Religious Values Scale

1. Abstract

The Religious Values Scale (RVS) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument formulated by Everett L. Worthington Jr. and colleagues to operationalize and evaluate the cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal value structures characteristic of highly religious individuals, particularly within the context of psychological counseling and psychotherapy. Rooted in Everett L. Worthington Jr.'s (1988) seminal theoretical framework concerning religious values in counseling, the scale systematically explores how devout individuals interpret authority, structure interpersonal boundaries, and maintain a cognitive “zone of tolerance” regarding divergence in spiritual beliefs. The instrument comprises 62 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all true of me) to 5 (Totally true of me).

The scale encompasses key conceptual dimensions, including overarching religious commitment, the authority afforded to sacred scriptures, the authority invested in religious and human leadership, identification with the local and universal religious community, and the individual’s zone of tolerance—manifesting as a preference for counselors, advisors, and affiliates who possess congruent spiritual frameworks. Empirical investigations across multiple standardization cohorts demonstrated acceptable to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from .73 to .99 for primary subscales, though subscales capturing counselor attitude preferences have exhibited lower internal consistencies (.47 to .64) across specific student cohorts. Construct, convergent, and criterion validities have been corroborated via substantial correlations with established instruments such as the King and Hunt Basic Religiosity Scales and Glock and Stark’s Dimensions of Religious Commitment, as well as behavioral indices including ecclesiastical attendance and leadership engagement. The RVS remains a cornerstone in clinical psychology, pastoral counseling, and the psychology of religion for identifying value divergence and mitigating ruptures in therapeutic alliances.

2. Keywords

Religious Values Scale, Everett L. Worthington Jr., religious commitment, pastoral counseling, psychometrics, zone of tolerance, scriptural authority, religious leadership, therapeutic alliance, psychology of religion

3. Authors

The conceptual framework and psychometric operationalization of the Religious Values Scale were primarily established by Everett L. Worthington Jr., Ph.D., Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, Virginia, United States. Dr. Worthington is an internationally recognized scholar in the psychology of religion, forgiveness, and values integration in counseling.

The psychometric evaluation, factor refinement, and standardization of the scale involved extensive collaborative investigations with research associates and graduate colleagues at Virginia Commonwealth University, including:

• K. Hsu, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.
• K. K. Gowda, M.S. — Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.
• E. Bleach, M.S. — Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.
• James T. Berry, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.
• K. H. Bursley, M.S. — Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.
• Michael E. McCullough, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology (subsequent empirical replication and clinical extension cohorts), currently at the University of California, San Diego.

Correspondence regarding the original scale protocols and scoring parameters was established through the Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 808 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284-2018.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Values Scale (RVS) is to provide mental health clinicians, clinical researchers, and psychometricians with an objective, standardized metric designed to evaluate the multifaceted value systems that govern how devout clients interact with the secular and clinical world. While general measures of religiosity often treat faith as a monolithic construct—predominantly assessing frequency of worship attendance or broad doctrinal agreement—Worthington's (1988) clinical paradigm posits that highly religious psychotherapy clients appraise their external environment, internal decisions, and therapeutic encounters through distinct value axes. The RVS was developed to bridge the empirical divide between secular psychotherapy modalities and the nuanced spiritual worldviews held by conservative, devout, or highly committed religious clients.

In clinical practice, the RVS fulfills several critical functions:

• Pre-treatment Assessment and Alliance Building: The tool allows psychotherapists to gauge the client’s reliance on sacred texts and institutional leadership. When clients exhibit extreme deference to scriptural authority or religious hierarchy, secular therapeutic interventions that implicitly question these authorities may precipitate premature termination or cognitive dissonance.
• Mapping the "Zone of Tolerance": A central clinical rationale behind the RVS is measuring an individual’s psychological flexibility regarding differing belief systems. Devout clients often operate within an interpersonal “zone of tolerance,” outside of which secular or philosophically divergent practitioners are viewed with apprehension. By quantifying the client’s preference for congruent counselors and advisors, the RVS identifies potential risks for therapeutic rupture.
• Empirical Research in Counseling Psychology: In academic and laboratory settings, the RVS serves as an operational instrument for analogue studies exploring client-counselor value matching, the effects of counselor self-disclosure regarding religious beliefs, and the differential perception of psychotherapeutic interventions when religious issues are introduced into treatment (e.g., McCullough & Worthington, 1995; Morrow et al., 1993).
• Diagnostic Differentiation: The scale enables investigators to differentiate between generalized intrinsic religious commitment and specific, authoritarian religious attitudes that may affect family dynamics, marital roles, and obedience to social or institutional hierarchies.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct operationalized by the Religious Values Scale is multidimensional, reflecting how religious conviction guides cognitive appraisals, social categorization, and normative behaviors. Rather than measuring theological acumen or superficial denominational affiliation, the RVS captures functional religious values across several interconnected dimensions:

Overarching Religious Commitment and Centrality

This dimension evaluates the degree to which an individual’s religious faith serves as the primary organizing master-motive of their identity, daily behavior, and worldview. Represented by items such as "My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life" and "Religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life," this facet reflects Gordon Allport's classical conception of intrinsic religiosity, wherein religious values are not utilized for extrinsic social gain but are internalized as an end in themselves.

Authority Afforded to Sacred Writings (Scripture)

Devout individuals systematically evaluate truth claims, personal ethics, and conflict resolution through the lens of canonical sacred texts. This construct bifurcates into:

• Doctrinal and Epistemic Inerrancy: Absolute belief in the literal, complete truth and historical-doctrinal validity of holy scripture (e.g., "I believe the scriptures of my faith are completely true").
• Pragmatic Daily Application: The operational utility of scripture as an active decision-making guide in contemporary, real-world predicaments (e.g., "I depend on my faith's scriptures to help me make decisions in conflict situations").

Authority Afforded to Religious and Human Leaders

This construct assesses the extent to which an individual believes that ecclesiastical figures (such as pastors, priests, rabbis, or denominational executives) and human structural authorities (such as parents, spouses, and civic governments) possess divine or moral mandates requiring obedience without dissent. Items such as "One should follow the guidance of one's pastor, priest, or rabbi without question or complaint" and "When the board of elders… take a stand, the congregation should follow their leading" measure this deference to authority.

Identification with the Religious Group

This dimension measures social identity, cohesion, and reliance upon the immediate faith community. Drawing upon social identity theory, it delineates between local group affiliation and overarching national or international organizational identity. It captures peer conformity, fear of social disapproval, and emotional reliance on the faith community (e.g., "I couldn't get along without involvement in my local religious group" and "The standards of my local religious group guide me in making decisions").

Interpersonal Zone of Tolerance and Preference for Value Congruence

Worthington's paradigm operationalizes interpersonal boundary maintenance as the degree to which an individual restricts their personal, advisory, and therapeutic relationships to individuals who mirror their spiritual values. This construct is manifested across three domains: preferences regarding scriptural attitudes, human authority attitudes, and therapeutic/counseling partnerships (e.g., "If I went into counseling, I would like a counselor whose attitude toward human authorities is similar to mine").

6. Theoretical Framework

The Religious Values Scale is theoretically situated at the intersection of counseling psychology, cognitive social psychology, and the psychology of religion, drawing foundational architecture from Worthington's (1988) model of religious values in psychotherapy. Historically, clinical psychology often adopted either an indifferent or reductionist posture toward religious conviction. Worthington sought to rectify this theoretical limitation by positing that highly religious clients possess structured, hierarchical cognitive schemata that filter psychological interventions.

Worthington's theoretical model rests on four fundamental postulates:

1. The Centrality of Value Dimensions: When clients exhibit high religious commitment, their evaluation of external events is not governed primarily by secular hedonistic calculus or autonomous self-actualization, but by three distinct authority coordinates: canonical sacred texts, institutional/hierarchical leaders, and the social collective of the faith group.
2. Cognitive Appraisal and the Zone of Tolerance: Originating from social judgment theory (Sherif & Hovland, 1961), Worthington adapted the construct of latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment into a psychological "zone of tolerance." Highly religious individuals possess varying degrees of cognitive elasticity. Individuals with an expansive zone of tolerance can assimilate advice and therapeutic interventions from secular or non-congruent professionals; conversely, those with a constricted zone of tolerance reject advice from individuals outside their spiritual paradigm, perceiving secular paradigms as epistemologically compromised or spiritually hazardous.
3. Interpersonal Boundary Dynamics: In Worthington's framework, the degree of scriptural and leadership authority endorsed directly predicts interpersonal insularity. When individuals ascribe absolute authority to religious dogma, their social network tends to consolidate around congruent peers, leading to heightened in-group preference and explicit out-group advisory avoidance.
4. The Therapeutic Alliance Triad: In therapeutic settings, when value divergence falls outside the client's zone of tolerance, relational strain occurs. Worthington proposed that successful psychotherapy with devout populations requires the clinician to either operate within the client's existing value structures or maintain explicit awareness of value divergence to prevent covert value imposition or therapeutic rupture.

7. Validity

Empirical validation of the Religious Values Scale has been substantiated through exploratory and confirmatory psychometric evaluations, criterion-related validity assessments, and convergent-discriminant matrices across multiple undergraduate and clinical analogue samples.

Criterion-Related and Behavioral Validity

Worthington, Hsu, Gowda, and Bleach (1988) tested the criterion validity of the RVS by examining its association with objective behavioral self-reports of ecclesiastical participation. Across a cohort of 257 university students, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between the RVS subscales and behavioral markers including church attendance frequency, attendance at auxiliary ecclesiastical meetings, participation in religious leadership, and total number of formal leadership offices held. Out of 28 correlation coefficients, 25 achieved statistical significance at the p < .01 level, demonstrating that the scale accurately captures observable religious behavior.

Convergent Validity

To establish convergent validity with established psychometric benchmarks, the RVS subscales were correlated with the 11 subscales of the Basic Religiosity Scales developed by King and Hunt (1972). Of the 77 resulting bivariate correlations, 74 were statistically significant at p < .01, with correlation coefficients primarily spanning between .40 and .80. These findings confirmed that the RVS captures established religious dimensions while providing greater specificity regarding counseling and authority dimensions.

Furthermore, convergent validity was assessed against the multidimensional framework of Glock and Stark (1965). The RVS subscales were correlated with the four Glock and Stark subscales: Religious Belief, Religious Practice, Religious Experience, and Biblical Knowledge. Across the subscales of belief, practice, and experience, 19 of 21 correlations were statistically significant (p < .01). Notably, none of the seven RVS scales demonstrated a statistically significant correlation with the Glock and Stark Biblical Knowledge scale. This absence of relationship provides compelling evidence of discriminant validity, establishing that the RVS evaluates internalized psychological values, behavioral compliance, and authority attitudes, rather than rote cognitive memorization or historical-theological knowledge.

Construct and Analogue Clinical Validity

In subsequent clinical analogue research, McCullough and Worthington (1995) verified the construct validity of the RVS by investigating college students' perceptions of psychotherapists who treated religious issues using distinct clinical approaches. Using the RVS to divide participants into high- and low-scoring cohorts on Worthington's constructs, the researchers demonstrated that participants' pre-existing scores on the RVS predicted their clinical evaluations of counselor competence, empathy, and perceived trustworthiness. Similarly, Morrow, Worthington, and McCullough (1993) demonstrated that observers' scores on the RVS significantly moderated their perceptions of a counselor's handling of value-laden dilemmas.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency of the Religious Values Scale has been evaluated across three distinct standardization cohorts originating from university populations in the southeastern United States.

Sample 1: Initial Psychometric Standardization (Worthington et al., 1988)

The initial standardization cohort comprised 257 undergraduate students (88% aged 18–25 years; 78% Caucasian, 17% African American, 5% other ethnicities). Following principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation, Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficients were computed for the seven extracted empirical factors:

• Religious Commitment Factor: Demonstrated near-perfect internal consistency, with an alpha coefficient of α = .99.
• Subscale Range: Coefficients for the remaining factors varied, with the lowest reliability observed on the factor capturing Preference for a Counselor of Similar Attitudes (α = .47), which replaced the theoretically hypothesized tolerance scale. African American participants demonstrated significantly higher religiosity scores across six of the seven subscales compared to Caucasian participants.

Sample 2: High Religious Commitment Sample (Worthington et al., 1989)

Recognizing that Worthington's (1988) clinical theory was formulated specifically for devout populations, Worthington and colleagues (1989) administered the RVS to a secondary cohort of 252 undergraduate students, subsequently restricting their analysis to the top one-third of the distribution based on overall religious commitment scores. Items demonstrating low item-to-total correlations were eliminated from specific scale analyses. Internal consistency coefficients across the six scales aligned with the theoretical model were notably higher, ranging from α = .64 for Tolerance for Others Holding Different Views on Scripture to α = .84 for Authority Afforded Sacred Writings.

Sample 3: Replication and Extension Sample (McCullough & Worthington, 1995)

In a formal clinical replication cohort of 148 undergraduate students (70% Caucasian, 21% African American, 4% Asian, 5% other ethnicities), internal consistency estimates were calculated across all seven original theoretical subscales. Reliability coefficients exhibited robust stability:

• Religious Commitment: α = .92
• Authority Afforded Sacred Writings: α = .81
• Authority Afforded Religious Leaders: α = .78
• Authority Afforded Religious Groups: α = .73
• Tolerance for Different Views of Leadership: α = .73

Across validation cohorts, the RVS consistently displays strong internal reliability for core value and authority subscales, while scales assessing preferences for counselors in specific hypothetical scenarios display more moderate coefficients.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structural validity of the RVS has been subjected to both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), shedding light on the empirical operationalization of religious value systems.

Exploratory Factor Structure (Worthington et al., 1988)

In the first empirical evaluation, Worthington and colleagues (1988) performed a principal components analysis (PCA) with orthogonal varimax rotation on the initial item pool. An absolute factor loading cut-off of .45 was implemented as the minimum threshold for item retention. The analysis yielded a seven-factor solution that generally corroborated Worthington's theoretical architecture. However, the hypothesized subscale measuring "tolerance for those holding different views of Scripture" failed to emerge as an independent empirical factor. Instead, items measuring advisory and therapeutic selection clustered into an empirical factor designated as Preference for a Counselor of Similar Attitudes.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Refinement (Worthington et al., 1989)

To rigorously test whether the empirical data conformed to the seven-factor theoretical architecture, Worthington et al. (1989) subjected the high-religiosity data set (N = 252) to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The resulting structural equation modeling yielded a Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) of .61. Because this fit metric fell substantially below the conventional psychometric adequacy threshold of .90, the strictly hypothesized seven-factor model was rejected.

Subsequent Exploratory Factor Re-Analysis

Given the poor CFA fit, Worthington et al. (1989) conducted a subsequent exploratory factor analysis on the dataset, which revealed an expanded eight-factor latent structure. This empirical solution clarified the multidimensionality of several theoretical domains:

• Bifurcation of Scriptural Authority: The dimension originally conceptualized as unitary scriptural authority split into two discrete factors: (a) Pragmatic Value of Scripture in day-to-day life and decision making, and (b) Doctrinal Belief in the strict canonical inerrancy and authority of Scripture.
• Bifurcation of Group Identification: The scale assessing authority of group identification bifurcated into: (a) Personal Value of the Group (affective belongingness and affiliation), and (b) Normative Behavioral Influence (looking to the group as a rule-setting apparatus for ethical conduct).
• Authority of Religious Leaders: The construct evaluating obedience and authority granted to institutional religious figures was fully retained and validated as a coherent, unitary factor.
• Refinement of the Zone of Tolerance: The broad hypothetical construct of "tolerance for divergent religious views" did not load as an overarching generalized trait. Rather, the analysis extracted three functional interpersonal preference factors representing an individual's desire for spiritually similar individuals who: (1) provide personal advice, (2) provide formal psychological counsel, and (3) provide social and spiritual affiliation.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Religious Values Scale is a self-administered, paper-and-pencil psychometric instrument designed for adolescent and adult populations possessing at least an eighth-grade reading level. The complete scale parameters are outlined below:

• Instrument Designation: Religious Values Scale (RVS)
• Instrument Type: Multidimensional self-report psychological assessment
• Administration Format: Individual or group paper-and-pencil inventory; adaptable for digital assessment
• Total Item Count: 62 items
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors:
  • 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
• Estimated Completion Time: 15 to 25 minutes
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Item scores range from 1 to 5 points. Items expressing counter-normative or non-religious attitudes (e.g., Item 2: "I do not accept what I hear in regard to religious beliefs without first questioning the validity of it"; Item 7: "I feel there are many more important things in life than religion") require reverse-scoring prior to composite scale calculation.
  • Subscale scores are derived by calculating the mean or sum of the items assigned to each factor, as specified by the scoring key (Worthington et al., 1988, 1989).
  • Sample stratification commonly employs median splits or mean standard deviation distributions (top third vs. bottom third) to categorize respondents into high and low religious value orientation profiles (McCullough & Worthington, 1995).
• User Competence Requirements: Administration and objective scoring require no specialized diagnostic certifications. However, clinical interpretation in therapeutic contexts necessitates graduate-level training in psychometrics, psychological counseling, or clinical assessment.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The theoretical framework for the Religious Values Scale was published in 1988 in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, with initial psychometric factor analysis and standardization studies presented in 1988 and 1989. Subsequent validation and clinical application studies appeared in 1993 and 1995.

Licensing and Accessibility: The scale is considered an academic, non-commercial psychological assessment tool. Dr. Everett L. Worthington Jr. and his co-authors designed the instrument for broad empirical and clinical application. Standard administration packets, factor keys, and scoring guidelines are historically available for academic research and clinical training upon direct request to:

Dr. Everett L. Worthington Jr.
Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University
808 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284-2018, USA

No commercial fee is mandated for scholarly, educational, or clinical research use, provided proper academic citation and attribution are given in research publications. Commercial reproduction or incorporation into proprietary commercial assessment software requires formal permission from the primary author and the respective copyright holders.

12. References

Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. (1965). Religion and society in tension. Rand McNally.

King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1972). Measuring the religious variable: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(3), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384504

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1995). College students' perceptions of a psychotherapist's treatment of a religious issue: Partial replication and extension. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(6), 626–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01808.x

Morrow, D., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & McCullough, M. E. (1993). Observers' perceptions of a counselor's treatment of a religious issue. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(4), 452–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1993.tb02664.x

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1988). Understanding the values of religious clients: A model and its application to counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(2), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.35.2.166

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Berry, J. T., Hsu, K., Gowda, K. K., Bleach, E., & Bursley, K. H. (1989, October). Measuring religious values: Factor analytic study of the Religious Values Survey [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Virginia Psychological Association, Richmond, VA, United States.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hsu, K., Gowda, K. K., & Bleach, E. (1988, November). Preliminary tests of Worthington's (1988) theory of important values in religious counseling [Paper presentation]. First International Congress on Christian Counseling, Atlanta, GA, United States.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)