Table of Contents

Variable:

The Religious Problem-Solving Scale (RPS) explores the significant role that religion plays in the problem-solving process. It measures several religiously based problem-solving styles or orientations. This scale was developed, in part, to test the hypothesis that one’s religious prob lem-solving style is significantly associated with one’s mental health.

Description:

The Religious Problem-Solving Scale is actually comprised of three separate subscales. They were designed to distinguish different degrees of responsibility assigned to self or God in solving problems, as well as the level of initiative taken in problem solving. The Self-Directing, Collaborative, and Deferring subscales were based on the hypothesis that responsibility and initiative in problem solving is associated with greater mental health. The Self-Directing scale was based on Fromm’s (1960) notion of a humanistic religion which places the responsibility for problem solving on people rather than God. The Collaborative scale was based on a notion of persons acting as co-partners with God, working together to solve life’s problems (Abelson, 1969; Hart, 1984). The Deferring scale was derived from Fromm’s concept of an authoritarian religion which stresses the passive submission of persons to an omnipotent God when faced with problems.

The RPS was also based conceptually on the literature which has outlined several phases to the problem-solving process: definition of the problem; generation of solutions; selection and implementation of the solution; and re-definition of the problem once it has been solved. Each of these phases was used in drafting items for the RPS.

The full form of the RPS consists of 36 items (12 for each sub-scale) scored on the same five point continuum from “Never” to “Always.” Items from the three subscales are presented in random order. The short form of the RPS and its subscales are half the length of the full scales. A separate score is obtained for each of the three subscales by summing the points assigned to each item. The range of possible scores for each of the three scales is 5-60.

Practical Considerations:

This paper-and pencil measure takes approximately twenty minutes to complete in its long form (half as long in the short form). The instructions ask respondents to state how often each of the statements apply to them. No special examiner skills are needed to score or interpret this self-administered measure. The items in the scale are easy to comprehend.

Norms/Standardization:

Normative data were collected from a sample of 197 members drawn from one Presbyterian church and one Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in the Midwest. The means and standard deviations obtained for each of the three scales were: Collaborative (mean = 36.02, standard deviation = 10.67); Self-Directing (mean= 29.70; standard deviation= 10.71); and Deferring (mean = 25.81; standard deviation = 9.19). Members were sampled through a procedure designed to control the effects of the degree of involvement in one’s church. The sample was 57% female, 69% married, and varied in educational back ground. The lack of racial diversity in the sample raises questions as to the generalizability of the norms among a racially di verse population.

Reliability:

Both internal consistency and test-retest reliability were found to be high. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained for Self-Directing, Collaborative, and Deferring problem solving were .91, .93, and .89, respectively. A test-retest reliability analysis of the scales over a one week period among a sample of 97 college students yielded the following reliability estimates: .93 (Collaborative), .94 (Self-Directing), and .87 (Deferring).

The short form of this measure also evidenced high reliability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated high internal consistency (Collaborative = .93; Self-Direct ing = .91; Deferring= .89). The short form correlated highly with the full form: Collaborative (r = .97), Self-Directing (r = .98), and Deferring (r = .97).

Validity:

As the authors predicted, the three problem-solving styles were found to be differentially associated with measures of religiousness as well as psychosocial competence. As expected, the Deferring orientation was associated with a religious style characterized by high religious involvement and reliance on external rules. The Collaborative style was linked to an internalized form of religiousness based on an intimate, interactive, and highly involved relationship with God. The Self-Directing style was not associated with traditional religious interest and practices, favoring instead a quest orientation to religion.

Also consistent with the authors’ predictions, the Deferring style of problem solving was negatively associated with such aspects of competence as personal control, self-es-

teem, and tolerance of ambiguity. In contrast, the Self-Directing style was positively associated with personal control and self-es teem. When the effects of the Deferring and Self-Directing styles were statistically re moved, the Collaborative style was also found to be positively associated with personal control and self-esteem.

A factor analysis of the 36 items of the RPS resulted in a three-factor solution which conformed well to the three scales of the RPS. This three factor solution lends strong support to the hypothesis that people use either a Self-Directing, Collaborative, or Deferring problem-solving style in their relationship with God. This finding, along with the data linking the Deferring style with poor psychosocial competence, and the data linking the Self-Directing/Collaborative styles with higher psychosocial competence, combine to support the validity of this measure.