Abstract:BACKGROUND:The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) is a widely-used 5-item scale assessing religiosity.AIM:Assess the internal consistency, reliability, and factor structure of the revised Chinese version of DUREL.METHODS:Using probability proportionate to size (PPS) methods we randomly identified 3981 households with eligible occupants in 20 primary sampling sites in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, a province in northwest China in which 34% of the population are Muslims of the Hui ethnic group. In 3054 households a screening interview was completed and an adult family member was randomly selected; 2425 respondents completed the survey (including the DUREL) and 188 randomly selected individuals repeated the survey an average of 2.5 days later.RESULTS:The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the 5 items in the full sample was 0.90; it ranged from 0.70 to 0.90 in various subgroups of subjects stratified by ethnicity, urban versus rural residence, and above versus below median education. The test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) for the total score in the full sample was 0.87; it ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 in the different subgroups of subjects. Exploratory factor analysis in a random half of the sample identified a single factor (eigen value=4.21) that explained 84% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis in the second half of the sample confirmed the unidimensional model; the model fit measures of the one-factor model using the 5 item scores as observed variables were acceptable (comparative fit index [CFI] and Tucker-Lewis index [TLI]>0.99; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.105; χ (2) =70.49, df=5), but the model fit improved after adding the correlation between items 1 and 2 (that assess organized and personal religious activities, respectively) as a sixth observed variable(CFI and TLI>0.99; RMSEA=0.046; χ (2) =14.32, df=4).CONCLUSION:The Chinese version of the DUREL is a reliable and valid measure of religiosity that can be used to assess the relationship of religiosity/spirituality to physical and psychological wellbeing in Chinese respondents. As suggested by other authors, our factor analysis results indicate that the overall score is the best measure derived from the scale, not the three dimensional scores recommended by the original authors.

The Reliability of Chinese Version DUREL Scale

Psychometric Properties Of A Chinese Version Of The Duke University Religion Index In College Students And Community Residents In China

Internal Consistency and Test-Retest Reliability of the Chinese Version of the 5-Item Duke University Religion Index.

[Reliability and Validity of a Short-Form Health Survey Scale (SF-36), Chinese Version Used in an Elderly Population of Zhejiang Province in China].

Reliability and Vaiidatioa of the Social Comparison Orientation Scale

Reliablity and Validity of the Domain-Specific Risk-taking Scale in Chinese College Students

Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Revised Defensive Pessimism Questionnaire(Social)

Reliability and Validity of Chinese Version of Swedish Universities Scales of Personality

The Chinese Version of Aspiration Index:Reliability and Validity

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Versions of DASS-21 in Chinese College Students

The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-Item Measure for Use in Epidemological Studies

Study of Reliability and Validity of Chinese Version of Antidepressants Compliance Question-naire

Reliability and Validity of Individualism and Collectivism Scale in Chinese Students

Reliability and Validity of a Chinese Version of Dieting Belief Scale in A Sample of Nurses

The Reliability and Validity of Chinese Translation of RSQ-SSV in Undergraduate Student

Reliability and validity of the Chinese Version of Cognitive Style Questionnaire in college students

Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Short Ruminative Responses Scale(SRRS) in Chinese Undergraduates

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Revised Version of Distress Tolerance Scale

Revision of the Effort-Reward Imbalance for Learning Scale

Reliability and Validity of Chinese Version of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11

[Comment on "the Reliability and Validity of the Effort-Reward Imbalance - the Chinese Version"].