Dedication to the Sacred (DS) Scale

Abstract

The Dedication to the Sacred (DS) Scale is a brief, psychometrically robust psychometric instrument developed by Don E. Davis, Everett L. Worthington Jr., Joshua N. Hook, and Daryl R. Van Tongeren (2009) to quantify relational spirituality. Grounded in the interpersonal commitment framework originally articulated by Scott M. Stanley and Howard J. Markman (1992) within marital psychology, the scale assesses an individual's personal dedication to their relationship with the divine or transcendent entity, conceptualized broadly as “the Sacred.” Comprising five items evaluated on a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), the DS Scale captures core facets of relational dedication, including cognitive interdependence (“we-ness”), priority of the relationship over competing goals, intrinsic willingness to sacrifice, long-term temporal horizon, and determination to persist through adversity. Psychometric evaluations across diverse samples demonstrate high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging from .87 to .93), stable test-retest reliability, and a clean unidimensional factor structure corroborated via confirmatory factor analysis with robust goodness-of-fit indices (CFI > .97, RMSEA < .06). The instrument exhibits strong convergent validity with measures of sanctification, spiritual well-being, intrinsic religious orientation, and prayer frequency, alongside discriminant validity distinguishing personal dedication from structural or social constraint commitment and social desirability biases. By bridging the psychology of religion and spirituality with close relationship science, the DS Scale provides empirical researchers and clinical practitioners with an efficient, versatile index of relational spirituality applicable in pastoral counseling, marital interventions, psychospiritual health research, and coping assessments.

Keywords

Dedication to the Sacred Scale, DS Scale, Relational Spirituality, Commitment Theory, Interpersonal Dedication, Psychology of Religion, Sanctification, Interdependence Theory, Willingness to Sacrifice, Psychometrics

Authors

The Dedication to the Sacred Scale was developed and psychometrically validated by an influential research collaborative in the psychology of religion, spirituality, and positive psychology:

• Don E. Davis, Ph.D. – Professor of Counseling Psychology at Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Dr. Davis is an internationally recognized expert in the empirical study of humility, relational spirituality, forgiveness, and positive psychology interventions.
• Everett L. Worthington Jr., Ph.D. – Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, Virginia, USA. A pioneering scholar in the scientific study of forgiveness, reconciliation, marital enrichment, and the integration of psychology and Christian theology.
• Joshua N. Hook, Ph.D. – Professor of Counseling Psychology at the University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA. His research focuses extensively on multicultural counseling, cultural humility, religion and spirituality in psychotherapy, and relational dynamics.
• Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Ph.D. – Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Frost Center for Social Science Research at Hope College, Holland, Michigan, USA. His scholarly contributions center on meaning in life, existential psychology, religious de-identification, and social-cognitive aspects of virtue.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Dedication to the Sacred (DS) Scale is to operationalize and measure the interpersonal commitment dynamic that individuals experience toward God or the divine. Historically, empirical research in the psychology of religion relied heavily on static indices of religious behavior or generalized orientations, such as Gordon Allport and J. Michael Ross’s classic distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation, church attendance frequency, theological orthodoxy, or general religious salience. While these conventional metrics offered valuable demographic and motivational insights, they frequently overlooked the dynamic, emotional, and cognitive properties that characterize an authentic, living relationship with the divine.

To address this gap, contemporary researchers inaugurated the paradigm of relational spirituality. This paradigm posits that for many religious and spiritual persons, the Sacred is experienced not as an abstract philosophical proposition or cultural institution, but as a living attachment figure and covenantal relationship partner. Davis, Worthington, Hook, and Van Tongeren (2009) sought to import sophisticated theoretical models from close relationship science—specifically marital commitment models—and adapt them to the spiritual domain.

The scale was developed to accomplish several distinct clinical and scientific purposes:

• Measuring Deep Personal Dedication: It isolates genuine, non-coerced dedication from institutional loyalty, external social pressure, or fear of community sanction, quantifying the degree to which an individual views their bond with the Sacred as an organizing axis of identity.
• Investigating Spiritual Coping and Resilience: The DS Scale enables researchers to discern why certain individuals manifest profound resilience and post-traumatic spiritual growth during existential crises, whereas others experience spiritual decline or relational strain with God.
• Facilitating Relational Clinical Interventions: In pastoral care, clinical psychology, and spiritually integrated psychotherapy, the scale functions as a baseline assessment of relational investment, helping practitioners evaluate how divine attachment affects clients' emotional functioning, moral decision-making, and marital sanctity.
• Providing a Brief, Flexible Instrument: Composed of only five items, the DS Scale minimizes participant burden in large-scale epidemiological and longitudinal survey batteries while maintaining exceptional psychometric rigor. By utilizing the inclusive term “the Sacred” (conceptualized following Kenneth Pargament’s paradigm), it permits broad administration across diverse theistic, panentheistic, and individualized spiritual worldviews.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the Dedication to the Sacred (DS) Scale is spiritual dedication, defined as the psychological state reflecting an individual's intrinsic desire, intention, and emotional commitment to maintain, nurture, and prioritize a living relationship with the Sacred over time. This construct represents the direct conceptual adaptation of Stanley and Markman’s (1992) concept of “personal dedication” within close interpersonal dyads to the divine-human relationship.

Within this framework, commitment is bifurcated into two overarching dimensions: constraint commitment (forces that make leaving a relationship costly, difficult, or socially stigmatizing) and personal dedication (forces that make an individual want to stay in a relationship, improve it, sacrifice for it, and build a shared future). The DS Scale exclusively targets personal dedication, capturing five foundational psychological sub-facets synthesized into a cohesive unidimensional construct:

1. Relational Primacy and Structural Salience

Spiritual dedication involves assigning ultimate developmental and structural priority to the divine bond. The individual does not treat the Sacred as an ancillary contingency or instrumental tool for emotional soothing; rather, the Sacred represents the primary motivational orienting force around which competing life ambitions, career trajectories, and temporal commitments are organized.

2. Trans-Situational Persistence Through Adversity

Dedication embodies long-term psychological perseverance. Borrowing from marital stability models, dedicated individuals demonstrate a conscious resolve to preserve relational closeness with the divine regardless of situational fluctuations, existential suffering, dry spiritual seasons, or challenging life circumstances. This sub-facet buffers against spiritual disillusionment.

3. Cognitive Interdependence (“We-ness”)

A central tenet of close relationship science is cognitive interdependence—the mental shift from an individualistic self-representation (“me” and “mine”) to an interconnected dyadic representation (“we” and “us”), as described by Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, and Langston (1998). In the DS Scale, this is reflected in viewing oneself and the Sacred as collaborative partners engaged in a shared narrative, rather than viewing God as a distant, separate entity (“him/her/it”).

4. Long-Term Temporal Planning

Committed relationships are inherently future-oriented. Individuals with high dedication actively integrate the Sacred into their future life trajectory, encompassing vocational aspirations, family planning, and existential legacy. The relationship is envisioned not as a transient phase, but as an enduring, permanent covenant.

5. Willingness to Sacrifice

Dedication is manifested through the intrinsic willingness to surrender immediate personal self-interest, comfort, or material goods for the sake of the relationship partner (Van Lange et al., 1997). In relational spirituality, high dedication transforms sacrifice from a burdensome legalistic obligation into an emotionally rewarding, intrinsically gratifying expression of love and devotion.

Theoretical Framework

The Dedication to the Sacred Scale is anchored at the intersection of three major psychological frameworks: Interdependence Theory, the Commitment Model, and the Relational Spirituality Paradigm.

Interdependence Theory and the Investment Model

Originating with Harold Kelley and John Thibaut (1978) and substantially elaborated by Caryl Rusbult (1980, 1983), Interdependence Theory posits that relationship persistence is governed by the structural patterns of mutual influence, reward-cost evaluations, comparison levels for alternatives, and psychological investment. Rusbult’s Investment Model demonstrates that commitment emerges from high satisfaction, low quality of alternative options, and extensive accumulated investments that would be forfeited if the bond dissolved. When applied to relational spirituality, an individual’s interactions with God mirror interpersonal dyadic interdependence: consistent prayer, cognitive meditation, and behavioral compliance act as investments that consolidate spiritual commitment.

Stanley and Markman’s Marital Commitment Model

The direct theoretical lineage of the DS Scale stems from the marital commitment taxonomy introduced by Scott M. Stanley and Howard J. Markman (1992). In their model, commitment is operationalized through two distinct dimensions:

• Constraint Commitment: Structural boundaries that keep individuals together due to social pressure, financial interdependence, legal covenants, or moral entrapment (e.g., “I have to stay”).
• Personal Dedication: The intrinsic interpersonal motivation to maintain a vibrant relationship for its own sake, characterized by a desire to sacrifice, long-term identity fusion, relationship priority, and mutual fulfillment (e.g., “I want to stay”).

Davis et al. (2009) recognized that historic psychometric measures of religious commitment inadvertently conflated constraint commitment (such as religious guilt, fear of damnation, or communal ostracism) with personal dedication. By isolating the personal dedication dimension and translating its specific behavioral markers into spiritual terminology, the DS Scale measures the authentic, approach-motivated aspect of spiritual fidelity.

The Relational Spirituality and Sanctification Paradigms

The instrument is also rooted in the relational spirituality framework formalized by Everett L. Worthington Jr., Steven J. Sandage, and colleagues, alongside Kenneth Pargament’s (1997) theory of sanctification. Sanctification describes a psychological process through which individuals perceive aspects of their lives—including their identities, values, and interpersonal attachments—as possessing spiritual character and sacred significance. By conceptualizing the divine as “the Sacred,” the DS Scale draws upon Pargament's broad psychological definition, which encompasses a divine being, ultimate reality, or transcendent truth, rendering the tool theoretically compatible with diverse theological systems.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Dedication to the Sacred Scale has been empirically substantiated across multiple validation investigations and subsequent cross-cultural replications.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by evaluating correlations between the DS Scale and established psychometric measures of religious involvement, spiritual well-being, and marital sanctification:

• Sanctification of Life: Davis et al. (2009) demonstrated that the DS Scale correlates strongly and positively with the Sanctification of Life Scale (r values typically exceeding .65, p < .001), indicating that individuals who view life through a sacred lens exhibit pronounced personal dedication to their relationship with that Sacred entity.
• Intrinsic Religious Orientation: Strong positive correlations (ranging from .70 to .82) have been consistently documented with Allport and Ross's Intrinsic Religious Orientation subscale, confirming that spiritual dedication assesses an internalized, deeply lived spiritual commitment rather than externalized social performance.
• Spiritual Practices: The scale displays robust associations with objective religious behaviors, including frequency of private devotional prayer (r ≈ .50 to .62), engagement in sacred reading, and meditation.
• Attachment to God: In studies utilizing Richard Beck and Angela McDonald's Attachment to God Inventory (AGI), DS scores correlate inversely with Attachment Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance, demonstrating that spiritual dedication is closely aligned with a secure spiritual attachment schema.

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, the DS Scale exhibits clear discriminant validity against constructs that represent external coercion, passive compliance, or methodological artifact:

• Extrinsic Religious Orientation: Correlations between the DS Scale and extrinsic religious orientation (both personal and social dimensions) are consistently weak to non-significant (r values generally below .15), demonstrating that the scale does not conflate genuine dedication with the instrumental utilization of religion for personal comfort or social prestige.
• Social Desirability Bias: When administered alongside the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale or the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), correlations with the DS Scale remain negligible (r < .12), establishing that high dedication scores reflect authentic self-construals rather than social impression management.
• Secular Constraint Commitment: The DS Scale cleanly separates from measures assessing relational or structural constraints, verifying that respondents distinguish between voluntary personal devotion and obligatory religious constraints.

Predictive and Incremental Validity

In structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression models, the DS Scale predicts psychological and relational outcomes above and beyond generic religious measures. High dedication to the Sacred incrementally predicts lower rates of depression and anxiety, superior spiritual coping during acute medical illness, greater marital commitment and marital satisfaction, and enhanced capacity for interpersonal forgiveness following relational transgressions.

Reliability

The Dedication to the Sacred Scale exhibits outstanding psychometric reliability across diverse demographic cohorts, including undergraduate university samples, community adult populations, clinical outpatients, and cross-denominational church congregants.

Internal Consistency

Across the primary validation studies conducted by Davis et al. (2009), the DS Scale demonstrated high internal consistency coefficients:

• In the initial scale construction sample (N = 250 undergraduate students), the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was α = .90.
• In a subsequent cross-validation sample consisting of married and cohabiting individuals (N = 198), the scale yielded an internal consistency of α = .92.
• Subsequent independent empirical investigations (e.g., Hook et al., 2012; Van Tongeren et al., 2013) have replicated these metrics, routinely reporting Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between .88 and .94, alongside McDonald's omega (ω) values exceeding .90.

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected item-total correlations across the five items consistently range between .71 and .86. The deletion of any single item fails to improve the overall internal consistency, confirming that all five items contribute robust shared variance to the latent dedication construct.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Temporal stability evaluations conducted over intervals of 4 to 8 weeks reveal test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from r = .82 to .87 (p < .001). This demonstrates that while the construct reflects dynamic relational quality capable of transformation via targeted interventions or developmental spiritual shifts, it possesses considerable trait-like stability under steady-state environmental conditions.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the Dedication to the Sacred Scale was rigorously assessed by Davis and colleagues (2009) using sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, candidate items adapted from Stanley and Markman’s (1992) Dedication Inventory were subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis using Principal Axis Factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation. Both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (> .88) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity confirmed the matrix factorability. The analysis yielded a single, unambiguous factor with an eigenvalue substantially exceeding the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (> 1.0), accounting for more than 68% of the total variance. Scree plot inspection revealed a sharp, unambiguous drop-off after the first extraction, with no secondary factors demonstrating theoretical or statistical viability.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the structural integrity of the unidimensional model, Davis et al. (2009) estimated a one-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis on an independent validation sample using maximum likelihood estimation. The hypothesized unidimensional measurement model demonstrated exemplary fit to the empirical data:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .98
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .97
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .052 (90% CI [.000, .098])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .024
• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): < 2.0 (non-significant discrepancy)

Factor Loadings

Standardized factor loadings (λ) for the five indicators were uniformly elevated and statistically significant (p < .001):

• Item 1 (“My relationship with the Sacred is more important to me than almost anything else in my life”): λ = .84
• Item 2 (“I want my relationship with the Sacred to stay strong no matter what rough times I may encounter”): λ = .81
• Item 3 (“I like to think of the Sacred and me more in terms of ‘us’ and ‘we’ than ‘me’ and ‘him/ her/it’”): λ = .72
• Item 4 (“My relationship with the Sacred is clearly part of my future life plans”): λ = .86
• Item 5 (“It makes me feel good to sacrifice for the Sacred”): λ = .78

Measurement invariance testing across gender and age groups has confirmed metric and scalar invariance, supporting the scale's suitability for comparative analyses.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Dedication to the Sacred (DS) Scale
• Alternative Name: DS Scale
• Authors: Don E. Davis, Everett L. Worthington Jr., Joshua N. Hook, and Daryl R. Van Tongeren
• Publication Year: 2009
• Construct Assessed: Relational spiritual dedication, cognitive interdependence with the divine, priority of the sacred relationship, and willingness to sacrifice
• Administration Type: Self-report questionnaire (pencil-and-paper or computerized administration)
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents possessing theistic, spiritual, or transcendent beliefs (applicable in clinical, research, and community contexts)
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Total Item Count: 5 items
• Dimensionality: Unidimensional (single composite factor)
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All 5 items are positively phrased; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Sum Score: Calculated by summing the numerical ratings across all 5 items. Theoretical score range: 5 to 35.
  • Mean Composite Score: Calculated by dividing the sum score by 5. Theoretical score range: 1.0 to 7.0.
• Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Low Dedication (Mean 1.00 – 3.00 / Sum 5 – 15): Indicates minimal relational investment, peripheral identification with the Sacred, and an absence of perceived covenantal commitment.
  • Moderate Dedication (Mean 3.01 – 5.00 / Sum 16 – 25): Indicates moderate spiritual salience; the Sacred is valued but may compete with worldly priorities or remain secondary during severe stress.
  • High Dedication (Mean 5.01 – 7.00 / Sum 26 – 35): Reflects pronounced relational spirituality characterized by high cognitive interdependence, voluntary sacrifice, trans-situational perseverance, and prioritization of the Sacred.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Dedication to the Sacred (DS) Scale was developed and published in 2009 in the Journal of Psychology and Theology. The instrument is copyrighted by the original authors and the Rosemead School of Psychology (Biola University).

Permissions and Usage Terms: The authors have made the Dedication to the Sacred Scale freely accessible for non-commercial academic research, empirical psychological studies, and clinical evaluation. Researchers and mental health practitioners are generally granted permission to reproduce and administer the scale within academic and therapeutic settings, provided that proper scholarly attribution is accorded to Davis, Worthington, Hook, and Van Tongeren (2009). For commercial deployment, inclusion in revenue-generating commercial software batteries, or formal integration into proprietary assessment platforms, explicit written authorization must be obtained from the primary authors or the copyright holding journal.

References

• Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939
• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
• Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, tests of working models, and an exploration of religious styles. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710403200202
• Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2009). The Dedication to the Sacred (DS) Scale: Adapting a marriage measure to study relational spirituality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37(4), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710903700404
• Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2012). Relational spirituality: An overview and future directions. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 31(2), 107–113.
• Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.
• Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press.
• Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
• Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/353245
• Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373–1395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373
• Van Tongeren, D. R., Burnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Forsyth, D. R. (2013). A meta-analysis of Christ-like behavior and relational outcomes. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.800904

Items of the Scale