Further Validation of Spiritual Values Scale

Abstract

Many positive behaviours of youth are related to their values. In the fi eld of education value assessment is central. However value expression is oft en very ambiguous. Th erefore in an attempt to measure values with more universal, global, and cross cultural perspectives, Nazam, Husain and Khan (2015) developed a spiritual values scale. Th e initial validation of the scale was based on item content analysis, item reliability, internal consistency, and exploration of the factorial structure of spiritual values. But values are subjected to change due to many factors. Th erefore revalidation of the scale remains an important research consideration. Th e present study extends the initial validation of the scale by using structure equation modelling to revalidate the dimensionality and reliability of the spiritual values scale. Th e sample consisted of 300 adolescents. Th e results suggested that out of 27 items 4 items to measure spiritual values are ineff ective. Th e scale with 23 items still remains a reliable and valid psychological tool to assess the spiritual values of adolescents.

Hope for Latino immigrant youth: A longitudinal test of Snyder's Children's Hope Scale

“…The goal of the current study was to incorporate and build on past psychometric assessments of the CHS (Snyder et al, 1997) by systematically examining the reliability, validity, item characteristics, and measurement invariance (time, gender, and generation status) with a sample of first‐ and second‐generation immigrant Latino youth residing in the United States. Three other studies (Dew‐Reeves, 2012; Lei et al, 2019; Savalh et al, 2015) found a one‐factor solution for the CHS, and several others found only modest evidence for the original two‐factor solution with Items 2, 4, and 5 loading differently than as originally specified with diverse populations (see, for example, Shadlow et al, 2015, for Native American; Lei et al, 2019, for Chinese; Guse et al, 2016, for South African; Nazam et al, 2021, for Indian; and Edwards et al, 2007, for Mexican American). In the present study, we compared the different models specified in the literature and offered evidence that a one‐factor model with four items is preferred when studying hope among first‐ and second‐generation Latino immigrant youth.…”

“…In tests of convergent validity of the CHS (see the last column in Table 1), nine of 13 studies compared a one‐factor solution with a two‐factor solution (Atik & Kemer, 2009; Edwards et al, 2007; Guse et al, 2016; Lei et al, 2019; Nazam & Husain, 2021; Pulido‐Martos et al, 2013; Savahl et al, 2015; Shadlow et al, 2015; Valle et al, 2004). Two studies found preference for a one‐factor model (Lei et al, 2019; Savahl et al, 2015), and seven studies found the original two‐factor solution for hope was better than a one‐factor solution (e.g., Edwards et al, 2007; Guse et al, 2016; Pulido‐Martos et al, 2013; Valle et al, 2004).…”