首页> 外文学位 >Whose Spirituality? Investigating Modes of Self-Construal in Spirituality Measures Through Content Analysis.
【24h】

Whose Spirituality? Investigating Modes of Self-Construal in Spirituality Measures Through Content Analysis.

机译:谁的灵性?通过内容分析研究精神建构中自我建构的模式。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Cross-referencing the construct of spirituality with developing understandings of self-construal (Brewer & Chen, 2007; Brewer & Gardner, 1996), the present study uses latent content analysis to categorize over 400 items drawn from measures of spirituality in order to answer a central question: Has the construct of spirituality been historically represented in experimental study as a more individual, relational, or collective phenomenon? Three raters were trained to independently and blindly categorize encountered items from popular spirituality measures into 1 of 4 groups based on the self-construal categories delineated by Brewer and Gardner (1996): individualistic (I), relational (R), collective (C), or other (X). After completing 3 pilot content analyses, each aiming to ensure interrater agreement, a primary content analysis was conducted on 405 items that were categorized as I, R, C, or X by each independent rater. Results suggest that items involved in these spirituality measures are overwhelmingly individualistic (71.8%) and only secondarily relational (14.8%). Only 9.9% of the items were rated as collective and a remaining 3.5% were categorized in the category reserved for items not apparently fitting into a self-construal category (X). Interrater agreement was measured using Fleiss' kappa, which yielded a rating of .73. This is generally considered good to excellent agreement (Neuendorff, 2002). Changes in self-construal representation among items from spirituality measures published at different historical times are also assessed, self-construal representations for each analyzed measure, and implications for further cross-cultural and experimentally consistent research are explored.
机译:与对自我建构的理解的交叉引用(构建者对自我建构的理解)(Brewer&Chen,2007; Brewer&Gardner,1996),本研究使用潜在内容分析对从精神度量中提取的400多个项目进行分类,以回答中心问题:精神构造在历史上是否曾在实验研究中表示为更多的个体,关系或集体现象?对三名评估者进行了培训,根据布鲁尔和加德纳(Brewer and Gardner,1996)描绘的自我建构类别,将流行的灵性措施中遇到的项目独立地和盲目地分为4组中的1组:个人主义(I),关系(R),集体(C)或其他(X)。在完成3个试点内容分析之后,每个目的都是为了确保人与人之间的一致,然后对每个独立评估者对405个项目进行了主要内容分析,这些项目被分为I,R,C或X。结果表明,涉及这些灵性措施的项目绝大多数是个人主义的(71.8%),仅次于关系的(14.8%)。只有9.9%的商品被归为集体,其余3.5%的商品归类为显然不属于自解释类别(X)的商品。使用Fleiss的kappa评估评分者间的一致性,得出的评分为0.73。这通常被认为是良好的协议(Neuendorff,2002)。还评估了不同历史时期出版的灵性测验的项目中自我解释表示的变化,每种分析方法的自我解释表示,并探讨了对进一步跨文化和实验一致性研究的启示。

著录项

  • 作者

    Strenger, Nathaniel R.;

  • 作者单位

    Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Psychology.;

  • 授予单位 Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Psychology.;
  • 学科 Spirituality.;Religion.
  • 学位 Psy.D.
  • 年度 2016
  • 页码 101 p.
  • 总页数 101
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号