CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 338Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipCancer survivorship and care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Instruments Measuring Spirituality in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review

Open access
Monod, Stéfanie, Brennan, Mark, Rochat, Etienne, Martin, Estelle, Rochat, Stéphane, Büla, Christophe J.·2011·Journal of General Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s11606-011-1769-7PMC PMC3208480
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction Numerous instruments have been developed to assess spirituality and measure its association with health outcomes. This study's aims were to identify instruments used in clinical research that measure spirituality; to propose a classification of these instruments; and to identify those instruments that could provide information on the need for spiritual intervention.Methods A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, ATLA, and EMBASE databases, using the terms "spirituality" and "adult$," and limited to journal articles was performed to identify clinical studies that used a spiritual assessment instrument. For each instrument identified, measured constructs, intended goals, and data on psychometric properties were retrieved. A conceptual and a functional classification of instruments were developed.Results Thirty-five instruments were retrieved and classified into measures of general spirituality (N = 22), spiritual well-being (N = 5), spiritual coping (N = 4), and spiritual needs (N = 4) according to the conceptual classification. Instruments most frequently used in clinical research were the FACIT-Sp and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Data on psychometric properties were mostly limited to content validity and inter-item reliability. According to the functional classification, 16 instruments were identified that included at least one item measuring a current spiritual state, but only three of those appeared suitable to address the need for spiritual intervention.Conclusions Instruments identified in this systematic review assess multiple dimensions of spirituality, and the proposed classifications should help clinical researchers interested in investigating the complex relationship between spirituality and health. Findings underscore the scarcity of instruments specifically designed to measure a patient's current spiritual state. Moreover, the relatively limited data available on psychometric properties of these instruments highlight the need for additional research to determine whether they are suitable in identifying the need for spiritual interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-011-1769-7

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Veach TL, Chappel JN. Measuring spiritual health: a preliminary study. Substance Abuse 1992;13(3):139–147.
  2. Hungelmann J, Kenkel-Rossi E, Klassen L, Stollenwerk R. Development of the JAREL spiritual well-being scale. In: Carrol-Johnson RM, editor. Classification of Nursing Diagnosis:proceedings of the eight conference, North American Diagnosis Association. Philadeplphia: JB Lippincott, 1989:393–398

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 338

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Monod, S., Brennan, M., Rochat, E., Martin, E., Rochat, S., & Büla, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
  • University of Lausanne (CH)
Corresponding author
Monod, Stéfanie
ORCID
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-07-02
Volume
26
Issue
11
Pages
1345-1357
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
DOI
10.1007/s11606-011-1769-7
PMC
PMC3208480
OpenAlex
W2067310507
Semantic Scholar
db07f123e2344a5e54c093d1e101374fd352e01c
Cited by
338
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
spirituality measurement, spiritual well-being, spiritual coping, spiritual needs, psychometric properties, FACIT-Sp, Spiritual Well-Being Scale, spiritual intervention, instrument classification, spirituality and health
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Religion, Stress, Psychological, Spirituality, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review