As part of the growing interest in quality of life and subjective well-being, the Spiritual Well-Being Scale was constructed to measure the spiritual dimension. Research has shown good reliability for the scale and has provided encouraging support for its validity. It indicates well-being in a variety of spheres, including physical and mental health, psychological adjustment, and assertiveness. However, no norms have been published and little descriptive data have been readily available for the scale. Test-retest and internal consistency reliability coefficients and descriptive data are presented for several religious, student, and client groups. In evangelical samples the typical individual gets the maximum score; thus, the scale is not useful in distinguishing among individuals for purposes such as selection of spiritual leaders. The scale is currently useful for research and as a global index of lack of well-being.

Most psychologists seek to control self-disclosures they make to patients, but the Internet's rapid development and widespread use over the past decade have introduced new problems for psychologists trying to avoid inappropriate disclosures. A total of 695 psychology graduate students and psychologists were surveyed about their current use of social networking Web sites (SNWs), opinions regarding regulation of online activities by the American Psychological Association (APA), and interactions in clinical work as a result of online activities. Established psychologists seldom use SNWs and may lack the experience to provide relevant supervisory guidance. No consensus about the need for APA guidelines emerged. Historically, APA has not issued guidelines in technological areas of rapid change. Thus, graduate training and continuing education should address the ethics of SNWs.

Measuring grace is challenging. Prior research found the Grace Scale (GS), Richmont Grace Scale (RGS), and The Amazing Grace Scale (TAGS) to be reliable, have promising convergent and divergent validity, and to inter-correlate strongly. However, they may tap different constructs, or grace may be multidimensional (Bufford, Blackburn, Sisemore, & Bassett, 2015). Here two exploratory factor analyses of the combined items showed five factors: experiencing God's grace, costly grace, grace to self, grace from others, and grace to others, partially paralleling Watson, Chen and Sisemore (2011). Items from all three scales loaded on Factor 1, only items from the RGS loaded on Factor 2. The remaining factors were mostly GS items and a few RGS items. The three scales measure somewhat different constructs. Preliminary validity for the five factors is promising. Regressions showed that combinations of the other four proposed scales accounted for at most about one third of the variance on any given grace factor. The five factors showed different patterns of relationships to criterion variables. We propose a 36 item Dimensions of Grace Scale combining items from all three scales for further exploration.

No abstract

Grace is an interesting and potentially significant domain within positive psychology, but remains largely neglected. The present study examined the relationships among three known grace scales to evaluate the potential for creating a stronger single measure. It also explored their relationships to several other religious/spiritual measures to examine whether the three scales are measuring the same construct, to explore the implications for our understanding of grace, and to provide insights for further study. The three measures had moderately strong correlations with each other (r = .55 to .66), had similar relationships to other measures of religion/spirituality, and had distinct relationships to measures of psychological health and distress. This suggested that the three scales measure somewhat different constructs. Two grace scales showed significant negative skew, indicating ceiling problems. Differences in the underlying grace constructs, contamination by other concepts, or an underlying multidimensional structure for grace could account for these differences. Further study should better articulate the constructs underlying grace measures, address problems related to negative skew in responses, and clarify whether grace is multidimensional.