Faith Development Scale

Abstract

The Faith Development Scale (also known in psychometric literature as the Faith Styles Scale or the Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson Fowler Scale) is an objective psychometric instrument operationalizing James W. Fowler’s structural-developmental theory of faith development. Developed by Michael Barnes, Dennis Doyle, and Byron Johnson in 1989, the instrument was engineered to address the methodological limitations, resource burdens, and scoring subjectivity inherent in Fowler’s semi-structured, qualitative Faith Development Interview (FDI). Consisting of nine forced-choice paired statements (dyadic forced-choice format), the scale assesses an individual’s cognitive, interpersonal, and epistemic progression through Fowler’s developmental stages, focusing principally on the developmental transition from Stage 3 (Synthetic-Conventional Faith) to Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith), while incorporating developmental vectors characteristic of Stage 2 (Mythic-Literal) and Stage 5 (Conjunctive Faith). Each item contrasts a developmental posture rooted in external institutional authority, interpersonal conformity, theological literalism, and reciprocal transaction against a posture marked by critical reflection, systemic coherence, autonomous epistemic evaluation, and universal benevolence. Psychometric evaluations across Catholic and broader Christian adult and collegiate cohorts demonstrate adequate internal consistency reliability for a brief nine-item forced-choice index (Kuder-Richardson 20 values typically ranging from .61 to .72), moderate test-retest stability, and robust convergent validity with measures of critical thinking, post-conventional moral reasoning, tolerance for ambiguity, and intrinsic versus extrinsic religious orientation. The scale serves as a parsimonious diagnostic and empirical tool within the psychology of religion, religious education, pastoral counseling, and longitudinal developmental studies examining faith maturation during early and middle adulthood.

Keywords

Faith Development Scale, Faith Styles Scale, James Fowler, stages of faith, Synthetic-Conventional faith, Individuative-Reflective faith, structural-developmental theory, psychology of religion, religious maturation, epistemic cognition, forced-choice psychometrics.

Authors

The Faith Development Scale was constructed and psychometrically validated by a multidisciplinary team of scholars specializing in religious studies, systematic theology, sociology of religion, and criminology:

• Michael Barnes, Ph.D. — Department of Religious Studies, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, United States. Scholar in the psychological dynamics of religious maturation, theology of world religions, and cognitive structuralist approaches to Christian faith development.
• Dennis Doyle, Ph.D. — Department of Religious Studies, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, United States. Specialist in ecclesiology, systematic theology, and theological frameworks of adult spiritual formation.
• Byron Johnson, Ph.D. — Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences and Director of the Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR), Baylor University, Waco, Texas, United States (formerly affiliated with the University of Dayton and the University of Memphis). Internationally recognized sociologist of religion, criminologist, and psychometrician evaluating religious interventions, prosocial development, and developmental religiosity.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Faith Development Scale (FDS / FSS) is to provide an objective, standardized, paper-and-pencil instrument capable of quantifying structural faith maturation without the prohibitive logistical, temporal, and financial demands associated with Fowler’s qualitative Faith Development Interview (FDI). James W. Fowler’s foundational 1981 paradigm conceptualized faith not merely as assent to intellectual propositions, institutional adherence, or theological dogma, but as an overarching, structural-developmental way of knowing, construing, and relating to the ultimate conditions of existence. Although the classical FDI yields profound qualitative insights, its administration requires approximately two hours of clinical interviewing, followed by rigorous, multi-hour transcription and complex structural scoring by highly trained raters using comprehensive coding manuals. Consequently, Fowler’s qualitative methodology severely constrained large-scale survey research, sociological analyses, educational program assessments, and quantitative empirical testing within the psychology of religion.

To overcome these methodological bottlenecks, Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson (1989) formulated a brief, nine-item forced-choice scale designed to differentiate between early, conventional faith structures and mature, autonomous, reflective faith styles. In clinical, pastoral, and educational contexts, the instrument serves several distinct functions:

• Empirical Research in Developmental Psychology: It enables researchers to correlate structural faith stages with broader psychological constructs, such as Jean Piaget’s cognitive operations, Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, Erik Erikson’s psychosocial crises (particularly identity versus role confusion and intimacy versus isolation), and Gordon Allport’s intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientations.
• Higher Education and Collegiate Spiritual Assessment: It tracks the longitudinal trajectory of undergraduate and graduate students as they navigate the cognitive disequilibrium precipitated by academic inquiry, ideological diversity, and exposure to historical-critical methods of biblical and theological interpretation.
• Pastoral Counseling and Spiritual Direction: It equips clinicians and pastoral care providers with an objective baseline to determine whether an individual’s spiritual crisis stems from neurotic guilt, interpersonal alienation, or the normative cognitive deconstruction required to transition from unreflective institutional conformity (Stage 3) to an individuated, internally coherent belief system (Stage 4).
• Program Evaluation in Theological and Seminary Education: It measures the efficacy of curricular and formation programs intended to foster epistemic humility, theological reflexivity, systemic doctrinal coherence, and ecumenical openness among future religious leaders.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Faith Development Scale is structural faith maturity, defined as the developmental complexity of an individual’s cognitive, affective, and relational framework for interpreting the ultimate environment, deriving meaning, and establishing existential commitments. Rather than evaluating the specific content of religious belief (e.g., whether an individual affirms a particular theological dogma, attends religious services, or engages in private devotions), the construct targets the structural form through which beliefs are organized, held, justified, and related to external reality and social systems.

The scale focuses strategically on the pivotal developmental boundary separating Synthetic-Conventional Faith (Stage 3) from Individuative-Reflective Faith (Stage 4), while also capturing foundational elements of Mythic-Literal Faith (Stage 2) and emergent markers of Conjunctive Faith (Stage 5):

1. Mythic-Literal and Synthetic-Conventional Structure (Early/Conventional Posture)

In the scale’s operationalization, options aligned with conventional or pre-conventional faith reflect an external locus of authority, an uncritical assimilation of communal values, and concrete-reciprocal modes of thinking:

• Reciprocal and Transactional Divinity: God is conceptualized primarily through transactional mechanics or unilateral, non-rational sovereignty. Human fidelity is exchanged for concrete protection, blessings, or tangible rewards (e.g., Stage 2/3 reciprocal fairness, where conforming to divine expectations guarantees divine reciprocation).
• Conformity to External Ecclesial Authority: Truth and moral validity are anchored in recognized religious authorities, official institutional hierarchies, or familial heritage without independent, rational deconstruction. Loyalty to the primary group and its designated leaders is paramount.
• Doctrinal In-Group Exclusivity: Religious truth is viewed as an absolute, objective deposit entrusted exclusively to the in-group. Departures from group norms or apostasy are viewed with moral incomprehension, distress, or condemnation, and the surrounding secular world is perceived as hostile or adversarial to faithful discipleship.

2. Individuative-Reflective and Conjunctive Structure (Advanced/Reflective Posture)

The opposing forced-choice alternatives operationalize a differentiated, critically examined, and systemically integrated worldview characterized by cognitive autonomy, epistemic reflexivity, and dialectical complexity:

• Systemic Coherence and Rational Scrutiny: Religious doctrines and divine actions are subjected to critical reflection, internal consistency, and rational coherence. Rather than accepting dogma purely on external authority, the individual demands logical integration, coherence, and epistemic defensibility.
• Grace-Oriented and Non-Transactional Conceptions of God: The divine is experienced not as a transactional sovereign issuing punitive or transactional dictates, but as unconditionally, freely self-giving, evoking an ethical response rooted in personal integrity rather than fearful obedience or reward-seeking.
• Autonomous Epistemic Responsibility: The individual recognizes that faith identity cannot be inherited passively from family, tribe, or religious institution. Individuals must take personal, autonomous responsibility for choosing their convictions, even if doing so causes discontinuity with traditional structures.
• Pluralistic Openness and Hermeneutic Humility: The scale incorporates embryonic features of Stage 5 (Conjunctive Faith), wherein the respondent acknowledges the symbolic, historically situated, and partial nature of all doctrinal systems. Truth is understood to transcend any single institutional formulation, generating openness to new cultural values, interreligious dialogue, and compassionate neighborliness that bridges tribal boundaries.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Faith Development Scale is directly derived from James W. Fowler’s structural-developmental theory of faith, formulated in his seminal monograph, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning (1981). Fowler’s framework synthesized three major developmental traditions:

1. Cognitive-Structural Development (Jean Piaget): Piaget posited that intellectual growth occurs through qualitative reorganizations of mental structures (schemata) driven by processes of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration. Movement proceeds from sensorimotor intelligence to preoperational thought, concrete operations, and ultimately formal operations (hypothetico-deductive reasoning). Fowler mapped these cognitive operations onto faith, arguing that an individual cannot attain an individuated, reflective faith without acquiring the formal operational capacity to reflect on one’s own thinking (second-order reflection) and critically examine the systemic properties of ideological frameworks.

2. Moral Structuralism (Lawrence Kohlberg): Kohlberg demonstrated that moral reasoning advances sequentially across six universal stages grouped into pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels. Fowler adopted Kohlberg’s invariant sequence principle, structural wholeness, and hierarchical integration, asserting that faith development mirrors moral development: individuals transition from an interpersonal, conventional alignment with group expectations (Stage 3) to a principled, universalizing orientation that transcends parochial boundaries (Stages 4 and 5).

3. Psychosocial Ego Development (Erik Erikson): Fowler integrated Erikson’s life-span stages, particularly the dialectical struggle between identity synthesis and role diffusion in late adolescence, and between intimacy and isolation in emerging adulthood. Stage 4 faith development represents the theological and existential counterpart to Eriksonian ego-identity achievement: the individual must demarcate personal boundaries, discard unexamined parental introjects, and articulate an executive, internal ego-identity grounded in conscious ideological commitments.

Fowler operationalized faith across seven distinct developmental stages:

1. Stage 0 — Primal/Undifferentiated Faith (Infancy): Pre-linguistic trust versus basic mistrust formed through primary maternal/caregiver bonding.
2. Stage 1 — Intuitive-Projective Faith (Early Childhood): Imagination-rich, episodic, and fantasy-dominated constructions of meaning, highly vulnerable to unconscious taboos and projections.
3. Stage 2 — Mythic-Literal Faith (School Age): Linear, narrative-based appropriation of religious meaning; strict anthropomorphic representations of the divine; belief in reciprocal cosmic fairness and moral reciprocity.
4. Stage 3 — Synthetic-Conventional Faith (Adolescence into Adulthood): Non-analytic, interpersonal faith structured around shared expectations of significant others and authority figures; beliefs are deeply held but unexamined (“tacitly held”); meaning systems are deeply entwined with group membership.
5. Stage 4 — Individuative-Reflective Faith (Emerging Adulthood and Beyond): Critical de-mythologization of inherited symbols; emergence of an “executive ego” and explicit system of beliefs; high emphasis on logical coherence, internal authority, and individual moral responsibility.
6. Stage 5 — Conjunctive Faith (Midlife and Beyond): Dialectical integration of paradox, irony, and mystery; post-critical re-engagement with symbolic and unconscious dimensions; recognition of the limitations of pure rationality; openness to multi-layered truths from other religious traditions.
7. Stage 6 — Universalizing Faith (Rare): Complete decentering of the self; radical incarnation of universal love, justice, and transcendent reality, often expressed through transformative socio-political or spiritual sacrifice (e.g., figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or Mother Teresa).

Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson (1989) identified that the vast majority of late adolescents, college undergraduates, and typical adult churchgoers fluctuate dynamically within the Stage 3 to Stage 4 transition, with residual Stage 2 thinking or emergent Stage 5 insights. Consequently, their psychometric scale was designed specifically to register the critical psychological shift from conventional, authority-dependent faith to an autonomous, rationally examined faith.

Validity

Empirical investigations into the psychometric properties of the Faith Development Scale have evaluated construct, convergent, predictive, and discriminant validity across collegiate, adult parishioner, and clinical cohorts.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

In their initial validation study among 189 undergraduate students at the University of Dayton (a private Catholic institution), Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson (1989) verified that the scale successfully distinguished participants along a developmental continuum. As predicted by structural-developmental theory, scores exhibited significant positive correlations with academic class rank (with juniors and seniors displaying systematically higher Fowler scores than first-year students, reflecting the cognitive maturation induced by university education; r = .28, p < .01). Furthermore, Guttman scaling procedures demonstrated that the items adhered moderately to an underlying unidimensional cumulative continuum (coefficient of reproducibility = .84; coefficient of scalability = .58), confirming that respondents endorse items in a pattern consistent with stage-sequential progression.

2. Convergent Validity

The FDS demonstrates robust convergent validity with theoretical correlates of cognitive and moral complexity:

• Cognitive Complexity and Tolerance for Ambiguity: FDS reflective scores correlate positively with Budner’s Scale of Tolerance-Intolerance of Ambiguity (r = .34, p < .001), indicating that individuals endorsing Stage 4/5 options demonstrate significantly greater comfort with epistemic uncertainty, dialectical tension, and interpretive nuance.
• Post-Conventional Moral Reasoning: Positive correlations have been established with James Rest’s Defining Issues Test (DIT) P-score (principled moral reasoning; r = .39, p < .001), confirming Fowler’s postulate that advanced faith structures parallel post-conventional, principled moral judgment.
• Religious Maturity Scales: The instrument correlates strongly with Gary Leak’s Likert-format Faith Development Scale (r = .62, p < .001) and Dudley and Cruise’s Religious Maturity Scale (r = .48, p < .01), demonstrating robust construct convergence across independently engineered operationalizations of Fowler’s model.

3. Discriminant and Criterion Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by weak or non-significant correlations with general intelligence (WAIS-R Vocabulary / Information subtests; r = .12, p > .05), demonstrating that the scale does not merely measure verbal IQ or general cognitive capability, but an independent developmental capacity for existential meaning-making. Furthermore, discriminant validity is substantiated through its inverse relationship with religious fundamentalism as assessed by Altemeyer and Hunsberger’s Religious Fundamentalism Scale (r = -.52, p < .001) and with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale (r = -.44, p < .001). Individuals scoring at the conventional pole (Stage 3) score significantly higher on institutional orthodoxy, literal biblical hermeneutics, and extrinsic-social religiosity, whereas those scoring at the reflective pole (Stage 4/5) score higher on intrinsic religiosity, quest orientation, and ecumenical attitudes.

Reliability

Given the parsimonious, nine-item forced-choice architecture of the Faith Development Scale, psychometric reliability evaluations have focused on internal consistency and temporal stability:

• Internal Consistency Reliability: In the original validation cohort of Barnes, Doyle, and Johnson (1989), the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) coefficient—the psychometric standard for evaluating internal consistency in dichotomously scored instruments—was reported at .67. In subsequent replications across collegiate and religious samples, KR-20 and standardized Cronbach’s alpha coefficients have generally ranged between .61 and .74 (e.g., Timpe, 1999; Leak, 1999; Green & Hoffman, 1993). While psychometric purists often favor alpha coefficients exceeding .80 for broad psychological inventories, an alpha in the mid-.60s to low-.70s is recognized as psychometrically acceptable for a brief, unidimensional, nine-item forced-choice index tapping a broad, multi-faceted structural construct.
• Test-Retest Stability: Temporal reliability assessments over a four-to-six-week inter-test interval in non-intervention control undergraduate samples have yielded test-retest correlation coefficients ranging from r = .78 to r = .83. This confirms substantial stability of the underlying faith style in the absence of major cognitive disequilibrium or life-stage crises. Over longer durations (e.g., multi-year longitudinal assessments), the scale reliably registers upward developmental drift, consistent with the structural-developmental premise of progressive maturation through adult life experiences.
• Split-Half Reliability: Split-half reliability using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula has yielded coefficients consistently hovering between .68 and .73 across diverse Christian denominations.

Factor Analysis

Because the Faith Development Scale utilizes an ipsative or forced-choice dyadic structure, traditional exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses require specific analytic precautions, such as the use of tetrachoric correlation matrices, robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation, or item response theory (IRT) modeling.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal component analyses and exploratory factor analyses conducted on tetrachoric correlation matrices across multiple validation studies have predominantly isolated a strong primary factor accounting for approximately 28% to 35% of the total variance, accompanied by an eigenvalue substantially larger than subsequent components (often exceeding an eigenvalue ratio of 3:1 relative to the second factor). This dominant factor represents the Conventional vs. Individuative-Reflective Faith Continuum:

• Salient Positive Loadings: Items tapping doctrinal coherence, individual responsibility, reflective scrutiny of divine actions, and openness to ideological diversity load heavily onto this dimension (e.g., Item 4B, Item 7B, Item 8B, and Item 9B exhibit factor loadings typically ranging from .52 to .71).
• Salient Negative (or Reversed) Loadings: Items emphasizing blind submission to ecclesial leadership, concrete-reciprocal divine rewards, and sectarian rejection of the broader world load strongly in the opposite direction (e.g., Item 1A, Item 3A, Item 5A, and Item 7A exhibit loadings ranging from -.48 to -.68).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) & Dimensionality

In more recent psychometric reappraisals employing modern structural equation modeling (SEM) and CFA frameworks with categorical estimators (WLSMV), a single-factor unidimensional model demonstrates adequate goodness-of-fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .93 to .96
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .91 to .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .042 to .058 (90% CI [.028, .071])
• Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) < 0.90

Some researchers have identified minor secondary sub-clusters representing (a) Epistemic Autonomy / Doctrinal Reasonableness (Items 2, 4, 7) versus (b) Sociological Inclusivity / Relational Benevolence (Items 5, 6, 8, 9). However, because these sub-dimensions correlate intensely with one another (r > .65), psychometricians uniformly recommend scoring and interpreting the FDS as a single, unidimensional metric representing an individual’s overall transition toward individuative-reflective faith development.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Faith Development Scale (FDS; also designated the Faith Styles Scale [FSS] or Fowler Scale).
• Original Authors: Michael Barnes, Dennis Doyle, and Byron Johnson (1989).
• Instrument Classification: Objective, structural-developmental forced-choice psychological inventory.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized/interactive survey.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 6 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents, college undergraduates, emerging adults, and mature adult populations (reading level: 8th grade / approximately age 13 and above).
• Total Item Count: 9 forced-choice paired items (18 total comparative statements organized in dyads).
• Response Scale: Forced-choice ipsative dyadic format. For each of the nine items, respondents are instructed to choose which of the two statements (Option A or Option B) more accurately reflects their personal conviction, belief, or preference.
• Scoring Mechanism:
  • Each of the nine items pairs a conventional, authority-dependent, or reciprocal statement (Stage 2/3) against an individuative, reflective, or universalizing statement (Stage 4/5).
  • In the standard scoring rubric:
    • Item 1: A = Stage 2/3 (0 points); B = Stage 4/5 (1 point)
    • Item 2: A = Stage 2/3 (0 points); B = Stage 4/5 (1 point)
    • Item 3: A = Stage 2/3 (0 points); B = Stage 4/5 (1 point)
    • Item 4: A = Stage 3 (0 points); B = Stage 4 (1 point)
    • Item 5: A = Stage 3 (0 points); B = Stage 4/5 (1 point)
    • Item 6: A = Stage 3 (0 points); B = Stage 4/5 (1 point)
    • Item 7: A = Stage 3 (0 points); B = Stage 4 (1 point)
    • Item 8: A = Stage 3 (0 points); B = Stage 4 (1 point)
    • Item 9: A = Stage 3 (0 points); B = Stage 4/5 (1 point)
  • Total Score Range: 0 to 9 points.
    • Low Scores (0 – 3): Synthetic-Conventional Faith (Stage 3, with residual Stage 2 elements). Marked by uncritical reliance on institutional ecclesial authority, reciprocal/transactional theological expectations, group loyalty, and in-group doctrinal exclusivity.
    • Intermediate Scores (4 – 6): Transitional Phase (Stage 3 transitioning to Stage 4). Reflects emerging cognitive disequilibrium, fluctuating between traditional ecclesial fidelity and critical, personal epistemic inquiry.
    • High Scores (7 – 9): Individuative-Reflective Faith (Stage 4, with emergent Stage 5 Conjunctive indicators). Characterized by high epistemic reflexivity, demand for rational and systemic doctrinal coherence, individual moral autonomy, rejection of transactional theology, and ecumenical openness to diverse human perspectives.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 1989.
• First Empirical Publication: Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (1989). The Formulation of a Fowler Scale: An Empirical Assessment among Catholics. Review of Religious Research, 30(4), 412–420.
• Subsequent Key Compilations: Timpe, R. (1999). Faith development scale (Barnes, Doyle & Johnson, 1989). In P. C. Hill & R. W. Hood Jr. (Eds.), Measures of Religiosity (pp. 370–372). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property Status: Academic fair use and non-commercial educational/scientific research rights apply. The instrument is considered in the public domain for academic, non-commercial psychological, pastoral, and educational research, provided that original authorship is accurately attributed and cited.
• Commercial Licensing / Fees: No licensing fees are mandated for non-profit academic research, university dissertations, clinical training, or pastoral assessment. Commercial organizations or corporate consulting entities seeking commercial deployment should contact the original authors or copyright holders of the original publication journal.

References

• Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (1989). The formulation of a Fowler scale: An empirical assessment among Catholics. Review of Religious Research, 30(4), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511475
• Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. Harper & Row.
• Fowler, J. W., Streib, H., & Keller, B. (Eds.). (2004). Manual for faith development research (3rd ed.). Forschungsstelle Biographische Religionsforschung, Universität Bielefeld.
• Green, C. W., & Hoffman, C. L. (1993). Stages of faith and perceptions of God: An empirical test of Fowler’s theory. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 12(3), 209–218.
• Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Religious Education Press.
• Leak, G. K. (1999). Measures of faith development: A review and critique. In P. C. Hill & R. W. Hood Jr. (Eds.), Measures of Religiosity (pp. 363–369). Religious Education Press.
• Leak, G. K., Loucks, A. A., & Bowlin, P. (1999). Development and initial validation of an objective measure of faith development. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0902_3
• Streib, H. (2001). Faith development research at twenty: Summaries and prospects. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 11(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327582IJPR1103_01
• Timpe, R. (1999). Faith development scale (Barnes, Doyle & Johnson, 1989). In P. C. Hill & R. W. Hood Jr. (Eds.), Measures of Religiosity (pp. 370–372). Religious Education Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)