Alimenté par : Claudia (ADFI Alsace)
Cet outil s'appuie sur PubMind
PubMind est une plateforme collaborative de veille scientifique qui permet d'importer des publications depuis PubMed, de suivre leur avancement de lecture, d'en extraire les éléments méthodologiques clés (protocoles, variables, résultats) et de constituer une synthèse structurée afin de faciliter la réalisation de revues de littérature. Entièrement personnalisable, cet outil s'adapte aux thématiques de recherche de ses utilisateurs.
Nous l'avons configuré ici pour centraliser et analyser la littérature scientifique concernant les croyances, les traitements psychologiques, l'étude de la scrupulosité, ainsi que l'impact et la prise en charge des troubles liés aux dérives sectaires.
Dernière synchronisation le 05/06/2026
Psycholog Relig Spiritual
OBJECTIVE: This paper details psychometric analyses of religion and spirituality (R/S) measures in a diverse sample of U.S. adults in the Study on Stress, Spirituality, and Health (SSSH).METHODS: Participants (n = 16,372) completed the SSSH Baseline Survey which assessed a broad range of R/S practices, beliefs, and experiences. The survey was administered in six NIH-funded cohort studies. Four cohorts were homogeneous regarding participant race/ethnicity: , or . Two cohorts included predominantly participants. Given our goal of identifying a robust, parsimonious set of R/S measures for common use in U.S. cohort studies, we analyzed the structure of individual R/S items in a combined sample and disregarded whether items were part of a pre-existing scale.RESULTS: An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of 60 R/S items in a randomly selected half of the sample (1=8,186) revealed nine R/S dimensions; four were robust to retention criteria. The four remaining R/S dimensions were Positive Religion/Spiritualty and Coping, Negative Religious Coping/Spiritual Struggle, Spirituality as Meaning-Purpose-Connection, and Non-Theistic Daily Spiritual Experiences. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of 41 retained items conducted in the second half of the sample (2=8,186) demonstrated that a correlated 4-factor model fit better than a unidimensional model or orthogonal (uncorrelated) 4-factor model.CONCLUSIONS: Future work is needed to confirm this model in other datasets, to demonstrate the external validity of these core R/S constructs in relation to a range of outcomes, and to finalize a robust but efficient set of R/S measures for use in U.S. cohort studies.