Spiritual Well-Being Scale

Abstract

The Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWB Scale), developed by Paloutzian and Ellison, is a widely utilized psychological measure designed to assess an individual’s subjective perception of spiritual well-being (SWB). The scale conceptualizes SWB as a holistic construct comprising two distinct, yet moderately correlated (r = .32), dimensions. These dimensions are the “vertical” Religious Well-Being (RWB) and the “horizontal” Existential Well-Being (EWB).

This 20-item, self-assessment instrument uses a 6-point Likert Scale format, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” without a neutral midpoint. The RWB subscale focuses on the individual’s perceived relationship with God or a higher power, while the EWB subscale assesses life purpose, satisfaction, and adjustment to self and surroundings. The scale is nonsectarian and measures psychological, not theological, dimensions of transcendence.

Keywords

Spiritual Well-Being, SWB, Religious Well-Being, RWB, Existential Well-Being, EWB, Quality of Life, Transcendence, Psychological Assessment, Life Purpose, Spirituality.

Authors

Craig W. Ellison, Raymond F. Paloutzian.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SWB Scale is to provide a general, global measure of the subjective quality of life as perceived through a spiritual lens. It aims to quantify an individual’s overall sense of well-being derived from their connection to something beyond themselves, whether defined religiously or existentially.

The scale is designed to be highly practical, requiring only 10-15 minutes to complete, and is nonsectarian, allowing for its application across diverse religious, clinical, health, and research contexts. It is particularly valuable for identifying individuals experiencing spiritual distress or low well-being, serving as a tool to assess global indications of distress in personal functions.

Construct

The SWB Scale measures Spiritual Well-Being (SWB), which is conceptually distinct from spiritual health or maturity, as these latter concepts are often prescribed by specific religious doctrines. SWB is defined by the authors as involving transcendence—a focus on well-being in relation to that which lies beyond the self—and is operationalized via two primary dimensions:

• Religious Well-Being (RWB): This is the “vertical” dimension, focusing on the quality of a person’s spiritual life as expressed in relation to God or a higher power. All 10 items in this subscale explicitly mention the word “God.”
• Existential Well-Being (EWB): This is the “horizontal” or social psychological dimension. It concerns the individual’s adjustment to self, community, and surroundings, encompassing existential notions such as life purpose, life satisfaction, and overall positive or negative life experiences. These 10 items contain no specifically religious language.

Validity

The validity of the SWB Scale is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including face validity and strong correlations with theoretically related psychological constructs. Face validity is clearly established through the direct relevance of the item content to the constructs of religious and existential well-being.

Construct validity is indicated by correlational studies showing that higher SWB scores are associated with lower levels of loneliness, higher self-confidence, and a stronger intrinsic religious orientation. Furthermore, SWB, RWB, and EWB scores all demonstrated positive correlations with an individual’s sense of purpose in life (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). Subsequent research has consistently shown associations between the scale scores and various psychological, religious, health, and relational variables (Ellison & Smith, 1991).

A specific limitation noted by the authors is the potential for a ceiling effect in RWB and total SWB scores within highly religious samples, which can restrict differentiation among subjects already high in well-being. Conversely, the scale exhibits high sensitivity at the low end, making it an effective instrument for detecting spiritual distress.

Reliability

The SWB Scale demonstrates high levels of internal consistency and stability (test-retest reliability) across various populations and time intervals.

• Test-Retest Reliability: Coefficients across four different samples, with intervals ranging from 1 to 10 weeks, were consistently high: RWB (.88 to .99), EWB (.73 to .98), and total SWB (.82 to .99).
• Internal Consistency Reliability: Based on data from over 900 subjects across seven studies, the internal consistency coefficients (typically Cronbach’s Alpha) also indicated strong reliability: RWB (.82 to .94), EWB (.78 to .86), and total SWB (.89 to .94).

Factor Analysis

Initial analysis reported by the authors confirmed the intended two-factor structure. The results of the factor analysis yielded factors that directly corresponded to the RWB and EWB subscales.

Specifically, the RWB items clustered strongly onto a single factor (Factor 1). The EWB items tended to cluster together on two separate subfactors, which were interpreted as representing life direction and life satisfaction. While this general structure aligns with the conceptual framework, some subsequent research (e.g., Ledbetter et al., 1991) has suggested that a more complex factor structure might exist.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-assessment psychological instrument.

Format: 20 items, administered via a 6-point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree, or reverse scored). Completion time is typically 10-15 minutes.

Language Available: English (Original). Widely translated in subsequent international research.

Population Group: Nonsectarian, suitable for general population, clinical, and religious groups.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (Used initially with college and high school students, and later with senior citizens).

Population Details: Initial standardization included 206 students from four colleges/universities. Subsequent research has utilized highly diverse samples, including medical outpatients, cancer patients, people with AIDS, nurses, sociopathic convicts, and outpatient counselees, demonstrating broad applicability.

Test Methodology: Scores are summed to yield three independent scores: RWB (10-60), EWB (10-60), and Total SWB (20-120). Negatively worded items (1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18) are reverse scored to control for response set bias.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Likert Scale, RWB, EWB, Quality of Life, Self-Confidence, Loneliness, Spiritual Distress, Clinical Assessment, Research Tool.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Manual for the Spiritual Well-being Scale (1991) published by Life Advance, Inc., Nyack, NY.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale is one of the most widely used instruments for research and clinical purposes. Use typically requires permission from the copyright holders (Life Advance, Inc.), as the authors reported receiving over 300 requests to use the scale by 1991.

Test Year: 1982 (Initial conceptualization and publication: Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982).

Reference’s

Bassett, R. L., Camplin, W., Humphrey, D., Dorr, C., Biggs, S., Distaffen, R., Doxtator, I., Flaherty, M., Hunsberger, P. J., Poage, R., & Thompson, H. (1991). Measuring Christian maturity: A comparison of several scales. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 84-93.

Bufford, R. K., Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1991). Norms for the spiritual well-being scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 35–48.

Carson, V. B., & Green, H. (1992). Spiritual well-being: A predictor of hardiness in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Journal of Professional Nursing, 8, 209-220.

Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 330-340.

Ellison, C. W., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward an integrative measure of health and well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 35-48.

Genia, V. (1996). I, E, Quest, and Fundamentalism as predictors of psychological and spiritual well-being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 56–64.

Kaczorowski, J. M. (1989). Spiritual well-being and anxiety in adults diagnosed with cancer. The Hospice Journal, 5, 105-115.

Ledbetter, M. F., Smith, L. A., Fischer, J. D., Vosler-Hunter, W. L., & Chew, G. P. (1991). An evaluation of the construct validity of the spiritual well-being scale: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 94-102.

Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and quality of life. In L.A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: Wiley Interscience, pp. 224-237.

Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1991). Manual for the Spiritual Well-being Scale. Nyack, NY: Life Advance, Inc.

Items of the SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING SCALE

For each of the following statements, circle the choice that best indicates the extent of your agreement or disagreement as it describes your personal experience:

• SA = Strongly Agree
• D = Disagree
• MA = Moderately Agree
• MD = Moderately Disagree
• A = Agree
• SD = Strongly Disagree

1. I don’t find much satisfaction in private prayer with God.
2. I don’t know who I am, where I came from, or where I’m going.
3. I believe that God loves me and cares about me.
4. I feel that life is a positive experience.
5. I believe that God is impersonal and not interested in my daily situations.
6. I feel unsettled about my future.
7. I have a personally meaningful relationship with God.
8. I feel very fulfilled and satisfied with life.
9. I don’t get much personal strength and support from my God.
10. I feel a sense of well-being about the direction my life is headed in.
11. I believe that God is concerned about my problems.
12. I don’t enjoy much about life.
13. I don’t have a personally satisfying relationship with God
14. I feel good about my future.
15. My relationship with God helps me not to feel lonely.
16. I feel that life is full of conflict and unhappiness.
17. I feel most fulfilled when I’m in close communion with God.
18. Life doesn’t have much meaning.
19. My relation with God contributes to my sense of well-being.
20. I believe there is some real purpose for my life.

Note: Items are scored from 1 to 6, with the higher number representing more well-being. Negatively worded items (1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18) are reversed scored. Odd number items assess religious well-being; even numbered items assess existential well-being.