The Psy-FI Scale: A Measure of Psychology and Faith Integration.
As a result of these and other organizations, which supported the integration of faith and learning, there has developed a significant body of scholarship. The following reflects some of the articles and books that have been published on a) the definition of faith integration (Carpenter & Shipps, 1987; Carter and Narramore, 1979; Collins, 1977, 1981; Eck, 1996; Ellens, 1997; Holmes, 1975; Jacobsen & Jacobsen, 2004; Stevenson, 2007; VandeKemp, 1984; Wolterstorff, 1984), b) models and processes for integration (Bouma-Prediger, 1990; Carter & Narramore, 1979; Eck, 1996; Entwistle, 2015), c) what content to cover when teaching integration (Bassett, Schwab, & Coisman, 1987; Dykstra, Foster, Kleiner, & Koch, 1995; Garzon & Hall, 2012; Stevenson & Young, 1995), d) recommended pedagogy for teaching integration (Special issue, 2009; Canning, Pozzi, McNeil, & McMinn, 2000; Eck, White, & Entwistle, 2016; McMinn, Moon, & McCormick, 2009; Sorenson, Derflinger, Bufford, & McMinn, 2004; Thurston, 1997; White, Entwistle, & Eck, 2016), e) student perspectives on learning integration (Hall, Ripley, Garzon, & Mangis, 2009; Ripley, Garzon, Hall, Mangis, & Murphy, 2009), and f) the teaching of integration in different courses and settings (Grace & Ecklund, 1995; Hillstrom, 1995; Johnson & McMinn, 2003; Poelstra, 1995).
Although there are several measures of spirituality (e.g., Allport & Ross, 1967; Bassett et al., 1991; Ellison, 1983; see Hill & Hood, 1999), what is missing from the literature is a validated measure to assess the outcomes of student learning of faith integration. Given the prevalence and importance of faith integration to Christian higher education, it is surprising that no validated measure exists to assess the degree to which students engage in faith integration. Therefore, the aim of the current research is to fill this gap in the literature by creating and validating a faith integration scale. Although faith can be integrated within many academic disciplines (e.g., biology, criminal justice), this study worked to create a measure of faith integration for psychology. Furthermore, a measure of psychology and faith integration is likely most useful for CCCU institutions; however, other institutions may also benefit and advance faith integration scholarship using a validated measure.
The authors sought to develop a faith integration scale for psychology for several reasons. First, psychology has often taken the lead on faith integration as evidenced by the early founding of CAPS and the number of faith integration articles published in the Journal of Psychology and Christianity and the Journal of Psychology and Theology. Second, focusing on one discipline, psychology, allows for content-specific items which may better reflect psychology students' coursework and experiences.
better reflect psychology students' coursework and experiences.
In general, faith integration is the process of identifying, exploring, and clarifying the essential connections between Christian and academic worldviews (Hasker, 1991). As seen in Figure 1 (B. Eck, personal communication, January 19, 2017), faith integration recognizes God as the sovereign source of all knowledge (Strawn, Wright, & Jones, 2014), revealed through creation (general revelation) and Scripture (special revelation). Today, such knowledge can be acquired, regardless of whether someone believes in God, by studying creation and the Bible.
Both psychologists and theologians have developed their own unique methods to study creation and the Bible. Both psychological and theological knowledge accumulates within academia (e.g., journal articles, textbooks, faculty). Once students acquire knowledge from the different disciplines in academia they can then engage in academic faith integration. With the urging of the Holy Spirit, students begin to draw integral connections between the scientific study of creation and the theological understanding of Scripture. At CCCU institutions, faculty members are often required to foster this integration process by encouraging multi-level associations, direct correlations, and a unification between students' understanding of psychology and faith.
Why Measure Faith Integration?
Although there are many articles on the topic, there is surprisingly little empirical research. Authors such as Worthington (1994) and Stevenson, Eck, and Hill (2007) have called for more empirically supported work in the field of integration. This lack of empirical research on the topic may be the result of several issues, including a lack of a single definition of integration (Eck, 1996) and also because no valid measure exists to assess the degree to which students engage in faith integration.
Not having a valid measure of faith integration is problematic for several reasons. First, it is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the fit of various models of faith integration or assess the effectiveness of integration teaching strategies. A few studies (Hall, Ripley, Garzon, & Mangis, 2009; Sorenson, Derflinger, Bufford, & McMinn, 2004) have attempted to identify the factors contributing to students learning to integrate their faith, but they are relatively rare. The creation of a scale to measure the extent to which students think about the relation between psychology and faith is an important first step to generating effective and evidence-based teaching practices.
Second, without a measure of faith integration, CCCU institutions (and their psychology departments in particular) are unable to provide quantitative evidence to outside accreditors that their students have made progress on the institutional or departmental learning outcomes related to the faith integration component of their mission statements. Apart from anecdotes, it is difficult for CCCU institutions to argue the extent to which their educational experience meaningfully differs from secular universities. An empirical measure of faith integration would allow faculty and department chairpersons to assess which courses work best at teaching faith integration and where these courses may be most effective within the curriculum. A faith integration measure would also allow psychology programs to document changes in their students' faith integration ability from year to year and cohort to cohort. If faith integration is a student learning objective, it seems prudent to measure the extent to which students engage in faith integration.
Third, an empirically validated measure of faith integration will likely increase research on the topic. Indeed, many other constructs in psychology, such as the Big 5 personality traits (Costa & McRae, 1985), implicit attitudes (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007), and grit (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007), became more popular areas of study after researchers developed valid assessment tools.
Finally, an empirically validated faith integration measure may help substantiate claims that the extent to which students engage in faith integration predicts various positive, educational, and social outcomes. For instance, researchers have suggested that faith integration relates to students' ability to discern academic truths (Brown, 2004), interpret Scripture (i.e., hermeneutics; Hughes, 2001), and navigate competing ideologies with humility and openness (see Beers & Beers, 2013). Without a measure of faith integration, researchers cannot fully test these predictions.
Overview of Current Research
The aim of this research is to create and validate a measure of psychology and faith integration --which we dubbed the Psychology and Faith Integration (Psy-FI) Scale. The scale validation process is threefold (Simms & Watson, 2007). First, one must establish substantive validity. That is, from a review of the literature, researchers develop a large, initial pool of potential items which are best believed to assess the degree to which students engage in faith integration. Based on our review and consultation with other faith integration experts, an initial pool of 30 items was generated.
Second, the instrument must establish structural validity. That is, the initial items must be utilized by a large sample and assessed through factor analysis to determine which items load on which factors. Any items that do not load or are written poorly are discarded. The remaining "best fit" items then comprise the scale. Study 1 sought to establish the structural validity of the Psy-FI Scale using an exploratory factor analysis.
Third, researchers must establish construct validity. That is, the items must demonstrate that the Psy-FI Scale possesses convergent validity--by correlating with other, related measures--as well as discriminant validity--by detecting differences in scores between meaningfully different populations. Study 2 sought to establish convergent validity by testing whether the Psy-FI Scale correlates with theoretically similar measures (e.g., intrinsic religious motivation, informal measures of faith integration) and divergent validity by testing whether the Psy-FI scale is relatively uncorrelated with theoretically dissimilar measures (e.g., personality traits). Further, Study 2 sought to confirm the intial factor structure determined in Study 1 using a confirmatory factor analysis. Study 3 sought to establish discriminant validity by assessing whether Psy-FI scores significantly differed between students from religiously affiliated and secular universities.
Study 1--Assessing Structural Validity
One hundred ninety-four participants at a private Christian university chose to participate in an online survey in return for a small amount of course credit. Of the 194 participants, 25 were male and 169 were female. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 42 years old (M = 19.43, SD = 2.65). In regard to ethnicity, 99 (51%) of the participants identified as White, 11 (6%) identified as Black, 36 (19%) identified as Asian, 35 (18%) identified as Hispanic, and 13 (7%) selected other. The participants also varied in regard to year in school, such that 89 were Freshmen, 41 were Sophomores, 39 were Juniors, and 25 were Seniors.
Materials and Procedure. An initial pool of 30 items, which measured the extent to which students engage in thinking about psychology and faith integration, was created by the authors (1). The items were then presented to participants as part of an online "Faith Integration Survey." Students volunteered to participate in the study in exchange for a small amount of credit applied to their lower-division psychology courses.
After participants completed an informed consent form, they were presented with the 30 psychology and faith integration items. They were specifically asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement using a six-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 6 (Agree Strongly). Afterwards, participants answered basic demographic questions, were debriefed, and were provided remuneration for participating.
Results and Discussion
Structural Validity (Exploratory Factor Analysis). In order to assess the structural validity of the Psy-FI scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using principal axis factoring (PAF) with a promax rotation. Before the EFA was interpreted, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test Analysis). In order to assess the structural validity of the Psy-FI scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using principal axis factoring (PAF) with a promax rotation. Before the EFA was interpreted, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test
The results of the three factor EFA solution were evaluated and it was determined that the way the items loaded onto a 3-factor solution did not fit conceptual understanding within the faith integration literature. Therefore, a two-factor solution was produced and it accounted for 47.37% of the variance. Factor 1 of the solution accounted for 39.95% of the variance. As seen in Table 1, factor 1 loaded all non-reverse coded items onto this factor, except for one item, 23, which did not load on any factor, using 0.4 as the criteria for rotated factor loadings. Factor 2 of the solution accounted for 7.42% of the variance and loaded all five of the reverse coded items. This solution ultimately creates factor 1 as the Psy-FI scale and factor 2 as the indiscriminate scale. However, since this was the initial assessment of the Psy-FI scale, and factor 1 accounted for most of the variance, the two-factor solution was further explored in Study 2 with a new sample and by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis.
Internal Reliability. The internal reliability of the Psy-FI scale was also assessed in Study 1 using a Cronbach's alpha for the two-factor solution. Factor 1, which included 24 items, yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .94 with no items removed. This suggest good internal reliability for Factor 1. Factor 2, which included 5 items, had an initial Cronbach's alpha of .82; however, items were removed to increase the internal reliability. The first item removed was item 14 reverse coded, which increased the Cronbach's alpha to .83. The second item removed was item 10 reverse coded, which then increased the Cronbach's alpha to .86. In the end, items 14 and 10 were removed from factor 2, leaving factor two with three items. The final count of all of the items was 27.
Study 2--Assessing Convergent and Divergent Validity
One hundred seventy-seven participants at a private Christian university chose to participate in an online survey in return for a small amount of course credit. Of the 177 participants, 51 were male and 126 were female. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 27 years old (M = 19.19, SD = 1.65). In regard to ethnicity, 76 (43%) of the participants identified as White, 13 (7%) identified as Black, 42 (24%) identified as Hispanic, 25 (14%) identified as Asian, and 21 (12%) selected other. The participants also varied in regard to year in school, such that 89 (50%) were Freshmen, 46 (26%) were Sophomores, 23 (13%) were Juniors, and 19 (11%) were Seniors.
Materials. Participants were presented with the following scales in random order.
Psy-FI Scale. The degree to which students engage in psychology and faith-integration was assessed with the 27-item Psy-FI Scale created in Study 1. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement using a six-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 6 (Agree Strongly). An example item is, "I often think about how psychology and my faith relate to each other." The scale possessed good internal reliability ([alpha] = .96).
Need for Cognition. The degree to which students enjoy thinking for the sake of thinking was assessed by the Need for Cognition scale (NFC; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). The NFC scale consists of 18 items. Participants are asked to rate the degree to which each statement is characteristic of themselves from 1 (Extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (Extremely characteristic of me). An example item is, "I prefer complex to simple problems." The NFC possessed good internal reliability ([alpha] = .79).
Religious Orientation Scale. Participants' intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation (RIES) was assessed by Allport and Ross' (1967) scale. Intrinsic religious orientation was assessed via nine items; extrinsic religious orientation was assessed via 11 items. Participants rated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Extremely disagree) to 5 (Extremely agree). An example intrinsic item is, "It is important for me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and mediation." An example extrinsic item is, "The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection." Both the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales showed good internal reliability ([alpha] > .78).
Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Participants' personality traits were assessed by the ten-item personality inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). They were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with several traits which may or may not be descriptive of themselves. Their responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly). An example item is, "I see myself as open to new experiences, complex." The TIPI is a valid, reliable, and commonly used measure to assess personality (cited 4,327 times; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). The TIPI possessed adequate internal reliability ([alpha] = .60).
Entwistle Faith Integration Measure. Other unpublished, non-validated measures of academic faith integration were requested from psychology and faith integration experts via e-mail. David Entwistle shared a 24-item faith integration measure, which he adapted from earlier surveys of faculty members at CCCUs regarding what they deemed to be psychology and faith integration (EFIS). In the informal faith integration measure, participants were asked to evaluate the extent to which the following statements involve or reflect the integration of faith and learning (or the integration of psychology and Christianity). The measure utilized a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example item is, "Observing parallels between psychological theories and biblical themes." The Entwistle faith integration measure showed good internal reliability ([alpha] = .94).
Procedure. Student participants were presented with a "Personality Survey," which was said to assess how people think about themselves, their faith, psychology, and Christianity. Students volunteered to participate in the study in exchange for a small amount of credit applied to their lower-division psychology courses.
After participants completed an informed consent form, they were presented the Psy-FI scale, the Need for Cognition scale, the Religious Orientation Scale, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, and the Entwistle informal measure of faith integration in randomized order. Items within each of the scales were presented in counterbalanced order as well to avoid any order effects. Afterwards, participants completed basic demographic information (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) and questions about their academic major and coursework. Then, they were thoroughly debriefed and awarded course credit for participating.
Results and Discussion
Structural Validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis). In order to reassess and confirm the results regarding structural validity found in Study 1 a CFA was conducted to compare the one-factor and two-factor solutions of the PSY-FI scale. The results of the one-factor solution produced model fit indices of reasonable fit (RMSEA = .08, CFI = .89, TLI = .88), but did not reach the appropriate cut off of .06 for RMSEA and .9 for CFI and TLI. The two-factor solution did, however, surpass the cut offs (RMSEA = .058, CFI = .94, TLI = .94), indicating the two-factor solution best fits the data. Due to the two-factor solution fitting the data the best, the internal reliability was reassessed to ensure similar findings to Study 1. Like Study 1, both factors again showed good internal reliability. Specifically, factor 1 produced a Cronbach's alpha of .96, and factor 2 produced a Cronbach's alpha of .86, with no items removed from either factor.
Construct Validity. Construct validity was measured to determine if the Psy-FI scale was related to other faith scales (i.e., convergent validity) and was not related to personality measures (i.e., divergent validity). To first assess construct validity, convergent validity was explored. To do this, a Pearson's r correlation was conducted to determine if the Psy-FI scale related to RIES intrinsic subscale and EFIS. As seen in Table 2, the results showed that the Psy-FI scale had a positive, strong relationship to the RIES and EFIS, indicating convergent validity. Next, to assess divergent validity, a Pearson's r correlation was conducted to determine if the Psy-FI scale was not strongly related to personality measures, NFC and TIPI (Table 2). The results of the analysis showed that there was a significant, but weak relationship between the Psy-FI scale and NFC and TIPI, thus suggesting good divergent validity. Overall, due to the positive results of the convergent and divergent validity, the Psy-FI scale has construct validity.
Study 3--Assessing Discriminant Validity
One hundred forty-nine current college student participants were recruited online using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and were paid $0.25 USD. MTurk is a public website where participants can voluntarily agree to participate in psychology studies for a small payment credited to their Amazon.com account. Researchers in the social sciences often choose to collect data from MTurk participants rather than traditional undergraduate students because MTurk participants tend to be a more diverse and representative population (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011).
To ensure that the sample was limited to current college students, the title of the survey and its description specified that only people who are currently enrolled in college were eligible to participate. Further, initial items on the survey screened participants so that only current college students were allowed to participate. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years ([M.sub.age] = 22.35, SD = 1.89).
Method and Procedure
Online participants were presented with a "Personality Survey for Current College Students" survey. After consenting to participate, participants first completed the 27-item Psy-FI scale. In a similar fashion as Study 2, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with psychology and faith integration statements, ranging from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 6 (Agree strongly). An example item is, "I often think about how findings from psychology reveal God's truth." Again, the Psy-FI scale demonstrated good internal reliability, ([alpha] = .97). Afterward, participants completed basic demographic items (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) and specified their current year in school, major, whether their college/university was religiously affiliated, and, if so, which religion. Finally, participants were debriefed and paid for their participation.
Results and Discussion
Discriminant Groups Validity. Because the PSY-FI scale assesses the degree to which students integrate psychology and their faith, it was expected to show discriminant groups validity between students at secular and Christian institutions. It was expected that those that do not attend a Christian university would score lower on the PSY-FI scale than those that did attend a Christian university. To test this difference, an independent sample t-test was conducted. Before the independent sample t-test was conducted, the assumption of equality of variance was violated and corrected. The results on the independent sample t-test correcting the unequal variances was significant, t (266) = 7.80, p < .001 (one-tailed), Cohen's d = .88. Specifically, those that did not attend a Christian university (M = 3.06, SD = 1.29) had significantly lower scores on the PSY-FI scale compared to those that did attend a Christian institution (M = 4.06, SD = .95). See Figure 3. These results suggest that the Psy-FI scale has good discriminant groups validity and is capable of distinguishing those that have received training in faith integration and those that have not.
To assess the degree to which students engage in faith integration, a hallmark of Christian colleges and universities (Carpenter & Shipps, 1987; Holmes, 1977), we created and validated the Psy-FI Scale. The scale validation process was threefold and aimed to establish the scale's structural validity (Study 1), convergent and divergent validity (Study 2), and discriminant validity (Study 3). Overall, the Psy-FI scale was demonstrated to be both a valid and reliable measure.
In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution. As seen in Appendix A, the positively worded items loaded onto the first factor and the negatively worded items loaded onto the second factor. This two-factor solution is a psychometric property of the positive versus negative wording of the items. The scale's two-factor solution was confirmed in a confirmatory factor analysis within Study 2 as well. In both Study 1 and 2, the two-factor solutions showed high internal consistency, suggesting that it is indeed a reliable measure.
In Study 2, correlational analyses revealed that the Psy-FI scale showed construct validity by correlating with theoretically similar constructs (i.e., convergent validity) and correlating weakly, if at all, with theoretically unrelated constructs (i.e., divergent validity). As suspected, both measures of intrinsic religiosity and a non-validated measure of faith integration were strongly related to the Psy-FI scale. Conversely, as suspected, both measures of personality and need for cognition were weakly related to the Psy-FI scale. Thus, the Psy-FI scale appears to be a valuable tool for researchers to explore how faith integration may meaningfully relate to other constructs.
In Study 3, students from Christian and secular universities were compared in order to determine whether the Psy-FI scale showed discriminant validity. Students from Christian universities, where faith integration is modeled and explained in the classroom, scored significantly higher on the Psy-FI scale than students from secular universities. The Psy-FI scale's ability to distinguish two meaningfully different populations supports its discriminant validity. Further, it suggests that the Psy-FI scale may be a useful assessment tool. Faculty and administrators may use the Psy-FI scale to assess students' faith integration within courses, programs, and across institutions. Future research using the Psy-FI scale as an assessment tool may be a valuable extension (see Stevenson, Eck, and Hill, 2007; Worthington, 1994).
Implications and Future Directions
Based on three initial studies, the Psy-FI scale appears to be a useful resource for assessing faith integration within psychology courses and programs. Indeed, faculty within CCCU institutions are often asked to measure the degree to which students meet faith integration learning objectives. Therefore, faculty may use this scale to assess students' faith integration in a variety of ways.
For instance, students may complete the Psy-FI scale at the beginning and end of the semester in order to document any change in the degree to which students engage in faith integration during the semester. Further, students may complete the Psy-FI scale at the completion of a course to compare their scores to a department benchmark or meaningful anchor on the response scale (e.g., 4 --agree a little, 5-agree moderately, 6--agree strongly). Future studies and program evaluation which document students' faith integration development and the capability of the Psy-FI scale's use as a measure of change, are necessary to more fully establish the usefulness of this measure.
In addition to assessing change within a course, the Psy-FI scale may similarly be used as an assessment tool for programs. Most psychology departments have established program learning objectives, which specify outcome areas where all graduates of the program demonstrate particular competencies (see APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major). For psychology programs at CCCU institutions, psychology and faith integration is a commonly listed outcome. Therefore, the Psy-FI scale may be used as a cross-sectional tool to document changes in the degree to which lowerclassmen versus upperclassmen engage in faith integration. The Psy-FI Scale may also be used longitudinally to document changes in faith integration throughout a program. In each of these instances, the Psy-FI scale provides a relatively objective, direct, and self-report measure of students' faith integration, useful for assessment purposes.
Creating and validating the Psy-FI scale may also have implications for research. Empirical studies of faith integration may increase given the availability of a validated measure. For instance, future studies may assess whether the degree to which students engage in faith integration predicts positive outcomes. If faith integration is indeed a valuable skillset for discerning truth in the world, bringing faith into one's career and calling, and living a more integrated and holistic life, as we believe it to be, then the Psy-FI scale may relate to students' overall satisfaction with their education, career opportunties, and life.
Like other self-report, individual difference measures, the Psy-FI scale is not without its limitations. First, the scale does not offer an explicit definition of faith integration for its users but rather measures the degree to which students engage in integrative thinking. It contains 27 statements, intended to capture the degree to which students relate, think about, overlap, connect, and integrate their knowledge of psychology and Christianity. In these studies, students based their responses on any instances of integration, as they perceived it, that came to mind in response to the question set.
Second, the Psy-FI scale is not a measure of faith integration approach, sophistication, or depth of understanding. Instead, it assesses the extent to which students engage in the process of integrating psychology and faith. This is an important distinction, particularly for assessment purposes. It is possible that students often think about the connections between psychology and Christianity, and thus score highly on the Psy-FI scale, but their connections may be shallow, superficial, or not deeply integrated. In a self-report measure, it is unclear if students would have the self-insight or awareness to reflect on their faith integration ability (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Thus, the Psy-FI scale asks students to self-report on their frequency of integrative thought and behavior, such as "I often see connections between psychology and Christianity."
Third, the Psy-FI scale's usefulness is currently limited by its length and focus on psychology. For online data collection, a shorter version of the Psy-FI scale would presumably be more efficient. The Psy-FI scale also includes items focused solely on psychology. To extend the usefulness of these measures, further research can focus on the development and validation of other discipline-specific measures (e.g., the Bio-FI for biology) or a general academic measure of faith integration (e.g., Gen-FI). Many items in the Psy-FI scale (which specify psychology) can be replaced with other disciplinary content, such as biology or academics in general, but other items that are specific to psychology such as, "Learning how the brain works helps me better understand that everyone has a soul," would need to be replaced with other discipline-specific content. The assessment of integration in other disciplines and general education requirements would likely benefit from future adaptations of the Psy-FI scale. This original validation of the Psy-FI scale is a significant step towards measuring faith integration and advancing the research and literature on faith integration.
To our knowledge, the Psy-FI scale is the first validated measure of its kind to assess the degree to which students integrate their knowledge of psychology and Christianity. While it has some limitations, the scale also possesses many strengths that allow it to contribute to student and program assessment as well as to support and encourage empirical studies of faith integration. It is hoped that the Psy-FI scale spurs additional research and sheds more light on the development and importance of faith integration within Christian higher education.
(1) Full materials and data are available online as supplemental material, https://osf.io/h34k6/.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432.
Bassett, R. L., Camplin, W., Humphrey, D., Dorr, C., Biggs, S., Distaffen, R.,... & Thompson, H. (1991). Measuring Christian maturity: A comparison of several scales. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19(1), 84-93.
Bassett, R. L., Schwab, T., & Coisman, F. (1987). A comparison of psychology faculty teaching at Christian colleges and universities during 1972 and 1984. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 15(3), 234-242.
Beers, S., & Beers, J. (2013). Integration of faith and learning. The soul of a Christian university: A field guide for educators. Eds: Stephen T. Beers. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.
Bouma-Prediger, S. (1990). The task of integration: A modest proposal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18(1), 21-31.
Brown, W. S. (2004). Resonance: A model for relating science, psychology, and faith. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23(2), 110-120.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.
Canning, S. S., Pozzi, C. F., McNeil, J. D., & McMinn, M. R. (2000). Integration as service: Implications of faith-praxis integration for training. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 28(3), 201.
Carpenter, J. A., & Shipps, K. W. (Eds.). (1987). Making higher education Christian: The history and mission of evangelical colleges in America. Christian University Press.
Carter, J. D., & Narramore, S. B. (Eds.). (1979). The integration of psychology and theology: An introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Collins, G. R. (1977). The rebuilding of psychology: An integration of psychology and Christianity. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.
Collins, G. R. (1981). Psychology and theology: Prospects for integration. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McRae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1087-1101.
Dykstra, M. L., Foster, J. D., Kleiner, K. A., & Koch, C. J. (1995). Integrating across the psychology curriculum: A content review approach. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(4), 277-288.
Eck, B. E. (1996). Integrating the integrators: An organizing framework for a multifaceted process of integration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 15, 101-115.
Eck, B. E. (2017, January 19). Personal interview.
Eck, B. E., White, S., & Entwistle, D. N. (2016). Teaching integration to postmodern and millennial students: Implications for the classroom. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 35, 123-134.
Ellens, J. H. (1997). The interface of psychology and theology. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16, 5-17.
Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11(4), 330-338.
Entwistle, D. N. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. (3rd Ed.). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
Garzon, F., & Hall, M. (2012). Teaching Christian integration in psychology and counseling: Current status and future directions. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 40(2), 155-159.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
Grace, C. R., & Ecklund, K. (1995). The perils and promises of teaching integration in introductory psychology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(4), 296-302.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.
Hall, E. L., Ripley, J. S., Garzon, F. L., & Mangis, M. W. (2009). The other side of the podium: Student perspectives on learning integration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37(1), 15-27.
Hasker, W. (1991). Faith-learning integration: An overview. Christian Scholar's Review, 21(3), 235-248.
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
Hillstrom, E. L. (1995). Integrative themes in physiological psychology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(4), 311-313.
Holmes, A. F. (1975). The idea of a Christian college. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Holmes, A. F. (1977). All truth is God's truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Hughes, R. T. (2001). How Christian faith can sustain the life of the mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Jacobsen, D., & Jacobsen, R. H. (2004). Scholarship & Christian faith: Enlarging the conversation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, W. B., & McMinn, M. R. (2003). Thirty years of integrative doctoral training: Historic developments, assessments of outcomes, and recommendations for the future. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31(2), 83-96.
McMinn, M. R., Moon, G. W., & McCormick, A. G. (2009). Integration in the classroom: Ten teaching strategies. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37(1), 39-47.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 231-259.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. (Pp. 265-292). In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior. Psychology Press.
Patterson, J.A. (2005). Boundary maintenance in evangelical Christian higher education: A case study of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities. Christian Higher Education 4(1), 41-56.
Poelstra, P. L. (1995). Making life connections in experimental psychology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(4), 303-310.
Ripley, J. S., Garzon, F. L., Hall, M. E. L., Mangis, M. W., & Murphy, C. J. (2009). Pilgrims' progress: Faculty and university factors in graduate student integration of faith and profession. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37(1), 5-14.
Serrano, N. (2006). Conservative Christians in psychology: A history of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS), 1954-1978. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 25, 293-304
Simms, L. J., & Watson, D. (2007). The construct validation approach to personality scale construction. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Kruegers (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 240-258). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sorenson, R. L., Derflinger, K., Bufford, R., & McMinn, M. (2004). National collaborative research on how students learn integration: Final report. In D. H. Stevenson, B. E. Eck, & P. C. Hill (Eds.), Psychology and Christianity integration: Seminal works that shaped the movement. Batavia, Il: Christian Association for Psychological Studies
Special issue (2009). Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37(1), 5-69.
Stevenson, D. H., & Young, P. D. (1995). The heart of the curriculum? A status report on explicit integration courses in Christian colleges and universities. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(4), 248-260.
Stevenson, D. H., Eck, B. E., & Hill, P. C. (Eds.). (2007). Psychology & Christianity integration: Seminal works that shaped the movement. Psychology and Christianity.
Stevenson, D. L. (2007). Introduction: The nature of integration and its historical context. In D. H. Stevenson, B. E. Eck, & P. C. Hill (Eds.), Psychology and Christianity integration: Seminal works that shaped the movement (pp.1-15). Batavia, Il: Christian Association for Psychological Studies.
Strawn, B. D., Wright, R. W., & Jones, P. (2014). Tradition-based integration: Illuminating the stories of practices that shape our integrative imagination. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33(4), 300-310.
Thurston, N. S. (1997). Teaching integration through the cracks: A pedagogy of process. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(2), 294-299.
Vande Kemp, H., & Malony, H. N. (1984). Psychology and theology in western thought 1672-1965. A historical and annotated bibliography. White Plains: Kraus International.
White, S., Entwistle, D. N., & Eck. B. E. (2016) The postmodern context: Teaching integration in a changing culture. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 35(2), 113-124.
Wolterstorff, N. (1984). Reason within the bounds of religion. (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1994). A blueprint for intradisciplinary integration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 22(2), 79-86.
Brian E. Eck
Julianne M. Edwards
Evelyn C. Allen
Azusa Pacific University
Brian Collisson is an Associate Professor, Julianne Edwards is an Assistant Professor, and Brian Eck is a Full Professor and Chair Emeritus of Psychology at Azusa Pacific University. Evelyn Allen earned her Masters thesis and currently works as a Senior Editor at Azusa Pacific University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian Collisson, Azusa Pacific University, 901 E. Alosta Ave, Azusa, CA 91702; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Table 1 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation of the Psy-FI Scales for Study 1. Items PSY-FI Scale Indiscriminate Scale 1 .848 -.057 18 .793 -.089 16 .735 .062 21 .705 -.181 3 .683 .126 12 .682 .130 11 .677 .047 2 .675 -.049 17 .661 .099 24 .653 -.149 15 .649 .144 8 .648 .073 4 .648 -.097 6 .647 .139 28 .640 .060 25 .619 -.200 20 .567 .013 13 .551 -.017 30 .522 .134 26 .502 .234 29 .491 .215 22 .465 -.047 9 .461 -.181 27 .401 .271 7 (*) -.146 .931 5 (*) -.105 .838 19 (*) .053 .759 10 (*) -.151 .615 14 (*) -.172 .591 23 .245 .359 Note. Factor loading > .40 are in boldface. (*) indicates reverse coded items Table 2 Correlation Matrix of the Psy-FI Scale and Scales Used for Construct Validity in Study 2. 1 2 3 4 5 1. Psy-FI - .49 (**) .61 (**) .21 (**) .16 (*) 2. RIES - .39 (**) -.07 .19 (*) 3. EFIS - .18 (*) .25 (**) 4. NFC - .30 (**) 5. TIPI - Note. Psy-FI = Psychology Faith Integration scale; RIES = Religious Orientation Scale; EFIS = Entwhistle Faith Integration Measure; NFC = Need for Cognition; TIPI = Ten-Item Personality Inventory; (*) p < .05, (**) p < .001 Appendix: Psy-FI Scale[c] Below are several statements that you may or may not agree with. Using the following scale, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. 1 = Disagree strongly 2 = Disagree moderately 3 = Disagree a little 4 = Agree a little 5 = Agree moderately 6 = Agree strongly 1. I often think about how psychology and my faith relate to each other. 2. Psychology causes me to think about what it means to be a Christian. 3. I often see connections between psychology and Christianity. 4. There is a deep, sometimes hidden, relationship between faith and psychology. 5. I like to keep my thoughts about faith and psychology separate. (*) 6. My understanding of psychology and Christianity are closely related to each other. 7. I believe psychology and religious education should not overlap. (*) 8. I can easily think of ways that my faith informs how I think about psychology. 9. Psychology changes the way I think about my faith. 10. My faith and coursework in psychology often intersect. 11. I enjoy thinking about how my Christian and psychology worldviews connect. 12. I often wonder about how psychology relates to what is said in the Bible. 13. I think of how the Bible supports what I've learned about human behavior. 14. I often think about how findings from psychology reveal God's truth. 15. I enjoy listening to discussions which connect faith and psychology. 16. I try hard to integrate psychology and Christianity. 17. Psychology and Christianity are separate in my mind. (*) 18. I believe the scientific method reveals important aspects of a Christian life. 19. To better understand God, I reflect on what it means to be human. 20. When I'm in Church, I often think about why people act the way they do. 21. Learning how the brain works helps me better understand that everyone has a soul. 22. I often think about free will and determinism from both a psychology and religious perspective. 23. I often connect my faith to what I'm learning in my classes. 24. Many different topics taught in college relate to God's truth. 25. My faith and the courses I've taken at college overlap in meaningful ways. 26. I enjoy taking different classes because they help me to better know God. 27. Thinking about my faith helps me better understand various fields of study. (*)Reverse scored [c] For permission to use the Psy-FI scale, please contact Brian Collisson, email@example.com
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Collisson, Brian; Eck, Brian E.; Edwards, Julianne M.; Allen, Evelyn C.|
|Publication:||Journal of Psychology and Christianity|
|Date:||Jun 22, 2019|
|Previous Article:||PRE-SUASION: A REVOLUTIONARY WAY TO INFLUENCE AND PERSUADE.|
|Next Article:||Do Nonreligious Individuals Have the Same Mental Health and Well-being Benefits as Religious Individuals?|