Cited by 90Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and TestingWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership

Measuring meaning and peace with the FACIT–Spiritual Well-Being Scale: Distinction without a difference?

Open access
Peterman, Amy H., Reeve, Charlie L., Winford, Eboni C., Cotton, Sian, Salsman, John M., McQuellon, Richard, Tsevat, Joel, Campbell, Cassie·2014·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp; Peterman, Fitchett, Brady, Hernandez, & Cella, 2002) has become a widely used measure of spirituality; however, there remain questions about its specific factor structure and the validity of scores from its separate scales. Specifically, it remains unclear whether the Meaning and Peace scales denote distinct factors. The present study addresses previous limitations by examining the extent to which the Meaning and Peace scales relate differentially to a variety of physical and mental health variables across 4 sets of data from adults with a number of chronic health conditions. Although a model with separate but correlated factors fit the data better, discriminant validity analyses indicated limited differences in the pattern of associations each scale showed with a wide array of commonly used health and quality-of-life measures. In total, the results suggest that people may distinguish between the concepts of Meaning and Peace, but the observed relations with health outcomes are primarily due to variance shared between the 2 factors. Additional research is needed to better understand the separate and joint role of Meaning and Peace in the quality of life of people with chronic illness.

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 · 10.1037/a0034805

Cites

51 of 52 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because the Meaning and Peace subscales are similar in content and health-related outcomes, they are often combined into a two-factor structure, which the present study uses.

    “However, due to the similarities between Meaning and Peace subscales in content and health-related outcomes, the two are often combined, resulting in a two-factor structure (Peterman et al., 2014). The present study uses this two-factor structure.”

    From Who Benefits Most from a Brief Mindfulness Intervention to Reduce Anxiety During Stereotactic Breast Biopsy: the Moderating Effect of Trait Mindfulness, Spiritual Well-being, and Distress Tolerance (2021) · cites this paper as Peterman et al., 2014

    The Discussion (page not provided) finds Meaning and Peace highly correlated and functionally similar in their associations with health outcomes, and reports that an earlier study found a combined Meaning/Peace component. But this paper finds them empirically distinct; it does not establish that they are often combined because of similarities in content and outcomes. Its Method section (page not provided) excludes Faith and tests one versus two factors for Meaning and Peace, not the claimed two-factor structure of combined Meaning/Peace plus Faith. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent and broadly accepted self-correction occurred with the updating of the domains of the FACIT-Sp, from a two-factor model (meaning/peace and faith) to three domains (meaning, peace, and faith) that provide more informative constructs and better psychometric properties.

    “A recent and broadly accepted self-correction occurred with the updating of the domains of a widely used instrument, the FACIT-Sp. This instrument initially conceptualized RS as a two factor model: meaning/peace and faith (Peterman et al., 2002). However, further study of the two factor structure indicated that the meaning/peace component was too closely related to anxiety and that separating this”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Paloutzian RF Ellison CW Peplau LA Pearlman D Loneliness, spiritual well-being, and quality of life Loneliness: A sourcebook for practice 1982 358 364 Wiley Interscience New York, NY
  2. Williams EJ Regression analysis 1959 Wiley New York, NY

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peterman, A. H., Reeve, C. L., Winford, E. C., Cotton, S., Salsman, J. M., McQuellon, R., Tsevat, J., & Campbell, C.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2014-03
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
127-137
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2171678391
Cited by
90
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte
  • National Cancer Institute (CA61679; CA85464)
  • Department of Veterans Affairs (ECI 01-195)
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (R01 AT01147 and K24 AT001676)
  • National Institutes of Health (K07CA158008)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
Keywords
spiritual well-being, meaning in life, peace, factor structure, discriminant validity, chronic disease, quality of life, physical health, mental health, spirituality measurement
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Spirituality, Sense of Coherence

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