ÿWPCã U*¦ 0Ð 0NßU,- 0JY 0T£ 0^÷ 0hU 0r½ 0|/ 0†« 01 1uÁ %6 0d< 0B  0(âU6 Ž@B)Îv~÷vnu < Œ 9p`(Roman8× ÿÿ6MSDefaultsÓ!€!ÓÒ Ü ÒÒ Ü ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` °šXÓÓ  Óó óóóóóóóó óó óó óóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóóóÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ4 ÿÿ2MSNormalÝ‚ÿÝÝ  Ý< Œ 9p`(Geneva2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)XP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$¡¡Ý ƒÿÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$§§< Œ 9p`(Courier New „Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÝ ƒ'ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ÔQuantifying€spirituality€€€Ú  ÚÚ  Ú% Line 7 dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d' @$Styl{WP}010ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ Ü ÒÖ€ÖÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€ §u` ÑÓÓÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÌÌÝ‚ÿÝÓ!€!ÓÒ Ü ÒÒ Ü ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` °šXÓÓ  Óó óóóóóóóó óó óó óóóóóó óóóóóóóóóóóóóÔ€ÔÔ€XÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓQuantifying€Spirituality:€Developing€an€Instrument€for€ÌAssessment€of€Spiritual€GrowthÌÌContributed€PaperÌPresentation€at€the€Association€for€Institutional€Research€ÌThirty„Seventh€Annual€ForumÌÌbyÌAndrew€P.€Manion,€Ph.D.ÌSaint€Maryððs€University€of€MinnesotaÌJason€A.€GoldbergÌHarvard€UniversityÌThomas€ZanzigÌSaint€Maryððs€PressÌÓ  ÓÌÌTrack€2:€Institutional€Effectiveness,€Student€Learning,€andÏOutcomes€Assessment€ÌFormat:€Contributed€PaperÌÇÓ  ÓQUANTIFYING€SPIRITUALITY:€ÌDEVELOPING€AN€INSTRUMENT€FOR€ASSESSMENT€OF€SPIRITUAL€GROWTHÌÓ  Óà àWhat€impact€does€a€particular€institution€of€higherÏlearning€have€on€its€students?€Clearly,€this€question€is€theÏfuel€that€fires€the€assessment€movement€in€higher€education„„a€movement€that,€despite€some€intramural€resistance,Ïcontinues€to€make€steady€progress€in€asking€and€attempting€toÏanswer€the€important€questions€about€institutional€impact.ÏGenerally,€we€in€higher€learning€rightly€turn€to€ourÏinstitutionððs€mission€statement€for€guidance€on€where€toÏdirect€our€assessment€efforts.€By€showing€that€we€areÏaccomplishing€our€mission,€we€justify€our€existence€to€ourÏstudents€and€their€parents,€our€alumni,€accrediting€andÏfunding€agencies,€and€(perhaps€most€importantly)€ourselves.€AÏproblem€arises,€however,€when€our€mission€statement€includesÏgoals€that€are,€while€noble€in€purpose,€slippery€toÏdemonstrate€empirically.€One€such€goal€is€that€of€spiritualÏgrowth€in€our€students.€We€recently€examined€the€missionÏstatements€of€fifty€American€private€institutions€of€higherÏlearning.€This€examination€revealed€that€over€half€of€thoseÏschoolsðð€mission€statements€include€a€goal€regarding€theÏspiritual€growth€of€their€students.€The€percentage€jumps€toÏover€eighty€percent€for€those€institutions€with€a€religiousÏaffiliation.€While€it€is€likely€that€adolescents€and€youngÏadults€naturally€will€experience€some€sort€of€religious€andÏspiritual€maturation€(Deignan,€1995),€our€institutions€ofÍhigher€learning€often€claim€that€the€studentsðð€experiencesÏwhile€in€€a€particular€college€foster€spiritual€growth€beyondÏthat€of€the€non„collegian€adolescent€experience.€A€fairÏclaim,€but€how€do€we€demonstrate€that€we€promote€spiritualÏgrowth€among€our€students?€To€this€point,€the€answer€seemsÏfor€most€to€be€that€we€donððt.€Ìà àIt€could€be€argued€that€we€shy€away€from€spiritualÏmatters€as€a€matter€of€practicality.€We€can€easily€quantifyÏmath€skills,€job€placement,€and€even€cognitive€constructsÏlike€ð ðoverall€satisfaction€with€college€experienceðð€so€weÏfocus€on€those€areas.€€That€is,€we€fall€into€the€trap€ofÏassessing€that€which€is€relatively€easy€to€assess,€oftenÏignoring€some€of€what€is€important.€Fortunately,€the€rise€inÏthe€assessment€movement€has€challenged€us€to€move€into€newÏareas€where€we€previously€have€feared€to€tread.€As€a€result,Ïgreat€strides€have€been€made€in€assessment€of€difficultÏconcepts€like€writing€quality€(White,€1992)€and€even€criticalÏthinking€(Zechmeister€and€Johnson,€1992).€Yet,€little€hasÏbeen€done€to€promote€empirical€assessment€of€the€impact€ofÏthe€college€experience€on€the€spiritual€growth€of€itsÏstudents.€This€paper€describes€a€program€of€research€that€isÏattempting€to€do€so.ÌÓ  ÓòòScience€and€SpiritualityóóÌÓ  Óà àTraditionally,€scientific€research€has€avoided€theÏspiritual€realm.€This€is€understandable,€as€the€foundation€ofÏwestern€science€is€materialism.€However,€the€cognitiveÍsciences,€on€relatively€rare€occasion,€have€delved€into€theÏarea€of€religiosity€(a€construct€that,€while€not€directlyÏobservable,€is€assumed€to€have€observable€consequences).€InÏfact,€examination€of€much€of€the€psychological€literature€inÏthis€area€reveals€that€the€constructs€of€spirituality€andÏreligiosity€often€have€been€inadvertently€mixed€together,Ïresulting€in€inconsistent€findings€(Rasmussen€and€Johnson,Ï1994)€and€making€the€instruments€of€measurement€of€little€useÏto€those€of€us€interested€in€spiritual€growth.€Ìà àVan€Wicklin€(1990)€notes€three€basic€approaches€thatÏhave€been€taken€to€conceptualize€and€measure€religiosity:€€1)Ïreligiosity€as€a€largely€stable€personality€trait€(Allport,Ï1950;€Allen€&€Spilka,€1967;€Batson,€1976);€2)€religiosity€asÏthe€sum€of€a€collection€of€behaviors€and€dispositions€(GlockÏ&€Stark,€1965);€and€3)€the€developmental€approach€toÏreligiosity€(Fowler,€1981).€€For€example,€Fowlerððs€(1981)Ïdescription€was€influenced€by€Eriksonððs€stages€ofÏpsychosocial€development,€Piagetððs€stages€of€cognitiveÏdevelopment€and€Kohlbergððs€stages€of€moral€development.€ToÏFowler,€faith€development€parallels€psychosocial,€cognitive,Ïand€moral€development€„„€developing€through€the€lifespan€inÏsix€stages:€€a)€Intuitive„Projective,€b)€Mythic„Literal,€c)ÏSynthetic„Conventional,€d)€Individuative„Reflective,€e)ÏConjunctive,€and€f)€Universalizing.€€As€a€result€of€FowlerððsÏresearch,€some€theorists€began€to€accept€the€idea€that€faithÏdevelops€and€changes€as€a€person€develops€and€changesÍsocially,€cognitively,€and€morally.€(see,€for€example,ÏBatson,€Schoenrade,€&€Ventis,€1993;€Fowler,€1981).Ìà àOne€source€of€disagreement€within€religiosity€researchÏhas€been€whether€the€construct€has€two€dimensions€or€three€Ïor€more€(Allport,€1950;€Allen€&€Spilka,€1967;€Batson,€1976;ÏGlock€&€Stark,€1965;€Kirkpatrick,€1988).€€For€example,€whileÏAllport€(1950)€in€his€approach€to€the€assessment€of€oneððsÏoverall€religiosity€differentiated€between€intrinsic€andÏextrinsic€religious€orientation,€Batson€(1976)€supported€aÏtrichotomous€view€(religion€as€a€means,€end,€and€quest)€andÏGlock€and€Stark€(1965)€conceptualized€religiosity€asÏincluding€five€dimensions€(ideological,€ritualistic,Ïexperiential,€intellectual,€and€consequential).€Regardless€ofÏthe€merits€and€shortcomings€of€any€of€these€lines€of€inquiry,Ïthe€focus€has€remained€on€religiosity,€per€se€(i.e.,€tied€toÏsome€degree€to€religious€practice).€While€a€positiveÏconsequence€of€psychological€research€into€religiosity€hasÏbeen€in€setting€a€precedent€for€methodological€rigor€inÏquantifying€religious€constructs,€one€interested€inÏspirituality€probably€is€not€satisfied€with€the€narrow€focusÏof€the€religiosity€research.€While€religiosity€may€be€part€ofÏor€contribute€to€oneððs€spirituality,€it€probably€does€notÏconstitute€the€whole€picture.Ìà àWork€devoted€more€specifically€to€spirituality€typicallyÏhas€emerged€from€scholars€working€in€a€Christian€traditionÏ(King,€1995;€see€also€Groeschel,€1982)€and€has€been€richer€inÍdescription€than€the€religious€constructs€of€social€andÏcognitive€psychology.€It€has€tended,€however,€to€lackÏempirical€quantification.€Theorists€like€Braxton€(1980),€ConnÏ(1986),€Groeschel€(1982),€and€Lonergan€(1972)€describeÏspirituality€as€multifaceted€and€dynamic,€including€someÏaspects€that€are€religious€and€others€that€are€not.€ForÏexample,€Conn€(1986)€asserts€that€a€conversion€(spiritual)Ïexperience€may€occur€in€an€explicitly€religious€context,€butÏsuch€a€context€is€not€necessary€(p.27).€Lonargan€(1972)Ïargues€that€spirituality€involves€an€intellectual,€moral,€andÏreligious€system,€with€its€three€components€interacting.ÏDevelopment€could€occur€in€any€or€all€levels€at€one€time.ÏBraxton€(1980)€combined€a€developmental€approach€with€aÏmultifaceted€framework,€which€led€to€his€six€levels€ofÏspiritual€conversion.€€Braxtonððs€levels€include€theÏintellectual,€moral,€and€religious€levels€of€LonerganððsÏtheory,€but€also€include€affective,€ecclesial,€and€ChristianÏlevels.€€Similar€to€Lonergan,€Braxton€describes€all€of€theseÏlevels€as€unique€yet€connected.€€Braxtonððs€model€provides€theÏcornerstone€for€the€current€assessment€strategy€and€will€beÏexamined€in€more€detail€later.ÌÓ  ÓòòOverview€of€the€Present€ResearchóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€development€of€a€spiritual€assessment€technique€tookÏplace€in€four€phases.€In€phase€one,€a€working€model€ofÏspirituality€was€established€and€a€list€of€statementsÏrelating€to€that€model€was€generated.€Phase€two€involvedÍdeveloping€those€statements€into€a€series€of€questionnaireÏitems€and€piloting€that€questionnaire.€Factor€analysis€wasÏthen€used€to€determine€which€items€to€retain€in€the€nextÏdraft€of€the€questionnaire.€Phase€three€involved€distributingÏthe€edited€questionnaire€to€a€larger€group€of€subjects€ofÏdifferent€ages€and€at€different€universities€and€usingÏseveral€different€techniques€to€validate€the€various€aspectsÏof€the€spirituality€model.€Phase€four€involves€applying€theÏfindings€to€determine€curricular€and€co„curricular€needs€ofÏthe€institution€and€developing€other€uses€for€the€instrumentÏ(e.g.€to€facilitate€individual€counseling).€A€description€ofÏphases€one,€two,€and€three€are€presented€first€followed€by€aÏsummary€of€the€results€of€the€validation€process.€ÌÓ  ÓMethodÌòòPhase€One:€What€is€this€Thing€Called€Spirituality?óóÌÓ  Óà àAs€part€of€a€university€assessment€initiative,€the€SaintÏMaryððs€University€of€Minnesota€faculty€were€polled€in€Fall€ofÏ1993€at€which€time,€they€were€asked€to€identify€the€five€mostÏimportant€goals€of€a€Saint€Maryððs€undergraduate€education.ÏPromoting€studentsðð€spiritual€growth€emerged€in€the€top€five.ÏWe€were€then€left€with€the€challenge€of€determining€whether,Ïand€to€what€extent,€we€are€accomplishing€that€goal.Ìà àAn€ad€hoc€committee€on€assessment€of€spiritualÏassessment€was€established.€Members€of€the€universityÏcommunity€with€expertise€in€measurement€were€brought€togetherÏwith€those€with€expertise€in€spirituality.€Included€in€thisÍgroup€were€members€of€the€liberal€education€assessmentÏproject,€the€psychology€department,€the€student€developmentÏarea,€campus€ministry,€and€Saint€Maryððs€Press€(an€independentÏpublisher€of€religious€education€materials€for€Catholic€highÏschools€and€parishes).€This€committee€established€workingÏassumptions€of€spiritual€growth€and€evaluated€variousÏtheories€of€spirituality.€After€selecting€an€appropriateÏmodel€from€which€to€work€the€group€generated€lists€of€severalÏhundred€statements€pertaining€to€the€different€aspects€ofÏspiritual€growth.ÌòòResults€of€Phase€IóóÌà àòòWorking€assumptionsóó.€The€committee€agreed€on€severalÏunderlying€assumptions€of€spirituality.€These€include€(1)Ïalthough€spirituality€is€not€directly€observable,€oneððsÏspirituality€influences€oneððs€feelings,€thoughts€andÏbehaviors€and€can€therefore€be€measured€(at€leastÏindirectly);€(2)€oneððs€spirituality€is€influenced€by€oneððsÏenvironment€(see€Deignan,€1995;€Rahner,€1971);€(3)Ïspirituality€develops€over€time€and€with€experience€(seeÏDeignan,€1995;€Groeschel,€1982;€Stonebreaker,€1995);€and€(4)Ïa€person€can€actively€participate€in€his/her€own€spiritualÏgrowth€(see€Groeschel,€1982;€Ruffing,€1995).Ìà àòòA€model€of€spiritualityóó.€The€group€determined€thatÏBraxtonððs€(1980)€model€of€spiritual€conversion€would€be€mostÏuseful€for€the€universityððs€assessment€initiative.€AfterÏconsiderable€discussion€it€was€agreed€that€we€should€expandÍthe€model€to€seven€dimensions,€splitting€the€affectiveÏdimension€into€two€components.€(The€original€affectiveÏdimension,€we€concluded,€included€both€oneððs€experience€ofÏoneððs€feelings€as€well€as€oneððs€ability€to€relate€well€withÏothers.)€The€resulting€seven€dimensions€include:Ìà0 à(1)€affective€dimension„„the€extent€to€which€oneÏrecognizes,€accepts€and€€takes€responsibility€for€oneððsÏfeelings;Ìà0 à(2)€relational€dimension„„the€extent€to€which€one€canÏinitiate€and€maintain€healthy€and€mature€relationships;Ìà0 à(3)€intellectual€dimension„„the€extent€to€which€one€isÏoriented€toward€gaining€new€knowledge;Ìà0 à(4)€moral€dimension„„the€extent€to€which€one€recognizesÏand€appreciateððs€oneððs€social€responsibility;Ìà0 à(5)€theistic€dimension„„the€extent€to€which€one€sees€theÏinfluence€of€God€in€oneððs€life;Ìà0 à(6)€ecclesial€dimension„„the€extent€to€which€one€desiresÏactive€membership€in€a€religious€community;Ìà0 à(7)€Christian€dimension„„the€extent€to€which€oneÏbelieves€that€Jesus€Christ€is€God.Ìà àIt€should€be€noted€that€these€dimensions€are€continual,Ïnot€dichotomies.€The€goal€of€this€assessment€strategy€is€toÏidentify€where€students€are€on€each€continuum€rather€than€toÏcategorize€them€as€possessing€or€lacking€some€attribute.ÏNotice€also€that€a€person€can€be€toward€one€end€of€someÏdimensions€while€toward€the€middle€or€other€end€of€others.€Ìà àòòGenerating€ð ðIðð€Statementsóó.€Each€member€of€the€team€thenÏindividually€generated€statements€describing€people€atÏdifferent€points€along€each€of€the€seven€continual.€Each€ofÏthese€statements€was€discussed€and€evaluated€by€the€group€forÏits€appropriateness€for€the€particular€dimension.ÏSpecifically,€for€each€statement€we€asked€the€question,€ð ðdoesÏthis€statement€pertain€to€this€dimension€and€only€to€thisÏdimension?ðð€Overlap€among€statements€also€was€identified€andÏeliminated.€This€process€resulted€in€140€statements,€20€forÏeach€of€the€seven€dimensions.€The€pilot€instrument€wasÏestablished€using€these€140€statements.€A€nine„point€scaleÏwas€used€for€each€item€anchored€with€1€(not€at€all€like€me)Ïand€9€(very€much€like€me).€The€number€5€was€also€labeledÏ(somewhat€like€me).€Appropriate€instructions€were€alsoÏincluded.ÌÓ  ÓòòPhase€II:€Developing€and€Piloting€the€InstrumentóóÌÓ  Óà àAs€part€of€his€senior€thesis,€the€second€authorÏconducted€an€investigation€in€which€he€had€subjects€respondÏto€the€140€items€as€well€as€complete€several€otherÏestablished€measures€of€religiosity.€€ÌòòSubjectsóóÌà àSixty„six€undergraduate€students€volunteered€toÏparticipate.€€Some€volunteers€were€recruited€to€assure€thatÏthe€sample€was€stratified€with€regard€to€age€and€religion.€ÌòòProcedureóóÌà àSubjects€were€given€the€120„item€spiritual€assessmentÏquestionnaire€along€with€Restððs€(1972)€Defining€Issues€TestÏ(DIT),€and€Batsonððs€(1993)€Religious€Life€Inventory€(RLI).€ÏBatsonððs€RLI€includes€his€quest€scale€and€Allport€and€RossððsÏ(1967)€Religious€Orientation€Scale.€These€other€measures€wereÏused€to€validate€several€of€the€dimensions€we€had€defined.ÌòòResults€of€Phase€IIóóÌà àòòThe€seven€dimensionsóó.€Factor€analysis€was€used€toÏdetermine€which€of€the€140€items€contributed€most€to€ourÏunderstanding€of€the€respondentsðð€spiritual€development€andÏto€determine€how€well€our€seven€original€dimensions€heldÏtogether€under€statistical€scrutiny.€Examination€of€theÏstrength€of€the€correlations€of€each€item€with€each€factorÏ(dimension)€enabled€us€to€eliminate€items€that€either€lackedÏconsensus€with€their€intended€dimension€(loaded€significantlyÏonto€no€factors)€or€lacked€distinctiveness€among€dimensionsÏ(loaded€significantly€onto€multiple€factors).€Using€a€rotatedÏfactor€matrix,€the€analysis€identified€9€unique€factorsÏcomprised€of€69€items.€Factor€size€ranged€from€4€to€13€items.ÏFive€of€the€intended€seven€dimensions€(Christian,€ecclesial,Ïrelational,€theistic€and€affective)€held€together€asÏstatistically€viable€factors.€The€remaining€2€(moral€andÏintellectual)€were€each€split€into€two€smaller€factors.€Ìà àòòValidating€the€dimensionsóó.€Construct€validity€wasÏdemonstrated€by€examining€the€correlations€between€theÏvarious€factors€(dimensions)€of€the€instrument€and€the€otherÍtests.€Pearsonððs€product„moment€correlations€were€used€toÏestablish€relationships€among€the€various€dimensions€on€theÏquestionnaire€with€the€other€religiosity€measures.€PartialÏcorrelations€(two„tailed)€were€used€when€we€had€an€interestÏin€examining€the€relationship€between€two€variables€whileÏcontrolling€for€the€contributed€variance€of€a€third.€SpecificÏresults€are€shown€below.ÌÓ  ÓòòPhase€III:€Refining€and€Validating€the€InstrumentóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€69€items€that€remained€were€randomly€ordered€andÏplaced€in€a€new€instrument.€During€the€Fall€of€1996,€the€newÏinstrument,€now€titled€ð ðPASSAGE:€Personal€Assessment€ofÏSpiritual€Growth,ðð€was€administered€to€400€first„yearÏstudents€from€two€private€universities€(Saint€MaryððsÏUniversity€of€Minnesota€and€Miami€University€of€Ohio).€TheÏinstrument€also€was€administered€during€spring€of€1997€to€aÏsample€of€40€Saint€Maryððs€University€of€Minnesota€seniors.€ÌòòResults€of€Phase€IIIóóÌà àOnce€again,€factor€analyses€were€performed€toÏdemonstrate€the€consistency€of€the€seven€dimensions.€AllÏseven€dimensions€held€but€using€a€stricter€loading€criteriaÏresulted€in€the€removal€of€an€additional€15€items€from€theÏinstrument€(i.e.,€no€items€with€correlation€coefficients€ofÏless€than€.40€with€their€particular€dimension€were€retained).ÏAll€results€reported€below€are€based€on€analysis€of€factorsÏthat€include€only€the€remaining€54€items.ÌÓ  ÓOverall€Results:€Description€and€Validation€of€the€ÌSeven€DimensionsÌÓ  ÓòòThe€Moral€DimensionóóÌ€à àThe€moral€dimension€of€the€instrument€includes€8€itemsÏsharing€correlations€ranging€from€.43€to€.60.€The€arithmeticÏaverage€of€responses€to€these€8€items€was€positivelyÏcorrelated€with€the€principled„morality€score€on€RestððsÏ(1972)€Defining€Issues€Test,€which€is€based€on€KohlbergððsÏtheory€of€moral€development€(r€=€.46,€p€<€.001).€€€ÌòòThe€Intellectual€DimensionóóÌ€à àThe€intellectual€dimension€of€the€instrument€includes€9Ïitems€sharing€correlations€ranging€from€.42€to€.52.€AlthoughÏwe€do€not€have€an€existing€external€standard€for€comparisonÏon€these€items€we€do€have€evidence€for€the€validity€of€theÏconstruct.€The€average€of€responses€to€these€9€items€wasÏsignificantly€higher€for€the€Saint€Maryððs€University€seniorsÏthan€for€the€first„year€students€(t€=€5.05,€p€<€.01).€Cross„sectional€comparisons€could€reflect€populational€differencesÏrather€than€developmental€differences.€Re„examination€of€theÏfirst„year€students€when€they€become€seniors€will€addÏstrength€to€the€argument€that€this€difference€is,€in€fact,Ïdevelopmental.ÌòòThe€Theistic€and€Ecclesial€DimensionsóóÌ€à àThe€theistic€and€ecclesial€dimensions€of€the€instrumentÏeach€include€8€items€which€share€correlations€ranging€fromÏ.50€to€.76€and€from€.52€to€.92,€respectively.€Validation€ofÏthese€dimension€was€performed€by€comparing€the€average€ofÍresponses€to€these€eight€items€of€those€who€reportedÏthemselves€as€ð ðnon„religiousðð€to€those€who€did€not.€ThisÏcomparison€revealed€that€non„religious€persons€scoredÏsignificantly€lower€on€the€theistic€dimension€(t€=€10.34,€p€<Ï.001)€and€on€the€ecclesial€dimension€(t€=€13.18,€p€<€.001)Ïthan€those€who€reported€having€a€religion.€DistinguishingÏbetween€these€two€factors€is€difficult€because€we€hadÏsubjects€identify€their€religious€affiliation,€not€theirÏbelief€in€God,€per€se.€It€is€likely€that€some€subjects€do€notÏconsider€themselves€part€of€an€organized€religion€and€yetÏmaintain€a€belief€in€God.€The€next€data€sample€will€askÏsubjects€to€explicitly€identify€if€they€consider€themselvesÏatheists€(as€opposed€to€non„religious).ÌòòThe€Christian€Dimensionóó€Ìà àThe€Christian€dimension€of€the€instrument€includes€nineÏitems€(sharing€correlations€ranging€from€.68€to€.85),€whichÏwere€averaged€for€each€subject.€Validation€of€this€dimensionÏwas€performed€by€comparing€the€scores€on€this€dimension€ofÏsubjects€who€reported€themselves€as€being€Christian€to€thoseÏwho€did€not.€This€comparison€revealed€that€self„describedÏChristians€scored€higher€on€this€dimension€than€self„described€non„Christians€(t€=€10.19,€p€<€.001).ÌòòThe€Affective€Dimensionóó€Ìà àThe€affective€dimension€of€the€instrument€includes€sixÏitems€sharing€correlations€ranging€from€.55€to€.68.€NoÏvalidation€of€this€dimension€has€been€conducted€at€this€pointÍwhile€a€comparison€with€existing€emotionality€scales€isÏplanned.€At€this€point,€we€rely€on€the€face€validity€of€theÏitems€themselves.ÌòòThe€Relational€Dimensionóó€Ìà àThe€relational€dimension€of€the€instrument€includes€sixÏitems€sharing€correlations€ranging€from€.42€to€.57.€No€directÏvalidation€of€this€dimension€is€available€but€indirectÏevidence€supporting€the€validation€of€the€dimension€isÏobtained€by€comparing€the€scores€of€male€and€female€subjectsÏon€this€dimension€(see€Brehm,€1992,€for€a€thoroughÏconsideration€of€gender€issues€in€relationships).€ThisÏcomparison€reveals€that€females€score€higher€on€this€areaÏthan€males€(t€=€3.58,€p€<€.05).€In€addition,€we€rely€on€theÏface€validity€of€the€items€themselves.ÌÓ  ÓDiscussionÌÓ  Óà àThe€results€that€Saint€Maryððs€University€have€on„handÏprovide€a€starting€point€for€institutional€decision€making.ÏComparing€the€frosh€to€the€seniors€on€these€seven€dimensionsÏenables€us€to€see€some€of€the€areas€where€we€promoteÏspiritual€development€in€our€students€and€some€of€the€areasÏwhere€we€do€not.€This€information€is€being€shared€withÏstudent€development,€campus€ministry,€admissions,€and€theÏfaculty€who€now€must€work€together€to€determine€how€best€toÏserve€the€spiritual€needs€of€our€students.€ÌÓ  ÓòòPhase€IV:€The€FutureóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€54„item€instrument€has€now€been€administered€to€someÏ500€students€and€the€dimensions€are,€to€varying€degrees,Ïestablished.€Several€tasks€remain€including€(1)€furtherÏvalidation€of€the€dimensions,€(2)€standardizing€theÏinstrument€by€increasing€the€sample€size€and€diversity,€(3)Ïtracking€the€students€who€have€taken€it,€(4)€determiningÏinstitutional€needs,€(5)€ð ðclosing€the€feedback€loopðð€byÏimplementing€changes€suggested€by€the€results,€and€(6)Ïpossibly€using€the€instrument€in€individual€counselingÏ(particularly€at€religiously€affiliated€colleges€and€highÏschools)€by€providing€a€spiritual€profile€of€a€studentÏrespondent.Ìà àòòFurther€validationóó.€The€process€of€validating€theÏinstrument€must€continue,€particularly€the€affective€andÏrelational€dimensions.€This€will€include€comparison€withÏother€affective€measures€and€research€using€the€relationalÏdimension€as€a€predictor€of€relationship€quality€andÏduration.€Ìà àòòStandardizationóó.€One€of€the€drawbacks€thus€far€has€beenÏthat€the€overwhelming€majority€of€respondents€have€beenÏChristian€and€that€those€who€are€not€Christian€are€notÏreligious.€Valuable€information€will€be€gained€regarding€theÏecclesial,€theistic€and€Christian€dimensions€when€theÏinstrument€is€administered€to€a€larger€number€of€non„Christian€albeit€religious€people€(e.g.€Jews,€Moslems,ÍHindus)€and€when€the€instrument€distinguishes€betweenÏatheists€and€non„practicing€or€non„affiliated€believers.Ìà àòòLongitudinal€studyóó.€As€mentioned€earlier,€theÏcomparisons€between€first„year€students€and€seniors€wasÏcross„sectional€(examining€a€cross„section€of€two€differentÏgroups€of€people)€as€opposed€to€longitudinal€(observing€oneÏgroup€over€time).€As€a€result€we€must€be€cautious€aboutÏidentifying€differences€in€the€scores€as€developmentalÏdifferences.€As€the€current€first„year€students€are€trackedÏand€re„examined€in€their€senior€year,€we€can€be€moreÏconfident€that€obtained€differences€are€developmental.ÏSimilarly,€comparing€the€growth€of€the€Miami€Ohio€students,Ïthe€SMU€seniors,€and€a€group€of€non„college€adolescenceÏtracked€over€the€same€time€will€provide€information€about€theÏwhether€and€to€what€extent€the€university€promotes€spiritualÏgrowth.Ìà àòòDecision€makingóó.€By€using€the€information€we€have€asÏwell€as€that€which€we€expect€to€collect€over€the€next€fewÏyears,€Saint€Maryððs€University€of€Minnesota€will€have€aÏbetter€handle€on€institutional€needs€in€terms€of€meeting€itsÏstated€mission€of€promoting€spiritual€growth.€By€identifyingÏthose€dimensions€in€which€student€growth€is€deemed€inadequateÏwe€can€make€more€informed€decisions€about€how€to€invest€ourÏresources.€€That€is,€we€must€start€now€and€continue€to€closeÏthe€feedback€loop.€What€has€begun€is€assessment.€What€mustÏtake€place€now€is€evaluation€and€reaction.€€ÌÓ  ÓReferencesÌÓ  Óà àAllen,€R.€O.,€&€Spilka,€B.€(1967).€€Committed€andÏconsensual€religion:€€A€specification€of€à àreligion„prejudiceÏrelationships.€€òòJournal€for€the€Scientific€Study€of€Religionóó,Ï6,€191„206.Ìà àAllport,€G.€W.€(1950).€€òòThe€individual€and€his€religionóó.€ÏNew€York:€€Macmillan.Ìà àAllport,€G.€W.,€&€Ross,€J.€M.€(1967).€€PersonalÏreligious€orientation€and€prejudice.€€òòJournal€of€PersonalityÏand€Social€Psychologyóó,€5,€432„443.Ìà àBatson,€C.€D.€(1976).€€Religion€as€prosocial:€€Agent€orÏdouble€agent?€€òòJournal€for€the€Scientific€Study€of€Religionóó,Ï15,€29„45.Ìà àBatson,€C.€D.,€Schoenrade,€P.,€&€Ventis,€L.€(1993).€ÏòòReligion€And€The€Individualóó.€New€York:€€Oxford€UniversityÏPress.Ìà àBraxton,€E.€(1980).€€òòConversion:€€the€process€of€self„transcendenceóó.€€New€York:€€Paulist€Press.Ìà àConn,€W.€(1986).€€òòChristian€conversionóó.€€New€York:€ÏPaulist€Press.Ìà àCrandall,€J.€E.,€&€Rasmussen,€R.€D.€(1975).€€Purpose€inÏlife€as€related€to€specific€values.€€òòJournal€of€ClinicalÏPsychologyóó,€31,€483„485.ÌÌÌà àFleck,€J.€R.€(1976).€€òòDimensions€of€personal€religion:€ÏA€dichotomy€or€trichotomyóó?€€In€W.€J.€Donaldson,€Jr.€(Ed.),ÏResearch€in€mental€health€and€religious€behavior€(pp.€191„201).€€Atlanta,€GA:€€Psychological€Studies€Institute.Ìà àFowler,€J.€W.€(1981).€òò€Stages€of€faithóó.€€New€York:€ÏHarper€and€Row.Ìà àGilligan,€C.€€(1982)€€òòIn€a€different€voice:Ïpsychological€theory€and€womenððs€developmenóót.€€Cambridge,€MA:€ÏHarvard€University€Press.Ìà àGlock,€C€Y.,€&€Stark,€R.€(1965).€€òòReligion€and€societyÏin€tensionóó.€€Chicago:€€Rand€McNally.Ìà àHoge,€D.€R.,€&€Carroll,€J.€W.€(1973).€€Religiosity€andÏprejudice€in€Northern€and€Southern€churches.€€òòJournal€for€theÏScientific€Study€of€Religionóó,€11,€369„376.Ìà àKahoe,€R.€D.€(1974).€€Personality€and€achievementÏcorrelates€of€intrinsic€and€extrinsic€religious€orientation.€ÏòòJournal€of€Personality€and€Social€Psychologyóó,€29,€812„818.Ìà àKirkpatrick,€L.€A.€(1988).€€òòA€psychometric€analysis€ofÏthe€Allport„Ross€and€Feagin€measures€of€intrinsic„extrinsicÏreligious€orientationóó.€€In€D.€O.€Moberg,€&€M.€L.€Lynn€(Eds.),ÏResearch€in€the€social€scientific€study€of€religion€(Vol.€1).€ÏGreenwich,€CT:€JAI€Press.Ìà àLonergan,€B.€(1972).€€òòMethod€in€theologyóó.€€New€York:€ÏHerder€and€Herder.ÌÌà àMinton,€B.,€&€Spilka,€B.€(1976).€€òòPerspectives€on€deathÏin€relation€to€powerlessness€and€form€of€personal€religionóó.€ÏOmega,€7,€261„267.Ìà àRasmussen,€C.€H.,€&€Johnson,€M.€E.€(1994).€òò€SpiritualityÏand€religiosity:€€Relative€relationships€to€death€anxietyóó.€ÏOmega,€4,€313„318.Ìà àRest,€J.€(1972).€òòThe€Defining€Issues€Testóó.Ìà àSapp,€G.€L.,€&€Jones,€L.€(1986).€Religious€orientationÏand€moral€judgment.€€òòJournal€for€the€Scientific€Study€ofÏReligionóó,€25(2),€208„214.Ìà àSpilka,€B.,€Hood,€R.€W.,€Jr.,€&€Gorsuch,€R.€L.€(1985).€ÏòòThe€psychology€of€religion:€€An€empirical€approachóó.€ÏEnglewood€Cliffs,€NJ:€€Prentice„Hall.Ìà àVan€Wicklin,€J.€F.€(1990).€€Conceiving€and€measuringÏways€of€being€religious.€€òòJournal€of€Psychology€andÏChristianityóó,€9,€27„40.Ìà àWhite,€E.M.€(1992).€òòAssigning,€Responding,€Evaluatingóó.ÏNew€York:€St.€Martinððs€Press.Ìà àWittkowski,€J.,€&€Baumgartner,€I.€€(1977).€òò€ReligiositatÏund€einstellung€zu€tod€und€sterben€bei€alten€menschenóó.€ÏZeitschrift€fur€Gerontologie,€10,€61„68.Ìà àZanzig,€T.€€(1995).€òò€Selected€resources€related€to€theÏtheme€of€conversionóó.€€Unpublished€manuscript.€Ìà àZanzig,€T.,€Trosley,€T,€&€Manion,€A.€P.€(1996).ÏòòInventory€of€Spiritual€Developmentóó.ÌÌà àZechmeister,€E.€B.€&€Johnson,€J.E.€(1992).€òòCriticalÏThinking:€A€Functional€Approachóó.€Belmont,€CA:€Wadsworth.€ÌReferences.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÝ‚ÿÝÝ  Ý