1 23

Journal of Religion and Health ISSN 0022-4197 J Relig HealthDOI 10.1007/s10943-013-9697-y

Ritualistic, Theistic, and ExistentialSpirituality: Initial Psychometric Qualitiesof the RiTE Measure of Spirituality

Jon R. Webb, Loren Toussaint & ChrisS. Dula

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you

wish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Ritualistic, Theistic, and Existential Spirituality:Initial Psychometric Qualities of the RiTE Measureof Spirituality

Jon R. Webb • Loren Toussaint • Chris S. Dula

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract An expanded model to conceptualize sacred human experiences is discussed

wherein the term Spirituality is broadened to include: (1) Ritualistic Spirituality,

(2) Theistic Spirituality, and (3) Existential Spirituality. However, a measure incorporating

this expanded model does not yet exist. A 67-item self-report questionnaire was developed

and data were collected from 1,301 undergraduate students. A series of factor analytic

procedures yielded a three-factor structure consistent with the guiding theoretical model

and refinement produced three 10-item subscales. Evidence for construct validity and

sound psychometric properties was indicative of a reliable, valid, and unique tool to assess

the multidimensional nature of spirituality.

Keywords Religiousness � Spirituality � Existentialism � Measurement � Psychometrics

Introduction

For many years, social science has focused on the dynamics and influence of religion

which has included the interplay between religion and society or sociology of religion, the

psychological processes involved in the belief and practice of religion or psychology of

religion, and effects of religion on the individual or religiousness. Religiousness [religi-

osity] has previously been defined as established beliefs and practices with two distinct

components: intrinsic and extrinsic (Fowler 1996; Sperry and Giblin 1996; see also Allport

and Ross 1967). Intrinsic religiousness involves a set of related behaviors performed

primarily for their own sake or for essentially altruistic purposes. Extrinsic religiousness

involves similar behavioral sets done primarily for secondary gains resulting from inter-

action with similar others. Regardless, religiousness is generally considered to be the

J. R. Webb (&) � C. S. DulaDepartment of Psychology, East Tennessee State University, Box 70649, Johnson City, TN 37614,USAe-mail: webbjr@etsu.edu

L. ToussaintDepartment of Psychology, Luther College, Decorah, IA, USA

123

J Relig HealthDOI 10.1007/s10943-013-9697-y

Author's personal copy

structured practice of the behavioral aspects of religious observance and the frequency,

duration, and/or intensity with which one participates in their religion (see also Wink 2010;

Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005).

Spirituality, historically a synonymous construct, has relatively recently split from

religiousness and emerged in the scientific arena as a separate, yet related construct (see

Meadow 1986; Wink 2010; Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). While religiousness is

commonly associated with organized religion, spirituality is conceptualized as feeling

connected to or a pursuit of something sacred or hallowed, independent of an adherence to

organized religion or structured belief system (Pargament and Mahoney 2002; see also

Pargament 1999). Highly individualistic, spirituality typically involves a search for

meaning and purpose in the context of a connection with nature, the universe, and/or the

divine (George et al. 2000; Miller and Thoresen 1999; Sperry and Giblin 1996).

Some scholars continue to treat religiousness and spirituality as otherwise synonymous

constructs; however, others use them in a dichotomous, polarized fashion (either/or;

spirituality = good, religiousness = bad), representing the transcendent, sacrosanct, and

inviolate aspects of the human condition (Zinnbauer et al. 1999; see also, Wink 2010;

Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2005). Additionally, other scholars (e.g., Connors et al. 1996;

Richards and Bergin 1997; Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005) describe variations in indi-

vidual religiousness/spirituality to include: (1) religious and spiritual; (2) religious, but not

spiritual; and (3) spiritual, but not religious. Indeed, Zinnbauer and Pargament (2005)

provided a comprehensive and historical overview of the constructs of religiousness and

spirituality. Nevertheless, spirituality, as defined above (i.e., an otherwise idiosyncratic

pursuit of the sacred), may be based in existentialism or focused on finding ‘‘meaning and

certainty in a universe that has neither’’ (Yalom 1998, p. 353), with an explicit exclusion of

deity (see Hong and Hong 2000). Thus, spirituality in existentialism can be non-theistic

while preserving an affinity to nature and/or the universe.

In an effort to further refine the scientific study of religious and spiritual issues through

functional conceptualization to the end of valid measurement (see Rybarczyk et al. 2000),

we have proposed a consolidated, yet expanded model for such phenomena (Webb 2007/

2003; see Fig. 1). Namely that the term Spirituality be redefined to describe all such

phenomena in an overarching fashion [see also Zinnbauer (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005)

and Wink (2010)], while subsuming three interrelated sub-constructs: (1) Religious Spir-

ituality, (2) Theistic Spirituality, and (3) Existential Spirituality. Religious Spirituality was

conceptualized as a structured, ritualistic connection with deity; Theistic Spirituality as a

non-structured connection with deity, including little to no affiliation with organized

religion; and Existential Spirituality as a non-theistic search for meaning and purpose. In

brief, our model of Spirituality retains an appropriate and basic distinction between reli-

giousness and spirituality, as previously conceptualized. However, it also adds the requisite

distinction between theistic and existential (i.e., non-theistic) aspects of spirituality. That

is, our model, particularly our conception of Existential spirituality, necessarily allows for

the explicit exclusion of the notion of deity, thereby allowing the construct of Spirituality

to be more inclusive of diverse worldviews regarding explaining and understanding the

transcendent nature of the human condition. Implicit in the acceptance of our tri-dimen-

sional model of spirituality, indeed, the redefinition of Spirituality as an overarching term

is the adoption of a new nomenclature regarding such.

In our previous work, Webb (2007/2003) also described points of overlap and departure,

proportionality, and balance between the sub-constructs. Consistent with the view of

Spirituality as the overarching construct, all three of the dimensions of spirituality (i.e.,

Religious, Theistic, and Existential) overlap in their inclusion of belief and practice-related

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

components (see Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). That is, all three dimensions of Spiri-

tuality assume or are grounded in a belief in some external entity or entities (e.g., deity,

nature, and knowledge) that is/are transcendent and/or sacred. Similarly, behavioral

practice or activities related to such belief(s) play a role in each dimension. As such, each

of the dimensions of spirituality, at their core, adheres to the three critical aspects of

religiousness/spirituality proposed by Zinnbauer and Pargament (2005); ‘‘significance,’’ …‘‘search,’’ … [and], ‘‘sacred’’ (pp. 33–34). Thus, we propose that the basic definition of the

overarching construct of Spirituality be: The salient, searching pursuit of the transcen-

dently sacred ritualistic, theistic, and/or existential aspects of the human condition.

While there are commonalities among all three dimensions, there is also overlap among

each pair of dimensions, with such overlap pointing to a fundamental difference from the

third (Webb 2007/2003). Religious Spirituality and Theistic Spirituality recognize, value,

and place emphasis on the divine, whereas Existential Spirituality typically does not.

Religious Spirituality and Existential Spirituality recognize, value, and emphasize an

observance of principle, whereas Theistic Spirituality largely does not. Theistic Spirituality

and Existential Spirituality recognize, value, and emphasize the pursuit of meaning and

purpose, whereas Religious Spirituality may not. Likewise, the overlap between: (1)

Religious and Theistic against Existential suggests a theistic versus non-theistic quality to

Spirituality, (2) Religious and Existential against Theistic suggests a structured versus non-

structured quality, and (3) Theistic and Existential against Religious suggests a contem-

plative versus non-contemplative quality. As such, while each dimension shares overlap,

Optimal Spirituality

Theistic (Deity-Focused Connectedness)

Meaning Divine

ObservanceExistential Ritualistic

(Purposeful Meaning) (Organized Practice)

Fig. 1 A model of multidimensional spirituality. Adapted from Webb (2007/2003)

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

the model is broadly conceptualized to be multidirectional and proportional in nature

where higher levels of one dimension are thought to equate with lower levels of another

dimension. Importantly, our model describes generalities rather than specificities. For

example, any given individual that may be characterized as having Religious Spirituality

may, indeed, also have a contemplative investment in finding meaning in their spirituality-

related endeavors, particularly if the individual is considered intrinsically religious.

An optimally healthy spirituality (i.e., ultimately promoting personal health and good

relations with others) is theoretically represented as a point relatively balanced in the

center area of our triangular model (Webb 2007/2003). While individuals may identify

with any given dimension, maintaining respect for the others in context of the afore-

mentioned points of departure is thought to be critical. That is, while an individual may

prefer or incline toward a particular dimension of spirituality, optimal spirituality is

thought to include modest to moderate levels of each of the three dimensions, rather than

an overbearing focus on one of the dimensions. For instance, an atheist or agnostic indi-

vidual (i.e., belief in the nonexistence of deity or belief that existence of deity is

unknowable, respectively) may yet be spiritual and have higher levels of Existential

Spirituality. However, the extent to which such an individual disregards or disrespects

(purposefully or inadvertently) other dimensions of spirituality (i.e., moves toward a point

on the triangle) may lead to a less than ideal spirituality (e.g., intolerance, prejudice, and

hostility). We predict this distinction between optimal and separated spirituality is fairly

analogous, and likely empirically parallel, to positive/negative religious coping (Pargament

1997) and constructive/destructive emotions (Ellis and Dryden 1997).

The concepts associated with Religious Spirituality, as alluded to above, may be use-

fully labeled as Ritualistic Spirituality. Religious behaviors and practices can be described

as rituals, particularly when structured and/or in the context of obedience to directives from

deity or those who are representative human leaders. Using this new term also may be

helpful in preventing perpetuation of the religiousness versus spirituality dichotomy,

particularly in the context of its potentially polarizing effects (Zinnbauer et al. 1999), and

confusion associated with using and/or conjoining such terms. Thus, the term Spiritualityseen as an overarching construct and use of the Ritualistic aspect as a modifier will likely

help to remove the currently popular notion of religiousness as bad (see above), thereby

facilitating acceptance that all dimensions of spirituality may possess both good and bad

potentialities (see Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). While our broadened conceptualization

of Spirituality may prove useful, such a model needs to be tested and a measure specific to

it is lacking.

There are many measures of religiousness and spirituality (see, e.g., Hill and Hood

1999). Some measures focus on a particular facet of spirituality (e.g., forgiveness of others;

Subkoviak et al. 1995), others on various multiple facets (e.g., Brief MultidimensionalMeasurement of Religiousness/Spirituality; Fetzer Institute 1999), others on a single

dimension (e.g., Religious Orientation Scale; Allport and Ross 1967), and still others

include two of the aforementioned dimensions (e.g., Spiritual Well-Being Scale; Paloutzian

and Ellison 1982). Nevertheless, there are no measures of spirituality explicitly incorpo-

rating all three of the dimensions of Spirituality originally described by Webb (2007/2003)

and discussed herein. Thus, this work details the initial development, evaluation, and

refinement of such a measure.

Our purpose was to develop a psychometrically sound measure of our tri-dimensional

conceptualization of spirituality (Ritualistic, Theistic, and Existential), that is, the RiTE

Model of Spirituality. Given our model’s focus on diverse worldviews regarding the

transcendent nature of the human condition, we have sought also to provide comprehensive

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

measurement of the phenomenological aspects of the personal spectrum of religiousness/

spirituality. In sum, our aim was to develop a measure in order to allow the utility of our

model to be tested empirically.

Methods

Participants

The data for this analysis were collected from a large sample (N = 1,301) of undergrad-

uate students from a regional mid-sized university in eastern Tennessee, a rural region of

Southern Appalachia. Respondents were enrolled in psychology courses and received extra

credit for voluntary participation. Participation consisted of completing a battery of online

self-report assessments. The sample for this study was 63.03 % female (n = 820), 86.70 %

Caucasian (n = 1,128), 84.17 % single (n = 1,095), with an average age of 20.99 years

(SD = 5.16) and an average of 2.08 years in college (SD = 1.37). The current religious

affiliation of the sample was: 65.87 % Christian (n = 857), 5.69 % other (n = 74), 9.53 %

non-affiliated (n = 124, i.e., Atheist, Agnostic, None, or Not Applicable), and 18.37 %

who purposefully declined to answer (n = 239). Lastly, while not explicitly measured, the

cultural breakdown based on Nationality was likely over 98.5 % American (as reflected by

the institution’s count of international students).

Measures

Item development

The initial version of our measure—the Ritualistic, Theistic, and Existential (RiTE)

Measure of Spirituality—contained 67 items on a five-point Likert scale anchored by

Strongly Disagree and Strongly Agree. Initial items were developed by this paper’s

authors, in conjunction with graduate and undergraduate research assistants during a series

of formal discussions designed to ensure inclusion of core principles and practices of

Eastern, Western, monotheistic, and polytheistic belief systems. Although the cultural and

religious background of our research team mirrored that of the study participants, we, the

authors of the RiTE Model and Measure of Spirituality, are doctorally trained clinical and

experimental psychologists with expertise in: (1) religious/spiritual issues in treatment,

research, and culture; (2) psychometrics; and (3) measure development.

The instructions to potential respondents informed them of the intended multicultural

nature of the items, such that:

‘‘This survey is for use with different cultures, so keep in mind that deity/deities can

have several meanings, including supremeness of one God or Goddess, multiple

gods/goddesses, a higher power, a divine quality in nature and/or the universe, etc.

As such, please think of the term ‘deity/deities’ as it applies to you.’’

Various terms to use for deity/deities were also provided, including, for example, ‘‘Allah,’’

‘‘Brahma,’’ ‘‘Buddha,’’ ‘‘God,’’ ‘‘Goddess,’’ ‘‘Higher Power,’’ and ‘‘Nature.’’ Through

providing these instructions, including a variety of options regarding the conceptualization

of deity/deities, we attempted to ensure participants’ exposure to diverse worldviews and to

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

facilitate candid personal consideration of alternatives. Lastly, we attempted to phrase the

instructions and items for our measure at a sufficiently basic level regarding reading skill

and conceptual complexity.

Validity Measures

The online assessments also included the Religious Orientation Scale (ROS; Allport and

Ross 1967), the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS; Paloutzian and Ellison 1982), and the

Social Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe 1960). Of note, the ROS includes an

intrinsic orientation and extrinsic orientation subscale and the SWBS includes a religiouswell-being and existential well-being subscale. These measures were included in order to

assess initial construct validity. Coefficient alphas for the present study for all scales are

contained in Table 2.

Results

Psychometric evaluation proceeded in three phases. First, exploratory factor analysis

(EFA) was conducted on the 67 items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then

conducted to confirm the structure revealed in the first analysis. Thus, exploratory analysis

was conducted with 651 randomly selected participants from the full sample of 1,301, and

confirmatory analysis was conducted with the remaining 650, yielding an average of 9.71

participants per item for the first analysis and 9.70 for the second. Bivariate correlation

matrices are available upon request. Lastly, initial convergent/divergent validity was

assessed by examining the RiTE subscales and their correlations with the established

measures.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

EFA utilizing maximum likelihood estimation was conducted on the 67 RiTE items. The

extracted factor matrix was rotated to achieve simple structure using promax (kappa = 2).

Promax offers a rotation approach that completes an orthogonal rotation followed by an

oblique rotation (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). After rotation, the factor coefficients were

raised to the second power which allowed further clarification of the loading pattern by

pushing small to moderate loadings smaller while not adversely affecting higher loadings

(Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). The final solution possesses simple structure and is oblique.

Hence, the factors correlate. An oblique solution was chosen for the present purposes

because our theory predicted that, while each of our three construct dimensions was

thought to be unique and relatively independent aspects of spirituality, it was also expected

that these dimensions would correlate. The resulting factor pattern revealed that the first

three latent factors were consistent with Webb’s (2007/2003) model. The first factor

contained Ritualistic items, the second factor Theistic items, and the third factor contained

Existential items. All three factors had eigenvalues greater than one and were greater in

magnitude than minimum eigenvalue cutoffs produced using parallel analysis (Zwick and

Velicer 1986). Five additional factors were extracted with eigenvalues that met these same

criteria, but were not theoretically relevant, loaded on by only a small number of items, or

were otherwise ill-defined (e.g., cross-loaded items). Items loading on the three factors of

interest were examined closely to insure that loadings were C.40 and that no cross-loadings

[.25 were present. Lowest loading items on each factor were also eliminated as needed to

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

obtain equal numbers of items on each factor. These procedures resulted in three 10-item

factors with loadings ranging from .45 to .76, .77 to .93, and .51 to .79 on the Ritualistic,

Theistic, and Existential factors, respectively (see Table 1). Factor intercorrelations were

.47 between Ritualistic and Theistic, .15 between Ritualistic and Existential, and .31

between Theistic and Existential.

Table 1 Exploratory and confirmatory loadings for three factor model

Subscale/item EFAa CFAb

Ritualistic spirituality

I regularly perform traditional spiritual practices .763 .838

I observe or follow the rules of a formal belief system .696 .840

I regularly attend organized worship services .663 .811

I feel faith-related rituals and/or practices are very important .640 .838

I set aside time to contemplate issues related to religious or spiritual teachings .593 .656

I regularly meditate as I have been taught in my faith .590 .561

I feel good after I attend organized worship services .548 .796

Observing or following traditions is a very important part of spirituality or faith .543 .691

It is important to tell others about one’s own spiritual path in order to try and convince themof the correct path

.490 .740

I would not be good in the judgment of a deity or deities if I did not practice my faith asprescribed

.448 .693

Theistic spirituality

A deity or deities was/were responsible for the creation of the universe. .925 .909

The world was created by a deity or deities .894 .918

I believe in a deity or deities .868 .866

I believe in a deity or deities who know/s me .857 .913

A deity or deities is/are at some time going to judge the rightness or wrongness of theactions of individuals

.845 .869

I feel connected to a deity or deities .844 .881

I feel belief in a deity or deities is very important .808 .899

I believe in a deity or deities who has/have a purpose/plan for my life .801 .896

I believe in a deity or deities who has/have power to control world events .797 .826

It is important to acknowledge the existence or reality of a deity or deities .773 .898

Existential spirituality

I feel that helping others is very important .786 .808

Helping other people is very important .776 .814

I feel that understanding oneself is very important .768 .807

I believe that finding meaning and purpose in life is very important .732 .807

I feel that taking care of nature is very important .724 .725

Human life is a beautiful thing .708 .724

There is a right way to treat other people .702 .729

There is a wrong way to treat other people .629 .613

It is the responsibility of each person to find their purpose in life .516 .578

I see life as a journey toward fulfillment .509 .603

a Factor pattern coefficients, promax rotation (kappa = 2) using maximum likelihood estimationb Standardized factor loadings using maximum likelihood estimation

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To test the fit of the hypothesized latent structure, we conducted CFA on the 30 items

retained from the previous EFA. Three correlated latent factors representing Ritualistic,

Theistic, and Existential spirituality were specified with 10 items each. Using maximum

likelihood estimation, the three-factor model was shown to have acceptable fit according to

the guidelines recommended by Kline (2005) (v2 = 1,839.727, df = 402, p \ .001;

CFI = .916; RMR = .066; RMSEA = .074; 90 % CI RMSEA = .071–.078). Standard-

ized factor loadings ranged from .56 to .84, .83 to .92, and .58 to .81 for Ritualistic

(a = .92), Theistic (a = .98), and Existential factors (a = .91), respectively (see Table 1).

Factor intercorrelations were .77 between Ritualistic and Theistic, .26 between Ritualistic

and Existential, and .38 between Theistic and Existential. The correlation between the

Theistic and Ritualistic factors was quite high. Hence, we considered the possibility that

the EFA over-extracted the number of important factors, and our theory could be more

parsimonious.

We examined a two-factor model of spirituality where the Theistic and Ritualistic

factors were combined to form the first factor and Existential Spirituality remained as it

was originally conceptualized as the second factor. Because this is not a nested model, a v2

difference test was not appropriate; hence, AIC values were used to evaluate the models.

Kline (2005) suggested that comparative models with the lower AIC value are preferable.

Maximum likelihood estimation was used to identify the solution for the two-factor model.

This model did not fit the data well (v2 = 3,295.309, df = 404, p \ .001; CFI = .831;

RMR = .109; RMSEA = .105; 90 % CI RMSEA = .102–.108). Furthermore, the AIC

value (3,417.309) for the two-factor model was almost twice the AIC value (1,965.727) for

the three-factor model.

Convergent/Divergent Validity

To evaluate the convergent/divergent validity of the RiTE dimensions, we examined their

correlations with established scales of religiousness, spirituality, and social desirability (see

Table 2). The Ritualistic and Theistic Spirituality subscales showed strong convergencewith Religious Well-Being and Intrinsic Religious Orientation (r = .70–.81). The Ritu-

alistic and Theistic subscales showed divergence with Existential Well-Being and Extrinsic

Religious Orientation (|r| = .02–.33). The Existential Spirituality subscale showed

Table 2 Validity correlation coefficients

a Ritualistic spiritualitya = .92

Theistic spiritualitya = .98

Existential spiritualitya = .91

Religiousness/spirituality scale

SWBS religious well-being .95 .699*** .732*** .286***

SWBS existential well-being .86 .316*** .327*** .389***

ROS-intrinsic .92 .805*** .702*** .257***

ROS-extrinsic .80 -.024 -.107*** -.055*

Crowne-Marlowe socialdesirability scale

.78 .133*** -.010 -.041

a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, SWBS Spiritual Well-Being Scale, ROS Religious Orientation Scale

* p B .05, ** p B .01, *** p B .001

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

divergence from Religious Well-Being, Intrinsic Religious Orientation, and Extrinsic

Religious Orientation (|r| = .06–.29), and some convergence with Existential Well-Being

(r = .39). Each of the three subscales of the RiTE showed divergence from Social

Desirability (|r| = .01–.13).

Discussion

Through a series of factor analytic procedures, 30 of the original 67 items of the RiTE

Measure of Spirituality were retained: three unique 10-item factors/subscales with excel-

lent internal consistency. The factor structure observed initially through exploratory factor

analysis was satisfactorily replicated through confirmatory factor analysis. Likewise, sat-

isfactory convergent/divergent validity was observed.

Multidimensional Nature of the RiTE Measure of Spirituality

While each of the subscales of the RiTE was significantly correlated with one another, only

the strength of association between the Ritualistic and Theistic subscales seemed to give

rise to potential concern. Moreover, the pattern of association with the validity measures

was quite similar for the Ritualistic and Theistic subscales. However, two findings eased

such concern: (1) an empirically preferred three-factor solution (as opposed to two),

suggesting each subscale possesses important uniqueness and (2) the similar validity

profile may reflect the shared recognition of and respect for deity as conceptualized in our

theoretical model guiding the development of the measure. Furthermore, at this point in

evaluating the measure, it would be premature to eliminate an entire theorized construct

without conducting further empirical investigations to establish or refute its viability.

The Existential subscale exhibited: (1) factor analytic independence, (2) divergence from

each of the established scales of religiousness and spirituality employed in this analysis, and

(3) more convergence with the key construct of Existential Well-Being (SWBS). Such results

suggest that our Existential subscale reflects a unique dimension of spirituality, separate from

dimensions of spirituality based on structured or non-structured connections with deity.

While including a search for meaning and purpose, which likely contributed to its significant

association with the Theistic subscale, the divergence of the Existential subscale is likely due

to its content focus on larger social purposes and the common good of humankind. Consistent

with our model, it appears that the Existential subscale of the RiTE reflects a dimension of

spirituality which while respecting observance for principles and pursuit/reverence of entities

external to the self, is largely, if not entirely, independent of theism.

Considering the three subscales together, it should not be surprising that the Ritualistic

and Theistic subscales were strongly associated with each other, whereas the Existential

subscale was only modestly associated with each of the others. The Ritualistic and Theistic

subscales of the RiTE may reflect the heretofore accepted basic descriptions of and the

relationship between religiousness and spirituality, respectively, such that while the con-

structs are separate, they are closely related (see Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005; Zin-

nbauer et al. 1999). Indeed, both subscales exhibited similar patterns of convergent/

divergent association with the established measures of religiousness and spirituality, likely

as a result of their shared foci on deity and intrinsic qualities (see below). Such similarity

juxtaposed with the herein observed statistical preference for a three factor, as opposed to a

two-factor model of spirituality appears to reflect the conceptual versus empirical rela-

tionship between the previous descriptions of religiousness and spirituality outlined by

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

Zinnbauer and Pargament (2005) in their review of the literature. That is, research has

shown that most people in the United States consider themselves to be both religious and

spiritual (likely contributing to the high intercorrelations of our Ritualistic and Theistic

subscales) and that while empirical associations of: (1) religiousness with practice and

(2) spirituality with experiences of God and meaning have been observed, suggesting an

empirically based dichotomous distinction between religiousness and spirituality, a sharp

conceptual and functional distinction between religiousness and spirituality does not arise

until strict definitions are examined. In this regard, we maintain that when two otherwise

highly correlated constructs are examined more closely through factor analytic procedures

and the constructs show sufficient uniqueness, such constructs can be simultaneously

considered as related, but dichotomous.

A particularly unique and novel aspect of our RiTE model and measure is the further

identification and verification of a third unique non-theistic dimension of spirituality,

namely Existential Spirituality which reflects an observant and reverent search for meaning

and purpose. To the extent that our model and measure of Spirituality is accepted, it will be

important to note that the former use of the term spirituality equates with Theistic Spiri-

tuality in our model and measure. Prior to our tri-dimensional model of spirituality (as

described herein), existential was the term most likely to be used when attempting to

distinguish spirituality from religiousness. However, the previous use of [existential]

spirituality typically was in reference to a highly individualistic pursuit of the sacred that

was independent of organized religion, but non-specific regarding the inclusion of deity

(Miller and Thoresen 1999; Pargament and Mahoney 2002).

As such, when using the RiTE Model and Measure of Spirituality, one must be careful

to realize that our Existential dimension and subscale have been conceived as being quite

different from previously accepted definitions of existential spirituality. Likewise, while

most people view themselves as both religious and spiritual, statistical minorities of people

identify as being: (1) spiritual, but not religious (including antagonism toward religion) and

(2) religious, but not spiritual (see Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). As such, the con-

ceptual and empirical distinctions, herein described and reported, between Ritualistic,

Theistic, and Existential Spirituality are warranted and useful. That is, our tri-dimensional

model and measure of Spirituality accommodate the structured versus non-structured,

theistic versus non-theistic, and contemplative versus non-contemplative components of

the salient, searching pursuit of the transcendently sacred aspects of the human condition.

Comparison of the RiTE with Key Measures of Religiousness and Spirituality

We included established measures of religiousness and spirituality in an effort to develop

an understanding of the relationship of the RiTE therewith. That is, we employed arguably

the most commonly used and critically important referent measures of religiousness and

spirituality to examine the basic validity of our measure: Allport and Ross’ (1967) Reli-gious Orientation Scale (ROS), with intrinsic and extrinsic subscales, and Paloutzian and

Ellison’s (1982) Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS), with religious well-being and exis-

tential well-being subscales.

As previously mentioned, Allport and Ross (1967) conceptualized religiousness, or

religious orientation, to include intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. A distinction was made

between individuals engaging in religious practices for altruistic purposes (intrinsic) as

opposed to self-serving purposes (extrinsic). While the RiTE Ritualistic and Theistic

subscales exhibited strong convergence with the ROS-Intrinsic subscale (rs = .81 and .70,

respectively), they showed strong divergence with the ROS-Extrinsic subscale (rs = -.02

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

and -.11, respectively). Thus, these two RiTE subscales appear to be somewhat focused on

more personal and/or altruistic aspects of spirituality. This is consistent with our con-

ceptualization of Theistic Spirituality, but inconsistent with our conceptualization of Rit-

ualistic Spirituality. While this is not necessarily contradictory, we do conceptualize

Ritualistic Spirituality as placing less priority on meaning-based aspects of spirituality, but

not necessarily a total absence of such an aspect. It appears our Ritualistic subscale may be

focused on Intrinsic religiousness to the relative exclusion of Extrinsic religiousness.

In the development of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS; Paloutzian and Ellison 1982),

a distinction was made between religious well-being and existential well-being. However, it

appears the distinction, in actuality, was between religious well-being and a more general sense

of life satisfaction. Of the 10 existentially oriented items in the measure, 2 address meaning and

purpose and 8 address broad aspects of life satisfaction. While the SWBS Existential Well-

Being subscale does not include reference to deity, there is minimal reference to meaning and

purpose and no reference to the observance of principles or pursuit/reverence of entities

external to the self. Existential well-being, in the context of the SWBS, was conceptualized as

independent of organized religion, but without a pursuit of the sacred (see Pargament and

Mahoney 2002). It appears that the RiTE Ritualistic and Theistic subscales were consistent with

the Religious Well-Being subscale of the SWBS (r = .70 and .73, respectively), likely due to

the shared recognition of, and respect for, deity. The RiTE Existential subscale appeared more

consistent with the Existential Well-Being subscale of the SWBS (r = .39) than with the

Religious Well-Being subscale of the SWBS (r = .29). Accordingly, and giving additional

evidence of its validity through divergence, the RiTE Existential subscale had negligible to

modest relations with both subscales of the ROS (|r| = .06 and .26).

The Existential Well-Being subscale of the SWBS may be described more accurately as

life satisfaction rather than spirituality, but the two items with relevant existential content

may be responsible for the higher convergence with our Existential subscale. Indeed, when

the correlation between our Existential subscale and a two-item existential/meaning subscale

(a = .70) constructed from the Existential Well-Being scale was assessed, the association

was: r = .47, p \ .001. Although the strength of association increased, the magnitude of the

increase appears to be small. Nevertheless, we maintain that the increase is meaningful in that

it provides additional support, in conjunction with the aforementioned factor analyses, for the

notion that the RiTE Existential Spirituality construct and subscale are measuring something

meaningfully different than the 10-item Existential Well-Being subscale of the SWBS.

It appears that the RiTE Measure of Spirituality exhibits initial psychometric properties

sufficient to support its use in testing the veracity of the overarching theory guiding its

development, as described herein (see also Webb 2007/2003). Likewise, such evidence

appears to justify its acceptance and use as a reliable, valid, and unique instrument in the

measurement of the tri-dimensional nature of Spirituality: Ritualistic, Theistic, and Exis-tential. However, additional work will be needed to further establish the convergent and

divergent validity of the RiTE. That is, the pattern of correlations was particularly similar

for: (1) all three subscales of the RiTE with respect to the Existential Well-Being subscale

of the SWBS and (2) the Ritualistic and Theistic subscales of the RiTE with respect to the

Religious Well-Being subscale of the SWBS.

Limitations and Future Directions

While providing insight into the multidimensional nature of spirituality, some limitations

must be taken into consideration. First, the sample consisted of undergraduate students

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

primarily enrolled in introductory psychology courses. Although spirituality is important to

many college students (Higher Education Research Institute 2004), levels of Spirituality,

including the relative balance of the three dimensions, may fluctuate with age (Boyatzis

2005; Levenson et al. 2005; McFadden 2005). Similarly, the RiTE practice-related items

may be interpreted and responded to differently based on age (e.g., a college-aged versus

an older-aged sample). Second, there are likely to be cultural discrepancies based on

gender and ethnicity as the sample was largely female and mostly Caucasian. Third, our

sample is likely to be different from the larger United States population based on religious/

spiritual background. The South is by far the most religious region of the country (Newport

2006) and while, as a whole, the vast majority of the country (92 %) believes in God, a

Universal Spirit, or a Higher Power and views religion (80 %) as either very or fairly

important in their lives (Gallup Poll 2011), scholars have also observed that religion is

practiced in a unique manner in the South (Hill 1999; Pew Forum on Religion and Public

Life 2008). That is, religious culture, rather than religion itself, is likely different in the

Southern region of the United States. Further, a Western cultural bias is very likely present

in our results. While over one-fourth of our sample chose not to disclose or was non-

affiliated, two-thirds identified themselves as affiliated with Christianity. Also, although

not explicitly measured in our sample, the proportion of international students available for

our study was likely less than 1.5 %. Sufficient inclusion in future work of participants

with an Eastern worldview (e.g., collectivism) will ensure more comprehensive

generalizability.

Lastly, we operationalized and tested our model in terms of the behavior and belief-based

components of Spirituality being implicit, underlying, common features of our three

dimensions of Spirituality. A related model could consider the behavioral component as an

explicit, separate, lower-order dimension (ritualistic) with two higher-ordered dimensions

based on belief (theistic and existential). Our data did not fit this particular model. Indeed, we

maintain that a person’s spirituality, albeit an extreme example, could be entirely based on

ritualistic behavior (i.e., at the point of the triangular model) and not involve or include the

otherwise theistic and/or existential qualities and thus be unbalanced or separated. Likewise,

a collectivistic versus non-collectivistic worldview may be an additional dimension of

Spirituality or it could be more or less present in each of our three dimensions of Spirituality.

Future research should continue to test and refine alternative models of Spirituality. In sum,

continued development of our RiTE model and measure must include sufficient diversity in

terms of age, gender, ethnicity, religious/spiritual background, and basic worldview.

Conclusion

The initial psychometric properties of the RiTE Measure of Spirituality appear to be

acceptable and indicative of a unique tool to measure the multidimensional nature of

spirituality (Ritualistic, Theistic, and Existential) as originally conceptualized by Webb

(2007/2003) and discussed herein. Nevertheless, further development and refinement

through the inclusion of more diverse samples, and attention to refinements in item content

is warranted. Only with continued focus on theoretically derived and empirically validated

assessments will our understanding of the unique structure of multiple nuanced and

intricately related facets of spirituality continue to grow. With this growth in understanding

of the construct and assessment accuracy, investigations into how Spirituality relates to

optimal social functioning, personality, health, happiness, and other domains of life will be

catalyzed.

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Elizabeth Conway-Williams for herassistance in the development of this paper.

References

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 5, 432–443.

Boyatzis, C. J. (2005). Religious and spiritual development in childhood. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 123–143). New York, NY:Guilford Press.

Connors, G. J., Tonigan, J. S., & Miller, W. R. (1996). A measure of religious background and behavior foruse in behavior change research. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10(2), 90–96. doi:10.1037/0893-164x.10.2.90.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358.

Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. (1997). The practice of rational emotive behavior therapy (2nd ed.). New York:Springer Publishing Company.

Fetzer Institute. (1999). Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality for use in healthresearch: A report of the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on aging working group, with additionalpsychometric data. October. Kalamazoo, MI: Corporate. Retrieved from http://www.fetzer.org/resources/multidimensional-measurement-religiousnessspirituality-use-health-research.

Fowler, J. W. (1996). Pluralism and oneness in religious experience: William James, faith-developmenttheory, and clinical practice. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology(pp. 165–186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gallup Poll. (2011). Religion. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx#1.

George, L. K., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & McCullough, M. E. (2000). Spirituality and health: What weknow, what we need to know. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 102–116.

Higher Education Research Institute. (2004). The spiritual life of college students: A national study ofcollege students’ search for meaning and purpose. Graduate School of Education & InformationStudies, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved October 11, 2005, fromhttp://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/spirituality/reports/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.

Hill, S. S. (1999). Southern churches in crisis revisited. In D. E. Harrell, W. Flynt, & E. L. Blumhofer (Eds.),Religion and American culture. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious EducationPress.

Hong, H. V., & Hong, E. H. (Eds.). (2000). The essential Kierkegaard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). NY: Guilford Press.Levenson, M. R., Aldwin, C. M., & D’Mello, M. (2005). Religious development from adolescence to middle

adulthood. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion andspirituality (pp. 144–161). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McFadden, S. H. (2005). Points of connection: Gerontology and the psychology of religion. In R. F.Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 162–176).New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Meadow, M. J. (1986). Current and emerging themes in the psychology of religion. Journal of Psychologyand Christianity, 5(2), 56–60.

Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (1999). Spirituality and health. In W. R. Miller (Ed.), Integratingspirituality into treatment: Resources for practitioners (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: American Psy-chological Association.

Newport, F. (2006). Religion most important to Blacks, women, and older Americans: Self-reportedimportance of religion decreases with education. Retrieved September 17, 2010, fromhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/25585/Religion-Most-Important-Blacks-Women-Older-Americans.aspx.

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(pp. 224–237). NY: Wiley Interscience.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religious coping: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY:The Guilford Press.

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy

Pargament, K. I. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. International Journal forthe Psychology of Religion, 9, 3–16.

Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2002). Spirituality: Discovering and conserving the sacred. InC. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 646–659). NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2008). US religious landscape survey: Religious beliefs andpractices: Diverse and politically relevant. Washington, DC: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Rybarczyk, B., Szymanski, L., & Nicholas, J. J. (2000). Limb amputation. In R. G. Frank & T. R. Elliott(Eds.), Handbook of rehabilitation psychology (pp. 29–48). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Sperry, L., & Giblin, P. (1996). Marital and family therapy with religious persons. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.),Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 511–532). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Subkoviak, M. J., Enright, R. D., Wu, C.-R., Gassin, E. A., Freedman, S., Olson, L. M., et al. (1995).Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. Journal of Adoles-cence, 18, 641–655.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.Webb, J. R. (2007). Spiritual factors and adjustment in medical rehabilitation: Understanding forgiveness as

a means of coping. In A. E. DellOrto, & P. W. Power (Eds.), The psychological and social impact ofillness and disability, 5th ed, (pp. 455–471). New York: Springer Publishing Company. (Reprintedfrom: Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 34(3), 16–24, 2003).

Wink, P. (2010). Trouble with spirituality. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 49–69.Yalom, I. D. (1998). The Yalom reader: Selections from the work of a master therapist and storyteller. New

York: Basic Books.Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park

(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21–42). NY: Guilford Press.Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings of religiousness and

spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 889–919.Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components

to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432.

J Relig Health

123

Author's personal copy