Values, Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness

Abstract

The Values, Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness instrument was developed primarily for use in large-scale epidemiological and health research studies. Authored by Ellen Idler and colleagues, this scale aims to capture the complex interplay between core human Values and various dimensions of religious and spiritual commitment. It includes both a comprehensive 56-item long form, which assesses a wide range of value priorities, and a condensed short form focusing on the centrality of religious faith in an individual’s life. This instrument allows researchers to move beyond simple frequency counts of religious attendance to understand the underlying motivational and ethical frameworks that guide behavior and potentially influence health outcomes.

Keywords

Religiousness, Spirituality, Values, Schwartz Value Survey, Health Research, Fetzer Institute, General Social Survey, Psychometrics, Idler, Social Values

Authors

Ellen L. Idler, Christopher G. Ellison, Linda K. George, Neal Krause, Jeffrey Levin, Maida Ory, Kenneth Pargament, Lynda Powell, David Williams, Liana Gordon, Mark A. Musick

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Values, Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness scale is to provide a standardized, robust methodology for quantifying the diverse aspects of religious and spiritual life within the context of scientific investigation, particularly health research. It was developed as part of the consensus report by the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group to address the need for reliable, multidimensional measures suitable for large population surveys.

The instrument facilitates the systematic study of how individual value orientations—such as conformity, universalism, hedonism, and tradition—are prioritized by religious individuals. By linking specific value hierarchies to religious commitment, researchers can better understand the mechanisms through which faith influences decision-making, social behavior, and overall well-being.

Construct

The scale is designed to measure two distinct, yet related, psychological constructs: fundamental human Values and the centrality of Religiousness. The long form (56 items) operationalizes values derived from established theories (like the Schwartz Value Survey, though adapted), covering ten potential domains of motivation including Achievement, Benevolence, Conformity, Hedonism, Power, Security, Self-Direction, Stimulation, Tradition, and Universalism.

The short form, known as the VALUES-SHORT FORM, focuses specifically on the motivational and existential role of religion in the respondent’s life. Items 1 and 2 are related to Allport’s Intrinsic/Extrinsic (I/E) distinction, assessing whether religion is an end in itself or a means to other goals. Item 3, based on Benson’s work, measures the role of faith in moral guidance. This multidimensional approach ensures that both deeply held personal values and explicit religious identification are captured.

Validity

While specific psychometric documentation is often found within the primary research papers utilizing the scale (such as the 2004 paper by Idler et al. analyzing the 1998 General Social Survey data), the construct validity is strongly supported by its foundation in established value theories. The use of items reflective of the Schwartz Value framework ensures that the scale measures recognized human motivations.

The scale’s inclusion in the influential Fetzer Institute/NIA report suggests rigorous conceptual development and high face validity for assessing religious and spiritual dimensions relevant to health outcomes. Criterion validity is typically demonstrated through correlations with established measures of physical and mental health, showing that distinct value patterns mediated by Religiousness predict specific health behaviors and subjective well-being.

Reliability

Reliability analyses for the subscales derived from this instrument, particularly when implemented in large population studies like the General Social Survey (GSS), generally demonstrate acceptable to good internal consistency (high Cronbach’s alpha values) for the value clusters and the short-form items.

The comprehensive nature of the long form, with multiple items loading onto conceptual value domains, helps ensure stable and reliable measurement of these constructs across diverse demographic groups, which is crucial for cross-sectional and longitudinal health research.

Factor Analysis

The 56 items of the long form are structured to map onto a circumplex arrangement of Values, consistent with the theoretical structure proposed by Schwartz. Factor analysis applied to data collected using this instrument typically confirms the existence of conceptually distinct, yet interrelated, value dimensions.

The short form items are designed to load onto factors related to intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation, often confirming a clear separation between these motivational styles. The overall factor structure supports the multidimensional claim of the scale, allowing researchers to isolate different components of religious engagement and value prioritization for distinct analytic purposes.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, Psychological Inventory

Format: Two forms: Long Form (56 items assessing values) and Short Form (3 items assessing religious centrality).

Language Available: English (Primary language of development, used in GSS)

Population Group: General adult population; widely used in sociological and epidemiological studies.

Age Group: Adults (typically 18 years and older).

Population Details: Originally validated and utilized extensively within the United States General Social Survey (GSS) sample, aiming for demographic representativeness.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the importance of each value or the degree to which they agree with statements regarding religious centrality.

• LONG FORM SCORING: A modified Likert-type scale ranging from -1 to 7.

  1. -1 = Opposed to
  2. 0 = Not important
  3. 1, 2, 3 = Important
  4. 4, 5, 6 = Very important
  5. 7 = Of supreme Importance

• SHORT FORM SCORING: A 5-point Likert scale of agreement.

  1. 1 = Strongly agree
  2. 2 = Agree
  3. 3 = Not sure
  4. 4 = Disagree
  5. 5 = Strongly disagree

Keywords

Value Priorities, Spiritual Intimacy, Fetzer-NIA Working Group, Psychological Measurement, Self-Direction, Tradition Values, Values-Short Form, GSS, Epidemiology

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in the source documentation.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in the source documentation.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in the source documentation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The instrument was published as part of the 2003/2004 work resulting from the Fetzer Institute/NIA Working Group on Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality. Given its inclusion in this public domain report aimed at promoting standardized measurement, the scale is generally considered available for academic research use, often without specific fees, though citation of the source report and primary articles (Idler et al., 2004) is required.

The foundational report, “Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research: A Report of the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group,” contains the full instrument on pages 25-30. The original document is available online at: http://fetzer.org/resources/multidimensional-measurement-religiousnessspirituality-use-health-research

Test Year: 2003 (Conceptual Development and Publication in Working Group Report); 2004 (Primary Academic Publication utilizing the scale).

Reference’s

• Idler‚ E. L‚ Ellison‚ C. G.‚ George‚ L. K.‚ Krause‚ N.‚ Levin‚ J.‚ Ory‚ M.‚ Pargament‚ K.‚ Powell‚ L.‚ Williams‚ D.‚ Gordon‚ L.‚ & Musick‚ M. A. (2004). Measuring multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality for health research: Conceptual background and findings from the 1998 General Social Survey. Research on Aging‚ 25‚ 327-365.

• Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research: A Report of the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group. (2003). Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute. The instrument can be found on pages 25-30 of this report.

Items of the Values‚ Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness

The following items constitute the long and short forms of the scale as presented in the source documentation:

First Column

1. ___ Equality (equal opportunity for all)
2. ___ Inner harmony (at peace with myself)
3. ___ Social power (control over others‚ dominance)
4. ___ Pleasure (gratification of desires)
5. ___ Freedom (freedom of action and thought)
6. ___ A spiritual life (emphasis on spiritual not material matters)
7. ___ Sense of belonging (feeling that others care about me)
8. ___ Social order (stability of society)
9. ___ An exciting life (stimulating experiences)
10. ___ Meaning in life (a purpose in life)
11. ___ Politeness (courtesy‚ good manners)
12. ___ Wealth (material possessions‚ money)
13. ___ National security (protection of my nation from enemies)
14. ___ Self-respect (belief in one’s own worth)
15. ___ Reciprocation of favors (avoidance of indebtedness)
16. ___ Creativity (uniqueness‚ imagination)
17. ___ A world at peace (free of war and conflict)
18. ___ Respect for tradition (preservation of time-honored customs)
19. ___ Mature love (deep emotional and spiritual intimacy)
20. ___ Self-discipline (self-restraint‚ resistance to temptation)
21. ___ Detachment (from worldly concerns)
22. ___ Family security (safety for loved ones)
23. ___ Social recognition (respect‚ approval by others)
24. ___ Unity with nature (fitting into nature)
25. ___ A varied life (filled with challenge‚ novelty‚ and change)
26. ___ Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)
27. ___ Authority (the right to lead or command)
28. ___ True friendship (close‚ supportive friends)
29. ___ A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts)
30. ___ Social justice (correcting injustice‚ care for the weak)

Second Column

31. ___ Independent (self-reliant‚ self-sufficient)
32. ___ Moderate (avoiding extremes of feeling and action)
33. ___ Loyal (faithful to my friends‚ group)
34. ___ Ambitious (hardworking‚ aspiring)
35. ___ Broad-minded (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs)
36. ___ Humble (modest‚ self-effacing)
37. ___ Daring (seeking adventure‚ risk)
38. ___ Protecting the environment (preserving nature)
39. ___ Influential (having an impact on people and events)
40. ___ Honoring of parents and elders (showing respect)
41. ___ Choosing own goals (selecting own purposes)
42. ___ Healthy (not being sick physically or mentally)
43. ___ Capable (competent‚ effective‚ efficient)
44. ___ Accepting my portion in life (submitting to life’s circumstances)
45. ___ Honest (genuine‚ sincere)
46. ___ Preserving my public image (protecting my “face”)
47. ___ Obedient (dutiful‚ meeting obligations)
48. ___ Intelligent (logical‚ thinking)
49. ___ Helpful (working for the welfare of others)
50. ___ Enjoying life (enjoying food‚ sex‚ leisure‚ etc.)
51. ___ Devout (holding to religious faith and belief)
52. ___ Responsible (dependable‚ reliable)
53. ___ Curious (interested in everything‚ exploring)
54. ___ Forgiving (willing to pardon others)
55. ___ Successful (achieving goals)
56. ___ Clean (neat‚ tidy)

VALUES-SHORT FORM

1. My whole approach to life is based on my religion. (I/E Scale)
2. Although I believe in my religion‚ many other things are more important in life. (I/E Scale)
3. My faith helps me know right from wrong. (Benson)