Cross-sectional survey validates the Spiritual Care Competence Questionnaire in Slovenia, indicating a need for improved spiritual care training.
Spiritual care competence (SCC) is increasingly recognized as relevant in mental health, yet no validated tool exists in Slovenia. This study aimed to translate and validate the Spiritual Care Competence Questionnaire (SCCQ) in a Slovene sample of mental-health professionals. Guided by this aim, our research question was the following: to what extent does the SCCQ demonstrate a replicable seven-factor structure, acceptable reliability, construct validity, and coherent group differences in a Slovene sample of mental-health professionals? In a cross-sectional survey (n = 291) across outpatient, inpatient, private, and other settings, we administered the SCCQ together with measures of spiritual sensitivity (SSS), spiritual transcendence (STS), and the BFI-S. Following forward–backward translation and expert review, we conducted item analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and assessed reliability and construct validity. After removing seven psychometrically weak items, a 35-item, seven-factor structure—perception of spiritual needs, team spirit, documentation/tools, spiritual self-awareness, knowledge of other religions, conversation, and empowerment/proactive opening—showed borderline to acceptable fit (TLI = 0.917, CFI = 0.892, RMSEA = 0.068, SRMR = 0.073) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.67–0.87). Convergent validity was supported by positive associations with SSS/STS, while expected correlations with Big Five traits were small but significant (negative for Emotional Instability). Older age and psychotherapist profession predicted higher SCC. The Slovene SCCQ is a confession-neutral, psychometrically adequate instrument for assessing SCC in mental-health services. Findings highlight curricular needs—especially documentation/tools and team-based engagement—and enable research, education, and quality improvement aligned with international SCCQ validations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Golob et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: