1
PhD from civil engineering department,Sharif university of technology
2
Faculty member at Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution
Abstract
Conceptual models of religiosity eventually define a list of indices and also a grouping of these indices within their corresponding dimensions. The main contribution of this paper is to modify this grouping based on observational data. It is calimed that if the questionnaire is deigned carefully, then conducting confirmatory and exploratory analysis can be helful in modifying the grouping of the primary conceptual model. It is also claimed that using network approaches it is possible to analyse the relationship between the indices of religiosity directly. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the grouping of our questionnaire which was based on shojaie-zand model. Exploratory factor analysis shows one big and three small factors; the big factor count for almost half of the variance. Network based approaches shows that cognitive elements of religiosity are more central than its behavioral elements. Network approach also shows that depriving behaviors are more central in mens' religiosity and worshipping behaviors are more central in womens'.
Andrews, F. M. (1984). "Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach." Public opinion quarterly48(2): 409-442.
Backor, K., et al. (2007). Estimating survey fatigue in time use study. international association for time use research conference. Washington, DC, Citeseer.
Berg, I. A. and G. M. Rapaport (1954). "Response bias in an unstructured questionnaire." The journal of Psychology38(2): 475-481.
Borsboom, D. (2017). "A network theory of mental disorders." World psychiatry16(1): 5-13.
Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, Guilford Publications.
Cornwall, M., et al. (1986). "The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test." Review of Religious Research: 226-244.
Cramer, A. O., et al. (2012). "Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: You can't like parties if you don't like people." European Journal of Personality26(4): 414-431.
Dalege, J., et al. (2016). "Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model." Psychological review123(1): 2.
Dalege, J., et al. (2017). "Network structure explains the impact of attitudes on voting decisions." Scientific reports7(1): 4909.
Dickinson, T. L. and P. M. Zellinger (1980). "A comparison of the behaviorally anchored rating and mixed standard scale formats." Journal of Applied Psychology65(2): 147.
Epskamp, S., et al. (2016). "Network psychometrics." arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02818.
Fruchterman, T. M. and E. M. Reingold (1991). "Graph drawing by force‐directed placement." Software: Practice and experience21(11): 1129-1164.
Henseler, J., et al. (2015). "A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling." Journal of the academy of marketing science43(1): 115-135.
Himmelfarb, H. S. (1975). "Measuring religious involvement." Social Forces53(4): 606-618.
Johnson, W. R., et al. (1974). "Effects of alternative positioning of open-ended questions in multiple-choice questionnaires." Journal of Applied Psychology59(6): 776.
King, M. B. and R. A. Hunt (1972). "Measuring the religious variable: Replication." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion: 240-251.
Klockars, A. J. and M. Yamagishi (1988). "The influence of labels and positions in rating scales." Journal of Educational Measurement25(2): 85-96.
Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Questionnaire design. The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, Springer: 439-455.
Krosnick, J. A. and M. K. Berent (1993). "Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format." American Journal of Political Science: 941-964.
Monroe, B. M. and S. J. Read (2008). "A general connectionist model of attitude structure and change: The ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) model." Psychological review115(3): 733.
Ostrom, T. M. (1969). "The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude." Journal of experimental social psychology5(1): 12-30.
Schmittmann, V. D., et al. (2013). "Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena." New ideas in psychology31(1): 43-53.
Stark, R. and C. Y. Glock (1968). American piety: The nature of religious commitment, Univ of California Press.
امیدیان, ف., et al. (1396). "اعتباریابی مقیاس دینداری و نقش روشهای تدریس فعال با رویکرد اسلامی بر میزان دینداری دانشآموزان دوره دوم متوسطه." پژوهش هایاجتماعیاسلامی 112(23): 87-110.
جمشیدیها, غ. and م. ب. آخوندی (1395). "الگویی قرآنی برای سنجش دینداری در ایران." آموزه هایقرآنی 23(0): 55-78.
خدایاریفرد, م., et al. (1389). "مدل سنجش دینداری و ساخت مقیاس آن در سطح ملی." پژوهش هایکاربردیروانشناختی 1(1): 1-24.
خدایاریفرد, م., et al. (1387). "آماده سازی مقیاس سنجش دین داری برای جمعیت دانشجویی." روان شناسیوعلومتربیتی 80(38): 23-46.
سراجزاده, س. and م. پویافر (1388). "سنجش دینداری با رهیافت بومی." جامعه شناسیمسائلاجتماعیایران 2(0): 1-18.
سراجزاده, س. ح. (1378). "نگرش ها و رفتارهای دینی نوجوانان تهرانی و دلالتهای آن برای نظریه سکولار شدن." نمایهپژوهش 9(3): 105-118.
سراجزاده, س. ح. and م. ر. پویافر (1386). "مقایسه تجربی سنجه های دینداری: دلالت های روش شناسانه کاربرد سه سنجه در یک جمعیت." جامعه شناسیایران 32(8): 37-71.
شجاعیزند, ح. and ع. ر. شجاعیزند (1395). "بررسی روایی در پیمایش های سنجش دینداری در ایران." جامعه شناسیکاربردی 63(27): 169-196.
شجاعیزند, ع. ر. (1384). "مدلی برای سنجش دینداری در ایران." جامعه شناسیایران 21(6): 34-66.
شجاعیزند, ع. ر., et al. (1385). "بررسی وضعیت دین داری در بین دانشجویان." مطالعات ملی 26(7): 55-80.
طالبان, م. (1388). "چارچوبی مفهومی برای پیمایش دینداری در ایران." اسلام وعلوماجتماعی 2(1): 7-48.
طالبان, م. (1389). "برازش تجربی مدل های مفهومی- ساختاری از دینداری." راهبرد فرهنگ 12-13(3): 41-60.
کرمالهی, ن. ا. and ق. جوکار (1395). "مبانی الگوی اجتماعی سنجش دین داری در ایران." راهبرد فرهنگ 33(9): 93-116.
hadavi,M. and Nariman,S. (2022). Religiosity structure: confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis and a network-based approach. Strategy for Culture, 14(56), 57-91.
MLA
hadavi,M. , and Nariman,S. . "Religiosity structure: confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis and a network-based approach", Strategy for Culture, 14, 56, 2022, 57-91.
HARVARD
hadavi M., Nariman S. (2022). 'Religiosity structure: confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis and a network-based approach', Strategy for Culture, 14(56), pp. 57-91.
CHICAGO
M. hadavi and S. Nariman, "Religiosity structure: confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis and a network-based approach," Strategy for Culture, 14 56 (2022): 57-91,
VANCOUVER
hadavi M., Nariman S. Religiosity structure: confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis and a network-based approach. Strategy for Culture, 2022; 14(56): 57-91.
