Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmhr20

Mental Health, Religion & Culture

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmhr20

Evaluating psychometric properties of the MuslimDaily Religiosity Assessment Scale (MUDRAS) inIndonesian samples using the Rasch model

Bambang Suryadi , Bahrul Hayat & Muhammad Dwirifqi Kharisma Putra

To cite this article: Bambang Suryadi , Bahrul Hayat & Muhammad Dwirifqi Kharisma Putra(2020): Evaluating psychometric properties of the Muslim Daily Religiosity Assessment Scale(MUDRAS) in Indonesian samples using the Rasch model, Mental Health, Religion & Culture

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1795822

View supplementary material

Published online: 17 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Evaluating psychometric properties of the Muslim DailyReligiosity Assessment Scale (MUDRAS) in Indonesian samplesusing the Rasch modelBambang Suryadia, Bahrul Hayata and Muhammad Dwirifqi Kharisma Putrab

aFaculty of Psychology, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia; bFaculty of Psychology, Universitas GadjahMada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACTThis study aimed to validate the Indonesian version of the MuslimDaily Religiosity Assessment Scale (MUDRAS). This measure wastested on 766 Muslim college students aged 17–24 years (meanage = 20.01, SD = 1.4) who were students from six state Islamicuniversities and one private Islamic university in Indonesia. Thedata analysis technique used was the Partial Credit Model, whichderived the polytomous Rasch model family. The results indicatedthat the MUDRAS has good psychometric characteristics formeasuring religiosity in a sample of Indonesian Muslim students.All assumptions of the Rasch model were fulfilled. The personseparation reliability was .92 and Cronbach’s alpha was .93,indicating excellent internal consistency of the IndonesianMUDRAS. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed the higher orderfactor structure of the Indonesian MUDRAS. These findingsprovide the first Rasch model contribution to the MUDRAS and itsfirst validation in a Muslim majority country.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 25 March 2020Accepted 8 July 2020

KEYWORDSAdaptation; factor analysis;MUDRAS; Muslim religiosity;partial credit model; Raschmodel

From prehistoric times to the present, religion has been a central part of human experi-ence and culture. Many experts see religion as a particularly important type of humanactivity, and all major religious traditions have developed philosophies on the nature ofbeing human and our place in the world (Nelson, 2009). Islam is the second largest religionin the world (Abu-Raiya et al., 2008). As Islam originated in the Asian continent, mostMuslims are currently living in Asia, and the percentage of Muslims in Asia is about27.5% of the total world Muslim population of 1.14 billion people. Additionally, 236million Muslims are living in southeast Asia (Kettani, 2010). Indonesia is the world’smost populous Muslim nation (Webster, 2013), and 87.2% of Indonesians are Muslims(Government of Republic of Indonesia, 2020). Although Islam is the majority religion inIndonesia, Islam has also served as a unifying force for all religions in the country (Choi,1996), in line with Pancasila – the Indonesian state ideology.

In the scientific study of religion, religiosity in its numerous manifestations has beenresearched for decades (Salam et al., 2019). Pioneering work on the psychology of religi-osity was done by Allport and Ross (1967), which examined the relationship between

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Bambang Suryadi bambang.suryadi@uinjkt.ac.idSupplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1795822

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTUREhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1795822

religious orientation and prejudice. Religiosity has been broadly studied in Indonesiausing a variety of instruments (e.g., Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality and The Centrality of Religiosity Scale) that have been adapted to the Indo-nesian language (Cahyaningrum, 2018; Purnomo & Suryadi, 2017). This is not surprising,as religion has become a mandatory subject for all Indonesian undergraduate students.

However, there is a theoretical gap related to religiosity among these Indonesian adap-tations of the scales. This is because religiosity is a general concept, and the term as used isnot specifically applicable for the Muslim population despite being tested in all-Muslimsamples. Meanwhile, adaptations of measures developed in the West are not necessarilyin line with Islamic values (Salam et al., 2019). However, the development of researchon the Muslim context has been promising and rapid (Abu-Raiya & Hill, 2014). Unfortu-nately, Indonesian versions of measures for Muslim religiosity are rare in the literature,especially in international peer-reviewed journals. There are also methodological gaps,as advances in psychometric methods such as the use of latent trait models in religiosityresearch (e.g., Abernethy & Kim, 2018; Schaap-Jonker et al., 2016) are rarely found inIndonesia.

Religiosity has been operationalised with different dimensions and has been measuredin various ways. Muslim religiosity also has multiple conceptualisations. Although numer-ous studies have been conducted, the results are still inconclusive because of differencesin the constructs of religiosity used (Abu-Raiya & Hill, 2014; Salam et al., 2019; Schaap-Jonker et al., 2016). As Abu-Raiya and Hill (2014) pointed out, from 1997 to 2013, therewere a total of 17 religiosity measures rooted in Islam. They used five criteria to criticallyanalyse religiosity measures, namely theoretical clarity, sample representation, reliability,validity, and cultural generalisability (Hill, 2013). The findings of their study indicatedthat the variety and scope of the instruments that have been developed are impressive.Many of these instruments are promising, but others need refinement and furthervalidation.

Another study by Mahudin et al. (2016) analysed twelve religiosity measures includingone measure with Indonesian samples from Ji and Ibrahim (2007), although that measurewas developed by a “derivative approach” (Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2011), which is associ-ated with some challenges (Abu-Raiya & Hill, 2014). Moreover, due to the fact that Indo-nesia is a multicultural and multi-faith country, the use of Allport and Ross’s (1967)theory and religiosity instrument is not appropriate. (Hill & Dwiwardani, 2010). In astudy by Salam et al. (2019) reviewing 39 measures of religiosity in an Islamic marketingcontext, none of them were validated in Indonesia.

In the Indonesian context, religiosity has a vital role in life in this multicultural society.Indonesia has a rich diversity of cultures, religions, traditions, and local wisdom traditions.The two most notable Islamic organisations are Persyarikatan Muhammadiyah and Nah-dlatul Ulama (Webster, 2013), which are also the two largest in the world (Marshall,2018), and which are affiliated with higher education systems all across Indonesia (e.g.,Muhammadiyah University and State Islamic University). Given these conditions, there isa need to have measures of religiosity grounded in Islam (see Abu-Raiya & Hill, 2014, fora review). Such measures would be most appropriate because of Indonesia’s multicultur-ality and because Al-Qur’an is the central religious text of Islam that acts as a guide for allMuslims. One of the new Muslim religiosity measures is the Muslim Daily ReligiosityAssessment Scale (MUDRAS) developed by Olufadi (2017).

2 B. SURYADI ET AL.

The MUDRAS was developed based on Al-Qur’an as the central religious text of Islam andas a guide for all Muslims, to fill the gap related to limited references in the literature directedtoward assessing Muslims’ daily actions and behaviours as advised in the Qur’an and theteachings of the Prophet Muhammad (Olufadi, 2017). Because the MUDRAS indicatorswere developed from the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith, the concept of Sunnah’ was includedin this instrument. Another unique feature of the MUDRAS compared to other measures isthat it covers behaviour and religious practices that are performed on a daily basis.

From a methodological perspective, in developing the MUDRAS, Olufadi (2017)employed exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA, respectively) to vali-date the construct. To date, in addition to CFA, there are modern latent trait models suchas item response theory and Rasch models (e.g., Rasch, 1960; Samejima, 1969). Unlikefactor analysis based methods, Rasch models have unique features of specific objectivity,parameter separation, and sufficiency (Wright & Masters, 1982; Wright & Stone, 1999). Thisfeature means that a person’s trait level (e.g., religiosity) and item parameters can be sep-arated. Thus, it is possible to estimate a person’s level of the latent construct free of thedistribution of the individual items and to estimate an item’s difficulty level free fromthe distribution of persons used in the sample (Andrich, 2010; DiStefano et al., 2019),and allows nonspecialists to use raw scores of the Indonesian MUDRAS. A uniquefeature of Rasch models is also highly related to cultural generalisability criteria (seeAbu-Raiya & Hill, 2014; Hill, 2013), since these models have long been known as“sample-free item analysis” (Rasch, 1966; Wright & Panchapakesan, 1969).

In the field of psychology of religion and spirituality, the use of these latent trait modelsis recommended because they provide an invaluable resource for scale development.These models, as advanced psychometric techniques, can provide more precise measuresof religiosity (Schaap-Jonker et al., 2016), and provide a basis for potential refinement andadaptation of instruments for specific populations (Abernethy & Kim, 2018). Rasch modelscan handle various item formats (e.g., dichotomous, polytomous, mixed, etc.).

The MUDRAS consists of 28 items with different numbers of response categories insome items. To analyse the MUDRAS, the Partial Credit Model (PCM; Masters, 1982) canbe used to handle Likert-type responses and can also accommodate these differencesin response structure and produce results with an interval scale for person parameters(Wright & Masters, 1982). Therefore, PCM can contribute to validating the IndonesianMUDRAS, combined with CFA, which can provide a more detailed explanation of the psy-chometric characteristics of the measure, improving the reliability and validity criteria ofthis kind of measure (Abu-Raiya & Hill, 2014; Hill, 2013). Additionally, this research canprovide an example of the use of such data analysis methods when a scale has variousnumbers of response categories.

This article contributes to religiosity research in the following ways: (1) construct vali-dation of the MUDRAS for Indonesian samples in a multicultural context in Muslim majoritycountry, (2) the fit of the MUDRAS items to the Raschmeasurementmodel; and (3) the use ofPCM to analyse an instrument with different numbers of response categories.

Adaptation of the Muslim Daily Religiosity Assessment Scale (MUDRAS)

The MUDRAS was developed by Olufadi (2017); it contains 28 items and has three aspects,namely: sinful acts, recommended acts, and engaging in bodily worship of God. According to

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 3

the developers of the scale, only 21 items are included in the data analysis (sinful acts:items 15, 18–21, 23–26, and 28; recommended acts: items 5–11; engaging in bodilyworship of god: items 1–4). The MUDRAS was adapted into the Indonesian languagethrough a process that complied with the standards set by the International Test Commis-sion Guidelines for Test Adaptation (International Test Commission, 2018). The originalEnglish version of the MUDRAS used in this study was translated into Bahasa Indonesianby two qualified translators from the Centre for Language Development who are Indone-sian and lecturers at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta. They are fluent inEnglish and have doctoral degrees from Dutch and US universities.

Methods

Participants

The sample of this study comprised 766 Indonesian Muslim university students (638females, 128 males) using a nonprobability sampling technique. The sample were under-graduate students in various faculties of seven universities in Indonesia. The universitiesincluded six State Islamic Universities, namely: State Islamic University of North Sumatera,Medan (N = 91), Raden Fatah State Islamic University, Palembang (N = 93), Syarif Hidayatul-lah State Islamic University, Jakarta (N = 216), Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic Univer-sity, Malang (N = 88), Sunan Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya (N = 104), AlauddinState Islamic University, Makassar (N = 85), and one private Islamic university, namelyMuhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta (N = 89).

The mean age of the sample was 20.01 (SD = 1.4), with a range of 17–24 years. The per-centage of participants within the four age bands of 17–18, 19–20, 21–22, and 23–24 was12.9%, 51.3%, 31.7%, and 4.0%, respectively. The questionnaires were in paper-and-pencilformat. Participation was voluntary and the purpose of the study was stated in a letter thataccompanied the questionnaires. Participating persons were required to sign the informedconsent form, which was also attached to the questionnaire.

Rasch model

The Rasch model (Rasch, 1960) has revolutionised psychometrics (Mair, 2018). This modelallows measurement of persons and items on the same scale with equal interval propertiesof the scale and resulting linear measures (Wright & Stone, 1999). When data are fitted tothis model, item parameters can be estimated independently of the characteristics of thecalibrating sample and person parameters can be freed from the difficulties of the itemstaken (Masters, 1982; Rasch, 1966). Rasch models compute the probability of a certainresponse to each item given the level of the latent construct the individual possesses(i.e., the level of Muslim daily religiosity) and the relevant item’s difficulty of endorsement(DiStefano et al., 2019).

The PCM (Masters, 1982) is a polytomous item response model belonging to the Raschfamily that assumes ordered response categories as they exist in questionnaires, using uni-dimensional rating scales, which allow the number of response categories in each item tovary (de Ayala, 2009; Embretson & Reise, 2000). It follows that the PCM contains m (m + 1being the number of response categories) threshold parameters. Each threshold

4 B. SURYADI ET AL.

parameter marks a category intersection (Masters, 1982). Threshold sometimes refers to“step difficulty” or “step parameter” and illustrates the point on the latent trait continuum(e.g., level of Muslim religiosity) where a response in category k becomes more likely than aresponse in category k–1 (de Ayala, 2009). The PCM provides scores for items, persons, andstep parameters on a logit scale.

To implement a Rasch model, there are several assumptions that need to be fulfilled,namely: (1) unidimensionality of the latent trait, and (2) local independence (Embretson& Reise, 2000). To check the unidimensionality assumption, CFA was used and we alsoused Rasch Principal Component Analysis of Residuals (PCAR; Smith, 2002) to confirmthe factor structure of the Indonesian MUDRAS. To check the local independence assump-tion, the Q3 statistic was used (Yen, 1984). After the assumptions were fulfilled, PCM wasperformed.

To check whether an item fit the PCM, fit statistics can be used; two popular statisticaltests are infit mean square (MNSQ) and outfit MNSQ, which describe the fit of the data tothe PCM. The infit statistic places greater emphasis on unexpected responses that are closeto the people and item location, and outfit is sensitive to unexpected responses that are farfrom the location (Bond & Fox, 2015). The infit and outfit values are used to identify poten-tial unexpected response patterns. The expected value of infit or outfit for each item is 1.0,with a range of acceptable values ranging from .5 to 1.5. Values outside this boundary indi-cate a lack of fit between items and models (DiStefano et al., 2019). In this study, we usedthe WINSTEPS program using Joint Maximum Likelihood Estimation to estimate item andperson parameters of the Rasch model. To perform confirmatory factor analysis, we usedthe Mplus 8.4 program using a robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation.

Results

Factor structure

Factor analysis is commonly used to investigate whether item responses are unidimen-sional as required by Rasch analysis (Cook et al., 2009). In using CFA, we used several stat-istics and fit indices, namely, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and standardised root-mean-square residual (SRMR). Based on published criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Wang & Wang,2019), the following standards for good fit were used: CFI > .95, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .05,and SRMR < .08.

Before applying CFA, we excluded item 25 (“gambling”) because all of the respondentsendorsed the lowest category (Never do this). Additionally, gambling is a crime in Indone-sia, especially for Muslim university students. The results of CFA, using MLR estimation,confirmed the second order factor model, in line with the original structure of the scale(see Olufadi, 2017), because the values of the indices were above the acceptable threshold[χ2 (167) = 284.032, p < .001; RMSEA = .030 (90% CI = .024–.036), CFI = .983, TLI = .981,SRMR = .023], compared to the unidimensional model [χ2 (170) = 316.949, p < .001;RMSEA = .034 (90% CI = .028–.039), CFI = .978, TLI = .976, SRMR = .023] and a 3-uncorre-lated-factors model [χ2 (170) = 2427.628, p < .001; RMSEA = .132 (90% CI = .127–.136), CFI= .669, TLI = .631, SRMR = .345]. Based on RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR, the results indicatedthat the model provided satisfactory representations of the underlying structure of the

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 5

Indonesian MUDRAS construct. All items loaded significantly (ranging from .535 to .817) inrelation to each first order factor, at a p < .01 significance level.

Unidimensionality

In testing the unidimensionality assumption of the Indonesian MUDRAS, besides usingCFA, PCAR was performed (Chou & Wang, 2010). The results of this analysis confirmedthat the PCM assumption of unidimensionality was met and that further analysis wasworthwhile. According to PCAR, it can be concluded that a test only measures a dimen-sion when the minimum variance explained by the measure is > 50% (Linacre, 2018).The PCAR showed unidimensionality, as values above 61.7% (eigenvalue of 32.2) ofthe variance explained by the measure were found. The measurement model of theMUDRAS proved to be unidimensional in line with second-order unidimensional factorstructure from CFA.

Local independence

The Rasch model assumption of local independence requires that any set of items shouldnot share any meaningful correlation, once the latent variable is accounted for (Edwardset al., 2018). After the assumption of unidimensionality was shown to have been met, theassumption of local independence was tested using the Q3 statistic (Yen, 1984). Whenusing Q3 statistic index criteria, in which it is specified that the raw residual correlationbetween pairs of items is never >.10 (Marais & Andrich, 2008), no items were found tohave local dependence. The items that had the highest raw residual correlations had nega-tive signs and no positive residual correlation. In other words, the assumption of local inde-pendence in this study was met.

PCM results: item measure, fit statistics, and step parameter

Table 1 contains estimation results and the fit index model from each item of the Indone-sian version of the MUDRAS. As seen in the table, all MUDRAS items had infit and outfitstatistics within an acceptable value (.5–1.5). No misfitting items were found and thismeans that the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS items fit with the Rasch PCM.

The estimates of item difficulty were between −1.36 and 1.51 on the logit scale. Basedon the item discrimination index, which is analogous to classical test theory (item to-total-correlation), all the MUDRAS items have high discrimination values in a positive direction,with no values below .30 or negative values. This indicates that all items function well todistinguish persons with high versus low levels of religiosity. For each item, we examinedthe step parameter of category endorsements, and the statistics of each response for theitems. All items, except item 8, followed the step ordering requirement. We found Item 8(Step 1 =−.33, Step 2 =−.65, Step 3 = .98) experienced threshold disordering as thethresholds were not ordered from lowest to highest. However, none of the infit andoutfit statistics for response categories were greater than 2. This finding indicated that col-lapsing categories was not necessary because the disordered threshold still fit and did notviolate the Rasch model (Linacre, 2010; 2018). Based on this information, we concludedthat, in general, the MUDRAS items fit the Rasch PCM model.

6 B. SURYADI ET AL.

Reliability

Wright and Masters (1982) developed reliability measures based on the Rasch measure-ment model, which have a different concept from classical test theory (e.g., Cronbach’salpha). Reliability is estimated both for persons and items, by means of Person SeparationReliability (PSR). This is an estimate of how well this instrument can distinguish respon-dents on the measured variable. In parallel, Item Separation Reliability (ISR) is an indicationof how well items are separated by the persons taking the test (Wright & Stone, 1999). Thecutoff of separation reliabilities is >.80 (Bond & Fox, 2015). The PSR of the Indonesianversion of MUDRAS was .92, and the ISR was .99. The PSR and ISR were higher than thepredefined criteria. We also computed Cronbach’s alpha, which was .93, which is higherthan the Cronbach’s alpha of the original version (alpha = .89) (see Olufadi, 2017). Bothalphas exceed the .70 cutoff value (Nunnally, 1978), indicating that the Indonesianversion of the MUDRAS has excellent internal consistency.

Wright Map

The Wright Map, coined by Wilson and Draney (2002), is a map showing person measuresand item calibration using the same scale. In the map, the overall results between personsand items can be compared easily. The Wright Map depicting the results of the Indonesianversion of MUDRAS is shown in Figure 1.

From Figure 1, it is clear that the least endorsed item was 28: “Mengganggu atau mel-anggar batas privasi atau ketentraman orang lain tanpa izin, seperti: memasuki rumah oranglain tanpa izin, dan lain sebagainya (Encroaching on others’ privacy (e.g., their houses,eavesdropping on their private conversations, etc.) without permission)”. In contrast, themost endorsed item was 11: “Ikhlas memohon ampunan-nya, dengan tidak mengulangikesalahan atau dosa yang sama (Turn to God with sincere repentance, i.e., without return-ing to the sin)”. The mean of Muslim students’ daily religiosity of persons was 1.32

Table 1. Rasch item statistics and step parameter of the MUDRAS items: Item measure order.Item Measure Infit Outfit PTMEA Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Item-28 1.51 .89 .88 .76 −.51 −.31 .82Item-18 1.01 .93 .92 .75 −1.04 .38 .66Item-20 .99 1.31 1.32 .57 −1.48 −.79 2.27Item-15 .98 .85 .81 .77 −.97 .03 .93Item-9 .68 1.01 1.00 .69 −1.56 −.17 1.72Item 2 .65 .82 .83 .81 −1.43 −.06 −.70 .15 2.04Item-3 .52 .73 .75 .84 −1.98 −1.31 .70 .63 1.96Item-24 .34 .83 .81 .76 −1.48 .46 1.02Item-4 .30 .81 .82 .81 −1.49 −1.09 −.47 1.12 1.93Item-26 .18 .96 .95 .66 −2.42 −.21 2.63Item-10 −.09 1.15 1.20 .63 −1.36 .13 1.23Item-7 −.19 1.11 1.17 .61 −2.11 .03 2.08Item-19 −.47 1.11 1.15 .61 −1.14 −.23 1.37Item-21 −.64 .96 .94 .64 −1.07 −.28 1.34Item-5 −.69 1.09 1.14 .59 −.84 −.05 .89Item-23 −.85 .95 .80 .65 −1.51 .74 .78Item-8 −.89 1.06 .96 .57 −.33 −.65* .98Item-6 −.93 1.08 .95 .58 −.81 .13 .68Item-1 −1.06 1.19 1.15 .55 −1.41 .12 1.29Item-11 −1.36 1.06 .78 .54 −.43 −.28 .71

Note: *Indicates disordered category.

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 7

Figure 1. Wright Map of MUDRAS representing direct comparsion of person dispersion and itemdistribution.

8 B. SURYADI ET AL.

[standard deviation (SD) = 1.42], suggesting that the average Muslim student’s daily religi-osity was higher than the average level of item difficulty of the MUDRAS (zero). Further-more, the person distribution spread ranged from −2.80 to –4.84, which exceeded theitem difficulty range (−1.36–1.51).

Discussion

The Indonesian MUDRAS was investigated using Rasch modelling with a PCM, resulting ina detailed item-level analysis as an addition to CFA findings as a method for confirmingfactor structure. CFA results indicate that the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS has asecond-order factor model, which is in line with the original factor structure (Olufadi,2017). With this factor structure, users can have four-factor scores, which comprise onescore for overall Muslim religiosity constructs as a higher-order factor, and three scoresfor each aspect of the MUDRAS (sinful acts, recommended acts, and engaging in bodilyworship of God). We also found that a unidimensional CFA model had acceptableindices of good fit.

In using PCM, we found that the unidimensionality and local independence assump-tions were fulfilled. All items of the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS fit very well withthe Rasch PCM. All infit and outfit statistics were within acceptable criteria and all itemhad a high item discrimination index, indicating that the items were well-functioning.These findings also pointed out a good construct validity evidence of IndonesianMUDRAS. These findings allow users of the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS to reporttotal scores and each aspect score based on the original scoring manual (see Olufadi,2017).

Reliability coefficients from Rasch analysis indicated that the Indonesian version of theMUDRAS had high internal consistency (PSR = .92); these findings are in line with Cron-bach’s alpha of .93, which was higher than the original MUDRAS with an alpha of .89(Olufadi, 2017). Using criteria proposed by Hill (2013) and Abu-Raiya and Hill (2014), theIndonesian version of the MUDRAS was shown to have strong psychometric characteristicsin terms of validity and reliability as a measure of Muslim religiosity, which also provide analternative method to test them.

Regarding item content, the Rasch analysis findings are interesting compared to CFA.We identified the three most easily endorsed items that reflect Indonesian Muslim religi-osity. They are item-11 (“Turn to God with sincere repentance”), item-1 (“Aside from therecitations of the Quran during the five daily Obligatory prayers, how many times didyou read the Quran today?”), and item-6 (“How many times did you spend anything oncharity today?”). For item-11, which is related to “repentance”, findings from previousstudies show that repentance means avoiding sins; there are debates about whetherrepentance is a traditional or modern concept (Fakhri & Nejad, 2013) From examiningthe Indonesian version of the MUDRAS, we find that this behaviour is “easiest” for themodern generation of Indonesian Muslim students.

With regard to item-1 (“How many times did you read the Quran today?”), the results ofthis study are fascinating and are characteristic of research samples from Indonesia. That is,one aspect of religiosity that the majority of Indonesian Muslims engage in is reading theQur’an. For them, reading the Qur’an is part of their daily routine. No day passes withoutreading the Qur’an. One reason is that they believe that the Qur’an is a source of guidance

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 9

from Allah, and that reading the Qur’an is a psychological therapy that enables the readerto have peace of mind and tranquility. This finding is very reasonable because, in Indone-sia, reading the Qur’an is taught from early childhood education to college, both throughformal and non-formal education.

Regarding item-6, “charity”, we found this to be interesting because the behaviour isnot obligatory as a Sunnah’. Thus it can be argued that the Indonesia Muslim populationbelieves that Islamic charity, which is conceptualised as a way to gain wealth in this life, asit grounded in the belief that God will give back (Kailani & Slama, 2020). Charity is also con-sidered a noble act in Islam, as reflected in the two Islamic foundational texts, the Qur’anand Hadith (Husein & Slama, 2018), which is in line with the development of the MUDRAS(Olufadi, 2017). For Indonesians, this behaviour is also related to social welfare and socialjustice (Fauzia, 2017; Latief, 2012). From the Indonesian version of MUDRAS, we know thatthis phenomenon also occurred in our sample, as this behaviour was “easy” for Muslim stu-dents. From these findings, we think that “charity” can be done not only by “wealthy”people but also by anyone, within their means.

Conversely, we found the most challenging items to endorse were item-28 (“Encroach-ing on others’ privacy without permission”), item-18 (“Use intoxicants like alcohol whetherdrinking, selling, etc.”), item-20 (“Consult with soothsayers”). These findings are not surpris-ing, because as we expected, two of the most challenging items contain behaviour that arecrimes in Indonesia (items 28 and 18), and since all respondents were university students,those two behaviours would rarely be endorsed in this sample. Regarding item-28, a pre-vious study used Qur’anic verses and Hadith with the same things used in the MUDRAS. Initem-28, they found that this behaviour was worst in the context of digital media and tech-nology (e.g., social media or internet) (Lubis & Kartiwi, 2013), and such behaviours are notcovered in the Indonesian MUDRAS.

Regarding item-18 (“drinking alcohol”), drinking is an integral part of the indigenousculture in many local communities across Indonesia, and it often plays a significant rolein social gatherings and is legal in Indonesia for people over 21-years old, except forone province (Muthia, 2018). However, this behaviour was rarely endorsed by IndonesianMuslim university students samples who completed the MUDRAS. As a recommendation,previous studies have stated that less religious and less educated people should be con-sidered (Abu-Raiya et al., 2008), in addition to university students who are well-educatedand studying in the large Islamic educational systems in Indonesia.

The results for Item-20 were interesting; the term “soothsayers”was translated as dukun(Choi, 1996), which an ambiguous term and it is unclear which of its many meanings wouldbe applicable (see Nourse, 2013). Although Indonesia is referred to as a country of “mysti-cism” (Choi, 1996), soothsayers only exist in legends or myths rather than in real life,although the term may be understood to signify indigenous, traditional, and animist prac-tices (Geertz, 1976; Nourse, 2013), especially for young Islamic university students.However, for Indonesians, the term “paranormal” is more common among urban popu-lations (Schlehe et al., 2013). We could not find an “appropriate” term to use in the adap-tation process of the MUDRAS.

Based on the results, we also found an enormous potential use of the MUDRAS inregard to the development of new data analysis methods. As the MUDRAS assesses behav-iour that is performed on a daily basis, it can be a “bridge” to newly developing techniquesthat cover intensive longitudinal data (ILD; data with many measurements over time) (e.g.,

10 B. SURYADI ET AL.

Dynamic Structural Equation Modelling; Asparouhov et al., 2018), rather than a longitudi-nal design, which takes a long time. In other words, we believe MUDRAS is a potentialtool for exploring the dynamic process of Muslim religiosity, that is suitable for use asintensive longitudinal data in religious studies. This kind of research can occur followingthe suggestion about the use of longitudinal designs to learn more about Muslim reli-giosity or in relation to other variables such as well-being (Abdel-Khalek, 2011; Abu-Raiya et al., 2008).

Another potential use of the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS is highly related to theIndonesian culture, as Indonesia has an extensive Islamic higher educational system (e.g.,State Islamic University and Muhammadiyah University), which were covered in this study.We realised that Al-Qur’an (e.g., exegesis and reciting the Qur’an) and Hadith are includedin the curriculum, for all majors and not only religious studies, and there are many expertsin this field. That is why most of the few internationally indexed journals in Indonesia areabout religious studies (e.g., Studia Islamika, Indonesian Journal of Islam and MuslimSocieties, Journal of Indonesian Islam). Still, the use of methodology from social sciencesis minimal; this article can make contributions to researchers of religious/Islamic studiesin Indonesia about measurement derived from Al-Qur’an and Hadith. We also hope theIndonesian version of the MUDRAS can be analysed based on exegesis concerning theQur’an and even their relation to broader Islamic culture in Indonesia.

Thus, we recognise that the present study has few limitations. First, while the goal wasto assess the psychometric properties of the MUDRAS in Indonesian samples, we did notinclude another measure to be compared with the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS,such as an instrument derived from general concepts of religiosity (e.g., Cahyaningrum,2018; Purnomo & Suryadi, 2017). We believe that assessing the relationship of the Indone-sian version of the MUDRAS with another instrument can enhance the concurrent validityof aspects of the former measure. Second, although the sampled individuals were repre-sentative of the college student populations from which they were selected, the use of anonprobability sampling approach may not provide an accurate representation of univer-sity students more broadly. The students were from Islamic universities only; hence, com-parison with students from public universities can enhance the generalisability ofIndonesian samples using the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS. Future researchshould address these issues.

Conclusion

This article shows the value of analyzing a questionnaire that assess an Islamic religiosityconstruct by means of Rasch modelling. This study also provides additional psychometricinformation that was not provided with the original scale development of the MUDRAS,leading to more insight into the way in which the scales and items are used amongsamples from different cultures. In summary, the Indonesian version of the MUDRAS hasadequate psychometric characteristics. More research with these adapted instruments isneeded, especially on its relationship to other psychological constructs.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 11

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was obtained from The Institute for Research and Community Service(LP2M), Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta, Indonesia. Participants con-sented to participate in the study and consented to the results being published accordingto the ethical approval.

References

Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2011). Religiosity, subjective well-being, self-esteem, and anxiety among KuwaitiMuslim adolescents. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670903456463

Abernethy, A. D., & Kim, S. (2018). The Spiritual Transcendence Index: An item response theory analy-sis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 28(4), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2018.1507800

Abu-Raiya, H., & Hill, P. C. (2014). Appraising the state of measurement of Islamic religiousness.Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035082

Abu-Raiya, H., & Pargament, K. I. (2011). Empirically-based psychology of Islam: Summary and critiqueof the literature. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670903426482

Abu-Raiya, H., Pargament, K. I., Mahoney, A., & Stein, C. (2008). A psychological measure of Islamicreligiousness: Development and evidence of reliability and validity. The International Journal forthe Psychology of Religion, 18(4), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610802229270

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212

Andrich, D. (2010). Sufficiency and conditional estimation of person parameters in the polytomousRasch model. Psychometrika, 75(2), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9154-8

Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthen, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. StructuralEquation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the humansciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erblaum & Associates.

Cahyaningrum, S. A. (2018). Uji validitas konstruk pada instrumen religiusitas dengan metode confi-rmatory factor analysis (CFA) [Construct validation of religiosity measure using confirmatory factoranalysis]. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia (JP3I), 7(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v7i1.12109

Choi, D. S. (1996). The process of Islamization and its impact on Indonesia. Comparative CivilizationReview, 34(34), 11–26.

Chou, Y.-T., & Wang, W.-C. (2010). Checking dimensionality in item response models with principalcomponent analysis on standardized residuals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(5), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379322

Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distri-bution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Quality ofLife Research, 18(4), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4

de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. Guildford Press.DiStefano, C., Greer, F. W., & Dowdy, E. (2019). Examining the BASC-3 BESS Parent Form–Preschool

using Rasch methodology. Assessment, 26(6), 1162–1175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117723112

Edwards, M. C., Houts, C. R., & Cai, L. (2018). A diagnostic procedure to detect departures from localindependence in item response theory models. Psychological Methods, 23(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000121

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologist. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

12 B. SURYADI ET AL.

Fakhri, K. P., & Nejad, R. S. (2013). The repentance of Nasuh: The traditional or modern story? EuropeanOnline Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(3), 309–312.

Fauzia, A. (2017). Islamic philanthropy in Indonesia: Modernization, Islamization, and social justice.Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 10(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.14764/10.ASEAS-2017.2-6

Geertz, C. (1976). The religion of java. The University of Chicago Press.Government of Republic of Indonesia. (2020). Agama [Religion]. https://indonesia.go.id/profil/agamaHill, P. C. (2013). Measurement assessment and issues in the psychology of religion and spirituality. In

R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd ed.,pp. 48–74). Guilford Press.

Hill, P. C., & Dwiwardani, C. (2010). Measurement in the interface of religion and psychiatry: Issues andexisting measures. In P. J. Verhagen (Ed.), Psychiatry and religion: Beyond boundaries (pp. 319–339).Wiley.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteriaversus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Husein, F., & Slama, M. (2018). Online piety and its discontent: Revisiting Islamic anxieties onIndonesian social media. Indonesia and The Malay World, 46(134), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639811.2018.1415056

International Test Commision. (2018). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.).International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166

Ji, C. H. C., & Ibrahim, Y. (2007). Islamic religiosity in right-wing authoritarian personality: The case ofIndonesian Muslims. Review of Religious Research, 49(2), 128–146.

Kailani, N., & Slama, M. (2020). Accelerating Islamic charities in Indonesia: Zakat, sedekah and theimmediacy of social media. South East Asia Research, 28(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828X.2019.1691939

Kettani, H. (2010, January). 2010 world muslim population 1950-2020 [Paper presentation]. The 8thAnnual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities, Honolulu, HI, 2 January 2010.

Latief, H. (2012). Islamic charities and social activism: Welfare, Dakwah and politics in Indonesia[Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht]. Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/253590

Linacre, J. M. (2010). Predicting responses from Rasch measures. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11(1), 1–10.

Linacre, J. M. (2018). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program user’s guide. Winsteps.com.Lubis, M., & Kartiwi, M. (2013, March). Privacy and trust in the Islamic perspective: Implication of the

digital age [Paper presentation]. The 5th International Conference on information andCommunication technology for the Muslim world, Rabat, Morocco on 25th-27th March, 2013.

Mahudin, N., Noor, N., Dzulkifli, M., & Janon, N. (2016). Religiosity among Muslims: A scale develop-ment and validation study.Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 20(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v20i2.3492

Mair, P. (2018). Modern psychometrics with R. Springer International Publishing AG.Marais, I., & Andrich, D. (2008). Effects of varying magnitude and patterns of local dependence in the

unidimensional Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(2), 105–124.Marshall, P. (2018). The ambiguities of religious freedom in Indonesia. The Review of Faith &

International Affairs, 16(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2018.1433588Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. https://

doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272Muthia, R. (2018, March 27). Indonesia’s local spirits: Alcohol’s history and geography in the world’s

largest Muslim nation. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/food-drink/article/2138948/indonesias-local-spirits-alcohols-history-and-geography-worlds

Nelson, J. M. (2009). Psychology, religion, and spirituality. Springer Science + Bussiness Media.Nourse, J. W. (2013). The meaning of Dukun and allure of Sufi healers: How Persian cosmopolitans

transformed Malay–Indonesian history. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 44(3), 400–422.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463413000325

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 13

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.Olufadi, Y. (2017). Muslim Daily Religiosity Assessment Scale (MUDRAS): A new instrument for Muslim

religiosity research and practice. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000074

Purnomo, F. H., & Suryadi, B. (2017). Uji validitas konstruk the centrality of religious scale denganmetode confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) [Construct validation of the Centrality of ReligiousScale using confirmatory factor analysis]. JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan PendidikanIndonesia), 6(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v6i2.9190

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute forEducational Research.

Rasch, G. (1966). An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal ofMathematicalandStatisticalPsychology,19(1), 49–57.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1966.tb00354.x

Salam, M. T., Muhamad, N., & Leong, V. S. (2019). Measuring religiosity among muslim consumers:Observations and recommendations. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(2), 633–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-02-2018-0038

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded scores, PsychometrikaMonograph, 17. Psychometric Corporation.

Schaap-Jonker, H., Egberink, I. J. L., Braam, A. W., & Corveleyn, J. M. T. (2016). An item response theoryanalysis of the Questionnaire of God Representations. The International Journal for the Psychologyof Religion, 26(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2014.1003520

Schlehe, J., Nertz, M. V., & Yulianto, V. I. (2013). Re-imagining “the West” and performing “Indonesianmodernities”: Muslims, Christian and “paranormal” practitioners. Zeitsschrift fur Etnologie, 138(1),3–21. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.22565

Smith, E. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statisticsand principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231.

Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus (2nd ed.). JohnWiley & Sons Ltd.

Webster, P. C. (2013). Indonesia: Islam and health. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 185(2), E101–E102. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-4364

Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2002). A technique for setting standards and maintaining them over time. InS. Nishisato, Y. Baba, H. Bozdogan, & K. Kanefugi (Eds.), Measurement and multivariate analysis (pp.325–332). Springer-Verlag.

Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA Press.Wright, B. D., & Panchapakesan, N. A. (1969). Procedure for sample-free item analysis. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 29(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446902900102Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. (1999). Measurement essentials (2nd ed.). Wide Range, Inc.Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-

parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168400800201

Appendix

Indonesian version of the MUDRASINSTRUKSI: Selain dari pertanyaan 1 sampai dengan 6, silahkan jawab pernyataan di bawah inidengan angka terkait berapa kali anda melakukan atau terlibat dalam bentuk perilaku yang adadalam pernyataan di bawah ini dengan menggunakan petunjuk sebagai berikut:

(1) Selain Al-Qur’an yang dibaca ketika anda melakukan shalat, jika di rata-ratakan dalam semingguterakhir, berapa kali anda membaca Al-Qur’an dalam satu hari?a Saya tidak bisa membaca Al-Qur’anb Saya bisa membaca Al-Qur’an tetapi belakangan ini saya jarang membacanyac Saya membaca Al-Qur’an setiap hari

14 B. SURYADI ET AL.

d Saya membaca Al-Qur’an dan terjemahannya, serta memahami isi atau makna dari ayat Al-Qur’an yang saya baca

(2) Berapa kali anda melaksanakan shalat setiap harinya?a 0, b. 1, c. 2, d. 3, e. 4, f. 5

(3) Terdapat waktu tertentu yang telah ditetapkan untuk melaksanakan shalat 5 waktu, dan waktuyang paling baik untuk melaksanakan shalat adalah pada saat awal waktu shalat tersebut.Berapa kali dalam sehari anda melaksanakan shalat tepat pada saat awal waktu shalat?a 0, b. 1, c. 2, d. 3, e. 4, f. 5

(4) Allah telah memerintahkan kita untuk senantiasa meminta kepada-Nya terkait berbagai macamhal, baik itu yang berhubungan dengan dunia ataupun akhirat, dan Allah pun berjanju akanmengabulkan apa yang kita minta pada-Nya. Kemudian Allah juga menyebutkan bahwasanya,barangsiapa yang lebih mengutamakan kepentingannya dibanding Allah, maka tempatnyaadalah di neraka. Berapa kali dalam kehidupan sehari-hari anda menempatkan Allah sebagaiYang Utama dibandingkan kepentingan anda?a 0, b. 1, c. 2, d. 3, e. 4, f. lebih dari 5

(5) Terdapat istilah Nawaafil atau shalat sebelum dan sesudah shalat 5 waktu, yang sangat disaran-kan dan dicontohkan oleh Nabi Muhammad SAW. Berapa kali anda sudah melaksanakanNawaafil tersebut dalam kegiatan sehari-hari anda?a Tidak ada satu Nawaafil pun yang saya lakukan dalam sehari inib Hanya satu Nawaafil yang saya lakukan dalam sehari inic 2-3 Nawaafil yang saya lakukan dalam sehari inid Lebih dari 3 Nawaafil saya lakukan dalam sehari ini

(6) Sudah berapa kali anda bersedekah dalam hari-hari anda?Contohnya: memberikan uang sedekah, memberi makanan pada tetangga atau teman

sejawat, mengajarkan atau berbagi ilmu yang anda ketahui kepada orang lain dan lainsebagainya.a Saya tidak melakukan sedekah apapun belakangan inib Hanya satu kali saya bersedekah dalam setiap haric 2-4 kali saya bersedekah dalam setiap harid Lebih dari 4 kali sedekah saya lakukan dalam sehari.

INSTRUKSI: Setelah selesai menjawab pertanyaan 1 sampai dengan 6, silahkan berikan penilaian ter-hadap pernyataan di bawah ini dengan tanda silang (×) pada kolom yang berisi opsi (Tidak pernah;Pernah satu kali; Dua sampai tiga kali; Lebih dari tiga kali) terkait berapa kali anda melakukan atauterlibat dalam bentuk perilaku yang ada dalam pernyataan di bawah ini.

No. Pernyataan7. Berkata jujur dalam keadaan apapun8. Berbakti kepada orang tua9. Menepati janji10. Mendoakan kedua orang tua11. Ikhlas memohon ampunan-Nya, dengan tidak mengulangi kesalahan atau dosa yang sama12. Mengajak orang lain untuk berbuat kebaikan13. Lebih mendekatkan diri kepada-Nya14. Membunuh seseorang tanpa sebab15. Melakukan segala macam tindak kecurangan atau berbuat tidak adil dalam berbagai macam bentuj, seperti:

mengambil harta milik orang lain yang bukan haknya, mencontek saat ujian dan lain sebagainya16. Mendekati atau melakukan zina17. Memberikan keterangan palsu18. Mengkonsumsi barang haram, seperti minuman beralkohol, baik itu dalam bentuk meminum, menjual dan lain

sebagainya.19. Melakukan praktek Riba’ atau memakan harta Riba’ (melipat gandakan uang atau bunga bank)20. Mempercayai ramalan21. Memfitnah ataupun mendengar fitnah22. Mengkhianati amanat yang telah dipercayakan23. Berlaku mubazir atau berlebihan, baik itu dalam bentuk makanan ataupun uang24. Berprasangka buruk kepada orang lain, seperti curiga

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 15

25. Berjudi26. Memberikan sumpah palsu atas nama Allah27. Memberikan sumpah kepada orang lain28. Mengganggu atau melanggar batas privasi atau ketentraman orang lain tanpa izin, seperti: memasuki rumah orang

lain tanpa izin, dan lain sebagainya

Prosedur skoring MUDRAS

Tidak seluruh item dalam MUDRAS diikutkan dalam proses skoring. Peneliti diharapkan untukberhati-hati dalam memastikan bahwa item yang diikutkan dalam perhitungan skor sudah tepat.

Aspek 1: Sinful acts—Item 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 dan 28Untuk seluruh Item, berilah skor berdasarkan jawaban responden, apabila Lebih dari tiga kali = 0;

Dua sampai tiga kali = 1; Pernah satu kali melakukan = 2; Tidak pernah melakukan = 3.Setelah skor didapat dari hasil penjumlahan, jika skor seseorang sebesar 0-5 maka diberi kode 0,

jika 6-10 diberi kode 1, jika 11-15 diberi kode 2, jika 16-20 diberi kode 3, jika 21-25 diberi kode 4, danjika 26-30 diberi kode 5. Kode tersebut menggambarkan skor aspek sinful acts.

Aspek 2: Recommended acts—Item-5 sampai Item-11Untuk item 5 dan 6, jika responden menjawab (a) maka berilah skor 0, jika menjawab (b) berilah

skor 1, jika menjawab (c) berilah skor 2, jika menjawab (d) berilah skor 3.Untuk item-7 hingga item-11, jika responden memilih jawaban lebih dari tiga kali = 0; Dua sampai

tiga kali = 1; Pernah satu kali melakukan = 2; Tidak pernah melakukan = 3.Setelah skor total didapat dari hasil penjumlahan, jika skor seseorang sebesar 0-5 maka diberi

kode 0, jika 6-10 diberi kode 1, jika 11-15 diberi kode 2, jika lebih besar ataupun sama dengan 16diberi kode 3. Kode tersebut menggambarkan skor aspek recommended acts.

Aspek 3: Engaging in bodily worship of Allah—Item-1 sampai Item-4Untuk Item-1, jika responden menjawab (a) maka berilah skor 0, jika menjawab (b) berilah skor 1,

jika menjawab (c) berilah skor 2, jika menjawab (d) berilah skor 3.Untuk Item-2 hingga Item-4, jika responden menjawab (a) maka berilah skor 0, jika menjawab (b)

berilah skor 1, jika menjawab (c) berilah skor 2, jika menjawab (d) berilah skor 3, jika menjawab (e)berilah skor 4, dan jika menjawab (f) berilah skor 5.

Setelah skor total didapat dari hasil penjumlahan, jika skor seseorang sebesar 0-6 maka diberikode 0, jika 7-12 diberi kode 1, jika lebih besar ataupun sama dengan 13 diberi kode 2. Kode tersebutmenggambarkan skor aspek engaging in bodily worship of Allah.

Untuk mendapatkan skor akhir dari MUDRAS, jumlahkanlah skor aspek sinful acts, skor aspek rec-ommended acts dan skor aspek engaging in bodily worship of Allah. Akan dihasilkan satu skor yangmenggambarkan religiusitas untuk masing-masing responden.

16 B. SURYADI ET AL.