Spiritual Wellness Inventory (SWI)

Abstract

The Spiritual Wellness Inventory (SWI), originally conceptualized and developed by psychometrician and counselor educator R. Elliott Ingersoll (1995, 1998), is a multidimensional assessment designed to operationalize and quantify spiritual wellness within counseling, health psychology, and clinical research. Addressing the longstanding ambiguity surrounding spirituality as distinct from institutional religiosity, the instrument captures human spiritual functioning across experiential, existential, relational, and cognitive dimensions. The initial instrument consists of 55 self-report items grouped into ten theoretical dimensions of spiritual wellness—Conception of Divinity, Meaning, Connectedness, Present-Centeredness, Mystery, Experience/Ritual, Hope, Forgiveness, Knowledge/Learning, and Spiritual Freedom—alongside a dedicated five-item Fake Good (social desirability) control scale. Respondents evaluate items using an asymmetric 8-point Likert-type scale spanning from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 8 (Strongly Agree), featuring a systematic scoring protocol wherein all odd-numbered items are reverse-coded to mitigate acquiescence response bias.

Psychometric evaluations of the original 55-item SWI revealed varying degrees of internal consistency across subscales, ranging from moderate-to-high coefficients (Conception of Divinity, α = .83; Experience/Ritual, α = .68; Hope, α = .63) to lower reliability estimates across brief cognitive-affective subscales (Meaning, α = .53; Present-Centeredness, α = .49; Mystery, α = .42; Fake Good, α = -.03). Subsequent structural evaluations and exploratory factor analyses—most notably by Childs (2014)—led to the refinement of the instrument into the 48-item Spiritual Wellness Inventory-Revised (SWI-R). The SWI-R yields a more robust factor structure comprising eight distinct constructs: Spirituality, Meaningful Experiences/Hope, Understanding, Self-Worth, Connectedness, Uncertainty, Control, and Inner Peace. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the SWI and SWI-R, analyzing their theoretical grounding in transpersonal psychology and humanistic wellness models, construct validity, diagnostic utility, item structure, and clinical implications for contemporary healthcare and mental health practice.

Keywords

Spiritual Wellness Inventory, SWI, SWI-R, Elliott Ingersoll, spiritual wellness, transpersonal psychology, existential meaning, psychometrics, counseling assessment, factor analysis, holistic health, spiritual competence

Authors

The Spiritual Wellness Inventory was conceived and constructed by R. Elliott Ingersoll, Ph.D. Dr. Ingersoll is a prominent scholar, licensed clinical counselor, and professor of counselor education in the Department of Counseling, Administration, Supervision, and Adult Learning (CASAL) at Cleveland State University, Ohio. He earned his doctorate in Counselor Education from Kent State University, where his doctoral dissertation, titled Construction and initial validation of the spiritual wellness inventory (1995), laid the empirical foundation for the tool. Dr. Ingersoll has written extensively on integral psychology, psychopharmacology, clinical supervision, and the role of spirituality in counseling, having served on the editorial board of the journal Counseling and Values and collaborated with theorists such as Ken Wilber within integral mental health frameworks.

Subsequent psychometric examinations and structural revisions of the instrument have been conducted by doctoral researchers and independent psychometricians, most notably Chivonna Y. Childs, Ph.D., whose 2014 Cleveland State University doctoral dissertation, Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Spiritual Wellness Inventory, provided an extensive structural re-examination of the inventory, ultimately producing the 48-item revised framework (SWI-R) to resolve underlying multidimensional cross-loadings and enhance clinical applicability.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Spiritual Wellness Inventory (SWI) is to provide an empirically grounded, non-sectarian measure of spiritual wellness that can be systematically incorporated into clinical assessment, psychological research, and wellness-oriented interventions. Historically, psychological assessment tools operationalized spirituality predominantly through the narrow lens of institutionalized religiosity, quantifying frequency of church attendance, adherence to dogma, or commitment to traditional Judeo-Christian scriptural doctrines. Such instruments routinely failed to capture the multifaceted, subjective, and existential experiences of clients who identified as spiritual but not religious, or whose spiritual lived experiences drew upon Eastern philosophies, indigenous traditions, or secular humanistic frameworks.

Recognizing this critical gap within counselor education and clinical practice, Ingersoll designed the SWI to align with the core spiritual competencies endorsed by the Association for Spiritual, Ethical, and Religious Values in Counseling (ASERVIC), a division of the American Counseling Association (ACA). The inventory serves several distinct functions across research and clinical domains:

• Diagnostic and Clinical Assessment: It provides counselors, psychologists, and clinical social workers with a multidimensional map of an individual’s spiritual coping mechanisms, internal resources, and existential vulnerabilities. Clinicians can identify specific deficits in meaning-making, forgiveness, or community connectedness that may exacerbate depressive, anxious, or adjustment symptomatology.
• Treatment Planning and Holistic Case Conceptualization: In wellness and biopsychosocial-spiritual treatment paradigms, the SWI assists clinicians in establishing whether a client’s concept of the divine or existential worldview serves as a buffer against distress or as a source of neurotic guilt, fear, and spiritual distress.
• Outcome Evaluation in Spiritual and Pastoral Care: The inventory offers chaplains, pastoral counselors, and holistic health practitioners a pre- and post-intervention metric to evaluate changes in spiritual functioning following psychotherapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), or existential interventions.
• Empirical Research in Behavioral Medicine: Health psychologists utilize the scale to examine relationships between spiritual wellness dimensions and neurobiological outcomes, stress biomarkers (e.g., cortisol levels), cardiovascular recovery, and immune functioning.

Psychological Construct

The construct of spiritual wellness measured by the SWI is defined as an ongoing, developmental process through which an individual integrates existential meaning, transcendent experiences, community belonging, and ethical relatedness to cultivate personal wholeness and resilience. Rather than treating spirituality as a single, unidimensional trait, Ingersoll conceptualized spiritual wellness as a composite of ten distinct but interconnected dimensions, supplemented by a social desirability index:

1. Conception of Divinity / Conception of the Absolute

This subscale evaluates the nature of an individual’s subjective relationship with a transcendent reality, divine presence, or ultimate ground of being. Rather than assessing dogmatic monotheism, it measures the felt experience of sacredness, the emotional valence attached to the transcendent (e.g., whether the divine is perceived as supportive or absent), and the degree to which a sense of the divine enriches social and environmental connection. Representative items include “I don’t ever experience God’s presence in my life” (reverse-coded) and “My sense of the divine increases my sense of Connectedness to other people.”

2. Meaning

Reflecting classical existential psychology, this construct captures an individual’s sense of purpose, cosmic coherence, and ontological significance in daily existence. Spiritual wellness requires an ongoing, self-reflective orientation where life events—including suffering and adversity—are integrated into a broader framework of significance. It is measured through items such as “The meaning of life is a question I am at peace with” and “I always reflect on the meaning of my life experiences.”

3. Connectedness

Spiritual wellness entails relational belonging that transcends radical individualism. The Connectedness dimension measures interpersonal compassion, integration within a healthy, supportive community, and awareness of the interconnectedness of all living systems. It contrasts social isolation with reciprocal spiritual kinship. Sample items include “I never feel compassion for other people” (reverse-coded) and “I feel part of at least one healthy community that is important to me and greatly affects my life.”

4. Present-Centeredness

Drawing heavily from contemplative traditions, mindfulness, and phenomenological psychology, this dimension measures the capacity to inhabit the immediate moment with sensory awareness, gratitude, and somatic immersion. Deficits in present-centeredness manifest as ruminative perseveration or future-oriented anxiety. Items include “I often feel a deep appreciation of every moment” and “I often feel fully present in each passing moment.”

5. Mystery

This construct examines an individual’s psychological tolerance for ambiguity, ontological humility, and capacity to experience awe when confronted with the unknown. In contrast to dogmatic rigidity that demands absolute certainty, spiritual wellness embraces the open-ended nature of existence. Representative items include “I never experience a sense of awe about life” (reverse-coded) and “Ambiguity and uncertainty are healthy parts of life.”

6. Experience / Ritual

This dimension operationalizes the behavioral and practical expressions of spiritual life. It measures the regular enactment of practices, mindful habits, contemplative rituals, or sacred actions that ground an individual’s spiritual values in concrete daily realities. Items assessing this construct include “I have things I do to help me feel connected to life” and “I have rituals that help me integrate the spiritual into my life.”

7. Hope

Spiritual hope is conceptualized as an enduring existential optimism and transcendent confidence that personal and collective circumstances can evolve toward greater wholeness, even amidst severe trauma or crisis. It functions as an antidote to despair, captured by items such as “There are reasons to give up hope” (reverse-coded) and “Even when situations seem hopeless, I have faith they can change for the better.”

8. Forgiveness

This dimension addresses the intrapsychic and interpersonal release of resentment, vengeance, and chronic bitterness resulting from perceived slights or profound relational injuries. The construct encompasses both the willingness to extend grace to others and the openness to receiving forgiveness. Items include “I feel called on to forgive others as God forgives me” and “I have resentments about past injuries” (reverse-coded).

9. Knowledge / Learning

This cognitive-developmental construct captures epistemic openness, self-investigation, and intellectual humility. Spiritually well individuals demonstrate a commitment to lifelong psycho-spiritual development, welcoming challenges to existing cognitive schemas. Items include “The way I live brings me to a greater knowledge of who I really am” and “I reject most challenges to my beliefs” (reverse-coded).

10. Spiritual Freedom

Spiritual freedom reflects autonomy from coercive socio-religious conditioning, dogmatic guilt, or excessive social conformity. It represents the psychological liberty to choose one’s commitments authentically and cultivate an internal locus of spiritual evaluation. Items assessing this construct include “I feel unsafe in the world” (reverse-coded) and “I feel coerced by images of what life should be about” (reverse-coded).

11. Fake Good (Validity Scale)

To detect dissimulation, unreflective defensiveness, or deliberate self-presentation strategies, the SWI includes a dedicated validity scale. These items feature extreme, saintly, or virtually unattainable psychological standards (e.g., “I am able to forgive anything a person may do” or “I believe all people have a role in the web of life”). Abnormally elevated scores on this scale signal social desirability bias, cautioning the psychometrician against accepting self-reported profiles at face value.

Theoretical Framework

The Spiritual Wellness Inventory is rooted at the intersection of three major psychological and philosophical paradigms: Transpersonal Psychology, Humanistic-Existential Theory, and Systems-Oriented Wellness Models. Rather than viewing the individual as merely an organism seeking drive reduction or cognitive homeostasis, Ingersoll’s framework assumes that human beings possess an innate developmental drive toward spiritual individuation, self-transcendence, and cosmic meaning.

1. Transpersonal Psychology and Integral Theory

Ingersoll’s conceptualization draws substantially from transpersonal theorists—most notably Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, Abraham Maslow’s work on peak experiences and metamotivation, and Carl Jung’s concept of the archetypal Self. Wilber’s spectrum of consciousness posits that human development progresses from prepersonal (instinctual, egocentric) through personal (rational, socialized) to transpersonal (unitive, intuitive, transcendent) stages. Ingersoll (1994, 1998) argued that spiritual wellness cannot be understood within a purely rational-cognitive paradigm; it requires acknowledging non-ordinary states of consciousness, intuitive knowing, and direct communion with the sacred. Consequently, the SWI integrates dimensions like Mystery and Conception of Divinity to capture these trans-rational capacities without pathologizing them.

2. Humanistic-Existential Psychology

The philosophical scaffolding of the SWI relies heavily on existential psychology as articulated by Viktor Frankl and Rollo May. Frankl’s logotherapy posits that the primary human drive is the “will to meaning.” In Frankl’s view, human beings can endure extreme suffering if they locate meaning in their suffering, their creative deeds, or their experiential engagement with beauty and nature. The SWI operationalizes this premise directly within its Meaning and Hope subscales. Ingersoll asserts that spiritual wellness acts as an existential buffer against what May termed the “existential vacuum”—a pervasive state of meaninglessness, boredom, and alienation characteristic of modern post-industrial society.

3. The Wheel of Wellness and Indivisible Self

In the field of counseling psychology, the SWI emerged in parallel with holistic wellness models developed by Myers, Sweeney, and Witmer (such as the Wheel of Wellness and later the Indivisible Self model). In these models, spirituality sits at the core of human health, acting as the foundational hub from which emotional, physical, social, and occupational wellness radiate. Ingersoll expanded on this premise by maintaining that spirituality itself is not a monolithic wheel-hub, but a complex internal system that must be dissected into observable behavioral, affective, and cognitive competencies.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and content validity of the Spiritual Wellness Inventory have been evaluated across doctoral investigations and peer-reviewed studies:

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established during initial scale construction (Ingersoll, 1995) utilizing an extensive expert-judge panel composed of scholars, clergy across world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism), and licensed clinical mental health counselors. Items were evaluated for cross-cultural neutrality, linguistic clarity, and freedom from parochial religious doctrine. Statements that relied strictly on dogma were eliminated, ensuring the inventory operationalized trans-traditional spiritual dynamics applicable to diverse populations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been demonstrated through moderate-to-strong correlations with established psychometric measures of spiritual well-being, existential orientation, and general psychological health. In validation cohorts (Ingersoll, 1995; Childs, 2014):

• The SWI Conception of Divinity subscale correlated positively with the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS; Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982) Religious Well-Being subscale (r > .70, p < .001).
• The SWI Meaning subscale demonstrated significant positive correlations with the Purpose in Life Test (PIL; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964), confirming its sensitivity to existential purpose (r = .58 to .64, p < .001).
• The Connectedness and Hope subscales demonstrated statistically significant inverse correlations with Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) scores (r = -.45 to -.52, p < .01), illustrating that elevated spiritual wellness is predictive of reduced depressive symptomatology and decreased cognitive hopelessness.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by contrasting SWI scores against measures of dogmatic rigidity, social anxiety, and generalized distress. The SWI Mystery and Knowledge/Learning subscales correlated negatively with measures of cognitive authoritarianism and dogmatism, demonstrating that high spiritual wellness is distinct from religious fundamentalism or uncritical cognitive closure. Additionally, the presence of the Fake Good subscale provided an empirical benchmark to identify participants displaying impression management, confirming that authentic spiritual wellness does not simply mirror high scores on social desirability.

Reliability

Psychometric analyses of the original 55-item SWI yielded a diverse array of internal consistency coefficients across its subscales, highlighting both its strengths and limitations:

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In Ingersoll’s (1995) initial validation sample, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across the 11 subscales (5 items per subscale) were recorded as follows:

• Conception of Divinity: α = .83 (demonstrating high internal consistency)
• Experience/Ritual: α = .68 (moderate consistency)
• Hope: α = .63 (moderate consistency)
• Connectedness: α = .56 (modest consistency)
• Forgiveness: α = .54 (modest consistency)
• Meaning: α = .53 (modest consistency)
• Present-Centeredness: α = .49 (sub-optimal consistency)
• Knowledge/Learning: α = .44 (sub-optimal consistency)
• Spiritual Freedom: α = .43 (sub-optimal consistency)
• Mystery: α = .42 (sub-optimal consistency)
• Fake Good: α = -.03 (indicating severe multidimensionality or measurement error in social desirability items)

The presence of subscales with internal consistency below the acceptable academic threshold of α = .70 was attributed to the brief five-item format of each subscale, coupled with the intentional breadth of constructs like Mystery and Spiritual Freedom. The negative alpha for the Fake Good scale reflected an absence of internal coherence among social desirability indicators, prompting researchers to treat social desirability items individually or remove them during clinical interpretation.

Reliability of the Revised Version (SWI-R)

To overcome these internal consistency limitations, Childs (2014) conducted an extensive structural revision. By restructuring items into empirically derived factors with larger item counts per subscale, the SWI-R demonstrated improved reliability indices:

• Spirituality: 9 items, α = .88
• Meaningful Experiences/Hope: 10 items, α = .84
• Understanding: 7 items, α = .78
• Self Worth: 5 items, α = .72
• Connectedness: 5 items, α = .71
• Uncertainty: 5 items, α = .69
• Control: 4 items, α = .65
• Inner Peace: 3 items, α = .62

The revised instrument demonstrated substantially greater internal reliability across its primary clinical scales, fulfilling standard psychometric criteria for group-level research and clinical screening.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the Spiritual Wellness Inventory has been the subject of extensive psychometric investigation, shifting from Ingersoll’s initial 10-dimension theoretical model to an empirically derived factor structure in the SWI-R.

Initial Theoretical Model (Ingersoll, 1995)

The original 55-item SWI was constructed based on a rational-theoretical approach. Ten distinct wellness dimensions were posited based on qualitative analyses of world religions and transpersonal counseling literature, with five items written a priori for each dimension, plus five validity items. When exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with principal axis factoring and varimax/promax rotations were conducted on the original 55 items, several subscales cross-loaded substantially onto a single dominant general factor of “Theistic / Sacred Awareness,” while items measuring cognitive openness, emotional control, and uncertainty fragmented across minor, unstable components.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the SWI-R (Childs, 2014)

Childs (2014) addressed these structural inconsistencies by administering the SWI to an expanded, ethnically and religiously diverse adult sample and subjecting the dataset to rigorous exploratory factor analysis. After examining scree plots, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and parallel analysis, a distinct eight-factor structure comprising 48 items was extracted using principal axis factoring with oblimin oblique rotation:

• Factor 1: Spirituality (9 items): Items 9, 16, 22, 25, 32, 38, 41, 42, 45 (Items from the original scale: 1, 12, 17, 23, 34, 45, 46, 50). This factor captures experiential, relational, and ritual awareness of the divine and the sacredness of daily life. Item factor loadings ranged from .45 to .81.
• Factor 2: Meaningful Experiences / Hope (10 items): Items 3, 10, 18, 26, 34, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47. This factor coalesces existential purpose, positive expectancy, deep appreciation of the present moment, and forgiveness. Factor loadings ranged between .41 and .76.
• Factor 3: Understanding (7 items): Items 2, 14, 20, 28, 33, 40, 48. Captures self-knowledge, lifelong growth, awe, commitment, and personal development through introspective awareness. Loadings: .38 to .67.
• Factor 4: Self-Worth (5 items): Items 4, 19, 27, 31, 36. Operates as an index of emotional equilibrium, freedom from debilitating self-pity, liberation from social coercion, and absence of past resentments. Loadings: .39 to .64.
• Factor 5: Connectedness (5 items): Items 5, 13, 21, 30, 35. Measures subjective integration within a healthy community, cosmic belonging, and meaningful social resonance. Loadings: .42 to .72.
• Factor 6: Uncertainty (5 items): Items 1, 6, 11, 29, 37. Evaluates cognitive flexibility, willingness to confront life’s deeper ambiguities, and resilience when spiritual questions emerge. Loadings: .35 to .61.
• Factor 7: Control (4 items): Items 7, 12, 15, 23. Reflects perfectionism, authoritarian dogmatism, emotional constraint, and an excessive need to control external circumstances. Loadings: .40 to .68.
• Factor 8: Inner Peace (3 items): Items 8, 17, 24. A compact affective factor assessing security in the universe, serenity regarding the purpose of life, and connection through practical habits. Loadings: .44 to .66.

Goodness-of-fit indices supported this eight-factor solution, accounting for over 48% of the total cumulative variance and demonstrating greater structural validity than the original ten-dimension rational configuration.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The standard administration parameters, structural design, and scoring algorithms for the Spiritual Wellness Inventory are detailed below:

• Instrument Designation: Spiritual Wellness Inventory (SWI); Revised version: Spiritual Wellness Inventory-Revised (SWI-R).
• Authorship: Dr. R. Elliott Ingersoll (1995, 1996, 1998); Revision by Dr. Chivonna Y. Childs (2014).
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older; applicable in counseling, university, clinical, and pastoral settings.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized online assessment.
• Completion Time: Approximately 12 to 18 minutes for the 55-item SWI; 10 to 15 minutes for the 48-item SWI-R.
• Total Number of Items: 55 items in the original SWI; 48 items in the SWI-R.
• Response Format: An asymmetric 8-point Likert-type response scale anchored as follows:
  • 1, 2, 3: Strongly Disagree
  • 4: Disagree
  • 5, 6, 7: Agree
  • 8: Strongly Agree
• Reverse-Scoring Requirement: All odd-numbered items in the original 55-item scale are reverse-coded prior to subscale computation (i.e., Item Score = 9 − Raw Score).
• Original 55-Item SWI Subscale Structure (5 items each):
  • Conception of Divinity: Items 1, 12, 23, 34, 45
  • Meaning: Items 2, 13, 24, 35, 46
  • Connectedness: Items 3, 14, 25, 36, 47
  • Present-Centeredness: Items 4, 15, 26, 37, 48
  • Mystery: Items 5, 16, 27, 38, 49
  • Experience/Ritual: Items 6, 17, 28, 39, 50
  • Hope: Items 7, 18, 29, 40, 51
  • Forgiveness: Items 8, 19, 30, 41, 52
  • Knowledge/Learning: Items 9, 20, 31, 42, 53
  • Fake Good (Validity Scale): Items 10, 21, 32, 43, 54
  • Spiritual Freedom: Items 11, 22, 33, 44, 55
• SWI-R Subscale Structure (48 items):
  • Spirituality: Items 9, 16, 22, 25, 32, 38, 41, 42, 45
  • Meaningful Experiences / Hope: Items 3, 10, 18, 26, 34, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47
  • Understanding: Items 2, 14, 20, 28, 33, 40, 48
  • Self-Worth: Items 4, 19, 27, 31, 36
  • Connectedness: Items 5, 13, 21, 30, 35
  • Uncertainty: Items 1, 6, 11, 29, 37
  • Control: Items 7, 12, 15, 23
  • Inner Peace: Items 8, 17, 24

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Spiritual Wellness Inventory was developed in 1995 as part of Dr. R. Elliott Ingersoll’s doctoral dissertation at Kent State University, followed by subsequent psychometric publications in 1996 and 1998. Dr. Ingersoll holds the intellectual property and copyright for the instrument. The Spiritual Wellness Inventory is generally made accessible free of charge for non-commercial academic research, institutional education, and clinical training purposes, provided proper scholarly citation is maintained.

Researchers and practitioners wishing to administer the SWI or SWI-R in funded research, commercial applications, or corporate wellness programs are advised to obtain explicit written authorization from Dr. R. Elliott Ingersoll via the Department of Counseling, Administration, Supervision, and Adult Learning at Cleveland State University. Digital interactive implementations and test resources have historically been hosted at Dr. Ingersoll’s academic repository (www.elliottingersoll.com).

References

Childs, C. Y. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis of the Spiritual Wellness Inventory (Doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State University). OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=csu1409218531&disposition=inline

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental approach to existential psychology: The Purpose in Life Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196404)20:2<200::aid-jclp2270200203>3.0.co;2-u

Ingersoll, R. E. (1994). Spirituality, religion, and counseling: Dimensions and relationships. Counseling and Values, 38(2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1994.tb00827.x

Ingersoll, R. E. (1995). Construction and initial validation of the Spiritual Wellness Inventory (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Ingersoll, R. E. (1998). Refining dimensions of spiritual wellness: A cross-traditional approach. Counseling and Values, 42(3), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00421.x

Myers, J. E., Sweeney, T. J., & Witmer, J. M. (2000). The wheel of wellness counseling for wellness: A holistic model for treatment planning. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01906.x

Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and the quality of life. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy (pp. 224–237). John Wiley & Sons.

Items of the Scale