Validation of the Faith Development Scale Using Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Designs

By Leak, Gary K. | Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, January 1, 2003 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Validation of the Faith Development Scale Using Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Designs


Leak, Gary K., Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal


Two studies were conducted to further evaluate the validity of the Faith Development Scale (FDS). Study 1 used a longitudinal design and evaluated the change in scores on the scale in response to normal maturational and faith-based experiences over 4 years. Study 2 examined the differences in level of faith development between entering freshmen and graduating senior college students. Both studies found differences consistent with the hypothesis that the FDS is sensitive to: (a) between groups expected to differ in faith development and (b) to changes in faith development within groups over time. Despite limitations within both studies, it was concluded that the results offer further support for the validity of the FDS. Implications of these results are discussed.

Theologian James Fowler's (1981) theory of faith development focuses on how one construes "ultimate reality", rather than the specific content of one's beliefs. Religious growth is seen as a process of evolution through six stages of reasoning about ultimate reality. According to his theory, faith development is characterized by increasing complexity, differentiation, autonomy, humility, and activism in one's faith. His theory is congruent with other influential perspectives on faith development, such as those of Allport (1950) and Batson Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) with their emphasis on open-mindedness coupled with complexity and differentiation of belief as the foundations of a mature faith.

Typically, faith development is assessed through a lengthy interview (Fowler, 1981). While this procedure may describe someone in faith stage terms, it has not yet been shown to possess acceptable psychometric properties (Batson Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993; Wulff, 1997) as well as being time intensive. Thus, the development of a brief, objective measure of faith styles or faith types based on Fowler's theory was warranted. Further, many social scientists may be interested in an alternative to the two frequently used - but controversial - measures of religious maturity: the Allport and Ross Intrinsic Religiousness (IR) scale (Allport &Ross, 1967), and Batson's Quest scale (Batson, et al., 1993). Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990) have criticized the IR scale for its poor psychometric properties, while others have maintained that the Quest scale does not measure religion-as-quest, but existential anxiety and personal conflict (Donahue, 1985)

In response to this need, Leak, Loucks, and Bowlin (1999) developed and provided initial validation for an 8-item, forced-choice measure of global faith development or faith style: the Faith Development Scale (FDS). One response option reflects Stages 4 or 5 faith development and the other is keyed for Stages 2 or 3 faith development. As a brief summary of their research, one study reported on the construction of the scale with an emphasis on establishing its content validity as well as presenting initial convergent validity evidence. They reported a second study that explored the validity of the new scale through its associations with theoretically important religious and personality characteristics. Other studies used a variety of methodological approaches to establishing construct validity, specifically peer-ratings and "known-group" differences. The results were generally supportive of the validity of the new scale. For example, the scale was related in theoretically expected ways to measures of religious and personality openness as well as to peer ratings of faith development, while remaining uncontaminated by socially desirable response set tendencies.1

RATIONALE FOR THE PRESENT RESEARCH

While the validity of the FDS appears promising, there has been one neglected aspect of its validation strategy to date: there is no direct evidence that the scale can detect changes in faith development over time. It was the purpose of present research to assess such changes, both directly and indirectly, through the use of longitudinal and cross-sectional research designs, respectively.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Validation of the Faith Development Scale Using Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Designs
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?