DSC 94

ll>S

11.6

NKARNESS TO <;OI> SCALK (Gorsuch & Smith, l«>H3)

Rcviewed by Michael .1. Boivin

Fundamentalism” scores w ith scores trom

te Dimensions of the Philosophies ot

liman Naturę Scalę developed

awrence Wrightsman. For ntale >tudent>

Central Michigan l'niversity. scores on

ic Nearness to God Scalę were >ig^nttl

miły correlated with how negatbeb one

icwcil Imman naturę (/ = 0.27). with

stent to which one viewed persons -

eing less than trustwoith) (T = 0    ^

ic exient to which one viewed 1^vimI*_i|Kj

eing less than altruistic (>'    0 -4'- ^

uli the extent to which one ^N,0'^uV ^_u>

>ns as hemg less than independent -k-

1 mila! U* ^ltH

Yariable: The Ncarness to God Scalę was derived from the Religious Attitude Inven-tory deveIoped by William K. roen (I957a; reviewed in this volume). Items pertaining to the Nearness to God Scalę as-sess the extent to which one feels God is rcal, constantly near, and accessible. Indi-yiduals scoring high on this scalę are char-acterized as feeling that they "walk and “talk” with God. communicating with God regularly. One’s nearness to God is evalu-ated from within the context ot the Christ-ian faith.

Description: BroeiTs (I957a.b) scalę origi-nally contained 31 items dcsigned to mea-sure nearness to God (see 8.9 in this volume for a review of Broen’s instrument). Gorsuch and Smith (1983) retained those items that they felt had the greatest contruct valid-ity given the cultural and theological shifts in American society sińce the original de-yelopment of Broen's instrument. Items 1, 9, 13, 17, 21. and 23 from Broen’s instrument (Broen, 1957b, Factor I) were retained for the Nearness to God scalę.

Practical Considerations: The instrument is relatively straightforward and easily admin-istered within a variety of settings. The scalę is usetul for both religious and nonre-ligious groups, although the instrument gen-erally assumes a Christian orientation. Re-spondents simply notę whether they agree or disagree with the item statements. Scoring is simple, sińce Gorsuch and Smith just added up the number of items with which the respondent agreed.

Norms/Standardization:    Gorsuch and

Smith (1983) administered iheir reyised vcr ioii ol Broen s oiiginal instrument to |(>4 undngiaduate students who were taking so ual suciici nuising and rcligion comscs al ■i .nuli Chiislian college I lic Nearness to tjod im .ni w.r. 5.24 (SD 0 88)

■........ ^    ^J icients arr.

availabie for Gorsuch’s six-item Ne- ^Un‘

God Scalę. In an unpublished stud^^,0

such administered the Broen's Ru;„^y’ ^(,0r-

titude lnventory to 50 students (3-)

18 females) at Texas Christian Unwe^’

The interitem consistency coefficient for'^

30 items in Broen’s instrument that^³"

tained to the nearness to God dimension^

0.60 (K-Richardson formula). This wo^uld

give sonie indication of what might be ex

pected with the Gorsuch and Smith scalę

Validity: No validity measures are available for the Nearness to God scalę beyond what was already completed with Broen's original instrument. In terms of construct valid-ity, Gorsuch and Smith (1983) do notę that individuals with a higher “nearness to God" score are significantly morę likely to at-tribute the responsibility to God for the out-come of lite events and experiences.

The following might give some indication of the construct validity of this mea-sure. In an unpublished study, Lawrence Wrightsman and a student administered BroeiTs Religious Attitude Inventory to college students attending Belmont College, Wheaton College (Wheaton. 1L). and Central Michigan University. They then correlated both the “Nearness to God and

II III II,

leinalc students