Psychological and spiritual predictors of domains of functioning and effectiveness of short-term missionaries.

The present study investigated how psychopathology, current object relations, and spiritual development relate to short-term missionary performance and psychological distress. Forty short-term missionaries completed questionnaires measuring psychopathology, object relations, and spirituality before going overseas. Participants and their supervisors completed questionnaires assessing performance and psychological distress before returning home. Principle components analyses revealed three self-report performance factors and four supervisor-report performance factors. Zero-order correlations showed that having greater psychological symptomatology, greater conflict with authority, more social alienation, less satisfying relationships with peers, overly dependent relationships, and greater disappointment and instability in relationship with God were related to less effective performance. Partial correlations also showed that having greater psychological symptomatology was related to increased psychological distress. It was concluded that short-term missionaries' levels of psychopathology, object relations development, and spiritual development influence their effectiveness and psychological adjustment on the mission field.

**********

Over the last two decades, short-term mission trips have become very prevalent in America (Pocock, 1987). Short-term missionaries provide needed services on the mission field, such as construction work, evangelism, and helping the poor. Participants in such trips tend to return home with a great enthusiasm for missions, which encourages more missions involvement in their churches and schools.

While the benefits of short-term mission trips can be great, the effects from these trips may not be uniformly positive. Many people develop physical and emotional problems overseas, which require them to return home earlier than expected or render them ineffective in their work (Lindquist, 1983). A large recent study on missionary attrition found that "1 career missionary in 20 (5.1% of the mission force) leaves the mission field to return home every year [italics in the original]" (Taylor, 1997), and that 71% leave for preventable reasons. No statistics are currently available on short-term workers. Mission agencies are concerned about the quality of short-term mission trips because a large amount of money and resources are spent on these trips (Adeney, 1996).

Evaluating and then selecting short-term missionary candidates based on their personality characteristics could hold promise for improving the quality of the short-term workers and the quality of their mission experience. Mental health care workers involved in missionary screening and selection procedures state that many missionary problems, which often lead to attrition or poor performance, could be prevented if pre-field psychological testing was administered and if mental health care providers' recommendations, based on this testing, were followed by mission agencies (Ferguson, 1983; Lindquist, 1983; Schubert, 1992, 1993, 1999).

The overriding goal of the screening and selection process is to choose missionaries who show potential for being effective, well-adjusted overseas workers. To achieve this goal, personnel directors need to have methods to distinguish candidates who have the necessary internal resources to cope with the mission field's stressors from candidates who do not have these necessary internal resources. Several different psychological tests have been used to screen and select missionary candidates, but the most common instruments used are the 16 Personality Factors (16PF; Ferguson, Kliewer, Lindquist, Williams, & Heinrich, 1983), and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Schubert, 1999). The benefit of using testing is that it is useful in finding symptoms of underlying problems in candidates, which can have detrimental effects on the mission field (Lindquist, 1983). However, their use in missionary selection procedures is somewhat problematic because the instruments commonly used were developed to address clinical questions, not to address fitness for missionary service or crosscultural adaptability (Hall & Sweatman, 2002).

Several studies have been performed to investigate the effectiveness of the MMPI and the 16PF in predicting the attrition and performance of missionaries. Overall, successful missionaries tend to be relatively psychologically healthy (Boyle, 1994; Thayer, 1973). Although they commonly admit to having some emotional problems, including anxiety and psychosomatic illnesses, they tend to be less defensive and have a greater ability to regulate their emotions (Britt, 1980; Dillon, 1983; Lawson, 1993). In addition, they are more likely to value interpersonal relationships and have a greater capacity to respect authority and social standards (Howard, 1984; Kyne, 1992). Non-persevering (i.e., missionaries who did not remain on the mission field for their entire term) and less successful missionaries tend to exhibit more psychopathology on the MMPI before they are assigned to the mission field (Schubert & Gantner, 1996). A history of mood disorders (Britt, 1980; Thayer, 1973) and family problems (Britt, 1980; Greek, 1984) are also common characteristics of less successful missionaries.

Business firms, development agencies, and government agencies are as concerned about effectively screening and selecting cross-cultural sojourners as mission agencies. A few studies have investigated the relationship between personality traits and the performance and cross-cultural adjustment of business expatriates and development workers. For example, Mischel (1965) found that successful Peace Corp Volunteers typically have less psychopathology and more ego strength, as measured by the MMPI, than their less successful counterparts. However, none of the subsequent Peace Corps studies (e.g., Dicken, 1969; Harris, 1973; Smith, 1966) were able to replicate his findings. Instead, they found that effective performance is more strongly related to general personality traits, such as perseverance, patience, and having a strong self-definition, and the ability to form good interpersonal relationships. Additional research on international assignees has found that cross-cultural adjustment is best predicted by the quality of their relationships with home and host nationals, characteristics of their job, and the adjustment of their spouse (Black & Gregersen, 1991). The biggest contributors to overseas success of international assignees are strong interpersonal skills, social interests, a stable family situation, and solid job knowledge (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Kealey, 1989).

Although the mission-related research has found inconsistent results, it also indicates that objective personality tests (e.g., MMPI-2 and 16PF) may be useful in screening for some of the predictors of missionary performance and attrition. For example, the MMPI-2 may be helpful in preventing individuals with serious psychopathology from going overseas. Still, the MMPI-2 does not appear to be measuring all the variables that predict missionary adjustment and success. One problem associated with using the MMPI-2 for missionary selection is that some missionary candidates exhibit few, if any, symptoms of psychopathology in the pre-field screening, but then develop significant psychological problems overseas due to the stresses of living on the mission field or an undiagnosed personality disorder.

Secular agencies have moved away from using objective personality instruments, such as the MMPI-2, because the Peace Corps studies generally did not find significant correlations between objective personality tests and job success. Secular research has demonstrated that self-report measures that assess general personality factors and relational skills, instead of psychopathology, show promise in predicting cross-cultural adjustment and effective job performance. Psychopathology, general personality traits, and relational skills may all be useful predictors. Still, the sojourner literature is highly lacking in theory-driven research that is able to explain how these factors predict adjustment and effectiveness overseas (Kealey, 1989). Conducting theory-driven research is particularly important because confirmatory studies that assess how personality measures predict job performance have considerably higher mean validities than exploratory studies (Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).

Object relations theory may provide a theoretical framework for explaining how psychopathology, personality traits, and relational factors predict adjustment and effectiveness overseas. This theory states that the manner in which people relate to others, and how they respond and adapt to their environment is affected by their early relationships with their primary caretakers (Horner, 1991). The development of differentiated internal objects (i.e., mental representations of self and other in relationship) affects the quality of one's external relationships. Also, the development of ego functions, which include reality testing, thought processes, emotional regulation, and defensive functioning, is based within the structure of a person's object relations.

There appear to be some important empirical indicators that object relations development influences missionary performance and adjustment. Britt (1980) found that successful missionaries have good interpersonal relationships, have a stable mood, and are able to regulate their affect, which are all related to levels of object relations. In addition, York (1993) found that missionary attrition is more likely to occur when missionaries had a parent absent during childhood and/or had an impaired relationship with their father during childhood, which would theoretically have a negative influence on the development of object relations. Furthermore, missionaries' current object relations, reality testing, regulation and control of drives, thought processes, and defense mechanisms are significantly related to their psychological and sociocultural adjustment (Hall, 1996).

Measuring spiritual development from an object relations perspective may also be useful in predicting the effectiveness and adjustment of missionaries. Missionary selection procedures that include the assessment of missionary candidates' spiritual development seem appropriate, given that (a) possessing spiritual maturity is a necessary job characteristic for missionaries due to the spiritually representative nature of the missionary role; and (b) utilizing spiritual resources may help them cope with an overseas adjustment due to their strong religious commitment. Hall and Edwards (1996) developed a model of spiritual development that is based on two primary dimensions: (a) the quality of one's relationship with God based on the object relations theory; and (b) awareness of God. From this perspective, one's psychological development strongly influences one's spiritual development. In fact, empirical findings suggest that a strong relationship exists between spiritual development and object relations maturity (Hall & Brokaw, 1995; Hall, Brokaw, Edwards, & Pike, 1998). Spiritual development is also positively related to both psychological functioning and cross-cultural adjustment in missionaries (Hall, Edwards, & Hall, 2004).

The current study is attempting to replicate past findings using the MMPI-2 and to provide support for the use of object relations theory and spiritual development in missionary selection procedures. The hypotheses for this study were as follows: (a) psychopathology as measured by the MMPI-2 scales L, 2, 7, Pd4, and FAM would relate negatively to missionary performance and positively to psychological distress, whereas the MMPI-2 scales F, K, 1, 3, 4, and Si3 would relate positively to missionary performance and negatively to psychological distress; (b) current object relations as measured by the Attachment and Object Relations Inventory (AORI) would relate positively to missionary performance and negatively to psychological distress; and (c) spiritual development as measured by the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (SAI) Awareness and Realistic Acceptance subscales would relate positively to missionary performance and negatively to psychological distress, whereas the Instability, Grandiosity, Disappointment, and Lie subscales would relate negatively to missionary performance and positively to psychological distress.

METHOD

Participants

The participants in this study were undergraduate intercultural studies (ICS) majors at a small, Christian liberal arts university who participated in a summer internship. An undergraduate degree requirement for all ICS majors is to have an extended cross-cultural experience, which may be a summer internship with a mission agency, development organization, or mercy ministry. The summer internship, which is minimally six weeks in length, must occur in a cross-cultural setting where the intern works in close association with local missionaries. Because all ICS majors must complete an extended cross-cultural experience regardless of their current psychological functioning, this sample was not pre-screened in regards to psychological health.

A total of 42 ICS interns attended administration sessions for the predeparture materials (i.e., MMPI-2, AORI, SAI, predeparture BSI, and a demographic questionnaire), but two participants discontinued their participation in the middle of the testing sessions due to time constraints. Of the remaining 40 participants, 8 participated during the first year of the study (20%) and 32 participated during the second year (80%). Seven participants were male (17.5%) and 33 were female (82.5%). The participants ranged in age from 18 to 27 with a mean age of 20.85 years. Two participants stated that their undergraduate class rank was freshmen (5%), 4 were sophomores (10%), 23 were juniors (57.5%), and 11 were seniors (25.5%). Thirty-eight participants were single (95%), 1 was married (2.5%), and 1 was engaged (2.5%). Twenty-eight participants described themselves as Caucasian (70%), 6 as Asian (15%), 5 as Biracial (12.5%), and 1 as Hispanic (2.5%). Thirty-four participants were raised primarily in the United States (85%), 2 in Korea (5%), 1 in Japan (2.5%), 1 in Colombia (2.5%), 1 in Ecuador (2.5%), and 1 in Guatemala (2.5%).

The participants interned in 25 countries on 5 continents. The primary work of the participants while on their internship were as follows: 13 taught English as a second language (32.5%), 9 were missionary apprentices (i.e., assisting a mentor missionary in completing his or her various tasks; 22.5%), 4 worked as evangelists (10%), 4 worked in orphanage ministries (10%), 2 worked with youth groups (5%), 2 worked in camping ministries (5%), 2 did linguistic work (5%), 2 worked in medical ministries (5%), 1 worked in a sports ministry (2.5%), and 1 coordinated short-term mission teams (2.5%). The average length of time for their ICS internship was 8.95 weeks, with a range from 6 to 18 weeks. Using a Likert scale from 1 to 7 with 1 indicating "very little contact" and 7 indicating "almost constant contact," the average amount of contact the participants had with members of their host culture during their internship was 6.03, with a range from 3 to 7.

Instruments

Instruments for the independent variables. The MMPI-2 was administered to determine the amount of psychopathology that participants were experiencing prior to their internship. The MMPI-2 is a norm-based test that measures various psychiatric symptoms, and it is the most widely used objective personality inventory (Graham, 2000). It contains 567 true or false questions, and it has 7 validity scales and 10 clinical scales. The validity scales measure a person's test-taking attitudes, whereas the 10 clinical scales assess major categories of psychopathology. In addition, the MMPI-2 contains 31 subscales, 15 content scales, and numerous supplemental scales, which can be used to aid the interpretation of a person's profile. In this study, 3 validity scales (L, F, and K), 5 clinical scales (1, 2, 3, 4, and 7), 2 subscales (Pd4 and Si3), and 1 content scale (FAM) were used to assess the participants' psychopathology. These scales were chosen based on previous research using the MMPI as a means to replicate past findings.

The AORI is a self-report inventory that was used in this study to assess participants' current object relations. It is designed to measure current object relations and attachment characteristics by assessing one's view of self and others (Buelow, McClain, & McIntosh, 1996). It contains 60 items, which are answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The AORI has six subscales: Peers, Parents, Partners, Close, Independent, and Secure. The internal consistency of the AORI is 0.93. Supporting the AORI's convergent validity, it was significantly correlated with the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI), the four categories of the Adult Attachment Style Measure (AAM), and the reserved and unperturbable subscales of the 16PF. Discriminant validity is supported in that the AORI is negatively correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), measures of state anxiety, and measures of trait anxiety.

The SAI is a theoretically-derived measure that assesses spiritual development. It integrates the object relations perspective of relationality and the New Testament's teachings of an experiential awareness of God (Hall & Edwards, 1996). The SAI is composed of six subscales: Awareness, Realistic Acceptance, Instability, Grandiosity, Disappointment, and Lie. The Awareness subscale measures an individual's awareness of God's presence and communications. The Realistic Acceptance subscale assesses a mature relationship with God, which is maintained over time, and is tolerant of ambivalent feelings and experiences towards the relationship. A relationship with God that is characterized by instability, lack of trust, and difficulty with ambiguity is measured by the Instability subscale. The Disappointment subscale assesses disappointment with God. The Grandiosity subscale describes a relationship with God that involves idealizations or devaluations. The Lie subscale measures test-taking attitudes in regards to spirituality. Analyses that have correlated the SAI with the Spiritual Well-Being Scale, the Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Revised, the BORI, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, and the Defensive Style Questionnaire have supported the construct validity of the SAI. Also, the subscales' test-retest reliabilities ranged from 0.56 (Grandiosity subscale) to 0.94 (Instability subscale).

Instruments for the dependent variables. Participants also completed the Internship Questionnaire, which measures their perceived effectiveness and performance on their internship. This questionnaire consists of several questions that ask participants to describe their internship (e.g., location, type of work) and previous cross-cultural experiences. Using a Likert scale from 1 to 7, the Internship Questionnaire assessed different aspects of their performance and effectiveness during their internship. These aspects included: (a) how positive their experience was; (b) their overall success in meeting their goals or objectives; (c) job satisfaction; (d) effectiveness in accomplishing assignments; (e) team work; (f) respect for authority; (g) amount of supervision needed; and (h) adjustment to the cross-cultural setting.

The supervisors of the participants evaluated their intern's effectiveness by completing the Supervisor's Questionnaire. On the Supervisor's Questionnaire, the supervisors used a Likert scale from 1 to 7 to rate their interns on the same aspects of performance that are on the Internship Questionnaire. These aspects included: (a) how positive their experience was; (b) their overall success in meeting their goals or objectives; (c) job satisfaction; (d) effectiveness in accomplishing assignments; (e) team work; (f) respect for authority; (g) amount of supervision needed; and (h) adjustment to the cross-cultural setting.

Psychological distress was evaluated using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), which is a 53 item self-report inventory of psychological symptoms (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). It is the brief form of the Symptom Checklist-Revised (SCL-90-R). Each item is rated on a 5-point scale of distress that ranges from "not-at-all" to "extremely." The BSI contains nine primary dimensions and three global indices of distress. In this study, psychological distress was assessed using the General Severity Index (GSI), one of the global indices, because it is the best measure of current distress levels. Receiving a higher score on the GSI indicates lower levels of psychological adjustment, in addition to higher levels of distress. The stability coefficient for the GSI is 0.9, and the BSI has high correlations, ranging from .92 to .99, with similar dimensions on the SCL-90-R. Also, there is high convergence with similar measures on the MMPI-2, which supports the BSI's validity.

Procedure

This study was conducted over two consecutive academic years with some minor variations in the procedures during the two years. All participants were recruited through a bi-weekly seminar, which they were required to take the semester prior to their internship. During the first year of the research, ICS students who were interested in participating provided their contact information to the investigator who later called them to set up group testing appointments approximately one month before they left for their internship. During these testing sessions, they completed the MMPI-2, AORI, SAI, predeparture BSI, and a demographic questionnaire.

After completing the predeparture testing materials, they received an envelope, containing instructions, the field BSI, the Internship Questionnaire, and the Supervisor's Questionnaire. The instructions informed the participants to complete the field BSI and the Internship Questionnaire during the last week of their internship, and to give the Supervisor's Questionnaire to their supervisor at the same time they gave him or her the evaluation forms form the School of Intercultural Studies. Each participant had a missionary supervisor who directly observed and evaluated the participant's performance on the mission field. Because participants and their supervisors completed the field questionnaires during the last week of their internship, these measures were not completed at the same time. Their completion dates ranged from 6 to 18 weeks after the participants began their internship. They were instructed to return all the completed forms to their professor with their other course assignments when they returned to the United States. After their professor received the envelopes back, he returned them to the researcher.

During the second year of this study, the procedures remained the same except for some minor changes. One change was made to predeparture testing procedures as a means to alleviate logistical challenges in setting up group administered testing appointments. ICS students interested in participating were provided with the time and location of the testing session during their bi-weekly seminar. The group administration occurred on a week between their scheduled seminar meetings as a means to maximize the number of participants who could complete the predeparture testing materials at one time, while also minimizing scheduling conflicts. The investigator arranged a separate group administered testing appointment for three students, who were interested in participating, yet were unable to meet during the scheduled group administration.

Another variation was that second-year participants received the field measures in their seminar at the same time they received their required course materials. The reason for pairing the field measures with the required course materials was to increase the likelihood that the participants would remember to take the field measures overseas and then complete them at the end of their internship. Also, a change was made to the procedures in returning the field measures as a means to streamline the process. Participants were provided with an addressed envelope with postage. They were informed to mail the three completed field questionnaires (field BSI, Internship Questionnaire, and Supervisor's Questionnaire) in the envelope when they returned to the United States. The envelope contained the first author's professional address, allowing the investigator to receive the field measures directly from the participants via mail.

At the beginning of the fall semester subsequent to the participants' summer internship, they all received an email reminder to return their completed field measures either to their professor (first-year participants) or via the mail (second-year participants). After receiving the email reminder, all 40 participants who completed the predeparture testing materials returned their field measures for a 100% response rate.

RESULTS

Dependent Variables

The factors associated with self-report performance were extracted from the Internship Questionnaire. Internal consistency estimate of reliability was computed for items 10-17 on the Internship Questionnaire. The coefficient alpha was .75, indicating satisfactory reliability. A principle components analysis with a varimax rotation was used to extract the self-report performance factors from items 10-17 on the Internship Questionnaire. Using the interpretability of the factor solution and the scree plot as heuristics for factor retention, these analyses suggested a three-factor solution for self-report performance, which explained 71.16% of the variance. The three factors after the varimax rotation, along with the loadings and communalities for items 10-17 on each factor, are presented in Table 1. With a cut-off of .60 for inclusion of an item in the interpretation of a factor, all eight questions loaded onto only one of the three factors (see Table 2). The labels for each factor were based on the description of the items that loaded on to that factor. The self-report performance factors included: (a) Job Performance (i.e., interns' ability to effectively function at their specific jobs during their internship); (b) Independent Negotiation of Environment (i.e., interns' ability to work in a cross-cultural setting without needing close supervision); and (c) Interpersonal Relations (i.e., interns' ability to relate and work well with other individuals).

The factors associated with supervisor-report performance were extracted from the Supervisor's Questionnaire. An internal consistency estimate of reliability was computed for the items on the Supervisor's Questionnaire. The coefficient alpha was .80, indicating satisfactory reliability. A principle components analysis with a varimax rotation was used to extract the supervisor-report performance factors from the Supervisor's Questionnaire. Two criteria were used to determine the number of factors to rotate: the interpretability of the factor solution and the scree test. These analyses suggested a four-factor solution for supervisor-report performance, which explained 80.95% of the variance. The four factors after the varimax rotation are presented in Table 3, as well as the loadings and communalities for the items on each factor. With a cut-off of .60 for inclusion of an item in the interpretation of a factor, all eight questions loaded on to only one of the four factors (see Table 4). The labels for each factor were based on the description of the items that loaded onto a factor. The supervisor-report performance factors included: (a) Individual Effective Performance (i.e., interns' capacity to effectively complete their specific job tasks without needing constant supervision); (b) Satisfactory Accomplishment (i.e., the amount of satisfaction interns received in accomplishing their goals); (c) Respect for Standards (i.e., interns' ability to respect and incorporate the standards and values of their supervisors and the host culture); and (d) Interpersonal Relations (i.e., interns' ability to relate and work well with other individuals).

Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for the GSI scores from the BSI. To determine the participants' psychological distress, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted with the field GSI as the criterion. The predeparture GSI was entered in the first step as a means to control for the effects of the participants' predeparture psychological distress on their field GSI. Predeparture measures were then entered in the second step. The resulting partial correlations showed the relationship between the predeparture measures and psychological distress when the level of predeparture psychological distress was controlled for.

Psychopathology. Correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that the MMPI-2 scales L, 2, 7, Pd4, and FAM would be negatively related to the performance factors and positively related to psychological distress. Correlations were also performed to test the hypothesis that the MMPI-2 scales F, K, 1, 3, 4, and Si3 would be positively related to the performance factors and negatively related to psychological distress. Given the large number of correlations performed, the alpha level was set at .01 to prevent Type I errors. Table 6 presents the results of the correlational analyses. Scatterplots did not reveal any non-linear relationships or outlying cases that could skew the results.

MMPI-2 scale 4 and scale Pd4 correlated significantly and negatively with the self-report performance factor of Independent Negotiation of Environment. This indicates that higher scores on scale 4 and scale Pd4 are associated with having less capacity to work independently in a cross-cultural setting. MMPI-2 scale F and scale 4 both correlated significantly and negatively with the supervisor-report performance factor of Respect for Standards, suggesting that higher scores on scale F and scale 4 are associated with being rated by supervisors as having less respect for standards. In addition, MMPI-2 scale F correlated significantly and positively with psychological distress, indicating that higher scores on scale F are associated with greater psychological distress during the internship. Overall, three MMPI-2 scales were significantly correlated with the performance factors and psychological distress: scale F, scale 4, and scale Pd4.

Current object relations. Correlations were performed to address the hypothesis that the six AORI subscales (Peers, Parents, Partners, Secure, Independent, and Close) are positively related to the performance factors and negatively related to psychological distress. As with the first hypothesis, alpha was adjusted to .01 to avoid Type I errors. The results of the correlational analyses are presented in Table 7. Scatterplots did not reveal any non-linear relationships or outlying cases that could skew the results. The AORI Peers subscale correlated significantly and positively with the supervisor-report performance factor of Satisfactory Accomplishment, indicating that participants who had more satisfying relationships with peers tended to derive more satisfaction from their accomplishments on their internship. Also, the AORI Independent subscale correlated significantly and positively with the supervisor-report performance factor of Individual Effective Performance, denoting that participants who were more independent in their relationships were more likely to be rated by their supervisors as performing more effectively on an individual basis. Only two AORI subscales were significantly correlated with the performance factors: the Peers subscale and Independent subscale.

Spiritual Development. Correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that the SAI Awareness and Realistic Acceptance subscales are positively related to the performance factors and negatively related to psychological distress. Correlations were also performed to test the hypothesis that the SAI Instability, Grandiosity, Disappointment, and Lie subscales are negatively related to the performance factors and positively related to psychological distress. Given the large number of correlations performed, the alpha level was set at .01 to prevent Type I errors. Table 8 presents the results of the correlational analyses. Scatterplots did not reveal any non-linear relationships or outlying cases that could skew the results.

The Disappointment subscale was significantly correlated in a negative direction with the self-report performance factor of Independent Negotiation of Environment, implying that greater disappointment in relationship with God is associated with having less capacity to work independently in a cross-cultural setting. Additionally, the Awareness subscale correlated significantly and positively with the self-report performance factor of Interpersonal Relations, indicating that having more awareness of God is associated with having better interpersonal relationships during the internship. The supervisor-report performance factor of Individual Effective Performance correlated significantly and negatively with the SAI Instability subscale. This suggests that splitting in relationship with God is associated with being rated by supervisors as performing less effectively on an individual basis. The SAI Disappointment and Instability subscales were both significantly correlated in a negative direction with the supervisor-report performance factor of Interpersonal Relations. This indicates that disappointment and splitting in relationship with God are associated with being rated by supervisors as having relationships of poorer quality during the internship. Overall, three SAI subscales were significantly correlated with the performance factors: Awareness subscale, Disappointment subscale, and Instability subscale.

DISCUSSION

The performance and psychological distress of short-term missionaries on overseas mission trips is related to several different factors. In fact, performance is a complex construct that is composed of multiple different factors. Psychological distress during short-term mission trips is related to general psychopathology before going overseas, whereas the performance factors are predicted by a mixture of predeparture general psychological symptomatology, the quality of one's relationships with God, and the quality of one's relationships with others, especially with peers and authority figures. In particular, missionaries who experience greater social alienation, have more conflicted relationships with authority, and have greater disappointment in relationship with God tend to need more supervision to work in a cross-cultural setting. As splitting in relationship with God increases and as missionaries' relationships become increasingly characterized by dependency, they have less ability to effectively perform their job responsibilities without needing direct supervision. They also have greater satisfaction in accomplishing their goals when they have better quality relationships with peers. Missionaries tend to report having better relationships with their team members when they have more awareness of God, whereas supervisors are more likely to assess them as having poorer interpersonal relationships when their relationships with God are characterized by splitting and disappointment. Furthermore, as the degree of psychological symptomatology and conflict with authority increases, missionaries' capacity to incorporate and respect the values of their supervisors and host culture decreases. In short, short-term missionaries' levels of psychopathology, object relations development, and spiritual development influence their effectiveness and psychological adjustment on the mission field.

The results from the present study show that psychological and spiritual vulnerabilities are related to each other. Having psychological problems and limited psychological resources make missionaries more susceptible to problems on the mission field. This vulnerability also shows up in the spiritual domain in that missionaries who exhibit lower levels of spiritual development are also more prone to having difficulties while overseas. In particular, these missionaries are at risk for having problems effectively performing their jobs and developing increased psychological distress while on short-term mission trips.

Therefore, it is essential that all missionaries receive psychological and spiritual assessment during candidate selection procedures. Some mission directors have argued that all that is necessary to select effective missionaries is to perform job analyses (i.e., analyses to determine the relevant job skills and personal characteristics that an employee must have to effectively perform his or her job) and then assess missionary candidates for the relevant job characteristics. Although job analyses provide very useful information and should be an important part of the missionary selection procedures, the findings from the current study show that there are other significant factors that contribute to missionary performance and psychological adjustment besides having the requisite job skills. In particular, the degree of psychopathology as a well as the level of object relations development and spiritual development are also related to these domains and add information over and above what is offered by job analyses alone. Thus, including objective personality tests that assess primarily for psychopathology, such as the MMPI-2, in missionary selection procedures will help improve the likelihood that high performing and well-adjusted missionaries are placed on the mission field. Furthermore, assessing the object relations development and spiritual development of missionary candidates will give an even fuller picture of their internal resources and their likely ability to effectively perform and adjust while overseas. Having a full picture of missionary candidate's potential by assessing job skills, psychopathology, object relations development, and spiritual development are essential because the performance and adjustment of missionaries are related to multiple factors.

Once missionaries are placed on the mission field, mission directors need to be attuned to the psychological well-being of their missionaries, in addition to their spiritual well-being. Early identification of psychological or spiritual problems could lead to interventions that may prevent ineffective performance and emotional suffering. Because psychological and spiritual vulnerabilities are related to each other, there are two domains in which to intervene. Remedial efforts can be geared towards improving and strengthening either missionaries' psychological or spiritual resources. Although a holistic approach may be the most beneficial, it is important to recognize that missionaries tend to be more open to spiritual approaches due to their strong religious commitments. Regardless of the remedial approach, mission directors need to be aware of the psychological and spiritual aspects of missionaries, and to realize that troublesome vulnerabilities occur in both domains of functioning.

One of the most important findings from the present study is that the MMPI-2 is a powerful tool in predicting both missionary performance and psychological adjustment. At this time, the MMPI-2 is the best overall screener of missionary candidates. One of the benefits of using the MMPI-2 is that it not only assesses psychopathology (e.g., scale F), but it also measures potential indicators of object relations (e.g., scale 4). Still, the MMPI-2 continues to be erratic in that the research on its usefulness has resulted in inconsistent findings on particular scales. However, the general findings from this research show that as psychopathology increases and psychological resources decrease, missionaries' capacity to be effective and well-adjusted also tends to decrease. This corresponds with how the MMPI-2 is used clinically because its scales are not interpreted in isolation. Interpretations are based on reviewing the entire profile, which gives a more holistic picture about psychological resources and deficits.

Yet, the MMPI-2 does not assess all the domains that can be helpful in predicting overseas success. Research has shown that successful sojourners typically have the ability to form healthy relationships (Howard, 1984; Kyne, 1992; Smith, 1966), possess strong interpersonal skills (Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Kealey, 1989), and have good skills at regulating their emotions (Britt, 1980; Dillon, 1983; York, 1993). However, these are areas that are not directly assessed by the MMPI-2. These are domains that are better assessed by instruments that measure object relations development.

In fact, another important finding from the present study is that object relations development is a useful predictor of performance on the mission field. However, the AORI is not the best measure of this domain. This instrument only assesses the quality of one's relationships, while one's object relations development and the resulting ego functions are inferred from this information. Measuring ego functions directly may provide more helpful information in predicting the performance and psychological adjustment of missionaries. For example, the Ego Function Assessment Questionnaire-Revised (EFAQ-R) assesses several different ego functions, including current object relations, reality testing, thought processes, regulation of instinctual drives, and defensive functioning, which are related to the psychological and sociocultural adjustment of missionaries (Hall, 1996). In short, object relations theory is a useful framework for understanding how psychological and spiritual predictors are related to missionary performance and adjustment, even though the AORI did not sufficiently assess this domain.

A third significant finding is that the SAI is a robust instrument in facilitating the prediction of effective missionaries. Specifically, the quality of one's relationship with God, based on object relations theory, and awareness of God are associated with effective performance on the mission field. The spiritual development of missionary candidates is an important domain that needs to be assessed during missionary selection procedures in addition to assessing psychopathology and object relations development. Thus, the SAI holds promise in increasing the likelihood that effective and well-adjusted missionaries are placed on the mission field.

This study has several limitations that may restrict its interpretations. First, this research is limited by its use of a small sample because the power of the statistics is lowered. A larger sample would have made it possible to analyze the findings based on ministry assignment, geographic area of service, length of service, and marital status. The generalizability of the present study is also limited because the sample only represents undergraduate students attending a private, Christian university. Additionally, the sample tended to be rather homogeneous with respect to race, age, marital status, and even gender. Since long-term personnel were not included in the sample, generalization of the findings to persons serving for periods of greater than four months cannot be made with confidence.

Still, this study is the first missions related research to assess effectiveness using the various dimensions that comprise performance as determined by participants and supervisors, instead of defining success as perseverance on the mission field or using one rating that collapses all the dimensions of performance into one variable. Also, research on missions has tended to rely heavily on retrospective research designs, whereas the present study used a longitudinal design to show that psychopathology, current object relations, and spiritual development are related to the performance and psychological adjustment of short-term missionaries.

Table 1 Factor Loadings, Communalities, and Percentage of Variance for
the Three Self-Report Performance Factors from the Internship
Questionnaire

Question              Factor 1 (a)  Factor 2  Factor 3  Communalities

#10 Positive              .75         .39        .21         .76
#11 Goals                 .72         .27        .20         .62
#12 Job Satisfaction      .79        -.17        .26         .72
#13 Effectiveness         .69         .38        .00         .62
#14 Team Member           .20         .00        .96         .96
#15 Authority             .68        -.27        .00         .54
#16 Supervision          -.16         .84        .00         .73
#17 Adjustment            .34         .79        .00         .74
Percent of Variance     35.23       22.44      13.49

(a) Factor 1 = Job Performance; Factor 2 = Independent Negotiation of
Environment; Factor 3 = Interpersonal Relations

Table 2 Items that Contribute to the Self-Report Performance Factors

Factor 1 (a)          Factor 2         Factor 3

#10 Positive          #16 Supervision  #14 Team Member
#11 Goals             #17 Adjustment
#12 Job Satisfaction
#13 Effectiveness
#15 Authority

(a) Factor 1 = Job Performance; Factor 2 = Independent Negotiation of
Environment; Factor 3 = Interpersonal Relations

Table 3 Factor Loadings, Communalities, and Percentage of Variance for
the Four Supervisor-Report Performance Factors from the Supervisor's
Questionnaire

Question                Factor 1 (a)  Factor 2  Factor 3  Factor 4

#1 Positive                .12          .00        .49      .74
#2 Goals                   .35          .76        .25      .14
#3 Job Satisfaction        .00          .93        .00      .16
#4 Effectiveness           .81          .19        .00      .39
#5 Team Member             .24          .40        .00      .76
#6 Authority               .00          .25        .83      .00
#7 Supervision             .92          .15        .11      .00
#8 Adjustment              .42          .00        .68      .25
   Percent of Variance   23.60        21.40      18.59    17.35

Question                Communalities

#1 Positive                 .80
#2 Goals                    .77
#3 Job Satisfaction         .90
#4 Effectiveness            .86
#5 Team Member              .80
#6 Authority                .76
#7 Supervision              .89
#8 Adjustment               .71
   Percent of Variance

(a) Factor 1 = Individual Effective Performance; Factor 2 = Satisfactory
Accomplishment; Factor 3 = Respect for Standards; Factor 4 =
Interpersonal Relations

Table 4 Items that Contribute to the Supervisor-Report Performance
Factors

Factor 1 (a)      Factor 2             Factor 3       Factor 4

#4 Effectiveness  #2 Goals             #6 Authority   #1 Positive
#7 Supervision    #3 Job Satisfaction  #8 Adjustment  #5 Team Member

(a) Factor 1 = Individual Effective Performance; Factor 2 = Satisfactory
Accomplishment; Factor 3 = Respect for Standards; Factor 4 =
Interpersonal Relations

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for GSI Scores

                  M      SD   Minimum  Maximum  Range

Predeparture GSI  56.25  6.8    40       71      31
Field GSI         57.15  9.6    36       79      43

Table 6 Correlations Between MMPI-2 Scales and Predeparture GSI with
Self-Report Performance Factors, Supervisor-Report Performance Factors,
and Psychological Distress

                  Self-Report Performance  Supervisor-Report Performance
                  Factors[dagger]          Factors[double dagger]
                  1      2       3           1     2     3      4

Scale F           -.39   -.30    -.15        -.38  -.21  -.44*  -.18
Scale L           -.02   -.30    -.16        -.04   .02  -.19   -.09
Scale K            .19    .02     .29         .27   .17   .06    .08
Scale 1           -.25   -.13     .18        -.31  -.22  -.29   -.18
Scale 2           -.14   -.39    -.14        -.22  -.04  -.30   -.25
Scale 3           -.12   -.22     .14        -.21  -.19  -.10   -.24
Scale 4           -.34   -.54**  -.08        -.27  -.16  -.42*  -.38
Scale 7           -.02   -.35     .03        -.16   .08  -.23   -.01
Scale Pd4         -.37   -.42*   -.17        -.28  -.24  -.33   -.30
Scale Si3          .05    .08    -.15        -.14  -.02  -.12   -.03
Scale FAM         -.15   -.33    -.17        -.25  -.09  -.24   -.14
Predeparture GSI  -.41*  -.43*   -.10        -.26  -.22  -.35   -.19

                  Psychological
                  Distress

Scale F            .70**
Scale L            .05
Scale K            .02
Scale 1           -.01
Scale 2            .09
Scale 3            .16
Scale 4            .20
Scale 7           -.08
Scale Pd4          .03
Scale Si3         -.38
Scale FAM          .23
Predeparture GSI   .87**

Note. Zero-order correlations are listed for the correlations between
the predeparture measures and the performance factors. Partial
correlations are listed for the correlations between the predeparture
measures and psychological distress.
[dagger] Factor 1 = Job Performance; Factor 2 = Independent
Negotiation of Environment; Factor 3 = Interpersonal Relations
[double dagger] Factor 1 = Individual Effective Performance; Factor 2
= Satisfactory Accomplishment; Factor 3 = Respect for Standards; Factor
4 = Interpersonal Relations
* p<.01 ** p<.001.

Table 7 Correlations Between AORI Subscales and Self-Report Performance
Factors, Supervisor-Report Factors, and Psychological Distress

             Self-Report Performance  Supervisor-Report Performance
             Factors[dagger]          Factors[double dagger]
                 1      2      3           1     2     3      4

Peers            .34   .11   .39          .24    .41*   .31   .36
Parents          .13   .27   .24          .20    .05    .11   .15
Partners        -.10   .11  -.10          .05   -.07    .07  -.13
Secure           .22   .32   .34          .24    .15    .23   .18
Independent      .02   .26   .13          .42*  -.01   -.05   .11
Close            .22  -.04   .10         -.08    .04    .08   .01

             Psychological
             Distress

Peers          -.26
Parents        -.01
Partners        .08
Secure         -.08
Independent    -.10
Close           .26

Note. Zero-order correlations are listed for the correlations between
the predeparture measures and the performance factors. Partial
correlations are listed for the correlations between the predeparture
measures and psychological distress.
[dagger] Factor 1 = Job Performance; Factor 2 = Independent
Negotiation of Environment; Factor 3 = Interpersonal Relations
[double dagger] Factor 1 = Individual Effective Performance; Factor 2
= Satisfactory Accomplishment; Factor 3 = Respect for Standards; Factor
4 = Interpersonal Relations
* p<.01.

Table 8 Correlations Between SAI Subscales and Self-Report Performance
Factors, Supervisor-Report Factors, and Psychological Distress

                Self-Report Performance    Supervisor-Report Performance
                Factors[dagger]            Factors[double dagger]
                1     2       3             1      2     3     4

Awareness       -.16  -.07    .41           -.22   -.03  -.21  -.01
RA              -.06   .19    .20           -.06    .03  -.02   .16
Disappointment  -.14  -.48*   .11           -.35   -.01  -.23  -.41*
Grandiosity     -.28  -.05    .09           -.15   -.01  -.23  -.11
Instability     -.25  -.38   -.06           -.41*  -.25  -.35  -.52*
Lie             -.07   .17    .26            .12   -.02  -.14   .15

                Psychological
                Distress

Awareness         -.11
RA                -.02
Disappointment     .20
Grandiosity       -.06
Instability        .28
Lie               -.17

Note. Zero-order correlations are listed for the correlations between
the predeparture measures and the performance factors. Partial
correlations are listed for the correlations between the predeparture
measures and psychological distress.
[dagger] Factor 1 = Job Performance; Factor 2 = Independent
Negotiation of Environment; Factor 3 = Interpersonal Relations
[double dagger] Factor 1 = Individual Effective Performance; Factor 2
= Satisfactory Accomplishment; Factor 3 = Respect for Standards; Factor
4 = Interpersonal Relations
* p <.01.

REFERENCES

Adeney, M. (1996, November 11). McMission. Christianity Today, 40, 14.

Arthur, W., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 99-114.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment for expatriates in Pacific Rim assignments. Human Relations, 44(5), 497-515.

Boyle, J. C. P. (1994). Use of the 16PF to determine a personality profile for successful overseas missionaries (Doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 4B.

Britt, W. G. (1980). Pretraining variables in the prediction of missionary success overseas. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11(3), 203-212.

Buelow, G., McClain, M., & McIntosh, I. (1996). A new measure for an important construct: The Attachment and Object Relations Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 604-623.

Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595-605.

Dicken, C. (1969). Predicting the success of Peace Corps community development workers, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(5), 597-606.

Dillon, D. E. (1983). Personality characteristics of evangelical missionaries as measured by the MMPI. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11(3), 213-217.

Ferguson, L. N. (1983). Issues in missionary assessment. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 2(4), 25-29.

Ferguson, L. N., Kliewer, D., Lindquist, S. E., Williams, D. E., & Heinrich, R. P. (1983). Candidate selection criteria: A survey. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11(3), 243-251.

Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Greek, S. (1984). A comparison of missionary apprentice effectiveness and performance on selected MMPI research scales. Unpublished master's thesis, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX.

Hall, M. E. L. (1996). The relationship of object relations development to cultural adjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Biola University, La Mirada, CA.

Hall, M. E. L., & Sweatman, S. M. (2002). On the use and misuse of psychological assessment in missionary candidate evaluations. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(3), 244-252.

Hall, M. E. L., Edwards, K. J., & Hall, T. W. (2004). The role of spiritual development in the psychological development and cross-cultural adjustment of missionaries. Unpublished manuscript.

Hall, T. W., & Brokaw, B. F. (1995). The relationship of spiritual maturity to level of object relations development and God image. Pastoral Psychology, 43(6), 373-391.

Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). The initial development and factor analysis of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24(3), 233-246.

Hall, T. W., Brokaw, B. F., Edwards, K. J., & Pike, P. L. (1998). An empirical exploration of psychoanalysis and religion: Spiritual maturity and object relations development. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(2), 303-313.

Harris, J. G. (1973). A science of the South Pacific: Analysis of the character structure of the Peace Corps volunteer. American Psychologist, 28, 232-247.

Horner, A. J. (1991). Psychoanalytic object relations therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Howard, E. (1984). Personality strengths and temperament traits: Factors in continued and discontinued missionaries (overseas adaptation, adjustment). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Kealey, D. J. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 387-428.

Kyne, J. N. (1992). Conflict resolution overseas: MMPI scores and overseas perseverance among missionaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Lawson, T. T. (1993). The psychological profiles on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory of persons presenting themselves for mission service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.

Lindquist, S. E. (1983). A rationale for psychological assessment of missionary candidates. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 2(4), 10-14.

Mischel, W. (1965). Predicting the success of Peace Corps volunteers in Nigeria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(5), 510-517.

Pocock, M. (1987). Gaining long-term mileage from short-term programs. Evangelical Mission Quarterly, 23, 154-160.

Schubert, E. (1992). Current issues in screening and selection. In K. O'Donnell (Ed.), Missionary care: Counting the cost for world evangelization (pp. 74-88). Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Schubert, E. (1993). Personality disorders and overseas mission: Guidelines for mental health professionals. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 21(1), 74-85.

Schubert, E. (1999). A suggested prefield process for missionary candidates. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27(2), 87-97.

Schubert, E., & Gantner, K. (1996). The MMPI as a predictive tool for missionary candidates. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24(2), 124-132.

Smith, M. B. (1966). Explorations in competence; A study of Peace Corps teachers in Ghana. American Psychologist, 21, 555-566.

Taylor, W. D., Ed. (1997). Too valauble to lose: Exploring the causes and cures of missionary attrition. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.

Thayer, C. R. (1973). The relationship between clinical judgments of missionary fitness and subsequent ratings of actual field adjustment. Review of Religious Research, 14, 112-116.

York, J. R. (1993). American overseas: The identification of high-risk missionary candidates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Biola University, La Mirada, CA.

KERI L. BARNETT, NANCY S. DUVALL, KEITH J. EDWARDS, and M. ELIZABETH LEWIS HALL

Rosemead School of Psychology

Biola University

AUTHORS

BARNETT, KERI L. Address: University Counseling Center, University of Rochester, Box 270356, Rochester, NY 14627. Title: Post-doctoral Fellow. Degrees: BA, Houghton College; MA, PhD, Rosemead School of Psychology. Specializations: Object relations therapy, college mental health, missions and mental health.

DUVALL, NANCY S. Address: Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola ave, La Mirada, CA 90639. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BA, MA; PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Specializations: Psychodynamic therapy; integration of psychology and theology; psychotherapy and spirituality; missions and mental health.

EDWARDS, KEITH J. Address: Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola ave, La Mirada, CA 90639. Titles: Professor of Psychology, Licensed Psychologist. Degrees: MA, PhD, New Mexico State University; PhD, University of Southern California. Specializations: Psychology of religion, clinical psychology, research methodology.

HALL, M. ELIZABETH LEWIS. Address: Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola ave, La Mirada, CA 90639. Title: Associate Professor. Degrees: BA, MA, PhD, Biola University. Specializations: Psychodynamic therapy; missions and mental health, women and work.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Keri L. Barnett, University Counseling Center, University of Rochester, Box 270356, Rochester, NY 14627. Email: [e-mail]