Next Article in Journal
The Platonist Christianity of Marius Victorinus
Next Article in Special Issue
Measures of Spirituality/Religiosity—Description of Concepts and Validation of Instruments
Previous Article in Journal
Cultivating an Academy We Can Live With: The Humanities and Education for Sustainability1
Previous Article in Special Issue
The NERSH International Collaboration on Values, Spirituality and Religion in Medicine: Development of Questionnaire, Description of Data Pool, and Overview of Pool Publications
Article Menu

Export Article

Religions 2016, 7(10), 123; doi:10.3390/rel7100123

Article
The Internal Consistency Reliability of the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism among Australian Jews
1
School of Psychology, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
2
Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
3
Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit, Centre for Education Studies, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Arndt Büssing
Received: 16 March 2016 / Accepted: 14 September 2016 / Published: 30 September 2016

Abstract

:
The Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism was developed initially to extend among the Hebrew-speaking Jewish community in Israel a growing body of international research concerned to map the correlates, antecedents and consequences of individual differences in attitude toward religion as assessed by the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity. The present paper explored the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the English translation of the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism among 101 Australian Jews. On the basis of these data, this instrument is commended for application in further research.
Keywords:
psychology; religion; Australia; Judaism; attitude; Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism

1. Introduction

The measurement-based approach to the empirical psychology of religion, as reviewed for example by Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, and Gorsuch [1] and Hood, Hill and Spilka [2], remains dominated by studies shaped within Christian or post-Christian contexts. Reviews of instruments developed for research within the empirical psychology of religion confirm the paucity of scales designed specifically for application within other religious traditions [3,4].
One highly productive strand of research within the measurement-based approach to the empirical psychology of religion within Christian or post-Christian contexts has focused on the affective dimension of religion as operationalized through the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity. Developed first in English in the late 1970s, as reported by Francis [5,6], the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity is currently available in Arabic [7], Czech [8], Chinese [9,10], Dutch [11], French [12,13], German [14,15], Greek [16], Italian [17], Norwegian [18], Portugese [19], Romanian [20], Slovenian [21], Spanish [22], Swedish [23], and Welsh [24,25].
In order to extend this strand of research beyond the confines of the Christian and post-Christian context, three related instruments have been developed for application in Islamic, Hindu and Jewish contexts: The Sahin-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Islam [26], the Santosh-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Hinduism [27], and the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism [28]. In order to develop the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism, the 24-items of the original Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity were discussed by a group of theologians and religious educators representing both the Jewish tradition from Bar-Ilan University and the Christian tradition from the University of Wales, Bangor. The items were first developed in English, then translated into Hebrew and then back-translated into English to check the reliability of the translation.
In their foundation study, Francis and Katz [28] confirmed the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of this instrument among 618 Hebrew-speaking undergraduates attending Bar-Ilan University. Alpha coefficients of 0.98 were reported among female students and of 0.97 among male students [29]. Significant positive correlations with synagogue attendance were reported among both female students (r = 0.35) and male students (r = 0.72) and with prayer were reported among both female students (r = 0.51) and male students (r = 0.79).
The internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the Hebrew form of the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism was confirmed by Yablon, Francis, and Robbins [30] in an independent study conducted among 284 Hebrew-speaking female students at Bar-Ilan University. In this study an alpha coefficient of 0.94 was reported, together with significant positive correlations with synagogue attendance (r = 0.37) and with prayer (r = 0.60).

2. Research Question

The Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism, reported by Francis and Katz [28] and further tested by Yablon, Francis, and Robbins [30] was developed in Hebrew and has so far only been employed and tested in Israel. Against this background the aim of the present study was to establish and test an English language version of the instrument for use among Jewish communities in the English-speaking world. The opportunity to do this was provided by a study among Australian Jews.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Participants were 101 members of the Australian Jewish community with females comprising 68% of the sample. The sample was acquired through synagogues in Sydney and Melbourne and through the Maccabi sporting clubs.
Of the female respondents, 12% were under the age of twenty, 28% were in their twenties, 8% were in their thirties, 8% in their forties, 12% in their fifties, 18% in their sixties, and 14% were in their seventies or older; 21% attended synagogue never or almost never, 8% attended only on Yom Kippur, 25% attended mainly on high holidays, 21% attended during all or most of the festivals, 23% attended weekly but not daily, and 2% attended synagogue daily; 27% prayed never or almost never, 6% prayed only on Yom Kippur, 12% prayed mainly on high holidays, 14% prayed during all or most of the festivals, 20% prayed weekly but not daily, and 20% prayed daily; 53% did not follow Kashrut, 17% followed Kashrut during Passover, 15% followed Kashrut at home, and 15% followed Kashrut all the time.
Of the male respondents, 12% were under the age of twenty, 33% were in their twenties, 12% were in their thirties, 10% in their forties, 10% in their fifties, 12% in their sixties, and 12% were in their seventies or older; 29% attended synagogue never or almost never, 12% attended only on Yom Kippur, 35% attended mainly on high holidays, 4% attended during all or most of the festivals, 16% attended weekly but not daily, and 4% attended synagogue daily; 34% prayed never or almost never, 8% prayed only on Yom Kippur, 22% prayed mainly on high holidays, 6% prayed during all or most of the festivals, 10% prayed weekly but not daily, and 20% prayed daily; 60% did not follow Kashrut, 13% followed Kashrut during Passover, 19% followed Kashrut at home, and 9% followed Kashrut all the time.

3.2. Measures

The Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism [28], based on the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity [31,32], is a 24-item Likert type instrument, employing a 5-point response scale: Agree strongly, agree, not certain, disagree and disagree strongly. The individual items are concerned with an affective response toward God, bible, prayer, synagogue, and the Jewish religion. In this study questions containing the word “bible” were adjusted by substituting “torah” instead, a word which is more appropriate to the Jewish faith.
Behavioral elements of religion were also assessed. Synagogue attendance was assessed on a 6-point scale: Never or almost never, only on Yom Kippur, mainly on high holidays, during all or most of the festivals, weekly but not daily and daily. Personal prayer was assessed on a 6-point scale: never or almost never, only on Yom Kippur, mainly on high holidays, during all or most of the festivals, weekly but not daily and daily. Observance of Kashrut Jewish dietary laws was assessed on a 4-point scale: I don’t follow them, only during Passover, mainly in my home, and all the time.

3.3. Procedure

Participants were tested at the synagogue, in the Maccabi club rooms and at their home. The questionnaire was completed by individuals and in groups in quiet settings where participants were not allowed to discuss their answers.

3.4. Data Analysis

The data was analysed using the SPSS statistical package particularly the scale reliability and correlations analyses.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 1 presents the item rest of test correlation coefficients in respect of all 24 scale items, together with the alpha coefficient for females and for males separately. Table 1 also presents the loadings on the first factor of the unrotated solution proposed by principal-component analysis, together with the percentage of variance explained by the first factor for females and for males separately. Furthermore, the dataset possessed near perfect sampling adequacy, as assessed through the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic (KMO = 0.94). These sets of statistics support the conclusion that the scale is characterized by homogeneity, unidimensionality, and internal consistency reliability among females and males. The alpha coefficients (0.97 and 0.97) are of similar order to those reported by Francis and Katz [28], which ranged between 0.97 and 0.98. The proportions of variance accounted for by the first factor are also similar to those reported by Francis and Katz [28], which ranged between 61.8% and 66.9%. A two-factorial solution was also assessed; however, it was rejected since (a) the variance explained by the second factor was rather low (7.56%) and (b) the makeup of that factor was meaningless.
Steps towards assessing the construct validity of this scale can be made by assessing the extent to which certain predictions about the theoretical variations in attitude scores are reflected empirically [33,34]. While attitudes alone may not be simple or direct predictors of behavior [35,36], substantial evidence suggests a fairly close relationship between attitude toward religion and religious behavior, as demonstrated, for example, by Francis, Lewis, Philipchalk, Brown, and Lester [32]. For this reason, the construct validity of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity has generally been established by means of correlation with indices of religious behavior. In the case of Judaism, the path between attitudinal predisposition and religious behavior can be considered as not dissimilar from the case of Christianity. For this reason, three behavioral measures of religious practice were included in the current survey, namely measures of personal prayer, synagogue attendance, and observation of the dietary laws of Kashrut. Significant positive correlations were found between scores recorded on the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism and all three behavioral measures among both men and women. For men the following correlations were reported: prayer, r = 0.72; synagogue, r = 0.67; Kashrut, r = 0.44. For women the following correlations were reported: prayer, r = 0.71; synagogue, r = 0.71; Kashrut, r = 0.59. These statistics support the construct validity of the attitude scale.

5. Conclusions

The present study set out to build on the work of Francis and Katz [28] and Yablon, Francis, and Robbins [30] who constructed and tested the Hebrew language Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism, rooted in the theory and empirical research pioneered by the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity [32]. The objective of the present study was to examine the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of an English language version of this instrument among a sample of Australian Jews. Data provided by 101 members of the Australian Jewish community accessed through synagogues in Sydney and Melbourne and through the Maccabi sporting clubs reported highly satisfactory statistics of internal consistency reliability and construct validity among both men and women. On this basis the scale can be commended for further empirical studies concerned to map the personal and social correlates of individual differences in attitude toward Judaism among Jews living in Australia.
This instrument can also be commended for application and examination among the Jewish community in other English-speaking countries and for translation and testing in other languages.

Author Contributions

Patrick Lumbroso, Kirill Fayn and Niko Tiliopoulos jointly conceived and designed the project, conducted the data analyses, and organized the argument. Leslie J Francis served as project leader and assisted with the contextualization and writing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bernard Spilka, Ralph W. Hood, Bruce Hunsberger, and Richard L. Gorsuch. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ralph W. Hood, Peter C. Hill, and Bernard Spilka. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  3. Peter C. Hill, and Ralph W. Hood., eds. Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham: Religious Education Press, 1999.
  4. Marsha Cutting, and Michelle Walsh. “Religiosity scales: What are we measuring in whom? ” Archive for the Psychology of Religion 30 (2008): 137–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Leslie J. Francis. “Attitude and longitude: A study in measurement.” Character Potential 8 (1978): 119–30. [Google Scholar]
  6. Leslie J. Francis. “Measurement reapplied: Research into the child’s attitude towards religion.” British Journal of Religious Education 1 (1978): 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Salim J. Munayer. “The Ethnic Identity of Palestinian Arab Christian Adolescents in Israel.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wales, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Wales, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  8. Leslie J. Francis, Michael Quesnell, and Christopher Alan Lewis. “Assessing attitude toward Christianity among adolescents in the Czech Republic: The Francis Scale.” Irish Journal of Psychology 31 (2010): 125–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leslie J. Francis, Christopher Alan Lewis, and Peter Ng. “Assessing attitude toward Christianity among Chinese speaking adolescents in Hong Kong: The Francis Scale.” North American Journal of Psychology 4 (2002): 431–40. [Google Scholar]
  10. Niko Tiliopoulos, Leslie J. Francis, and Yixin Jiang. “The Chinese translation of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity: Factor structure, internal consistency reliability and construct validity among Protestant Christians in Shanghai.” Pastoral Psychology 62 (2013): 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Leslie J. Francis, and Chris A. M. Hermans. “Internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the Dutch translation of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity among adolescents.” Psychological Reports 86 (2000): 301–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Christoper Alan Lewis, and Leslie J. Francis. “Evaluer l’attitude d’étudiantes universitaires françaises à l’égard du Christianisme: L’Echelle de Francis.” Sciences Pastorals 22 (2003): 179–90. [Google Scholar]
  13. Christopher Alan Lewis, and Leslie J. Francis. “Reliability and validity of a French translation of a short scale of attitude toward Christianity.” Pastoral Psychology 52 (2004): 459–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Leslie J. Francis, and Manfred Kwiran. “Werthaltungen (einstellungen) gegenüber dem christentum bei deutschen heranwachsenden: Die Francis-Skala.” Braunschweiger Beiträge 89 (1999): 50–54. [Google Scholar]
  15. Leslie J. Francis, Hans Georg Ziebertz, and Christopher Alan Lewis. “The psychometric properties of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity among German students.” Panorama 14 (2002): 153–62. [Google Scholar]
  16. Athena Youtika, Stephen Joseph, and Deborah Diduca. “Personality and religiosity in a Greek Christian Orthodox sample.” Mental Health, Religion and Culture 2 (1999): 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Giuseppe Crea, Roberto Baioco, Salvatore Ioverno, Gabriele Buzzi, and Leslie J. Francis. “The psychometric properties of the Italian translation of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity: A study among Catholic adolescents.” Journal of Beliefs and Values 35 (2014): 118–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Leslie J. Francis, and Trond Enger. “The Norwegian translation of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43 (2002): 363–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ana Verissimo Ferreira, and Félix Neto. “Psychometric properties of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity among Portugese university students.” Psychological Reports 91 (2002): 995–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Leslie J. Francis, Dan Ispas, Mandy Robbins, Alexandra Ilie, and Dragos Iliescu. “The Romanian translation of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity: Internal consistency reliability, re-test reliability and construct validity among undergraduate students within a Greek Orthodox culture.” Pastoral Psychology 58 (2009): 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sergej Flere, Rudi Klanjsek, Leslie J. Francis, and Mandy Robbins. “The psychometric properties of the Slovenian translation of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity: A study among Roman Catholic undergraduate students.” Journal of Beliefs and Values 29 (2008): 313–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Adalberto Campo-Arias, Heidi Celina Oviedo, Carmen Elena Diaz, and Zuleima Cogollo. “Internal consistency of a Spanish translation of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity short form.” Psychological Reports 99 (2009): 1008–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jonas Eek. Religious Facilitation through Intense Liturgical Participation: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Swedish Pilgrims to Taizé. Lund: University of Lund Studies in Psychology of Religion, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  24. Thomas E. Evans, and Leslie J. Francis. “Measuring attitude toward Christianity through the medium of Welsh.” In Research in Religious Education. Edited by Leslie J. Francis, William K. Kay and William S. Campbell. Leominster: Fowler Wright Books, 1996, pp. 279–94. [Google Scholar]
  25. Leslie J. Francis, and Enlli M. Thomas. “The reliability and validity of the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity among Welsh speaking 9–11 year olds.” The Psychologist in Wales 16 (2003): 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abdullah Sahin, and Leslie J. Francis. “Assessing attitude toward Islam among Muslim adolescents: The psychometric properties of the Sahin-Francis Scale.” Muslim Educational Quarterly 19 (2002): 35–47. [Google Scholar]
  27. Leslie J. Francis, Yashoda Romil Santosh, Mandy Robbins, and Savita Vij. “Assessing attitude toward Hinduism: The Santosh-Francis Scale.” Mental Health, Religion and Culture 11 (2008): 609–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Leslie J. Francis, and Yaacov J. Katz. “Measuring attitude toward Judaism: The internal consistency reliability of the Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism.” Mental Health, Religion and Culture 10 (2007): 309–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee J. Cronbach. “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.” Psychometrika 16 (1951): 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yaacov Yablon, Leslie J. Francis, and Mandy Robbins. “The Katz-Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism: Internal consistency reliability and construct validity among female undergraduate students in Israel.” Pastoral Psychology 63 (2014): 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Leslie J. Francis, and Michael T. Stubbs. “Measuring attitudes towards Christianity: From childhood to adulthood.” Personality and Individual Differences 8 (1987): 741–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Leslie J. Francis, John M. Lewis, Ronald Philipchalk, Laurence B. Brown, and David Lester. “The internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the Francis scale of attitude towards Christianity (adult) among undergraduate students in the UK, USA, Australia and Canada.” Personality and Individual Differences 19 (1995): 949–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee J. Cronbach, and Paul E. Meehl. “Construct validity in psychological tests.” Psychological Bulletin 52 (1955): 281–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Robert E. Orton. “The foundations of construct validity: Towards an update.” Journal of Research and Development in Education 21 (1987): 22–35. [Google Scholar]
  35. Icek Ajzen. Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  36. J. Richard Eiser, and Joop van der Pligt. Attitudes and Decisions. London: Routledge, 1988. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. The Katz-Francis scale of attitude toward Judaism.
Table 1. The Katz-Francis scale of attitude toward Judaism.
FemaleMale
rfrf
I find it boring to learn the Torah *0.710.660.570.71
I know that my religion helps me0.630.610.700.83
Saying my prayers helps me a lot0.730.820.780.89
The synagogue is very important to me0.630.740.610.82
I think going to synagogue is a waste of my time *0.610.900.660.82
I want to love G_d0.860.780.820.87
I think synagogue services are boring *0.590.820.510.78
I think people who pray are stupid *0.550.570.700.75
G_d helps me to lead a better life0.900.860.900.87
I like to learn about G_d very much0.740.580.540.75
G_d means a lot to me0.860.800.870.93
I believe that G_d helps people0.800.730.840.84
Prayer helps me a lot0.830.890.800.92
I know that I am very close to G_d0.790.820.860.88
I think praying is a good thing0.830.740.860.84
I think the Torah is out of date *0.660.490.640.64
I believe that G_d listens to prayers0.790.850.820.85
G_d doesn’t mean anything to me *0.800.680.880.85
G_d is very real to me0.890.880.840.82
I think saying prayers does no good *0.750.720.860.89
The idea of G_d means much to me0.900.850.770.76
I believe that my religion still helps people0.650.760.600.72
I know that G_d helps me0.860.830.880.86
I find it hard to believe in G_d *0.840.750.720.83
Alpha/percent of variance0.9761.9%0.9761.3%
Notes: * Reverse-coded items; r correlation between item and sum of other items; f factor loading.
Religions EISSN 2077-1444 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert Logo copyright Steve Bridenbaugh/UUA
Back to Top