IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i4p843-845.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retaining the meaning of the words religiousness and spirituality: A commentary on the WHOQOL SRPB group's "A cross-cultural study of spirituality, religion, and personal beliefs as components of quality of life" (62: 6, 2005, 1486-1497)

Author

Listed:
  • Moreira-Almeida, Alexander
  • Koenig, Harold G.

Abstract

Recent years have seen increasing recognition paid to the relation of religiousness/spirituality (R/S) to health care and research. This has led to the development of more inclusive and trans-culturally validated measurements of R/S. This paper comments on the WHOQOL SRPB Group's "A cross-cultural study of spirituality, religion, and personal beliefs as components of quality of life" (62: 6, 2005, 1486-1497), a recently published paper in Social Science & Medicine, and illustrates a possible problem in the measurement of R/S, especially as related to the study of mental health outcomes. Some scales have included questions about psychological well-being, satisfaction, connectedness with others, hopefulness, meaning and purpose in life, or altruistic values as part of their measure of R/S. These questions are really tapping indicators of mental health, and should not be included in the definition of R/S itself. Otherwise, tautology is the result, and it should not be surprising that such measures of R/S (defined by questions tapping mental health) are related to mental health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Moreira-Almeida, Alexander & Koenig, Harold G., 2006. "Retaining the meaning of the words religiousness and spirituality: A commentary on the WHOQOL SRPB group's "A cross-cultural study of spirituality, religion, and personal beliefs as components of," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 843-845, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:4:p:843-845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00136-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:4:p:843-845. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.