The Religious/Spiritually-Integrated Practice Assessment Scale: An Interdisciplinary Tool to Evaluate Practice
Holly Oxhandler, PhD., LMSW, Assistant Professor, Baylor University
In considering Weber’s claim that today’s world lacks enchantment, one area worth exploring is how enchantment is interwoven into mental and behavioral health practice, particularly with integrating clients’ religion/spirituality(RS). Previous studies indicate the potential that considering clients’ RS in treatment has on improving health and mental health outcomes across a variety of issues(Koenig et al.,2012). With most Americans(77%) being at least somewhat religious(Pew Research Center,2015), preferring their practitioner to initiate the discussion, it is critical that helping professions explore the degree to which clients’ RS are considered in practice.
The current study, which was accepted for publication in August 2016 in Research on Social Work Practice, assessed the reliability and validity of the Religious/Spiritually Integrated Practice Assessment Scale(RSIPAS) across five helping professions, including licensed clinical psychologists, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors, clinical social workers, and advanced practice nurses. The RSIPAS has been shown to be reliable(α = .95) and valid among social workers in measuring practitioners’ attitudes, behaviors, perceived feasibility, self-efficacy, and overall orientation toward integrating clients’ RS in practice(Oxhandler & Parrish,2016). Three research questions guided this study:1)To what degree is the RSIPAS reliable across these five helping professions?;2)Does the RSIPAS have content and criterion validity across these five professions?;3)Can these five professions’ responses to the RSIPAS be explained by four factors (self-efficacy, attitudes, behaviors, and perceived feasibility)?; and 4)Can these five professions’ responses to the RSIPAS be explained by four first-order factors and one second-order factor (orientation toward integrating clients’ RS into practice)?
Methods: The current study examines the internal consistency and criterion, discriminant, convergent, and factorial validity of this instrument with a sample of 700 randomly selected aforementioned helping professionals in Texas, totaling 3,500 practitioners. Dillman, Smyth, and Christian’s(2014) survey methods were utilized for this cross-sectional study, sending the online survey link via mail. The online survey included the RSIPAS and numerous background items. The sampling frame was adjusted to 3,344, with 550 respondents(16.45%). A confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) was run in Mplus to test the a priori model’s fit, using Kline’s(2005) goodness of fit indices.
Results: The sample was reduced to 534 due to various reasons, with the majority being white females, averaging 52 years old. After running the hypothesized first-order model, all items loaded above .32 and were retained(Comrey & Lee,1992). A second-order model was then tested with the overarching construct, overall orientation. Both models had adequate fit, supporting the scale’s discriminant, convergent, and factorial validity: First-order: χ²(726, N=534)=2,373.37, p<.001, CFI=.95, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.065(low90=.062,high90=.068); Second-order: χ²(728, N=534)=2,502.60, p<.001, CFI=.94, TLI=.94, RMSEA=.068(low90=.065,high90=.070). Bivariate correlation analyses between scale and subscale scores and Duke University Religious Index and previous training items were significant, supporting criterion validity. Finally, Cronbach’s α for the scale was .95, with subscales’ α ranging from .87-.91.
Conclusions: Findings indicate the RSIPAS may be useful for assessing practitioners’ views and behaviors related to integrating clients’ RS across these five professions. It may also serve as a tool for evaluating the training or education efforts surrounding this practice area. All participants will receive a copy of the RSIPAS.
In considering Weber’s claim that today’s world lacks enchantment, one area worth exploring is how enchantment is interwoven into mental and behavioral health practice, particularly with integrating clients’ religion/spirituality(RS). Previous studies indicate the potential that considering clients’ RS in treatment has on improving health and mental health outcomes across a variety of issues(Koenig et al.,2012). With most Americans(77%) being at least somewhat religious(Pew Research Center,2015), preferring their practitioner to initiate the discussion, it is critical that helping professions explore the degree to which clients’ RS are considered in practice.
The current study, which was accepted for publication in August 2016 in Research on Social Work Practice, assessed the reliability and validity of the Religious/Spiritually Integrated Practice Assessment Scale(RSIPAS) across five helping professions, including licensed clinical psychologists, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors, clinical social workers, and advanced practice nurses. The RSIPAS has been shown to be reliable(α = .95) and valid among social workers in measuring practitioners’ attitudes, behaviors, perceived feasibility, self-efficacy, and overall orientation toward integrating clients’ RS in practice(Oxhandler & Parrish,2016). Three research questions guided this study:1)To what degree is the RSIPAS reliable across these five helping professions?;2)Does the RSIPAS have content and criterion validity across these five professions?;3)Can these five professions’ responses to the RSIPAS be explained by four factors (self-efficacy, attitudes, behaviors, and perceived feasibility)?; and 4)Can these five professions’ responses to the RSIPAS be explained by four first-order factors and one second-order factor (orientation toward integrating clients’ RS into practice)?
Methods: The current study examines the internal consistency and criterion, discriminant, convergent, and factorial validity of this instrument with a sample of 700 randomly selected aforementioned helping professionals in Texas, totaling 3,500 practitioners. Dillman, Smyth, and Christian’s(2014) survey methods were utilized for this cross-sectional study, sending the online survey link via mail. The online survey included the RSIPAS and numerous background items. The sampling frame was adjusted to 3,344, with 550 respondents(16.45%). A confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) was run in Mplus to test the a priori model’s fit, using Kline’s(2005) goodness of fit indices.
Results: The sample was reduced to 534 due to various reasons, with the majority being white females, averaging 52 years old. After running the hypothesized first-order model, all items loaded above .32 and were retained(Comrey & Lee,1992). A second-order model was then tested with the overarching construct, overall orientation. Both models had adequate fit, supporting the scale’s discriminant, convergent, and factorial validity: First-order: χ²(726, N=534)=2,373.37, p<.001, CFI=.95, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.065(low90=.062,high90=.068); Second-order: χ²(728, N=534)=2,502.60, p<.001, CFI=.94, TLI=.94, RMSEA=.068(low90=.065,high90=.070). Bivariate correlation analyses between scale and subscale scores and Duke University Religious Index and previous training items were significant, supporting criterion validity. Finally, Cronbach’s α for the scale was .95, with subscales’ α ranging from .87-.91.
Conclusions: Findings indicate the RSIPAS may be useful for assessing practitioners’ views and behaviors related to integrating clients’ RS across these five professions. It may also serve as a tool for evaluating the training or education efforts surrounding this practice area. All participants will receive a copy of the RSIPAS.