SPIRITUAL ASSESSMENT INVENTORY

Abstract

The SPIRITUAL ASSESSMENT INVENTORY (SAi), developed by Brokaw, Edwards, and Key (1993), is a psychometric tool designed to measure an individual’s spiritual development or spiritual maturity. Its conceptual foundation draws from both object relations theory and the literature on contemplative spirituality. The instrument is constructed upon the premise that spiritual maturity is comprised of two core dimensions: the quality of the person’s relationship with God, and the degree of the individual’s awareness of God in their life.

The SAi consists of 43 self-administered items presented in a 5-point Likert format, ranging from non-endorsement (1) to endorsement (5). The scale generates five primary subscale scores: Awareness, Instability, Defensiveness/Disappointment, Grandiosity, and Realistic Acceptance. The development of the SAi utilized theoretical works linking an individual’s level of object relations development to the nature of their relationship with the divine. It is intended for use with adults.

Keywords

Spiritual maturity, God image, Object relations development, Contemplative spirituality, Psychological assessment, Factor analysis, Psychometric properties, Relationship with God, Awareness.

Authors

B. F. Brokaw, K. J. Edwards, T. Key, T. W. Hall

Purpose

The primary objective of the SPIRITUAL ASSESSMENT INVENTORY (SAi) is to quantitatively assess the level of an individual’s spiritual development, often termed spiritual maturity. This assessment integrates psychological perspectives, specifically object relations theory, with theological and spiritual concepts, such as contemplative spirituality.

The scale aims to differentiate and measure the two proposed dimensions of spiritual maturity: the qualitative nature of the respondent’s relationship with God, and their conscious awareness of God’s presence or action in their daily life. The instrument serves as a promising research tool for exploring the interplay between psychological development and spiritual experience in adult populations.

Construct

The SAi measures the construct of spiritual maturity, which is theoretically defined as encompassing two main components: (1) the quality of an individual’s relationship with God, conceptualized largely through the lens of object relations development, and (2) the extent of an individual’s awareness of God in their life, informed by spiritual direction literature.

The overall score is derived from five underlying factors, which serve as subscales: Awareness (A), which measures the perceived presence and action of God; Instability (I), relating to fluctuations in the emotional connection with God; Defensiveness/Disappointment (D), measuring negative reactions to God; Grandiosity (G), reflecting an inflated sense of one’s unique spiritual status; and Realistic Acceptance (RA), indicating a mature ability to maintain the relationship despite negative experiences. The theoretical model suggests that while early life relationships influence the way a person relates to God, the awareness dimension may be only moderately related to the level of object relations development.

Validity

The Construct validity of the SAi is viewed as promising, supported by the patterns observed in the initial factor analysis. However, the authors specifically noted concerns regarding the Grandiosity factor due to its low internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .52), indicating that this specific factor requires further investigation to confirm what it is accurately measuring.

To further assess construct validity, particularly given the SAi’s reliance on object relations theory, scores were correlated with the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI; Bell, 1991). The correlation patterns between the SAi and the BORI were generally consistent with theoretical expectations, further supporting the scale’s foundation. Consistent with the reliability findings, the Grandiosity factor was the exception, showing inconsistent correlations, reinforcing the need for its psychometric refinement.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha based on the second factor analysis (N=449). The reported reliability values for the subscales indicated strong internal consistency for most factors: Instability (.88), Defensiveness (.91), and Awareness (.90). The coefficient for Realistic Acceptance was acceptable (.76), but the Grandiosity factor showed poor internal consistency (.52).

Test-retest reliability was computed for a small subsample (N=17) over a two-week period. The resulting coefficients were very high for Instability (.94) and Defensiveness (.93), moderate for Awareness (.83), and low for Realistic Acceptance (.59) and Grandiosity (.56). While these estimates position the SAi as a promising research instrument, the authors conclude that further refinement of its psychometric properties is necessary before endorsing its wide-scale use.

Factor Analysis

The initial scale development involved an exploratory factor analysis based on results from 193 subjects. A subsequent, revised factor analysis utilized data from 449 subjects and yielded a stable five-factor solution.

This five-factor structure accounts for 50.5% of the total variance, with eigenvalues ranging from 11.14 to 1.56. The five factors identified are Awareness, Instability, Defensiveness/Disappointment, Grandiosity, and Realistic Acceptance, which form the basis of the individual subscale scores.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory (Paper-and-pencil measure)

Format: 43 items presented in a 5-point Likert format (1 = non-endorsement; 5 = endorsement). Some items are structured with two parts to address complex reactions to negative experiences with God.

Language Available: English (Original development language)

Population Group: Adults (Specifically developed using religious college students)

Age Group: Adult

Population Details: Norms were generated using a nonclinical sample of college students from two universities in Southern California. Specific normative data such as subscale means were not reported in the initial documentation.

Test Methodology: Self-administered; requires approximately 15 minutes to complete. No specialized examiner skills are required. Scoring instructions and an interpretive guide are available from the authors.

Keywords

Spiritual assessment, Spiritual development, Psychometric scale, Object relations, God image, Psychological testing, Reliability, Validity, College students.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source material

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions & Fee: Scoring instructions and an interpretive guide are available directly from the authors. No specific fee structure or widespread commercial permissions were detailed in the source material.

Test Year: 1993 (Initial conceptualization); 1996 (Primary publication).

Reference’s

• Barry, W. A., & Connolly, W. J. (1982). The practice of spiritual direction. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
• Bell, M. (1991). An introduction to the Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
• Brokaw, B. F., & Edwards, K. J. (1994). The relationship of God image to level of object relations development. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 22, 352-371.
• Carter, J. D., & Barnhurst, L. F. (1986). Maturity, intimacy and spirituality. Paper presented at Midwest CAPS Convention, August 8-10.
• Conn, J. W. (1989). Spirituality and personal maturity. New York: Paulist Press.
• Edwards, J. (1986). Spiritual direction: A delicate weaving of life and religious experience. Studies in Formative Spirituality, 7, 177-191.
• Hall, T. W., & Brokaw, B. F. (1995). The relationship of spiritual maturity to level of object relations development and God image. Pastoral Psychology, 43, 373-391.
• Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). The initial development and factor analysis of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24(3), 233-246.
• Jones, J. W. (1991). Contemporary psycho-analysis and religion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Pingleton, J. P. (1984). An integrative analysis of psychological and Christian concepts of relational maturity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rosemead School of Psychology Biota University, La Mirada, CA.
• Shackelford, J. F. (1978). A comparison of psychological and theological concepts of dependency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biota University, La Mirada, CA.
• Tisdale, T., Brokaw, B., Edwards, K., & Key, T. (1993, August). Impact of Psychotherapy Treatment on Level of Object Relations Development, God Image, and Self-Esteem. In J. W. Jones (Chair), Varieties of psychoanalytic research on religion. Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Items of the SPIRITUAL ASSESSMENT INVENTORY

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

Instructions:

1. Please respond to each statement by circling the number that best represents your experience: Circle:

1 if the statement is not true of you at all; 2 if the statement is slightly true of you;

• if the statement is moderately true of you;

2. if the statement is substantially true of you; and 5 if the statement is very true of you.

2. It is best to answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than what you think your experience should be.
3. Give the answer that comes to mind first. Don’t spend too much time thinking about an item.
4. Give the best possible response to each statement even if it does not provide all the information you would like.
5. Try your best to respond to all statements. Your answers will be completely confidential.

• A l. I have a good sense of how God is working in my life .
• A 2. I regularly sense God speaking to me through other people
• D 3. (a). There are time when I feel disappointed with God . (b). When this happens, I still want our relationship to continue . .
• RA 4. Listening to God is an essential part of my life
• A 5. I am frequently aware of God prompting me to do something
• D 6. (a). There are times when God frustrates me …….. RA (b). When I feel this way, I still desire to put effort into our relationship
• A 7. My experiences of God’s responses to me impact me greatly
• I 8. I frequently bargain with God A 9. I am regularly aware of God’s presence in my interactions with other people
• I 10. I am very afraid that God will give up on me
• I 11. My emotional connection with God is very unstable
• A 12. I am very sensitive to what God is teaching me in my relationships with other people
• I 13. I almost always feel completely cut off from God
• D 14. (a) There are times when I feel irritated at God ……. RA (b) When I feel this way, I am able to come to some sense of resolution in our relationship
• A 15. I am aware of God responding to me in a variety of ways
• I 16. I frequently feel that God is angry at me and punishing me
• A 17. I am aware of God attending to me in times of need …
• G 18. God seems to understand that my needs are more important than most people’s
• D 19. (a). There are times when I feel angry at God …….. RA (b). When this happens, I still have the sense that God will always be with me
• G 20. My relationship with God is an extraordinary one that most people would not understand
• A 21. I have a good sense of the direction in which God is guiding me
• D 22. There are times when I feel like God doesn’t come through for me
• G 23. God’s way of dealing with other people does not apply to me
• D 24. (a). There are times when I feel betrayed by God ….. RA (b). When I feel this way, I put effort into restoring our relationship
• I 25. My emotional connection with God is very unstable …
• I 26. No matter how hard I try to avoid them, I still experience many difficulties in my relationship with God
• RA 27. When I sin, I still have a sense that God cares about what happens to me
• I 28. I often worry that I will be left out of God’s plans
• A 29. When I consult God about decisions in my life, I am aware of His direction and help
• D 30. (a). There are times when I feel frustrated by God for not responding to my prayers RA (b). When I feel this way, I am able to talk it through with God
• I 31. I often feel I have to please God or he might reject me.
• D 32. (a). There are times when I feel like God has let me down completely broken
• I often completely withdraw from God
• G God recognizes that I am more spiritual than most people
• I 35 . God does not seem to exist when I am not praying or reading/hearing the Bible
• G 36. Manipulating God seems to be the best way to get what I want