(Koenig et al., 1997) would be the measure of choice. This 5-item index covers the major dimensions of reli-
gious involvement (organizational, non-organizational, and intrinsic religiosity), takes less than 1 minute to
complete, and is available in many different languages. If more space is available, use of the first two items
of the DUREL and the full 10-item Hoge intrinsic religiosity measure (12 questions total), or perhaps the
abbreviated version of the Springfield Religiosity Scale (15 questions) is recommended. If even more space is
available, given the consistent relationship between negative religious coping and poor health outcomes, we
would add the 7-item negative RCOPE (from the 14-item Brief RCOPE) ( Pargament et al., 1998 ). After that,
given its importance as a source of the benefits to health that religion may have (see Koenig et al., 2012 ), we
recommend adding one of the God attachment or religious love/trust scales such as the 6-item Trust-Mistrust
scale ( Rosmarin et al., 2011 ). Thus, if questionnaire space is no issue, these 25-items would measure the major
dimensions of religiosity.
An alternative approach might be to use the Fetzer Institute’s (1999) Brief Multidimensional Measure of
Religiousness/Spirituality (BMMRS). However, some of the BMMRS subscales are contaminated by mental
health outcomes, and should not be used as a measure of religiousness/spirituality, per se (see previous discus-
sion). These include the 3-item Forgiveness, 1-item Values, and 2-item Meaning subscales, as well as questions 2,
3, and 6 of the Daily Spiritual Experiences (DSE) subscale. Eliminating these items reduces the measure from 40
to 31 items. Also, the psychometric characteristics of the BMMRS as a whole have mostly been established in ado-
lescent and college samples ( Harris et al., 2008; Idler et al., 2003; Masters et al., 2009 ). Thus, using a compilation
of partial measures like those contained in the BMMRS, with established reliability and validity only in adoles-
cents and college students, may be inferior to choosing specific scales whose psychometric characteristics have
been well established (i.e., those recommended above).
With regard to populations that are predominantly non-Christian, particularly in Jewish and Muslim popula-
tions, we recommend the use of religion-specific scales and perhaps one or two general religiosity scales so that
results can be compared with the more commonly used measures developed in Christian populations. The
religion-specific scales should assess both religious beliefs/practices and religious coping behaviors, so that infor-
mation can be collected in terms of belief, religious practice, and extent to which those beliefs and practices are
used to cope with stress or loss. Thus, for predominantly Jewish populations we recommend using a measure of
trust in God ( Rosmarin et al., 2009a ) and a measure of religious coping (JCOPE, Rosmarin et al., 2009b ). Likewise,
for Muslim populations, we recommend the 14-item Muslim Religiosity Scale ( Koenig et al., 2013 ) and the 15-
item Brief Arab Religious Coping Scale (BARCS) ( Amer, Hovey, Fox, & Rezcallah, 2008 ), or perhaps the 60-item
Psychological Measure of Islamic Religiousness ( Raiya, Pargament, Mahoney, & Stein, 2008 ). The same would
apply for measuring Hindu beliefs/practices ( Francis et al., 2008 ) and coping behaviors ( Tarakeshwar,
Pargament, & Mahoney, 2003 ). For Buddhists, we recommend the 11-item Buddhist Beliefs and Practices Scale
(Emavardhana & Tori, 1997 ) and the Buddhist COPE ( Phillips, 2012 ).
Using the traditional definition of spirituality, we feel that spirituality should be assessed using measures of religi-
osity ( Koenig, 2008 ). Those who score high on religiosity, then, would be considered more spiritual. However, we
acknowledge that this is not the way spirituality is usually measured today, where investigators often use scales that
are contaminated with items assessing mental health (purpose and meaning, connectedness, peacefulness, etc.),
resulting in tautological associations that are not interpretable.
For example, a widely used measure of spirituality today, especially in cancer patients and those with chronic
illness, is the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being (FACIT-Sp) ( Brady, Peterman,
Fitchett, Mo, & Cella, 1999 ). This measure consists of two subscales: an 8-item ‘meaning and peace’ subscale and
a 4-item ‘faith’ subscale. The first subscale assesses meaning and peace (i.e., indicators of good mental health).
The second subscale assesses ‘faith’, although two of the four items are phrased in terms of feelings of comfort or
strength (emotions seldom experienced by those with poor mental health). The third item simply assesses level
of optimism, another indicator of good mental health (‘I know that whatever happens with my illness, things will
be okay’). We recommend that researchers avoid this scale because of its contamination by indicators of good
mental health.
Another example of a contaminated spirituality scale is the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (SpTS), a 24-item mea-
sure that consists of three subscales: universality, prayer fulfillment, and connectedness ( Piedmont, 1999 ). As
with the FACIT-SP, each of the subscales contains indicators of mental health or well-being. The prayer fulfill-
ment subscale includes items that assess positive emotions such as feeling fulfilled, having strength, experiencing
peace, or other blissful emotions. Items on the universality subscale assess the inter-connectedness of all of life
and the experience of meaning. These items tap the consequences or results (positive emotions) of genuine spiri-
tuality, not the core construct of spirituality itself. Finally, items on the connectedness subscale focus on558 19. MEASURES OF RELIGIOSITY
V. VICES AND VIRTUES