Development and Initial Validation of the Benedictine Leadership Questionnaire
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.07.08.26Keywords:
Benedictine leadership, Exploratory factor analysis, PsychometricsAbstract
This study addresses the critical gap in spiritual leadership literature by focusing on the development and validation of the Benedictine Leadership Questionnaire (BLQ). While modern leadership often emphasizes corporate strategy, ancient spiritual traditions like the Rule of St. Benedict offer timeless frameworks centered on humility, stewardship, and community. Despite the theoretical potential of these values, empirical research has lacked a standardized tool to quantify them. Using a cross-sectional, descriptive quantitative design, this research aimed to establish a scientifically rigorous measure of Benedictine leadership. Data were gathered from 244 participants at a Catholic university in Manila. The development and validation process began with a deductive approach to item generation, resulting in an initial 108-item pool that underwent expert content analysis for clarity and relevance. The psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using Principal Axis Factoring and Oblimin rotation. The results supported a refined 54-item instrument structured into five distinct dimensions: The Visionary, The Empowerer, The Culture-Builder, The Humble Leader, and The Problem-Solver. This five-factor solution demonstrated exceptional internal consistency, with reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) ranging from 0.93 to 0.97. The findings confirm that the BLQ is a valid and reliable tool for assessing leadership that integrates strategic vision with ethical, person-centered engagement. This study provides the first formal psychometric instrument to bridge ancient monastic values with modern organizational practice, offering a robust foundation for future leadership assessment and research.
Downloads
References
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and be-havioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Brown, T., & Bonsaksen, T. (2019). An exami-nation of the structural validity of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire-Short Form using the Rasch measurement model. Cogent Education, 6(1), Article 1571146. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1571146
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2020). Research methods, design, and analysis (13th ed.). Pearson.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assess-ment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: The-ory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
Echevarria-Guanilo, M. E., Goncalves, N., & Romanoski, P. J. (2017). Psychometric properties of measurement instruments: Conceptual bases and evaluation methods - part 1. Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem, 26(4), Article e1600017.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017001600017
Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2018). Leadership, leadership styles, and servant leadership. Journal of Management Research, 18(4), 261–269.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hariri, H., Bumay, A., Rusdiani, A., & Sucitra, D. (2025). Spiritual leadership: theory and practices in schools (a literature review). International Journal of Educational Man-agement and Innovation, vol. 6(1). https://doi.org/10.12929/ijemi.v6i1.12397
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the de-velopment of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
Jiang, J., Ye, Z., Liu, J., Shah, W., & Shafit, Z. (2023). From “doing along” to “working together” – research on the influence of spiritual leadership on employee morale. Frontiers in Psychology.
https://doi.org.10.3389/fpsyg.2023.992910
Morgado, F. F. R., Meireles, J. F. F., Neves, C. M., Amaral, A. C. S., & Ferreira, M. E. C. (2017). Scale development: Ten main limi-tations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psicologia: Re-flexão e Crítica, 30, Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1
Nieva, A. (2023). Construct validation of the teacher attitude to inclusion scale for Fili-pino pre-service teachers. Bedan Research Journal, 8(1), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v8i1.56
Nieva, A. (2024). Personality traits as predic-tors of pro-environmental behavior: Evi-dence from the Philippines. Bedan Re-search Journal, 9(1), 145–173.
https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v9i1.68
Nieva, A. M., Quilon, A. D., Prudente, J. E., & Cuaresma, E. R. (2025). The structural
validity of the Employee Performance Scale for Filipino Workers (EPS-FW). In-ternational Journal of Research and Inno-vation in Social Science, 9(17), 247–256. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.917PSY0025
Patil, S., Gund, P., & Mane, P. (2023). Spiritual leadership: a catalyst for organizational growth and sustained success. Madhya Pradesh Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 28, No. 2. ISSN: 0973-855X.
Quilon, A., & Kurniawan, Y. (2023). Online learning environment and mental health among university students. Bedan Research Journal, 8(1), 259–284.
https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v8i1.54
Rada, E., & Nieva, A. (2024). Translation and validation of the Filipino Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire. Bedan Re-search Journal, 9(1), 53–82. https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v9i1.65
Santander, N.D., Nieva, A.N., & Quilon, A.D. (2026). A Scoping Review of the Benedic-tine Rule of Leadership: A Contemporary Analysis Based on Galbraith and Galbraith. International Journal of Research and In-novation in Social Science, 10(4), https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100400184.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in man-agement research: Comments and a quanti-tative approach for assessing the theoreti-cal content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Man-agement, 19(2), 385–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900208
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An inte-grative definition of leadership. Interna-tional Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6–66.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data set generated and analyzed during the current study is not publicly available due to ethical restrictions and the privacy of the human participants involved. Requests for further information regarding the methodology or instrument may be directed to the corresponding author.
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Alvin M. Nieva, Noel D. Santander, Annabel D. Quilon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access).
