CHAPTER-6

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE

SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE SCALE

6.1.0 Introduction

6.2.0 Reliability

6.2.1. Methods of Determining Reliability

6.2.2. Reliability of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale

6.3.0 Validity

6.3.1. Methods of Validity

6.3.2. Validity of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale

6.4.0 Conclusion

142

CHAPTER-6

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE

SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE SCALE

6.1.0 Introduction

The procedure of construction of the scale has already been mentioned. Now it is

necessary to examine that whether the constructed scale will give the same result at

different occasions. This can be checked through determining the reliability of the

Spiritual Intelligence scale. It is compulsory to evaluate reliability for standardization of

any scale. In this chapter reliability and validly of the scale are discussed.

6.2.0 Reliability

Reliability is one of the essential characteristics of sound research tool. A scale must

yield a reliable estimate of the activity. If a tool gives same result on different occasion,

of the abilities of those whom it is applied, it is said to be reliable. Reliability hence

means consistency of the result. According to Anastasi & Urbina1 (2002),

"Reliability refers to the consistency of scores obtained by the same persons when they are reexamined with the same test on different occasions, or with different sets of equivalent items, or under other variable examining conditions"

6.2.1. Methods of Determining Reliability

Test reliability can be measured by various methods. Four procedure of

estimating the same are given below :

1. Test-retest method

2. Internal Consistency Reliability

(B1) Split Half Reliability

t Spearman and Brown Formula

t Rulon/Guttman’s Formula

t Flanagan Formula

(B2) Cronbach's Alpha (α)

3. Parallel Forms Methods

4. Methods of Rational Equivalence

143

1. Test-Retest Method

Reliability using this method is estimated as the Pearson Product-Moment

Correlation Coefficient between two administrations of the same measure. As per

this method, estimation is based on the correlation between two or more

administrations of the same item, same scale, or instrument for different times,

location, or populations, when the administrations do not differ on other relevant

variables.

2. Internal Consistency Reliability

As per this method, estimation is based on the correlation of two equivalent forms

scale. Spearman-Brown Split Half Reliability Coefficient, also called the Spearman-

Brown Prophecy Coefficient, is a form of split halves reliability measure. The

Spearman-Brown Prophecy Coefficient is used to estimate full test reliability based

on split-half reliability measures. The Pearson correlation of split forms estimates the

half-test reliability. The Spearman-Brown “Prophecy Formula” predicts what the full

test reliability would be, based on the half test correlation. This coefficient will be

higher than the half-test reliability coefficient.

Rulon / Guttman Split Half Reliability coefficient is an adaptation of the

Spearman-Brown coefficient, but one which does not require equal variances

between the two split forms. The best will be that in which each half contains highly

inter-correlated items.

3. Parallel Forms Methods

When parallel form of a test can be constructed, the correlation between Form A

for, example and form B may be taken as a measure of the self correlation of the test.

Under this condition, the reliability coefficient becomes an index of the equivalence

of the two forms of the test. Parallel forms are usually available form standard

psychological and educational achievement test.

The alternate form method is satisfactory when sufficient time has intervened

between the administration of the two forms to waken or eliminate memory and

practice effects. When form B of a test follows form A closely scores on the second

form of the test will often be increased because of familiarity. If such increase are

approximately constant, the reliability coefficient of the test will not be affected,

since the paired A and B scores maintain the same relative positions in the two

distributions. If the mean increases due to practise is know a constant may be

subtracted from form B scores to render them comparable to those of Form A.

144

In drawing up alternate test forms, care must be exercised to match test material

for content, difficulty and form; and precaution must be taken not to have the items

in the two forms too similar. When alternate forms are virtually identical, reliability

will be too high; whereas when parallel forms are not sufficiently alike, reliability

will be too low. For well-made standard test, the parallel forms method is usually the

most satisfactory way to determining reliability. If possible, an interval of at least two

to four weeks should be allowed between administrations of the test.

4. Methods of Rational Equivalence

Rational Equivalence is a concept where a given test of equivalent to a

hypothetical parallel forms such that every item on each form is interchangeable.

Kuder and Richardson (1973) devised a procedure for estimating the reliability of a

test. It has become the standard for estimating reliability for single administration of

a single for. Kuder-Richardson measure inter-item consistency. It is similar to doing

a Split-Half Reliability on all combinations of items resulting form different splitting

of the test.

When item level data or technological assistance is not available to assist in the

computation of a large number of cases and items, the simpler, and sometimes less

precise reliability estimate known as Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 is an acceptable

general measure of internal consistency. The formula requires only the test mean, the

variance and the number of items on the test. It assumes that all items are of

approximately equal difficulty.

6.2.2. Reliability of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale

As we discussed various types of reliability for the present study reliability of the

spiritual intelligence scale calculated by following methods :

t Test-Retest Reliability

t Internal Consistency Reliability

� Split Half Reliability

� Spearman and Brown Formula

� Rulon/Guttman’s Formula

� Flanagan Formula

t Cronbach's Alpha (α)

145

���� Test-Retest Reliability

In the present study, Spiritual Intelligence Sale was constructed by researcher.

For Spiritual Intelligence Scale, Test-Retest Reliability was estimated. Details about

the sample for colleges selected for the data collection are given Table-6.1

Table-6.1

Sample for Test-Retest Reliability

Gender Male Female

Area Urban Rural Urban Rural

Sr

No.

College

Name

Category G R G R G R G R

Tot

al

1 M.Ed. Colleg, Vadu 01 00 01 08 02 02 04 10 28

2 Smt. B. V. P. P. College of

Education, Kadi 02 03 17 16 05 03 17 24 92

3 S.D. Shethiya college of

Education, Katcch 02 04 03 13 14 25 12 11 84

Total 05 07 21 37 21 30 34 45 204

According to Table-6.1, total 204 students and 3 colleges were selected for the

sample to find out Test-Retest reliability. The present scale was administered after one

month period.

The most obvious method for finding the reliability of the test scores is by repeating

the identical test on a second occasion. The reliability coefficient in this case is simply

the correlation between the scores obtained by the same persons on the two

administrations of the test. This is done using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

Coefficient (r). The value of "r" always falls within the range –1 to +1. Guilford (1956)

offers an informal interpretation of the value r, as shown in Table 6.2.

Table-6.2

Interpretation of Pearson Product-moment correlation Coefficient (r)

Value of r Informal interpretation

Less than 0.20 Slight, almost no relationship

0.21-0.40 Low, correlation; definite but small relationship

0.41-0.70 Moderate correlation; substantial relationship

0.71-0.90 High correlation; strong relationship

0.91-1.00 Very High correlation; very dependable relationship

146

Another way of establishing a relationship between two sets of scores is by

examining a scatter plot drawn from the data. To estimate the Test-Retest Reliability of

the Spiritual Intelligence Scale, the scale was first administered on the sample as shown

in Table 6.1. After one month (4 weeks) again these forms were administered on the

same sample. For these two sets of data the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

Coefficients were calculated with the help of MS-Office Microsoft Excel software

application. The formula for the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, r, is:

r =

Where x and y are the sample means Average (array1 (test)) and Average (array2

(retest)).Results obtained for the reliability coefficient are as follows:

Spiritual Intelligence Scale Test-Retest Reliability Coefficient r = 0.82 and

SE of r = 0.023

Considering Guilford's value in Table 6.1, the correlation between test and re-test

was 0.82 can be considered as high, indicating a strong relationship. Hence, Spiritual

Intelligence Scale is reliable.

���� Reliability Coefficient Using Scatter Diagram Method

The reliability coefficient was also calculated with scatter diagram method.

Scatter diagram scores on test and retest for Spiritual Intelligence Scale is shown in

Table 6.3.

147

Table-6.3

Scatter diagram of Scores on Test -Retest for Spiritual Intelligence Scale

Re-Test Test

201 - 225 226 - 250 251 - 275 276 - 300 301 - 325 326 - 350 351 - 375 376 - 400 401 - 425 426 - 450 fy y' fyY' fyY' 2 x'y' 201 – 225 1 1 2 -4 -8 32 20 226 – 250 1 1 -3 -3 9 6 251 – 275 1 4 1 6 -2 -12 24 12 276 – 300 2 4 6 6 1 19 -1 -19 19 18 301 – 325 1 2 8 10 3 24 0 0 0 0 326 – 350 1 18 25 14 58 1 58 58 51 351 – 375 1 6 14 27 9 57 2 114 228 215 376 – 400 1 2 12 11 1 27 3 81 243 211 401 - 425 6 2 8 4 32 128 68 426 - 450 2 2 5 10 50 40 Total(fx) 3 9 13 40 51 57 26 5 204 253 791 641

x' -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 fxX' 0 -9 -18 -13 0 51 114 78 20 0 223 fxX'2 0 27 36 13 0 51 228 234 80 0 669 x'y' 18 24 12 0 59 206 238 84 0 0 641

r=0.81

148

= 641 N = 204 Cx = 1.09 Cy = 1.24

= 1.44 =1.53

r= 0.81

From Table-6.3 the value of Correlation coefficient r = 0.81. Thus, the value of

reliability coefficient is high which indicates that the Spiritual Intelligence is reliable.

���� Internal Consistency Reliability

Test-retest method reliability methods have the disadvantage that they are time

consuming. In most cases the researcher wants to estimate the reliability from a single

administration of a test. This requirement has led to the measuring of internal

consistency, or homogeneity. Internal consistency measures consistency within the tool.

Several internal consistency methods exist. All internal consistency measurements have

one thing in common, namely that the measurement is based on the results of a single

measurement. In the present study to estimate the internal Consistency Reliability the

Spiritual Intelligence Scale was administered on the sample of 300 students of colleges.

In the present study Split-Half technique and Cronbach's Alpha method were used to

estimate the internal consistency reliability. The statistical analysis for Split half

reliability (Spearman and Brown formula and Guttmann's formula) and Cronbach's

Alpha reliability, for the calculation Ms-Excel software was used.

���� Split Half Reliability

In the Split-Half Reliability method, the Spiritual Intelligence Scale was first divided

into two equivalent halves and the correlation coefficient between scores of these half-

test was found. This correlation coefficient denotes the reliability of the half test. The

self correlation coefficient of the whole test is estimated by different formulas. The

measuring instrument can be divided into two halves in a number of ways. But the best

way to divide the measuring instrument into two halves is to find the correlation

coefficient between scores of odd numbered and even numbered items.

149

In the present study the correlation coefficient was calculated by using following

formulas:

t Spearman and Brown Formula

t Rulon/Guttmann's Formula

t Flanagan Formula

(A) Spearman and Brown Formula

Spearman-Brown Split Half Reliability is also called the Spearman Brown Prophecy

Coefficient. The Spearman and Brown formula was designed to estimate the reliability of

a test one times as long as the one for which we know a self correlation. From the

reliability of the half test, the self-correlation coefficient of the whole test is estimated by

the following Spearman and Brown formula:

r tt =

where,

rtt = reliability of the whole scale

rhh = self correlation of half test (Reliability coefficient of the half test)

The scale was administered over 4455 students and among them 300

respondent’s Spiritual Intelligence Scale were selected. The usual method of dividing the

scale into two equivalent halves is to take odd items in one half and all even items in the

other half to calculate the reliability by this method. In this case Spearman-Brown

Prophecy formula mentioned above was applied to find out the reliability. Reliability of

the half test was 0.90 and reliability of the whole scale is 0.95. The reliability of the

Spiritual Intelligence Scale is quite high. Hence, it can be said that the Spiritual

Intelligence Scale is reliable.

(B) Rulon/Guttmann's Formula

An alternate method for finding Split-Half Reliability was developed by Rulon.

Rulo/Guttman Split Half Reliability Coefficient is an adaption of the Spearman-Brown

Coefficient, but one which does not require equal variances between the two split forms.

The best split will be that in which each half contains highly inter-correlated items. This

is an alternative split-half model which computes Rulon / Guttman’s lower bound for

true reliability. Split-Half Reliability, which measure equivalence, is also called parallel

form reliability or internal consistency reliability. The formula of Rulon is:

150

Where,

rtt= reliability value of whole test

= variance between two halve of scores

= Variance of whole test

The present Spiritual Intelligence Scale administered on 300 students for

reliability. With the help of the MS- Excel software statistical calculation was done.

Statistical values are given in Table-6.4.

Table-6.4

Reliability Coefficient and Standard Error by Rulon Method

SD of difference 14.522

SD of total score 70.071

r tt 0.96

SEr 0.0064

Form above Table-6.4, it is clear that value of reliability determined by Rulon’s

formula is 0.96 whereas the standard error is 0.0064 which is showing the moderately

high value of reliability of the scale. Hence, it can be said that the Spiritual Intelligence

Scale is reliable.

(C) Flanagan Formula

Flanagan has given formula for finding reliability using split half method. In

which standard deviation of the difference of scores on odd and even scores of the test

and standard deviation of the scores on the test or scale used.

Flanagan's Formula for reliability is described below:

Where,

= Reliability of the test

= Standard Deviation (S.D.) of Scores of 1st Half

= Standard Deviation (S.D.) of Scores of 2st Half

= Standard Deviation (S.D.) of Scores of whole Test

The present Spiritual Intelligence Scale administered on 300 students for finding

reliability. With the help of the MS-Excel software statistical calculation was done.

Statistical values are given in Table-6.5.

151

Table-6.5

Reliability Coefficient and Standard Error by Flanagan’s Method

SD of odd nos. 37.556

SD of Even Numbers 35.912

70.071

r tt 0.90

SEr 0.0144

Form above Table-6.5, it is clear that value of reliability determined by

Flanagan’s formula is 0.90 whereas the standard error is 0.0144 which is showing the

moderately high value of reliability of the scale.Hence, it can be said that the Spiritual

Intelligence Scale is reliable.

� Cronbach's Alpha ( )

Cronbach's Alpha is mathematically equivalent to the average of all possible split-

half estimates. A statistical analysis computer programme SPSSS 17 was used to

calculate the Cronbach's Alpha (). The value of rtt for Spiritual Intelligence Scale is

0.94 Hence, as per the value of Cronbach's Alpha (), both the forms are reliable.

� Comprehensive view of the Reliability of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale

In Table 6.6, reliability coefficients for different methods have been shown:

Table-6.6

Reliability by different method for Spiritual Intel ligence Scale

Sr. No. Methods of Reliability Sample r tt

Reliability Coefficient 1 Test-Retest 204 0.82 2 Split-Half

A Spearmen and Brown Formula

300 0.95

B Rulon /Guttmann’s formula 300 0.96

C Flanagan’s formula 300 0.90

3 Cronbach Alpha( ) 300 0.94

In Table-6.6, the values of reliability using Test-Retest, Split-Half Methods and

Cronbach Alpha ( ) are shown, which are moderately high. Thus, it can be said that the

reliability of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale is moderately high.

152

6.3.0 Validity

The validity refers to the degree to which the test or scale actually measures what it

claims to measure. Test or scale is also the extent to which inferences, conclusion and

decisions made on the basis of test or scale scores are appropriate and meaningful.

Test validity is requisite to test reliability. if a scale or test is not valid, then

reliability is moot. In other words, if a test is not valid there is no point in discussing

reliability because test validity is required before reliability can be considered in any

meaningful way. Likewise if a test is not reliable it is not valid. According to H.E.

Guilford2 (1956),

“The validity of a test or of any measuring instrument depends upon the fidelity with which it measures what it propose to measure”

According to Lindquist3 (1971), “The validity of a test is an estimate of the correlation between the raw test and ‘true’(That is perfectly reliable) criterion score”

According to Charles Jackson4 (1960), “Validity is the extent to which the test measures what it is intended to measure. Evidence to justify the way a test has been developed and is used.”

The evaluation of the test does not end with the estimation of the stability and

precision of its measurement. It only brings there. A highly reliable test may not measure

what is intends to measure. Besides, it is necessary to know how or what is intended, is

measured as well as to be sure that nothing else is measured. The question is

fundamental with ‘assessment’ test but not with the predictor test. Such tests are more

concerned with which are termed as ‘concept’ or construct’ validity.

Validity establishment against an external criterion is of the sounded type, provided

a suitable criterion measure is used. But that is the crux of the validity problem. The task

of developing criterion measure appears to be almost insurmountable with regard to the

measurement years of practice have establishment traditional and validation of test is not

subjects of hot controversies. Though perfection in the matter is not to assumed to have

been reached, one can undertake the work with a fair degree of confidence.

6.3.1. Methods of Validity

Validity of a test or evaluation device can be defined as the degree to which the test

measures what it is intended to measure. Validity is a relative term and has reference to

particular purpose or situation. The question “Is the test valid?” can be answered only by

replying to the question “Valid, for what?” Hence, there are different types of validity

meant for different purposes.

153

t Types of Validity

���� Content Validity

Content validity is evaluated by showing how well the content of the test

samples the class of situations or subject matter about which conclusions are to be

drawn. It is based on a comparison of the analysis of test content with the analysis of

the course content and the instructional objectives. It is seen as to how well the

former represents the latter. The analysis is done essentially through logical, rational

and judgmental process. That is why, sometimes the content validity may be referred

to as ‘rational’ or ‘logical validity’.

���� Face Validity

Face validity has something to do with mere appearance of a test. A test is said

to have face validity when by appearance it ‘looks like’ measuring what it is meant to

measure. The appearance of the reasonableness is spoken of as ‘face validity’.

���� Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity is evaluated by showing how well the test scores

correspond to already accepted measure of performance or status made at the same

time. For example a newly constructed test of intelligence may be validated by

finding its correlation with another already existing well accepted test in this area. In

these cases, a correlation coefficient between the two sets of measures is calculated

as an index of validity. The main problem is to set up a criterion which is

independent and reliable.

���� Criterion Related Validity

In Concurrent Validity, the test is validated against a criterion at the same

point of time. However, the researcher may be interested in using a test to predict

some future outcome. For example a clerical aptitude test may be used to predict

success on the jobs as clerks. The researcher is thus interested in prediction of

success or performance in the future. This process is called Predictive Validity.

���� Construct Validity

Sometimes questions like the following are asked, “What does this test mean

or signify?” “What does the score tell us about the individual?” “Does it correspond

to some meaningful trait or construct that will help us in understanding him?”. These

questions are related with the construct validity of the test. For any test that presumes

to measure a trait or quality, we can formulate a network of theory leading to definite

154

predictions. In so as they are borne out, the validity of the test as a measure of the

trait or construct is supported. In so far as the predictions fail to be verified, the

researcher is led to doubt the validity of our test or our theorizing, or both. Evidence

of construct validity is partly rational and partly empirical and judgement and

evidence join together in the validation enterprise.

���� Factorial Validity

Factorial validity is, in a way, extension of the construct validity. The inter

correlations of a large number of tests are explained and if possible accounted for in

terms of a much smaller number of more general ‘factors’ or trait categories.

Sometimes 3 or 4 factors may account for the intercorrelations among 15 to 20 tests.

The factorial validity of a test is defined by its correlation with a factor, called factor

loading.

6.3.2. Validity of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale

For estimating the validity of the present scale, concurrent validity method was

used. To determine the concurrent validity, the correlation coefficient between other

similar spiritual intelligence scale and the spiritual intelligence scale has been calculated.

� The Validity of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale was determined by using

following methods :

���� Face Validity for the items constructed by the researcher was deliberated

by sending the tool the subject experts and by subsequent improvements

suggested by the experts.

� Concurrent Validity :

Concurrent Validity refers to the degree to which the operationalization

correlates with other measures of the same construct that are measured at the same time.

To determine the concurrent validity, the correlation coefficient between Spiritual

Intelligence Scale prepared by the investigator and Spiritual Intelligence Scale prepared

by the Bhavin D. Shah were administered on the sample mentioned in Table-6.7. Both

the scales were administered with the gap of one period only.

155

Table-6.7

Sample for Validity Estimation for Spiritual Intell igence Scale

Sr.

No.

College Name No.

Students

1 Smt. S. I. Patel Ipcowala College of Education, Petlad 84

2 Adardsh B.Ed. College, Botad, 64

3 M.Ed. College, Radhanpur 26

4 I. J. Patel M.Ed. College, Moghari 24

Total 198

Thus, Spiritual Intelligence Scale prepared by the researcher and Spiritual

Intelligence Scale prepared by Bhavin D. Shah were administered on total 198 students

to establish the Validity of the Scale. Correlation coefficient between the scores of the

both Spiritual Intelligence Scale was calculated. Scatter diagram given in the table-6.8

and formula given below :

156

Table-6.8

Scatter diagram for Concurrent Validity

Spiritual Intelligence Scale (Bhavin D. Shah) Class 145-

164 165-184

185-204

205-224

225-244

245-264

265-284

285-304

Grand Total

y' fyY' fyY'2 x'y'

260-284 1 1 1 3 -3 -9 27 3 285-309 2 1 3 -2 -6 12 12 310-334 15 5 3 2 25 -1 -25 25 38 335-359 1 28 13 6 2 50 0 0 0 0 360-384 6 16 22 6 50 1 50 50 78 385-409 1 7 29 6 43 2 86 172 250 410-434 3 6 9 18 3 54 162 180 435-459 6 6 4 24 96 96 Grand Total

1 1 18 41 32 41 43 21 198 174 544 657

x' -1 -2 -3 0 1 2 3 4 fxX' -1 -2 -54 0 32 82 129 84 270 fxX'2 1 4 162 0 32 164 387 336 1086

Spi

ritua

l Int

ellig

ence

Sca

le

x'y' 3 6 57 0 13 80 246 252 657

r = 0.79

156

157

= 657 N = 198 Cx = 1.36 Cy = 0.88

= 1.90 =1.41

r= 0.79

According to table-6.8, Correlation coefficient between the scores of Spiritual

Intelligence Scale and Spiritual Intelligence Scale prepared by Bhavin D. Shah was 0.79.

Authority letter for using Spiritual Intelligence Scale given by Bhavin D. Shah, Spiritual

Intelligence Scale and Manual prepared by Bhavin D. Shah Presented in Appendix-E.

� Convergent Validity :

To estimate the Convergent Validity of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale the correlation

coefficient between the scores of Spiritual Intelligence Scale and Verbal and Non verbal

Intelligence Test Prepared by Dr. K.G. Desai and published by Institute of

Psychological and Educational Research and Guidance, Ahmedabad was calculated.

Spiritual Intelligence Scale and Verbal and Non verbal Intelligence Test were

administered on the sample mentioned in Table-6.9. Both the tools were administered

with the gap of one month period only.

Table-6.9 Sample for Estimation of Convergent Validity

Sr.

No.

College Name No.

Students

1 Swami Vivekanand Sarvoday Bank Education

College, Mehsana

93

2 Swami Vivekanand Sarvoday Bank Education

College Post Graduate Department, Mehsana

28

3 Banaskantha Kadva Patidar Sankar Mandal,

M.Ed. College, Palanpur

16

4 K. B. Dave M.Ed. College, Vijapur 23

Total 160

Thus, Spiritual Intelligence Scale and Verbal and Non verbal Intelligence Test

were administered on total 160 students to establish the Validity of the Scale. Correlation

coefficient between the scores of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale and Verbal and Non

verbal Intelligence Test was calculated. Scatter diagram given in the table-6.10.

158

Table-6.10

Scatter diagram for Convergent Validity

Verbal Non Verbal Intelligence Test (Dr. K.G. Desai)

75-84 85-94 95-104 105-114 115-124 125-134 135-144 Total (fy)

y' fyY' fyY' 2 x'y'

240-264 1 2 3 -4 -12 48 28

265-289 3 3 6 -3 -18 54 45

290-314 2 10 6 3 1 22 -2 -44 88 62

315-339 2 6 29 13 1 1 52 -1 -52 52 43

340-364 1 11 16 3 2 33 0 0 0 0

365-389 5 14 7 2 28 1 28 28 6

390-414 2 3 7 12 2 24 48 34

415-439 1 2 3 3 9 27 15

440-464 1 1 4 4 16 8

Total(fx) 08 22 51 48 16 14 01 160 -61 361 241

x' -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

fxX' -24 -44 -51 0 16 28 3 -72

fxX' 2 72 88 51 0 16 56 9 292

Spi

ritua

l Int

ellig

ence

Sca

le

x'y' 57 86 36 0 13 52 -3 241

r = 0.72

158

159

= 241 N = 160 Cx = -0.45 Cy = -0.38

= 1.27 =1.45

r= 0.72

Correlation coefficient between the scores of Spiritual Intelligence Scale and Verbal

and Non verbal Intelligence Test was 0.72. Verbal and Non verbal Intelligence Test and

manual Prepared by Dr. K.G. Desai and published by Institute of Psychological and

Educational Research and Guidance, Ahmedabad attached in Appendix-F.

The values of correlation coefficient are moderately high so that it can be said that the

present Spiritual Intelligence Scale is valid.

� Factor Validity :

Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed

variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables called factors.

Correlation between dimensions (Factors) of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale with help of Ms-

Excel Software was calculated. Table-6.11 shows the correlation matrix of the scores of

Spiritual Intelligence Scale. It shows the Pearson Correlation Coefficient between all pairs of

dimensions.

160

Table-6.11

Correlation Matrix of various factors of Spiritual Intelligence Scale

Dimension God and

Religious

Self

Awareness

Religious

Concept

Spiritual

Changes

Religious

Experience Values

Helping

Behaviours

Social

Maturity

Soul,

Meditation

and Yoga

Soul, Meditation

and Yoga 0.64 0.51 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.58 1

Social Maturity 0.63 0.57 0.49 0.48 0.61 0.65 0.71 1

Helping Behaviours 0.64 0.53 0.58 0.42 0.55 0.69 1

Values 0.61 0.58 0.53 0.37 0.52 1

Religious Experience 0.71 0.57 0.50 0.61 1

Spiritual Changes 0.66 0.30 0.45 1

Religious Concept 0.56 0.44 1

Self Awareness 0.50 1

God and Religious 1

160

161

6.4.0 Conclusion

In this chapter, reliability and validity have been discussed and the values for the

same for the Spiritual Intelligence Scale that is constructed by the researcher have been

measured using different methods. The values show satisfactory values of reliability and

validity of the constructed scale. In the Chapter-7 data analysis and Interpretations

discussed in detail.

162

REFERENCES

1. A., Anastasi, & A., Urbina, (2002). Psychological Testing (7th Edition). New

Delhi: Pearson Education (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., Indian Branch, Page No.- 84.

2. Guilford H. E. (1956). Fundamental of Static in Psychology and Education,

New York : Mc Craul Hall Book Company, Page No.- 379.

3. E. F. Lindquist (1971). A First Course in Statistics, Boston , Mifflin : Revised

Edition, Page No- 213.

4. Charles Jackson (1960). Undertaking Psychological Testing, Jaico Publishing

House, Bombay, page No- 169.