SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Spiritual Psychology and Counseling / 2026 / Volume: 11 Issue: 2

Spiritual Monachopsis: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Psychometric Analysis

Süheyb Okur(Bayburt Üniversitesi)0000-0002-0242-5921
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that the Spiritual MonachopsisScale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing levels of spiritual homelessness and alienation, particularly among theology students.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the modern era, individuals have increasingly experienced alienation from their religious environments and have been marked by aprofound sense of “homelessness” within their worlds of faith.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The scale development study was conducted with a total of 453 undergraduate theology students studying at Bayburt University in the 2025-2026 academic year, including 163 participants in the exploratory validation phase and 290 participantsin the confirmatory validation phase.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the Spiritual MonachopsisScale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing levels of spiritual homelessness and alienation, particularly among theology students.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2025-2026 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Psychology of Religion · Spiritual Monachopsis · Alienation

Abstract

In the modern era, individuals have increasingly experienced alienation from their religious environments and have been marked by aprofound sense of “homelessness” within their worlds of faith. Based on the concept of “Monachopsis” —the subtle but persistent feeling of being out of place— this study was designed to develop the “Spiritual Monachopsis Scale” (SMS) to measure the spiritual manifestation of thisphenomenon and to examine its psychometric properties in a sampleof theology students. The scale development study was conducted with a total of 453 undergraduate theology students studying at Bayburt University in the 2025-2026 academic year, including 163 participants in the exploratory validation phase and 290 participantsin the confirmatory validation phase. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA),Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, and Pearson correlation analysis were used for data analysis. The EFA indicated that the scale had a three-factor structure —Disconnection from the Divine, Alienation from the Belief System, Religious Social Alienation— which explained 57.66% of the total variance. The CFA results confirmed that the 18-item structure demonstrated a good fit to the data. The internal consistency of the scale was found to be high. In terms of criterion-related validity, a positive and significant correlation was found between the SMS and the Negative Religious Coping scale. The findings indicate that the Spiritual MonachopsisScale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing levels of spiritual homelessness and alienation, particularly among theology students. Itis recommended that the SMS be used in future studies within higher religious education settings and campus-based spiritual counselingcontexts to identify patterns of alienation in this population and to inform supportive psychoeducational programs.

🔖

Cite This Article

Okur, S. (2026). Spiritual Monachopsis: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Psychometric Analysis. Spiritual Psychology and Counseling, Volume: 11 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.37898/spiritualpc.1861016

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Aktürk, Ü., Erci, B., & Razbienie, R. (2017). Functional evaluation of treatment of chronic disease: Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Palliative & Supportive Care, 15(6), 684–692. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951517000013
  2. Ay, S., Gündüz, T., Özyurt, B. C., Çoban, A., & Pişkin, A. A. (2019). The psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp-12) in older adults living in nursing homes. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 20(2), 22-28. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.5670
  3. Aydınalp, H. (2016, March). Din, kimlik ve yabancılaşma üzerine söyleşi. Diyanet Aylık Dergi, 303, 6–10.
  4. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  6. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  7. Burckhardt, T. (2009). Art of Islam: Language and meaning. World Wisdom.
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (24th ed.). Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789756802748
  9. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  10. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
  11. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  12. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2025). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (8th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  13. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  14. Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/249524
  15. Dupuis, A., & Thorns, D. C. (1998). Home, home ownership and the search for ontological security. The Sociological Review, 46(1), 24–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00088
  16. Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The neural bases of social pain: Evidence for shared representations with physical pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182464dd1
  17. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
  18. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
  19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  20. Francis, L. J., Brockett, A., & Village, A. (2013). Measuring attitude toward theistic faith: Assessing the Astley-Francis Scale among Christian, Muslim and secular youth in England. Research in Education, 89(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.89.1.6
  21. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056765
  22. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press.
  23. Henrie, J., & Patrick, J. H. (2014). Religiousness, religious doubt, and death anxiety. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 78(3), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.78.3.c
  24. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
  25. Hisarcıklılar, E. (2022). Yabancılaşmayı bir karakter üzerinden okumak: Peyami Safa’nın “Meral”i. Erdem, 83, 111–134. https://doi.org/10.32704/erdem.2022.83.111
  26. Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124183011003003
  27. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  28. Huysmans, J. (1998). Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier. European Journal of International Relations, 4(2), 226–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004002004
  29. Kayacan, Ş. N. (2022). Z kuşağında dini şüphe (Thesis No. 833955) [Master’s thesis, Atatürk University]. National Thesis Center.
  30. Kinnvall, C. (2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: Self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00396.x
  31. Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Routledge.
  32. Koenig, J. (2021). The dictionary of obscure sorrows. Simon & Schuster.
  33. Laing, R. D. (1969). The divided self: An existential study in sanity and madness. Penguin Books.
  34. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  35. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  36. Ok, Ü. (2024). Ok-Dinî Tutum Ölçeği-G: Genişletilmiş versiyon. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 65(2), 479–514. https://doi.org/10.33227/auifd.1519206
  37. Okur, S. (2026). Negatif Dinî Başa Çıkma Ölçeği (NDBÇ): Psikometrik özellikler ve teorik ayrışabilirlik üzerine bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Van İlahiyat Dergisi, 14(24), 180-204. https://doi.org/10.54893/vanid.1861157
  38. 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). Wiley.
  39. Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press.
  40. Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200004)56:4 3.0.CO;2-1
  41. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
  42. Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088565
  43. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  44. Yapıcı, A. (2025). Dini şüpheyi anlamak: Psikolojik bir bakış. İdrak Dini Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(3), 135–166. https://doi.org/10.62297/idrak.1703170