Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI-10)

Abstract

The Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10) is an empirically validated, brief self-report psychometric instrument designed by Everett L. Worthington Jr. and colleagues (2003) to quantify the degree to which an individual adheres to their religious values, beliefs, and practices and applies them in daily living. Developed to address the psychometric limitations and sectarian biases of earlier religious measures, the RCI-10 evaluates religious commitment independently of specific theological dogmas or religious traditions, making it broadly applicable across monotheistic and non-monotheistic faith traditions, as well as secular populations. The instrument comprises 10 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all true of me) to 5 (Totally true of me). Factor analytic studies robustly substantiate a two-factor oblique structure comprising Intrapersonal Religious Commitment (6 items capturing private devotion, meaning-making, and internal cognitive salience) and Interpersonal Religious Commitment (4 items measuring communal involvement, organizational participation, and social fellowship), while also supporting a composite single-factor score representing global religious commitment. The RCI-10 demonstrates exceptional internal consistency across diverse samples (Cronbach’s α typically spanning .88 to .93 for the full scale, .92 for intrapersonal, and .87 for interpersonal), alongside stable test-retest reliability over intervals extending from three weeks to six months (r = .84 to .87). Extensive validity studies confirm strong convergent validity with measures of spiritual well-being, intrinsic religious orientation, and prayer frequency, alongside discriminant validity distinguishing commitment from general impression management and psychological distress. As a premier assessment tool in the psychology of religion and spirituality and counseling psychology, the RCI-10 provides a time-efficient, psychometrically rigorous, and culturally sensitive index for academic investigations, cross-cultural studies, and clinical intake assessments.

Keywords

Religious Commitment Inventory, RCI-10, religious commitment, religiosity measurement, intrapersonal religiosity, interpersonal religiosity, psychology of religion, spiritual assessment, counseling psychology, psychometrics, Everett Worthington

Authors

The Religious Commitment Inventory-10 was developed and validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers led by Everett L. Worthington Jr., Ph.D., Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). The co-authors involved in the development, refinement, and psychometric validation of the instrument include:

• Everett L. Worthington Jr. – Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
• Nathaniel G. Wade – Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
• Thomas L. Hight – Division of Psychology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Jennifer S. Ripley – School of Psychology and Counseling, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
• Michael E. McCullough – Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA.
• Jack W. Berry – Department of Psychology, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
• Michelle M. Schmitt – Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
• James T. Berry – Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
• Kevin A. Bursley – Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
• Lynn O’Connor – The Wright Institute, Berkeley, California, USA.

Correspondence regarding the historical development and licensing of the inventory can be directed to Everett L. Worthington Jr. via the Department of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University (Richmond, VA 23284-2018, USA).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 is to provide a brief, theoretically sound, and psychometrically robust measurement of an individual’s devotion to their religious tradition and the extent to which that devotion structures their everyday decisions, worldviews, and social behaviors. Prior to the construction of the RCI-10, empirical research in the psychology of religion frequently relied on single-item indicators (such as frequency of attendance at places of worship or self-reported denominational affiliation) or excessively lengthy inventories heavily laden with Christian-specific vocabulary and theological constructs. Such legacy tools constrained cross-faith utility, imposed substantial survey fatigue on clinical and non-clinical respondents, and often conflated general religious devotion with sectarian orthodoxy or existential well-being.

Theoretical Rationale and Scope

Worthington and his colleagues sought to design an instrument that operationalized religious commitment as a universal psychological construct rather than a set of culture-bound doctrinal beliefs. The theoretical rationale posits that religious commitment involves two distinct yet deeply correlated vectors: private, intrapersonal internalization of beliefs and public, interpersonal manifestation through community engagement. The RCI-10 was specifically calibrated to capture these domains using neutral, generalized phrasing (e.g., “my faith,” “religious organization,” “religious beliefs”) rather than denomination-specific nomenclature such as “church,” “synagogue,” “Bible,” or “Christ.” Consequently, the inventory demonstrates equivalent measurement validity among Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and adherents of other non-Western or non-traditional traditions, as well as individuals self-identifying as non-religious.

Research Applications

In empirical literature, the RCI-10 serves as a foundational assessment tool across various psychological and public health domains. Researchers frequently utilize the scale to examine how religious commitment functions as an antecedent, mediator, or moderator in:

• Health and Coping: Investigating the physiological and immunological correlates of religious coping during acute physical illness, oncological treatment, and cardiovascular recovery.
• Interpersonal Forgiveness: Dissecting the mechanisms whereby internalized religious values foster altruism, empathy, and interpersonal reconciliation following transgression.
• Mental Health Outcomes: Exploring how religious devotion buffers against existential anxiety, substance abuse, depressive symptoms, and psychological despair in diverse populations.
• Cross-Cultural Psychometrics: Comparing trajectories of religious development, secularization, and spiritual maturity across varied international cultural contexts.

Clinical and Counseling Applications

In clinical and counseling psychology, the RCI-10 operates as an indispensable intake and assessment instrument. Understanding a client’s religious commitment enables clinicians to conduct culturally competent evaluations, align therapeutic interventions with the client’s core values, and identify potential religious resources or intrapsychic conflicts. Specifically, the instrument assists therapists in:

• Assessing the salience of religious beliefs within the client’s cognitive schemas to determine whether religiously integrated cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is indicated.
• Differentiating between clients with purely private spiritual inclinations versus those deeply anchored in religious communities, thereby identifying potential social support networks.
• Assisting mental health professionals in avoiding both the pathologization of deep religious commitment and the uncritical assumption of religious adherence in ethnically or culturally religious clients.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the RCI-10 is religious commitment, defined conceptually by Worthington et al. (2003) as the degree to which an individual adheres to their religious values, beliefs, and practices and uses them to guide their daily life decisions. Religious commitment transcends nominal religious affiliation, capturing the motivational salience and functional influence of religion upon the self-concept, social choices, ethical deliberation, and worldview. Within the RCI-10, this overarching construct is partitioned into two distinct, interrelated dimensions: Intrapersonal Religious Commitment and Interpersonal Religious Commitment.

Intrapersonal Religious Commitment

The Intrapersonal Religious Commitment subscale comprises six items (Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8) and evaluates the private, cognitive, and existential dimensions of faith. This dimension addresses how religious convictions shape an individual’s internal mental life, personal meaning-making systems, and private devotional practices. Key facets of this construct include:

• Cognitive and Worldview Salience: The extent to which religious beliefs supply answers to existential questions concerning the meaning and purpose of human existence (e.g., Item 4: “Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life”) and establish the foundational paradigm through which the individual conceptualizes reality (e.g., Item 5: “My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life”).
• Ethical and Behavioral Permeation: The degree to which internal religious principles actively dictate, govern, and regulate interpersonal conduct, business interactions, and moral decision-making (e.g., Item 7: “Religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life”).
• Private Devotion and Intellectual Engagement: The deliberate investment of personal time, cognitive resources, and solitude toward deepening religious comprehension and internal contemplation (e.g., Item 1: “I often read books and magazines about my faith”; Item 3: “I spend time trying to grow in understanding of my faith”; Item 8: “It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and reflection”).

Interpersonal Religious Commitment

The Interpersonal Religious Commitment subscale comprises four items (Items 2, 6, 9, and 10) and measures the communal, institutional, and relational manifestations of religious commitment. While an individual may hold profound internal convictions, religious commitment frequently incorporates active engagement within an organized social structure, religious community, or collective fellowship. This dimension assesses:

• Affiliative Social Engagement: The enjoyment of and preference for spending time in fellowship with other members who share the same faith tradition (e.g., Item 6: “I enjoy spending time with others of my religious affiliation”).
• Active Participation and Labor: Volitional involvement in the activities, service projects, and organized programs coordinated by the religious institution (e.g., Item 9: “I enjoy working in the activities of my religious affiliation”).
• Financial Stewardship and Resource Allocation: The willingness to dedicate tangible material assets and financial contributions toward the maintenance and mission of the religious organization (e.g., Item 2: “I make financial contributions to my religious organization”).
• Institutional Leadership and Civic Agency: Active involvement in institutional governance, staying informed about organizational affairs, and exerting a direct influence on community decisions and congregational policies (e.g., Item 10: “I keep well informed about my local religious group and have some influence in its decisions”).

Collectively, these two constructs offer an integrated assessment of religious devotion: Intrapersonal commitment reflects the internal depth of religious convictions, while Interpersonal commitment indexes their external behavioral expression within a community.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the RCI-10 is deeply situated within several influential theoretical models in the psychology of religion, clinical psychology, and social psychology.

Worthington’s Religious and Value Commitment Model

The primary foundation of the RCI-10 is Everett Worthington’s extensive work on values, religious commitment, and counseling processes. Worthington posited that religious values operate as central organizing structures in an individual’s personality hierarchy. In his theoretical formulation, individuals who possess high religious commitment filter their cognitive appraisals, emotional reactions, and interpersonal relationships through their faith identity. This model conceptualizes religious commitment not as a passive demographic status, but as an active, volitional investment of cognitive, temporal, and financial resources. As religious commitment deepens, the boundary separating secular life choices from religious guidelines becomes increasingly permeable, leading religious values to inform an individual’s broader life decisions.

Allport’s Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Religiosity

The theoretical conceptualization of the RCI-10 also reflects Gordon Allport and J. Michael Ross’s (1967) seminal distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. Allport defined intrinsic religiosity as a master motive wherein individuals “live their religion,” internalizing religious teachings as an end in themselves. Conversely, extrinsic religiosity was defined as a utilitarian orientation wherein individuals “use their religion” to attain social status, security, or personal gain. The Intrapersonal Religious Commitment subscale of the RCI-10 captures the essence of intrinsic religiosity by quantifying the extent to which faith provides ultimate meaning and guides behavior. However, Worthington et al. diverged from Allport’s tendency to view communal involvement primarily through an extrinsic, utilitarian lens. Instead, the theoretical foundation of the RCI-10 recognizes that interpersonal engagement, communal worship, and organizational service are authentic manifestations of religious commitment rather than merely instrumental behaviors.

Multidimensional Models of Religiosity

The inventory also draws upon multidimensional frameworks of religiosity, such as those formulated by Charles Glock and Rodney Stark (1965). Glock and Stark identified five core dimensions of religious engagement: ideological (belief), intellectual (knowledge), ritualistic (religious practice), experiential (feeling), and consequentialist (effects on daily life). The RCI-10 distills these multifaceted domains into an efficient psychometric structure: the intrapersonal scale consolidates the ideological, intellectual, and consequential dimensions, while the interpersonal scale consolidates the ritualistic, institutional, and social domains. By doing so, the scale avoids confounding core religious commitment with specific theological tenets, enabling cross-denominational assessment.

Social-Cognitive Schema Theory

From a social-cognitive perspective, religious commitment can be understood as the chronic accessibility of religious schemas. When an individual displays high religious commitment, religious concepts, values, and interpretive schemas are highly salient in memory. Consequently, when encountering life stressors, interpersonal conflicts, or moral dilemmas, these readily accessible religious frameworks are automatically activated to interpret events, regulate emotional reactions, and direct behavioral responses.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the RCI-10 was comprehensively established across six distinct empirical samples during its initial development and validation by Worthington et al. (2003), and has since been repeatedly corroborated by independent researchers globally.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Worthington et al. (2003) demonstrated that the RCI-10 shares robust, statistically significant positive correlations with legacy measures of religious devotion, intrinsic religious orientation, and observable religious behaviors:

• Intrinsic Religious Orientation: Scores on the RCI-10 correlate strongly with the Intrinsic subscale of the Revised Religious Orientation Scale (ROS; r values typically ranging from .70 to .84), confirming that the instrument accurately captures internalized, non-utilitarian religious commitment.
• Spiritual Well-Being: The RCI-10 full scale demonstrates substantial positive correlations with the Religious Well-Being subscale of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS; r = .68 to .78), while maintaining moderate, theoretically congruent correlations with the Existential Well-Being subscale (r = .35 to .48).
• Behavioral Indices of Religiosity: RCI-10 scores show strong convergent validity with observable behavioral metrics, including frequency of prayer (r = .60 to .72), frequency of attending communal religious services (r = .62 to .75), scripture reading (r = .65 to .78), and financial donations to religious causes.
• Known-Groups Validity: In validation studies, the instrument effectively distinguished between groups expected to vary in religious devotion. For example, participants actively involved in university religious organizations or enrolled in religiously affiliated universities scored significantly higher (mean total scores typically exceeding 40 out of 50) than non-affiliated secular university undergraduates (mean total scores typically ranging between 18 and 26; p < .001, Cohen’s d > 1.50).

Discriminant Validity

A critical consideration during scale development was ensuring that the RCI-10 did not merely measure general psychological adjustment, social desirability, or existential well-being. Worthington et al. (2003) confirmed strong discriminant validity across multiple indicators:

• Social Desirability: Correlations between the RCI-10 and measures of social desirability (such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding) were minimal and non-significant (r values typically ranging between .05 and .16), confirming that scale scores reflect actual commitment rather than an impression management bias.
• General Psychological Distress: RCI-10 scores demonstrated near-zero correlations with measures of general psychopathology, state and trait anxiety, and general negative affectivity, confirming that religious commitment operates independently of general mental health symptoms.
• Personality Traits: In structural analyses examining the Five-Factor Model of personality, the RCI-10 demonstrated weak-to-moderate correlations with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (r ≈ .15 to .25) and negligible correlations with Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Neuroticism, illustrating that religious commitment represents a unique motivational construct rather than a simple manifestation of broader personality traits.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The RCI-10 displays high predictive utility in diverse psychological contexts:

• Interpersonal Forgiveness: Extensive research by Worthington, Wade, McCullough, and collaborators indicates that high RCI-10 scores consistently predict greater willingness to forgive interpersonal transgressors and lower levels of revenge-seeking and avoidance motivations (e.g., Kidwell, 2009).
• Therapist and Therapy Preferences: In clinical analog studies, prospective clients with elevated RCI-10 scores demonstrated a strong, statistically significant preference for religiously committed therapists and religiously accommodative counseling protocols, whereas individuals with low RCI-10 scores showed no such preference.
• Marital and Relational Quality: Higher dyadic religious commitment assessed via the RCI-10 prospectively predicts higher marital satisfaction, commitment to marital longevity, and constructive conflict resolution strategies.

Reliability

The Religious Commitment Inventory-10 demonstrates strong internal consistency and temporal stability across a wide variety of adult, adolescent, collegiate, clinical, and community populations.

Internal Consistency

Across the initial six validation samples reported by Worthington et al. (2003), as well as numerous subsequent global investigations, the RCI-10 has exhibited high internal consistency:

• Full Scale (10 items): Cronbach’s α coefficients consistently range from .90 to .93 in college and community samples, and regularly exceed .88 in diverse clinical samples. Average inter-item correlations typically fall within the optimal range of .45 to .65, demonstrating high construct coherence without excessive item redundancy.
• Intrapersonal Religious Commitment Subscale (6 items): Cronbach’s α ranges from .89 to .92 across normative and specialized populations.
• Interpersonal Religious Commitment Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s α ranges from .84 to .87, reflecting strong reliability for a brief 4-item subscale.
• Coefficient Omega: Modern structural evaluations utilizing McDonald’s omega (ω) have further substantiated the scale’s internal consistency, with total scale ω estimates frequently exceeding .92.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Worthington et al. (2003) evaluated the stability of RCI-10 scores across varying longitudinal intervals:

• Three-Week Retest: Over a three-week interval among university undergraduates, the test-retest reliability coefficient was r = .87 for the full scale, indicating strong short-term stability.
• Six-Week Retest: Over a six-week duration, test-retest coefficients remained strong: r = .84 for the full scale, r = .83 for the Intrapersonal subscale, and r = .84 for the Interpersonal subscale.
• Long-Term Stability: Extended evaluations spanning six months have yielded stability coefficients between .75 and .82 in non-interventional cohort studies, indicating that religious commitment functions as a stable, trait-like orientation that remains consistent over time in the absence of significant life events.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the RCI-10 was established using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) during the scale’s development, transitioning from an initial 40-item pool, to a 17-item version (RCI-17), and finally to the validated 10-item inventory.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During preliminary validation, principal-axis factor analyses followed by oblique (promax) rotations were conducted on student and community datasets. Across multiple iterations, the eigenvalues, scree plot inspections, and parallel analyses supported a robust two-factor oblique solution explaining over 65% to 72% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Intrapersonal Religious Commitment: Comprising Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, with factor pattern loadings ranging between .62 and .88.
• Factor 2: Interpersonal Religious Commitment: Comprising Items 2, 6, 9, and 10, with factor pattern loadings ranging between .64 and .87.
• Factor Intercorrelation: The two factors displayed an oblique correlation typically spanning r = .60 to .75, reflecting that while intrapersonal and interpersonal commitments are distinct facets, they remain closely interrelated expressions of general religious devotion.
• Absence of Cross-Loadings: None of the retained 10 items demonstrated cross-loadings greater than .25 on the non-target factor, confirming clean simple structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Worthington et al. (2003) evaluated competing structural models via confirmatory factor analysis across independent samples to test the fit of the two-factor oblique structure against alternative configurations (e.g., a strictly unidimensional 1-factor model and orthogonal 2-factor models):

• Two-Factor Oblique Model: Consistently achieved good to excellent fit across samples: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .97 to .99; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .96 to .98; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .045 to .062 (with 90% confidence intervals well below .08); and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .031 to .042.
• Single-Factor Unidimensional Model: A baseline 1-factor model where all 10 items loaded directly onto a single global commitment factor showed acceptable fit (CFI ≈ .92 to .94; RMSEA ≈ .085 to .098), but was statistically inferior to the two-factor oblique model (Δχ² tests indicated significantly better fit for the two-factor solution, p < .001).
• Bifactor Model Support: Subsequent contemporary psychometric studies have demonstrated that a bifactor model—incorporating a general religious commitment factor alongside two specific orthogonal group factors (Intrapersonal and Interpersonal)—yields excellent model fit. This confirms that researchers can reasonably calculate and interpret both a single composite total score and distinct subscale scores, depending on their theoretical focus.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Name of the Measure: Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10)
• Alternative Titles: Worthington Religious Commitment Scale, RCI
• Target Construct: Religious commitment (internalized adherence and external behavioral application of religious faith)
• Scale Dimensions / Subscales:
  • Intrapersonal Religious Commitment (6 items: Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8)
  • Interpersonal Religious Commitment (4 items: Items 2, 6, 9, 10)
  • Total Score: Global Religious Commitment (All 10 items combined)
• Number of Items: 10 self-report statements
• Response Scale / Format: 5-point Likert-type scale scored as:
  • 1 = Not at all true of me
  • 2 = Somewhat true of me
  • 3 = Moderately true of me
  • 4 = Mostly true of me
  • 5 = Totally true of me
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized survey, clinical intake battery, or structured oral interview.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 13 and older) from diverse religious traditions, including non-affiliated or secular individuals.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Reverse Scored Items: None. All items are positively keyed.
  • Intrapersonal Subscale Score: Sum or average of Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 (Sum range: 6 to 30; Mean range: 1.0 to 5.0).
  • Interpersonal Subscale Score: Sum or average of Items 2, 6, 9, and 10 (Sum range: 4 to 20; Mean range: 1.0 to 5.0).
  • Total Composite Score: Sum or average of all 10 items (Sum range: 10 to 50; Mean range: 1.0 to 5.0).
  • Interpretation of Scores: Higher scores denote greater religious commitment. In normative non-clinical samples, mean scores commonly fall between 22 and 28. Scores ≥ 38 (or item mean ≥ 3.8) are conventionally categorized as indicating high religious commitment, while scores ≤ 20 (or item mean ≤ 2.0) suggest low religious commitment.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Religious Commitment Inventory-10 was formally published in 2003 by the American Psychological Association in the Journal of Counseling Psychology. Everett L. Worthington Jr. and his co-authors designed the scale to be widely accessible for non-commercial scholarly research, clinical intake evaluations, and educational applications without the requirement of licensing fees.

Licensing and Usage Guidelines:

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research: Free to use for empirical research, academic dissertations, and clinical practice without prior written permission, provided that appropriate bibliographic citation is accorded to Worthington et al. (2003).
• Commercial Applications: Any inclusion of the RCI-10 within proprietary, revenue-generating software packages, commercial assessment systems, or published books for sale requires formal copyright clearance and permission from the copyright holder, the American Psychological Association (APA).
• Translations: Researchers wishing to adapt or translate the RCI-10 into other languages are typically encouraged to utilize standard forward-backward translation protocols and obtain permission via Everett Worthington or the APA Permissions Department.

References

• 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
• Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. (1965). Religion and society in tension. Rand McNally.
• Kidwell, J. E. M. (2009). Exploring the relationship between religious commitment and forgiveness through quantitative and qualitative study (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University). Iowa State University Digital Repository, Paper 10891. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-1011
• Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078
• Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press.
• Ripley, J. S., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Bromley, D. G., & Kemper, S. D. (2005). Value-free and value-laden approaches to psychological treatment with religious and spiritual clients: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24(4), 291–301.
• Wade, N. G., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Meyer, J. E. (2005). But do they forgive? An examination of religious and spiritual individuals in group therapy for forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33(2), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710503300202
• Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., Schmitt, M. M., Berry, J. T., Bursley, K. A., & O’Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.84

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)