Spiritual Transcendence and the Scientific Study of Spirituality.

There is no doubt that spirituality has become a "hot" topic in the social and physical sciences. This increasing professional interest parallels the growing prevalence and salience of spirituality among the general public. Surveys reported in the popular news media indicate that nearly 80% of Americans believe in the power of prayer to improve the course of illness (Wallis, 1996). Health care workers also strongly believe in the power of spirituality and/or religiosity(1) to influence the course of medical and psychological interventions as well as the rate of recuperation from chronic illnesses (Feher & Maley, 1999; Kirkpatrick & McCullough, 1999; Rose, 1999). Perhaps the clearest demonstration of the value of spirituality in the area of rehabilitation concerns treatment for chemical dependency (e.g., Borman & Dixon, 1998; Green, Fullilove, & Fullilove, 1998; Warfield & Goldstein, 1996), where this construct is seen as the central curative factor in recovery. Despite such encouraging initial findings, not all the data are supportive (e.g., Fitchett, Rybarczyk, DeMarco, & Nicholas, 1999), and there are certainly many issues, both theoretical (e.g., George, Larson, Koenig, & McCullough, 2000) and empirical (e.g., Bateson, 1997), that still need to be addressed. At the heart of many of these issues is the need for psychometrically sound measures that can be useful in empirically documenting the unique contribution of spirituality in predictions of salient life outcomes. The purpose of this report is to present the Spiritual Transcendence scale and to demonstrate its potential value for rehabilitation research.

Issues in the Measurement of Spirituality

In response to this growing attention, there has been an explosion in the number of scales available to measure spirituality (see Hall, Tisdale, & Brokaw, 1994; MacDonald, Friedman, & Kuentzel, 1999; MacDonald, Kuentzel, & Friedman, 1999 for reviews of a variety of instruments). Such a cornucopia of constructs has raised two important issues for the field. First, there is the question of conceptual redundancy. To what degree do these various measures capture distinct aspects of the individual? To the extent that these different scales are simply the reiteration of a common construct, the field will suffer under the burdens of excessive terminology and conceptual disarray. Further, there are concerns about both the psychometric integrity of these scales and their lack of validity evidence (Gorsuch, 1988; Hall, Tisdale, & Brokaw, 1994). The second issue concerns whether these constructs represent new aspects of psychological functioning or whether they are just a repackaging of already established individual difference variables. Van Wicklin (1990) questioned whether spiritual measures were only the "religification" of existing personality constructs. What added value does spirituality bring to the discipline?

These are important questions that address our field at a fundamental level. If spirituality is to become an important part of our field, then it needs to be demonstrated that a consideration of one's spirituality and religiosity opens a new arena of understanding previously untapped by traditional psychological methods. Such an empirical case can only be made once sound psychometric instruments become available. I have argued that this process can be expedited if researchers in the area of spiritual research employ the models, methods, and measures of mainstream psychology (Piedmont, 1999b). This integrative approach will accomplish two things. First, it will improve the quality of work done in the spiritual/religious domain. In his insightful critique, Bateson (1997) estimated that research in spirituality is approximately 30 years behind what is occurring in the field in general. Religious researchers lack many of the more sophisticated theoretical models and empirical techniques that define current research efforts. Importing this technology would provide broader frameworks for conceptualizing spirituality and more powerful analytic techniques. Second, in using this approach, religious researchers would begin to speak a language and generate a body of data readily interpretable to mainstream psychology. The result would be a larger, more inclusive dialogue within our field on the role, value, and place of spirituality in any comprehensive discussion of human psychological functioning.

My approach to addressing these issues was to employ the only existing empirically-based, comprehensive taxonomy of individual differences, the Five-Factor Model of Personality (FFM; Digman, 1990: Godlberg, 1993; Mccrae & John, 1992; Piedmont, 1998), as a springboard for crafting a new dimension of spirituality. This model has been well developed empirically, and contains the dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Because much of the variance of these dimensions has been found to be heritable (Heath, Neale, Kessler, Eaves, & Kendler, 1992), these five dimensions are not mere summary descriptions of behavior, but genotypic tendencies of individuals to think, act, and feel in consistent ways (McCrae & Costa, 1995). These five dimensions have been shown to be quite stable among normal adults, and predict a wide range of relevant life outcomes, including well-being and coping ability (Costa & McCrae, 1980, 1984; Costa, MaCrae, & Zonderman, 1987; Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993; Piedmont, 1993; see McCrae & John, 1992 for a review).

Although not religiously based, this taxonomy can be useful in two ways. First, if religious constructs do have any overlap with established personality dispositions, then correlating them with measures of the FFM can help illuminate the underlying motivations and anticipated outcomes of these scales. Second, the FFM can be a useful reference point in evaluating the incremental validity of religious and spiritual scales, perhaps the single most crucial issue for religious researchers. The incremental validity paradigm seeks to outline those individual difference qualities unique to religious constructs that are predictive of important psychosocial outcomes over and above the more traditional personality variables represented in the FFM (see Rodgerson & Piedmont, 1998). Ultimately, if spiritual and religious constructs are to find acceptance within the wider social sciences, researchers will need to document the added empirical value such dimensions provide.

In order to demonstrate that spiritual variables do represent qualities distinct from the dimensions captured by the FFM, and hence should be considered a sixth major dimension of personality, three empirical criteria would need to be met: a) the new personality dimension would have to be shown to be independent of the existing five; b) it would have to share the same level of generality as the other five, in that it would have to subsume several, smaller "facets"; and c) it would have to be recoverable over multiple sources of information (e.g., across rating sources and measures; Mccrae & Costa, 1996). Documenting such evidence for a measure of spirituality would expand the realm of individual differences that constitute personality (see Saucier & Goldberg, 1998) and would provide a paradigm for integrating religious research into mainstream psychological thinking. This would set the stage for both fields to expand their conceptualizations of individuals and the goals they pursue.

Spiritual Transcendence: Definition and Development

By grounding the development of a measure of spirituality in a trait-based taxonomy, I was explicitly viewing spirituality as a motivational trait; a nonspecific affective force that drives, directs, and selects behaviors. As an intrinsic source of motivation, spirituality would be a relatively stable construct over time and would impel individuals towards identifiable goals (Emmons, 1999). This concept of spirituality is very different than the one most often embraced in the psychology of religion (e.g., Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999) and is certainly very distinct from theological understandings of the concept (see Conn, 1985). With this perspective in mind, I defined spirituality as an individual's efforts to construe a broad sense of personal meaning within an eschatological context. This means that as humans we are intimately aware of our own mortality. As such, we strive to construct some sense of purpose and meaning for the lives we are leading. We question our purpose for existence and the value our lives provide to the world we inhabit. Answers to these existential questions help us to weave the many diverse threads of our lives into a more meaningful coherence that gives us the will to live productively. These answers also lead us to develop a sense of Spiritual Transcendence, or "the capacity of individuals to stand outside of their immediate sense of time and place and to view life from a larger, more objective perspective. This transcendent perspective is one in which a person sees a fundamental unity underlying the diverse strivings of nature" (Piedmont, 1999a, p.988).

In developing the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS), a consortium of theological experts from diverse faith traditions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Quakerism, Lutheranism, Catholicism, and Judaism was assembled. This focus group identified aspects of spirituality that were common to all of these faiths. The resulting items were analyzed within the context of the FFM and were shown to constitute an independent individual-differences dimension. The STS manifested a single overall factor comprised of three "facet" scales: Prayer Fulfillment, a feeling of joy and contentment that results from personal encounters with a transcendent reality (e.g., "I find inner strength and/or peace from my prayers"); Universality, a belief in the unitive nature of life (e.g., "I feel that on a higher level all of us share a common bond"); and Connectedness, a belief that one is part of a larger human reality that cuts across generations and across groups (e.g., "I am concerned about those who will come after me in life"). I found that the structure of the STS was stable over several samples and that scores from the STS evidenced incremental validity by significantly predicting a number of relevant psychological outcomes (e.g., stress experience, social support, interpersonal style) even after the predictive effects of personality were removed (Piedmont, 1999a).

This report is intended both to provide a partial replication of the original study and to extend the predictive value of the STS to a new class of self-report and observer rated variables. First, the reliability of the STS scales will be evaluated in two separate samples. This paper will provide the first normative values for these scales. Next, the convergent and discriminant validity of the STS scales will be examined by correlating the instrument to a number of spiritual and religious content questions and to the personality domains represented in the FFM. Then, the cross-observer convergence of the STS will be examined. Such consensual validation provides strong evidence that people share an understanding of what is "spiritual" and that they can identify behaviors and goals that characterize individuals so motivated. Without this convergence, constructs of spirituality can be dismissed as mere solipsistic characteristics of the person, qualities that reflect idiosyncratic aspects of functioning that have limited interpretive and predictive value. A joint factor analysis of the STS with a measure of the FFM will then seek to determine the independence of spirituality from these more established individual-differences constructs. Finally, the incremental validity of the STS scales will be evaluated. This will be done by conducting a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses to determine if the STS scales can predict psychosocial outcomes related to well-being, life satisfaction, and mental and physical health even after the influences of personality have been partialled out. Taken as a whole, it is hoped that this report will demonstrate the empirical strength of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale and its potential applied value

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 322 undergraduate students (227 women, 95 men), ages 17 to 37 (Mean = 18.7), who were enrolled as part of an Introductory Psychology course at a Midwestern State University. All subjects received course credit for their participation. Concerning religious affiliation, 89% indicated some type of Christian affiliation, less than 1% were Jewish, and approximately 10% indicated some other religion.

These participants were requested to have two individuals who had known them for at least three months rate them on several scales. One hundred and seventy-five returned two peer evaluations and 13 returned one. Of these 363 raters, 233 were women and 130 were men. Overall, raters knew their targets quite well, with an average length of acquaintance close to eight years (Mean = 7.9 years, range from one month to 23 years). Raters were also asked to indicate how well they knew the participants on a 1 (Not really that well casual acquaintance) to 7 (Know each other very well close friends) Likert-type scale. A mean rating of 6.2 (SD = .78) was obtained, indicating that the peer raters believed themselves to be very well acquainted with the participants.

Measures

NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R). Developed by Costa and Mccrae (1992), this 240 item questionnaire was developed through rational and factor analytic methods to measure the domains of the FFM. For each factor, there are six facet scales that are designed to capture more specific traits. Items are answered on a five point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), and scales are balanced to control for the effects of acquiescence. Normative internal consistency estimates for the self-report version of the instrument for adults range from .59 to .92 (Costa & Mccrae, 1992). Six year stability coefficients range from .68 to .83 for the N, E, and 0 domains and three year retest coefficients are from .63 to .79 for brief versions of the A and C domains (Costa & Mccrae, 1992). Alphas for the five domains in this sample ranged from .86 for Openness to .91 for Neuroticism. Scales have shown evidence of convergent and discriminant validity across instruments, methods, and observers and have been related to a number of life outcomes including frequency of somatic complaints, ability to cope with stress, burnout, and occupational success (Costa & Mccrae, 1989; Piedmont, 1993).

Spiritual Transcendence Scale. Developed by Piedmont (1999a), this 24 item scale consists of three subscales: Universality (a belief in the unity and purpose of life), Prayer Fulfillment (an experienced feeling of joy and contentment that results from prayer and/or meditation), and Connectedness (a sense of personal responsibility and connection to others). Items are answered on a 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree) Likert-type scale. A rater version of this scale was also developed to be completed by the peer evaluators. This form contains the same format as the self- report version, with the exception that items are worded in the third person. Piedmont (1999a) has shown these scales to have acceptable reliabilities for both the self-report (.83, .87, and .64 for Universality, Prayer Fulfillment, and Connectedness, respectively) and peer versions (.91, .87, and .72, respectively). Scores on these scales have also been shown to predict a variety of related spiritual constructs and a number of psychologically salient outcomes (e.g., stress experience, well-being, and attitudes towards sexuality; Piedmont, 1999a).

Bradburn Affect Balance Scale. Developed by Bradburn (1969), this 20-item True-False scale captures the dimensions of Positive and Negative Affect (PAS and NAS, respectively). Subtracting the NAS from the PAS creates the Affect Balance Scale (ABS). Studies have shown the PAS and NAS scales to represent independent dimensions (Bradburn, 1969; Costa & Mccrae, 1980). Scores on these scales have been shown to correlate with ratings of global happiness (Lowenthal, Thurner, & Chiriboga, 1975) and well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1984). This scale was completed by the peer evaluators. Alphas in the current sample for the PAS and NAS scales were .66 and .59, respectively.

Faith Maturity Scale. Developed by Benson, Donahue, and Erickson (1993), this scale assesses the degree to which one's life is energized by a fulfilling faith orientation. The version used in this study was the 12-item short form. There are two subscales; the Horizontal evaluates the degree to which one's faith leads toward commitments to help others, and the Vertical looks at one's sense of closeness to God. Alpha reliabilities for the Horizontal and Vertical subscales were .79 and .81 respectively.

Prosocial Behavior Inventory. This 39-item scale was developed by De Concilus (1993/1994) using an act-frequency paradigm. Behaviors selected for this scale were nominated by college students as being very descriptive of students they believed to be prosocial. Students were asked to answer each question on a 5-point Likert-type scale denoting the frequency with which they performed each activity over the previous six months.

The Purpose in Life Test. Developed by Crumbaugh (1968), this 20-item scale measures a person's "will to meaning" as construed by Victor Frankl (1959; 1966). Responses are given on a 7-point Likert-type scale, the poles of which vary according to the question. Guttmann (1996) reviews the research literature on this scale which provides basic validity data, documenting the scale's ability to capture the degree to which an individual has developed a personal sense of meaning in life. Alpha reliability for the scale in this sample was .84. Research has shown this scale to be related to psychological well-being (Zika & Chamberlain, 1992), ability to cope successfully with the death of a significant other (Host, Stevens, & Wessels, 1989; Stevens, Host, & Wessels, 1987), and successful outcomes from an alcohol dependence treatment program (Waisberg, & Porter, 1994).

Self-Actualization Scale. Created by Jones and Crandall (1986), this scale provides a measure of Maslow's highest level of development. The 15 items are responded to on a 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree) Likert-type scale. Jones and Crandall (1986) have found that high scores on this scale are associated with individuals being extraverted, rational in their thoughts and behaviors, and inner-directed. Alpha reliability for this scale in the current sample was .54. Crandall, McCown, and Robb (1988) showed that this scale was sensitive to clinical interventions related to increasing personal assertiveness.

Demographic Questionnaire. Developed by the author, this scale queries subjects about their age, gender, and religious affiliation. Also included were several Likert-type items asking subjects the frequency with which they read the Bible and other religious literature, their frequency of prayer, the extent to which they have a close relationship with God, and the degree to which they experience a union with God that enables them to grow spiritually.

Raters were also asked to evaluate the overall level of life satisfaction they perceived in their targets on the single item, Delighted-Terrible scale. Developed by Andrews and Withey (1976), this Likert scale captures responses from 1 (terrible) to 7 (delighted). and has shown itself to be a useful overall index of well-being that includes both the affective and cognitive components. Finally, observers were also asked to rate the number of days the target was ill over the past year. This measure provides a very broad index of perceived physical health.

Procedure

Participants completed all of the self-report materials in groups of 10 to 35. The order of scales was randomized to control for any order effects. Raters completed their materials independently. When completed, the ratings were placed in an envelope provided by the experimenter, sealed, and mailed to the experimenter. Scores on the rater version were obtained by averaging scores across the two raters. These aggregated scores were used in alt analyses.

Results

Scale Psychometrics

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) as well as alpha reliabilities. As can be seen, only one gender difference emerged, with women scoring significantly higher than men on the self-reponed Connectedness scale (t (318) = 2.38, 12 [is less than] .05). No other differences were noted. The mean scores for these scales are consistent with values found in other samples. Overall, internal consistencies of responses for the scales in both the self- and observer data sets were adequate, with the exception of the Connectedness scale alpha, which was low. This scale is usually the weakest of the STS facet scales.

Table 1
t-tests for Gender Differences on the Spiritual Transcedence
Scales and Corresponding Alpha Reliabilities.

                        Males       Females
                                                 Alpha t      (Total
Scale                 Mean   SD    Mean   SD    Difference  Sample)(a)

Self Reports(b)
  Universality        37.70   6.0  33.87   5.0     .26         .82
  Prayer Fulfillment  27.88   7.1  27.87   6.0    -.04         .82
  Connectedness       21.12   3.6  22.14   3.4    2.38(*)      .58
  Total score         82.70  14.2  83.88  11.3     .78         .87

Per ratings(c)
  Universality        31.97   4.4  31.84   4.7    -.16         .89
  Prayer Fulfillment  26.99   4.9  28.05   4.7    1.30         .86
  Connectedness       21.19   2.8  21.02   3.0    -.35         .68
  Total score         80.15   9.9  80.91  10.4     .43         .91

(a) N  for self-reports is 320; N for peer ratings is 188.

(b) n for men is 93; n for women is 227.

(c) n for men is 44; n for women is 144.

(*) p < .05

The STS is hypothesized to have three correlated facet scales that define a broader spiritual dimension. In order to test this structural hypothesis, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the self-report data. A second-order factor model was tested and the results are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Spiritual Transcendence Scale Items.

                    Global
                 Transcendence

                      .96
                  Universality

     .52              .39              .79
Universality 1   Universality 2   Universality 3
     .41              .46              .44

                      Global
                   Transcendence

                      .96
                  Universality

     .49              .55              .62
Universality 4   Universality 5   Universality 6
     .76              .49              .64

                      Global
                   Transcendence

                      .96
                  Universality

     .59              .32              .50
Universality 7   Universality 8   Universality 9
     .46              .65              .60

                      Global
                   Transcendence

                      .68
                    Prayer
                  Fulfillment

     .92             .39            .28
Fulfillment 1   Fulfillment 2   Fulfillment 3
     .63             .97            .77

                      Global
                   Transcendence

                     .68
                    Prayer
                  Fulfillment

     .90             .60             .60
Fulfillment 4   Fulfillment 5   Fulfillment 6
     .60             .99             .74

                      Global
                   Transcendence

                     .68
                    Prayer
                  Fulfillment

     .90             .62             .56
Fulfillment 7   Fulfillment 8   Fulfillment 9
     .46             .81             .83

                      Global
                   Transcendence

                        .67
                   Connectedness

      .73               .40               .24
Connectedness 1   Connectedness 2   Connectedness 3
      .96               .76               .57

                      Global
                   Transcendence

                        .67
                   Connectedness

      .26               .85               .26
Connectedness 4   Connectedness 5   Connectedness 6
      .89               .72               .89

Note: Table made from a chart.

Although the overall [chi square] (249, N = 319) = 517.57, p [is less than] .001 was significant, all other measures of fit suggested a very good approximation of the model with these data. The ratio of chi square to degrees of freedom was 2.08, below the 2.5 threshold considered acceptable for good fit (Kline, 1998). The Goodness of Fit and Comparative Fit Indices were above .95, suggesting that the majority of the variance in the data is accounted for by the model. The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual was .075, less than the threshold of. 10. Finally, the Non-Normed Fit Index, a measure of the fit that adjusts for the model complexity, was .95, indicating that the model is quite parsimonious. All of the standardized parameter estimates presented in Figure 1 were significant. Thus, the items load on their intended dimension, and these constructs do combine to define a larger second-order factor, labelled Global Transcendence. These findings closely replicate previous findings (Piedmont, 1999a).

STS Validity

STS scales were correlated with a variety of religious/spiritual scales as well as with the Big Five personality domains of the NEO PI-R. These results are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, there are numerous moderate to high correlations between the STS scales and the religious and spiritual items. This pattern is similar in both self-report and observer data. Correlations with the NEO PI-R personality domains are much smaller, with no coefficient greater than .30. STS correlations with the NEO PI-R are greater in the self-report sample than in the observer ratings, suggesting that correlated method error may be inflating the former. These data provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity.

Table 2
Correlations between the Self and Observer Forms
of the Transcendence Scale with other Religious
Variables and the Domain Scores from the NEO PI-R.

                                      Transcendence Scale

                                           Self Report

                                             Prayer
Criterion Variable          Universality   Fulfillment   Connectedness

Frequency
Read the Bible                .23(***)      .37(***)       .11(*)
Frequency
Read Religious Literature     .19(***)      .29(***)       .14(**)
Frequency of Prayer           .36(***)      .57(***)       .24(***)
Union with God                .40(***)      .60(***)       .26(***)
Relationship with God         .36(***)      .54(***)       .19(***)
Frequency attend
Religious Services            .25(**)       .39(***)       .24(***)
FMS Vertical                  .49(***)      .64(***)       .29(***)
FMS Horizontal                .41(***)      .46(***)       .44(***)

NEO PI-R Domains
  Neuroticism                 .01           .05           -.02
  Extraversion                .10           .06            .17(**)
  Openness                    .20(***)      .09            .17(**)
  Agreeableness               .21(***)      .12(*)         .25(***)
  Conscientiousness           .10           .13(*)         .08

                                       Transcendence Scale

                                        Observer Rating

                                             Prayer
Criterion Variable          Universality   Fulfillment   Connectedness

Frequency
Read the Bible                .36(***)      .45(***)        .15(*)
Frequency
Read Religious Literature     .35(***)      .35(***)        .15(*)
Frequency of Prayer           .32(***)      .58(***)        .19(**)
Union with God                .34(***)      .49(***)        .18(*)
Relationship with God         .36(***)      .54(***)        .21(**)
Frequency attend
Religious Services            .29(***)      .47(***)        .19(**)
FMS Vertical                  .42(***)      .56(***)        .20(**)
FMS Horizontal                .30(***)      .30(***)        .21(**)

NEO PI-R Domains
  Neuroticism                -.06          -.04             .05
  Extraversion                .08           .03             .11
  Openness                    .12           .01             .02
  Agreeableness               .20(**)       .14            -.01
  Conscientiousness           .01           .03             .01

Note. FMS-Faith Maturity Scale.

N for self-reports = 319; N observer ratings = 188.

(*) p < .05;

(**) p < .01;

(***) p < .001, two-tailed.

In order to demonstrate the cross-observer validity of these dimensions, scores on the self-report form were correlated with observer ratings; the results are presented in Table 3. Scores on the self-reports correlated significantly with their corresponding observer ratings, providing evidence of the consensual validity for these spiritual constructs. These data also provide additional discriminant validity evidence: Each of the convergent correlations is the highest in its respective row and column. The magnitude of these correlations (mean r = .50) compares favorably to peer-self convergence found with various measures of the FFM, where average r's range from .30 to .48 (Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Piedmont, 1994).

Table 3
Correlations between the Self-Report and
Observer Ratings on the Transcendence Scale.

                                Observer Ratings

Self Report                    Prayer
Scores         Universality  Fulfillment  Connectedness  Total Score

Universality    .46(***)(a)  .39(***)      .30(***)      .47(***)
Prayer
  Fulfillment   .36(***)     .55(***)(a)   .24(***)      .49(***)
Connectedness   .14(*)       .13           .43(***)(a)   .25(***)
Total Score     .44(***)     .50(***)      .39(***)      .54(***)(a)

Note. N = 188. Convergent validity coefficients are given in bold.

(a) bold

(*) p < .05;

(***) p < .001; two-tailed.

Factorial Independence

To evaluate the independence of the STS construct from the personality qualities represented in the Five-Factor Model, a joint factor analysis was conducted using the 30 NEO PI-R facet scales and the three STS facet scales from both the self- and observer ratings. Eight factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than unity, although a scree plot indicated that six factors should be extracted. Six principal components were extracted (explaining 58% of the common variance) and orthogonally rotated(2). The results are presented in Table 4. As can be seen, the facets for each of the NEO P1-R domains align on their intended factor. Of particular interest are the loadings for the STS facet scales, which all align to form their own independent factor. This is further evidence that the dimensions captured by the Spiritual Transcendence scales represent qualities that are non-redundant with the individual difference variables represented in the FFM.

Table 4
Joint Factor Analysis of the NEO PI-R Facet Scales and
the Self and Observer Scales of the Transcendence Scale.

                          Principal Component

Scales                    1         2         3

Anxiety                 .81(b)    .03      -.07
Hostility               .44(b)   -.20       .02
Depression              .75(b)   -.16       .08
Self-Consciousness      .70(b)   -.25      -.10
Impulsiveness           .54(b)    .13       .07
Vulnerability           .78(b)   -.10      -.13
Warmth                 -.02       .75(b)    .14
Gregariousness         -.15       .77(b)   -.04
Assertiveness          -.32       .43(b)    .22
Activity               -.13       .52(b)    .16
Excitement Seeking     -.08       .75(b)    .00
Positive Emotions      -.09       .65(b)    .14
Fantasy                 .07       .24       .49(b)
Aesthetics              .01      -.04       .79(b)
Feelings                .21       .17       .55(b)
Actions                -.28       .15       .55(b)
Ideas                  -.22      -.05       .74(b)
Values                  .02       .15       .55(b)
Trust                  -.26       .42(b)    .03
Straightforwardness    -.05      -.01      -.03
Altruism                .10       .58(b)    .18
Compliance             -.05       .03      -.06
Modesty                 .22      -.18       .09
Tendermindedness        .24       .17       .30
Competence             -.38       .01       .12
Order                   .08      -.10      -.19
Dutifulness            -.06       .18       .10
Achievement            -.04       .13       .03
Self-discipline        -.23      -.01      -.01
Deliberation           -.05      -.27      -.06

S(a)-Universality       .10       .07       .33
S-Prayer Fulfillment    .06       .08       .11
S-Connectedness         .21       .34       .15
R-Universality         -.08       .01       .04
R-Prayer Fulfillment   -.06      -.05      -.06
R-Connectedness         .03       .10      -.09

Scales                    4         5         6

Anxiety                -.05       .10       .07
Hostility              -.69(b)   -.04      -.04
Depression             -.01      -.23       .00
Self-Consciousness      .18      -.11      -.01
Impulsiveness          -.38      -.27       .10
Vulnerability          -.06      -.19      -.03
Warmth                  .31      -.04       .13
Gregariousness         -.06      -.07       .06
Assertiveness          -.49(b)    .25       .04
Activity               -.12       .33       .04
Excitement Seeking     -.22      -.14      -.10
Positive Emotions       .17      -.08       .13
Fantasy                -.09      -.36       .05
Aesthetics              .06      -.06       .11
Feelings                .02       .09       .23
Actions                -.09      -.01       .06
Ideas                  -.04       .06       .04
Values                  .16       .01      -.26
Trust                   .61(b)    .01       .08
Straightforwardness     .75(b)    .14      -.02
Altruism                .45(b)    .12       .03
Compliance              .83(b)    .01       .09
Modesty                 .65(b)   -.16      -.04
Tendermindedness        .47(b)   -.02       .19
Competence             -.05       .72(b)   -.08
Order                  -.15       .71(b)   -.05
Dutifulness             .26       .64(b)    .15
Achievement            -.12       .81(b)    .09
Self-discipline         .02       .83(b)    .04
Deliberation            .20       .64(b)    .05

S(a)-Universality       .05       .07       .66(b)
S-Prayer Fulfillment   -.08       .17       .71(b)
S-Connectedness         .12       .11       .40(b)
R-Universality          .16      -.06       .79(b)
R-Prayer Fulfillment    .08      -.02       .81(b)
R-Connectedness        -.06      -.03       .66(b)

Values greater than |.40| are given in bold. N = 89.

(a) S--self-report; R--observer rating.

(b) bold

As a more rigorous test of the Spiritual Transcendence scales orthogonality from the FFM domains, another principal components analysis was performed using an oblique rotation. In this manner, the natural correlation of the variables is used in rotating the axes. Any existing relationship among variables should be reflected in correlations among the axes. If these variables are truly independent, then there should be minimal overlap of the factors. An inspection of the component correlation matrix from this analysis showed that the Transcendence factor correlated .08, .14, .13, .07, .07 with the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness factors, respectively. Such trivial associations underscore the independence of Spiritual Transcendence from established personality variables.

Predictive Validity

The next issue was to determine whether scores from the ST scales were related to outcomes other than those of a religious nature. Table 5 presents correlations between the STS scales and a wide range of both self and observer outcomes, including prosocial behavior, psychological meaning and growth, perceived wellbeing, life satisfaction, and health. As can be seen, all of the STS facets correlated significantly with several of the outcome measures. Only observer-rated Negative Affect was independent of the STS scales. These numerous associations indicate that the qualities subsumed in the Spiritual Transcendence Scale do have something important to contribute to our understanding of a wide array of psychosocial outcomes. The important question, though, is whether this contribution is distinct from any understandings that can be obtained from more traditional personality measures.

Table 5
Correlations between Self-Ratings on the Transcendence
Scales and Self- and Observer Rated Outcomes

                           Transcendence Scales

                                         Prayer
Criterion Variable      Universality   Fulfillment

Self-Reported Scales
  Self-Actualization     .21(***)       .21(***)
  Purpose in Life        .17(**)        .19(***)
  Prosocial Behavior     .18(**)        .19(***)

Observer-Rated Scales
  Positive Affect        .14(*)         .06
  Negative Affect       -.11           -.05
  Affect Balance         .16(*)         .07
  Delighted-Terrible     .06            .14(*)
  Days Ill              -.14           -.14

                          Transcendence Sales

                                          Total
Criterion Variable      Connectedness     Score

Self-Reported Scales
  Self-Actualization     .37(***)        .31(***)
  Purpose in Life        .16(**)         .22(***)
  Prosocial Behavior     .13(*)          .21(***)

Observer-Rated Scales
  Positive Affect        .08             .12
  Negative Affect       -.03            -.08
  Affect Balance         .06             .12
  Delighted-Terrible     .10             .12
  Days Ill              -.12            -.17(*)

Note. N for self-report correlations = 320; N for observer rated
correlations = 188.

(*)p < .05; (**) p < .01; (***) < .001; two-tailed.

Incremental Validity

In order to address this question, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted using each of the criterion variables in Table 5 as outcomes. The five domain scores from the NEO PI-R were entered on the first step of the regression equation. Then the subscales of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale were entered using a forward entry method. A partial F-test was calculated to determine if the increase in explained variance over the personality scales was significant. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 6.

Table 6
Incremental Validity of the Transcendent Subscales
over the Five-Factor Model Marker Scales in
Predicting the Self- and Observer-rated Outcomes.

                                    Transcendent
Criterion Variable        FFM         [Delta]
                        [R.sup.2]    [R.sup.2]
Self-Reported Scales
  Self-Actualization       .22          .04
  Purpose-in-Life          .40          .02
  Prosocial Behavior       .17          .07

Observer-Rated Scales
  Positive Affect          .06          .03
  Negative Affect          .09          .00
  Affect Balance           .11          .03
  Delighted-Terrible       .15          .02
  Days Ill                 .18          .02

Criterion Variable      Subscale    Partial F(a)

Self-Reported Scales
  Self-Actualization    Pray Ful.   14.70(***)
  Purpose-in-Life       Pray Ful.   11.43(***)
  Prosocial Behavior    Con.        28.88(***)

Observer-Rated Scales
  Positive Affect       Univ.        5.06(*)
  Negative Affect       --             --
  Affect Balance        Univ.        6.49(**)
  Delighted-Terrible    Pray Ful.    4.72(*)
  Days Ill              Univ.        4.83(*)

Note. FFM: Five-Factor Model Marker Scales; Pray Ful: Prayer
Fulfillment; Con: Connectedness; Univ: Universality.

(a) Partial F df for self-reported scales = 1,299; partial F df for
observer rated scales = 1,181.

(*) 12 < .05; (**) p < .01; (***) p < .001.

As can be seen, the personality domains explained a significant amount of variance in each of the outcome variables. For example, personality explained 40% of the variance in participants' Purpose-in-Life Test scores and 18% of the variance in ratings of perceived physical health. Many of these associations replicate previous research using these personality domains. Of particular interest was the finding that the STS scales provided significant additional explanatory power to these outcomes. Although the amount of unique variance contributed by the STS scales is rather small in absolute terms, when compared to the predictive power of the personality domains, this single dimension certainly holds its own relative to the Big Five. For example, the Connectedness scale explains an additional 7% of the variance in the Prosocial Behavior scale over personality--a 41% gain in predictive power over the FFM!

The use of self-reported STS scores to predict observer ratings of well-being and life satisfaction provide a more rigorous test of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale's predictive validity. Such cross-observer, cross-method analyses are less likely to be contaminated by correlated method error introduced by a reliance on a single measure or source of information. With the exception of Negative Affect, the Spiritual Transcendence scales provided a useful amount of additional explained variance, relative to the NEO PI-R domains. The STS scales added from 11% (e.g., with the Days Ill rating) to 50% (e.g., with the Positive Affect scale) of personality's contribution to the variance (median = 20%).

Finally, it is also interesting to note that all of the STS scales had significant correlations with the various outcome criteria. The pattern of these relations holds some theoretical value. Connectedness was related uniquely to Prosocial Behavior; the degree to which one feels a direct sense of relatedness to others should motivate active efforts to help those in need. Prayer Fulfillment was related to a larger sense of meaning, personal growth, and overall life satisfaction. Prayer Fulfillment assesses the degree to which one feels a sense of bliss, happiness, and fulfillment in his or her prayers and/or meditations. Universality, one's sense of belonging to a larger organic whole, was related to ratings of psychological well-being (particularly levels of Positive Affect) and perceived physical health. These findings provide additional evidence of discriminant validity for the STS scales; although these three facets are correlated, each taps into qualities that have distinct personological implications.

Discussion

The results of this study add to a growing body of evidence that spirituality represents a distinct dimension of individual-differences (MacDonald, 2000; Piedmont, 1999a; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998). As a distinct dimension, Spirituality opens the door for expanding our understanding of human motivation and the goals we, as a species, are pursuing and seeking to gratify. Further, Spiritual Transcendence (ST) provides an opportunity to improve our ability to predict psychosocially salient outcomes by uniquely explaining variance not already accounted for by current individual difference models. These data showed that Spiritual Transcendence represented a useful construct in two ways. First, the cross-observer convergence of these scales indicated that Transcendence is not a solipsistic quality existing only in the mind of the individual. Rather, qualities of transcendence represent a relatively pervasive aspect of human psychological functioning, sufficiently overt and distinct that it can be recognized in one's behavior by others.

Second, the incremental validity analyses showed that this unique construct did have something significant to add to our understanding of human behavior. Although spiritually based in content, the Transcendence scale carded with it predictive implications for other aspects of psychosocial functioning. The observed correlations with scales measuring psychological growth and meaning were significant because these constructs have themselves been shown to relate to a number of important life outcomes relevant to rehabilitation psychology, such as burnout (Yiu-kee & Tang, 1995), recovery from alcohol dependence (Waisbert & Porter, 1994), and life satisfaction (McCann & Biaggio, 1989; Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). More importantly, the STS scales were significantly related to observer ratings of well-being, life satisfaction, and health; important variables in the treatment of and recovery from a wide array of physical and mental illnesses. These cross-observer, cross-method correlations were observed even after controlling for the influences of personality, signalling the identification of a new class of psychologically relevant predictors. This opens the door to the future possibility of identifying and developing new spiritually-based intervention strategies, based on these constructs, for dealing with health-related issues.

Although these data provide good support for considering spirituality as a scientific construct with potential value for the field, based on some limitations of this study and research on spirituality in general, I offer two points for consideration. First, the magnitude of association between the STS and the outcome variables was low to moderate. The correlations in Table 5 do not show the STS facet scales to be overwhelmingly powerful predictors. Such modest correlations suggest limits on our ability to make predictions using current spiritual assessment tools. Thus we need to avoid perceiving spirituality as the "answer" to all our questions about people. All too frequently, psychology tends to go overboard for certain constructs, variables I refer to as rosetta stones of the mind. Rosetta stones of the mind are variables that are seen as being the single dimension capable of unlocking a complete understanding of the psyche. Much energy and activity develops around these variables, with numerous studies emerging that link the construct to every type of behavior. However, over time, researchers become disenchanted with the construct for a number of reasons, including overall low levels of predictiveness, inconsistencies in the research findings, and just plain ennui from over-exposure to the concept. Variables such as field independence, Telic dominance, locus of control, and androgyny are a few of these types of constructs. It should be stated now that spirituality will not give us all the answers we seek. Thus, we should not become overly enthused about spirituality's ability to provide final answers to our questions about the human condition. Dunnette (1966) long ago outlined the perils of prematurely committing to a single theoretical orientation. Rather, at this phase of research, spirituality is best viewed as an additional construct in the psychologist's research and clinical armamentarium. It is one of many potentially relevant and useful variables in the search for better theories and interventions.

Second, researchers employing spiritual constructs need to take a multi-dimensional approach to understanding psychological phenomena. We need to construct multi-variable models that link together in meaningful ways constellations of constructs that will maximize our understanding of a phenomenon. Although single variables may only explain, on average, 5% to 10% of the variance in an outcome, linking together a set of such variables that are nonoverlapping can drastically improve predictive accuracy. The manner in which such variables are selected is certainly informed by theory, but needs to be sculpted by empirical findings. As was illustrated in this study, the Five-Factor Model of personality provides a very useful place to start in the selection of constructs and in the demonstration of the value of spirituality (see Piedmont 1999b). This robust, empirically-based model provides a strategic platform for organizing individual-differences information and for conducting multivariate evaluations. It also provides a medium through which spiritual constructs can be linked to other, larger, theoretical models (e.g., attachment theory, well-being, character; Piedmont, 1999b). At a minimum, spiritual constructs need to be used in conjunction with measures of personality in order for one to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the individual.

The Potential Value of Spirituality in Rehabilitation

The regression approach aims to identify sets of variables that maximally predict particular outcomes. However, the value of this statistical endeavor is not always found in terms of the model's predictive accuracy, but also in what the identified set of variables tells us about people. Sometimes our primary focus is more on understanding than on prediction. Although spirituality was shown to be a modest predictor, it may have more value in promoting understandings of individuals in ways that are consistent with the rehabilitation paradigm. Rehabilitation concentrates on developing interventions that will impact levels of choice, empowerment, equality, and individualism (Curtis, 1998). One way the efficacy of these interventions is measured is through various quality of life indices, all of which stress the higher nature of humans and their ability to experience broader, more inter-connective relations with others and nature (e.g., Beck, 1994; Herbert, 1996; Pain, Dunn, Anderson, Darrah, & Kratochvil, 1998). Spirituality fits snugly within the rehabilitation paradigm because both call for a better appreciation of the higher nature of humankind, and emphasize enabling individuals to recognize the broad margins of their own psychosocial/spiritual realities.

As a consequence, spirituality can make three important contributions to the area of rehabilitation. First, the availability of psychometrically sound spiritual measures can help rehabilitation professionals empirically operationalize those aspects of their interventions that focus on how individuals come to develop a sense of purpose, direction, and personal meaning in their lives. The three STS facet scales provide one set of clear definitions for these constructs. Second, measures of spirituality can serve as appropriate outcome indices for determining the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions, particularly where the focus is on the development of peak experiences (Herbert, 1996) or personal/spiritual empowerment (Beck, 1994). An examination of pre/post therapeutic change can help therapists identify both the magnitude of effect their interventions produce as well as the specific aspects of the individual that are affected. Finally, in contrast to personality, which is seen as an unchanging quality of the adult (Costa & McCrae, 1994), Spiritual Transcendence is hypothesized to be an evolving dimension of the individual over the adult life span. The inevitable movement towards death initiates an accompanying dialectic within the person to approach the larger questions of personal meaning and self value. As a result of this natural development, aspects of one's spirituality may be more amenable to direct psychological intervention than the more stable personality domains. Ultimately, rehabilitation may find added efficiency and value for its services by developing treatments that impact the spiritual dimensions of the person.

Author Notes

Support for this research was obtained from the Institute for Religious and Psychological Research. The author acknowledges the assistance of Joseph E. G. Williams in the collection of the data as well as the helpful comments of Joseph W. Ciarroechi, Lynn Davies, and Martin F. Sherman on an earlier version of this paper.

(1) For the purposes of this report, the terms spirituality and religiosity will be used interchangeably; both refer to an interest in a larger meaning and purpose in life which transcends our current mortal existence. However, there are those who argue that the terms are quite distinct and represent very different qualities (e.g., Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999).

(2) When eight factors were extracted and orthogonally rotated, the first six constituted the NEO PI-R domains and the Transcendence domain, with the exception of self-rated Connectedness, which loaded on factor 7 along with a secondary loading for peer-rated Connectedness. No other items loaded above .40 for that factor. Factor 8 was another doublet consisting of the NEO PI-R facet scales of Activity and Openness to Actions. Thus, factors 7 and 8 appeared to be of no interpretive value.

References

Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American's perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum.

Bateson, C. D. (1997). An agenda item for psychology of religion: Getting respect. In B. Spilka & D. N. McIntosh (Eds.), The psychology of religion. (pp.3 - 10). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Beck, R. S. (1994). Encouragement as a vehicle to empowerment in counseling: An existential perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation. 60(3), 6-11.

Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. S., & Erickson, S. A. (1993). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and empirical validation. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 1-26.

Borman, P. D., & Dixon, D. N. (1998). Spirituality and the 12 steps of substance abuse recovery. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 26, 287-291.

Bradbum, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago, IL Aldine.

Conn, J. W. (1985). Spirituality and personal maturity. In R. J. Wicks, R. D. Parsons, & D. (Eds.), Clinical handbook of pastoral counseling Vol. 1 (pp.37-57). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Capps Press.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 668-678.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1984). Personality as a lifelong determinant of well-being. In C. Z. Malatesta & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Emotion in adult development (pp. 141-157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). Personality, stress, and coping: Some lessons from a decade of research. In K.S. Markides & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Aging. stress and health (pp. 267-283). New York: Wiley.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). "Set like Plaster?": Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp.21 - 40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Zonderman, A. B. (1987). Environmental and dispositional influences on well-being: Longitudinal follow-up of an American national sample. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 299-306.

Crandall, R., McCown, D. A., & Robb, Z. (1988). The effects of assertiveness training on self-actualization. Small Group Behavior, 19, 134-145.

Crumbaugh, J. (1968). Purpose-in-life test. Journal of Individual Psychology, 24, 74-81.

Curtis, R. S. (1998). Values and valuing in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation. 64 (1), 42-47.

De Concilus, A. J. (1993/1994). Individual correlates of prosocial behavior: Comparison of three models (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola College in Maryland, 1993). Doctoral Abstracts International, 54(08), 2892. (University Microfilms No. AAC 93-23130).

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21, 343-352.

Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. New York: Guilford Press.

Fehar, S., & Maly, R. C. (1999). Coping with breast cancer in later life: The role of religious faith. Psycho-Oncology, 8, 408-416.

Fitchett, G., Rybarczyk, B. D., DeMarco, G. A., & Nicholas, J. J. (1999). The role of religion in medical rehabilitation outcomes: A longitudinal study. Rehabilitation Psychology, 44, 333-353.

Frankl, V. B. (1959). From death-camp to existentialism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Frankl, V. F. (1966). Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 6, 97-106.

Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656-672.

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

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 201-221.

Green L. L., Fullilove, M. T., & Fullilove, R. E. (1998). Stories of spiritual awakening: The nature of spirituality in recovery. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 325-331.

Guttmann, D. (1996). Logotherapy for the helping professional. New York: Springer Publishing.

Hall, T. W., Tisdale, T. C., & Brokaw, B. E (1994). Assessment of religious dimensions in Christian clients: A review of selected instruments for research and clinical use. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 22, 395-421.

Heath, A. C., Neale, M. C., Kessler, R. C., Eavers, L. J., & Kendler, K. S. (1992). Evidence for genetic influences on personality from self-reports and informant ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 85-96.

Herbert, J. T. (1996). Use of adventure-based counseling programs for persons with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 62(4), 3-9

Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 63-73.

Kirkpatrick, S. D., & McCullough, M. B. (1999). Religion and spirituality in rehabilitation psychology. Rehabilitation Psychology, 44, 388-402.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

Lowenthal, M. F., Thurner, M., & Chiriboga, D. (1975). Four stages of life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacDonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement, and relation to the five- factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 68, 153-197.

MacDonald, D. A., Friedman, H. L., & Kuentzel, J. G. (1999). A survey of measures of spiritual and transpersonal constructs: Part one--research update. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31, 137-154.

MacDonald, D. A., Kuentzel, J. G., & Friedman, H. L. (1999). A survey of measures of spiritual and transpersonal constructs: Part two--additional instruments. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31, 155-178.

Magnus, K., Diener, B., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65, 1046-1053.

McCann, J. T., & Biaggio, M. K. (1989). Sexual satisfaction in marriage as a function of life meaning. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18, 59-72.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 9, 231-252.

McCrae. R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Positive and negative valence within the five- factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 443-460.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 57, 415-433.

Pain, K., Dunn, M., Anderson, O., Darrah, J., & Kratochvil, M. (1998). Quality of life: What does it mean in rehabilitation? Journal of Rehabilitation. 64(2), 5-11.

Pfost, K. S., Stevens, M. J., & Wessels, A. B. (1989). Relationship of purpose in life to grief experiences in response to the death of a significant other. Death Studies, 13, 371-378.

Piedmont, R. L. (1993). A longitudinal analysis of burnout in the health care setting: The role of personal dispositions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 457-473

Piedmont, R. L. (1994). Validation of the NEO PI-R observer form for college students: Toward a paradigm for studying personality development. Assessment, 1, 259-268.

Piedmont, R. L. (1998). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Clinical and research applications. New York: Plenum.

Piedmont, R. L. (1999a). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67, 985-1013.

Piedmont, R. L. (1999b). Strategies for using the five-factor model of personality in religious research. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27, 338-350.

Rodgerson, T. B., & Piedmont, R. L. (1998). Assessing the incremental validity of the Religious Problem-Solving Scale in the prediction of clergy burnout. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 517-527.

Rose, A. (1999). Spirituality and palliative care: The attitudes of occupational therapists. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 307-312.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495-524.

Stevens, M. J., Pfost, K. S., & Wessels, A. B. (1987). The relationship of purpose in life to coping strategies and time since the death of a significant other. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 424-426.

Van Wicklin, J. F. (1990). Conceiving and measuring ways of being religious. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 9, 208-219.

Waisberg, J. L., & Porter, J. B. (1994). Purpose in life and outcome of treatment for alcohol dependence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 49-63.

Wallis, C. (1996, June 24). Faith and healing. Time, 147, 58-63.

Warfield, R. D., & Goldstein, M. B. (1996). Spirituality: The key to recovery from alcoholism. Counseling and Values, 40, 196-205.

Yiu-kee, C., & Tang, C. S-k. (1995). Existential correlates of burnout among mental health professionals in Hong Kong. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 17, 220-229.

Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 133-145.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings of religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality, 67, 889-920.

Ralph L. Piedmont, Department of Pastoral Counseling, Loyola College in Maryland, 7135 Minstrel Way, Columbia, MD 21045. Email: [e-mail]