01-03-2013, 01:52 PM
To critically analyze this type of research it's important to look into the details of the study - such as how 'spirituality' and 'mental illness' were defined and measured, self-reported answers, sampling, what statistical analysis was used, how data was interpreted, the process in which data was collected, etc. We can't just give arbitrary percentages and dismiss a community.
Such studies are usually full or methodological errors/weaknesses and therefore have low generalizability (can we say the results of study is a good representation of what happens in the larger populations) and validity (e.g., did study measure what they purported to measure, thus did they capture this phenomenon accurately).
Probably a weak study and anybody could intuitively and rationally see why there may be a connection between 'mental illness' and 'spirituality'... but that doesn't mean that if you're spiritual, you're mentally ill.. or that if you're mentally ill, then you are spiritual. That's BS. This study is saying there is a connection but it was not designed to explain why this is the case. There was a correlation statistically. That's it. Don't read more into it than that.
Such studies are usually full or methodological errors/weaknesses and therefore have low generalizability (can we say the results of study is a good representation of what happens in the larger populations) and validity (e.g., did study measure what they purported to measure, thus did they capture this phenomenon accurately).
Probably a weak study and anybody could intuitively and rationally see why there may be a connection between 'mental illness' and 'spirituality'... but that doesn't mean that if you're spiritual, you're mentally ill.. or that if you're mentally ill, then you are spiritual. That's BS. This study is saying there is a connection but it was not designed to explain why this is the case. There was a correlation statistically. That's it. Don't read more into it than that.