Glock, C., & Stark, R. (1965). Religion and society in tension. Chicago: Rand McNally.

King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1972). Measuring the religious variable: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 240-251.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1995). College students’ perceptions of a psychotherapist’s treatment of a religious issue: Partial replication and extension. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 626-34.

Morrow, D., Worthington, E. L., & McCullough, M. E. (1993). Observers’ perceptions of a counselor’s treatment of a religious issue. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 452-456.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1988). Understanding the values of religious clients: A model and its application to counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 166-174.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hsu, K., Gowda, K. K., & Bleach, E. (1988, November). Preliminary tests of Worthington’s (1988) theory of important values in religious counseling. Paper presented at the First International Congress on Christian Counseling, Atlanta.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Berry, J. T., Hsu, K., Gowda, K. K., Bleach, E., & Bursley, K. H. (1989, October). Measuring religious values: Factor analytic study of the Religious Values Survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the Virginia Psychological Association, Richmond.

Items of the RELIGIOUS VALUES SCALE

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

Instructions: After each of the following 62 statements circle one of the numbers (1 through 5) that best describes how true the statement is of you.

• l = Not at all true of me
• 2 = Somewhat true of me
• 3 = Moderately true of me
• 4 = Mostly true of me
• 5 = Totally true of me

1. l. I am concerned that my behavior and speech reflect the teachings of my religion.
2. I do not accept what I hear in regard to religious beliefs without first questioning the va- lidity of it.
3. It is important to me to conform to my religious standards of behavior.
4. I enjoy spending time with others of my religious affiliation.
5. Religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life.
6. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and medita-tion.
7. I feel there are many more important things in life than religion.
8. I enjoy working in the activities of my religious organization.
9. I keep well informed about my local religious group and I have some influence on its decisions.
10. I make financial contributions to my religious organization.
11. I often read books and magazines about my faith.
12. I spend time trying to grow in understanding of my faith.
13. I have personally tried to convert someone to my faith.
14. I talk about my religion with friends, neighbors, or fellow workers.
15. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life.
16. My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life.
17. I would break fellowship with my local religious group if there were things being said of me that are damaging and untrue.
18. I am willing to be persecuted for my religious beliefs.
19. My living environment (room, apartment, house, office) reflects my religious beliefs (i.e., posters, plaques, bumper stickers).
20. I would publicly defend my religious beliefs.
21. I believe the scriptures of my faith are completely true.
22. I think it is important to obey my faith’s scripture.
23. My faith’s scriptures have practical value in the modem world.
24. I read my faith’s scriptures almost every day.
25. I memorize my faith’s scriptures.
26. I depend on my faith’s scriptures to help me make decisions in conflict situations.
27. I have experienced the usefulness of my faith’s scriptures in my daily life.
28. It is important to understand the historical significance of my faith’s scriptures.
29. I understand my faith’s scriptures.
30. I like to study my faith’s scriptures.
31. I believe that my faith’s scriptures are important but other books of wisdom are equally important.
32. I enjoy being with people whose attitudes toward my faith’s scriptures are similar to my own.
33. I prefer to take advice from people whose attitude toward my faith’s scriptures is similar to my own.
34. If I went to counseling, I would like a counselor whose attitude toward my faith’s scrip- tures is similar to mine.
35. What other members of my religious group expect of me is important.
36. I avoid doing things that members of my local religious group would disapprove of.
37. I feel accepted by the members of my local religious group.
38. I share the goals of the members of my local religious group.
39. The standards of my local religious group guide me in making decisions.
40. If I have a conflict with what my local religious group tells me is right, I go along with the religious group.
41. I couldn’t get along without involvement in my local religious group.
42. Being recognized by non-members as a member of my local religious group gives me a good feeling.
43. I can get along with the goals of my local religious group but not with the overall goals of the whole organizatior. (e.g., national or world-wide religious group).
44. I prefer the local chapter of my religious group to the larger overall organization.
45. The goals of my local religious organization are the same as the goals of the entire orga-nization.
46. It is more important to me to belong to a particular part of my religious group than to think of myself as merely Christian or Jewish or Muslim (or other faith).
47. I enjoy being with people in my local religious group more than people who are not in that group.
48. I enjoy being with people who belong to my overall religious organization.
49. I prefer not to take advice from people outside my local religious group.
50. I prefer not to take advice from people outside my overall religious organization.
51. If I went to counseling, I would like a counselor whose faith is similar to mine.
52. It is a religious duty for me to obey governmental authorities.
53. One should follow the guidance of one’s pastor, priest, or rabbi without question or com- plaint.
54. It is a religious obligation for children to obey their parents.
55. Husbands should exercise wise, loving authority over their wives.
56. It is a religious obligation even for adults to obey their parents.
57. When counselors make suggestions, they should be obeyed.
58. When the board of elders (or the leaders of a local religious group) take a stand, the con-gregation should follow their leading.
59. One should obey the leader(s) of one’s organized religion (e.g., Pope, President of de- nomination, or other leader).
60. I enjoy being with people who share my attitudes toward human authorities.
61. I prefer not to take advice from people whose attitudes toward human authorities differs from my own.
62. If I went in to counseling, I would like a counselor whose attitude toward human au-thorities is similar to mine.