Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Spanish

Short scales assessing human–nature relationships have the practical advantages of being efficient, low in item redundancy and less at risk of inducing fatigue and boredom. It is critical that these short scales are subject to the same psychometric scrutiny as their longer versions. The present study focused on the short version of the Nature Relatedness (NR) Scale: the NR-6. Specifically, we aimed to provide the first test of its factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis and to describe the discriminability and difficulty of its six items via Item Response Theory. The study sample comprised 510 adults from Portugal. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a bifactor model over a one-factor model. Bifactor indices showed that the NR-6 items measure an essentially unidimensional nature relatedness construct. The six items were good at discriminating individuals varying in nature relatedness. Finally, consistent with prior research, we found a strong positive correlation between the NR-6 and a conceptually related measure. We conclude that the NR-6 has adequate psychometric properties and is a valid measure of individuals’ nature relatedness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

F. B.

(2001). The Basics of Item Response Theory (2nd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.

Balundė

Jovarauskaitė

Poškus

M. S.

(2019). Exploring the relationship between connectedness with nature, environmental identity, and environmental self-identity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SAGE Open, 9(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019841925

Block

(2000). Three tasks for personality psychology. In Bergman

L. R.

Cairnes

R. B.

Nilsson

L.-G.

Nystedt

(Eds.), Developmental science and the holistic approach (pp. 155–164), Erlbaum.

Borsboom

Mellenbergh

G. J.

Van Heerden

. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061

Cangur

Ercan

. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1430453580

Chen

F. F.

West

S. G.

Sousa

K. H

. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and secondary-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102

Chew

P. K. H

. (2019). Psychometric evaluation of two instruments to assess connection to nature/Evaluación psicométrica de dos instrumentos que miden la conexión con la naturaleza. Psyecology, 10(3), 313–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2019.1607470

Clayton

. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In Clayton

Opotow

(Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–66). The MIT Press.

Clayton

Czellar

Nartova-Bochaver

Skibins

J. C.

Salazar

Tseng

Y. C.

Irkhin

Monge-Rodriguez

F. S

. (2021). Cross-cultural validation of a revised environmental identity scale. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042387

10.

Cook

Oreskes

Doran

P. T.

Anderegg

W. R. L.

Verheggen

Maibach

E. W.

Carlton

J. S.

Lewandowsky

Skuce

A. G.

Green

S. A.

Nuccitelli

Jacobs

Richardson

Winkler

Painting

Rice

. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

11.

Cronbach

L. J.

Meehl

P. E

. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

12.

Dueber

D. M

. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A microsoft excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models .

13.

Gifford

Nilsson

(2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034

14.

Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O

. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In Cudecl

du Toit

Sörbom

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present und future—a festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog (pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International.

15.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

16.

IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, & L. A. Meyer, Eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

17.

IPCC . (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change ( Masson-Delmotte

Zhai

Pirani

Connors

S. L.

Péan

Berger

Caud

Chen

Goldfarb

Gormis

M. I.

Huang

Leitzell

Lonnoy

Matthews

J. B. R.

Maycock

T. K.

Waterfield

Yelekçi

Zhou

, Eds.). Cambridge University Press.

18.

Kals

Schumacher

Montada

(1999). Emotional affinity towards nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment & Behavior, 31(2), 178–202.

19.

Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.

20.

Kiesling

F. M.

Manning

C. M

. (2010). How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological gardening practices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.004

21.

Kroufek

Chytrý

. (2015). The nature relatedness of the undergraduate students in the Czech Republic. Proceedings of ICERI2015 Conference 16th-18th November 2015, 7479–7483.

22.

C. H

. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7

23.

Maloney

M. P.

Ward

M. P.

Braucht

G. N.

(1975). A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 30(7), 787–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084394

24.

Mayer

F. S.

Frantz

C. M. P

. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001

25.

Moreira

P. A. S.

Loureiro

Inman

R. A.

Olivos-Jara

. (2021). Assessing the unidimensionality of clayton ’s environmental identity scale using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (bifactor-ESEM). Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 28103. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.28103

26.

Moreira, P. A. S., Ramalho, S., & Inman, R. A. (2020). The Engagement/Disengagement in Sustainable Development Inventory (EDiSDI): Psychometric Properties and Validity-Based Studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(5), 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000619

27.

Nisbet

E. K.

Zelenski

J. M.

Murphy

S. A

. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748

28.

Nisbet

E. K.

Zelenski

J. M

. (2013). The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(NOV), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813

29.

Oskamp

. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55(5), 496–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.496

30.

Perrin

J. L.

Benassi

V. A

. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.003

31.

R Core Team . (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

32.

Reise

S. P.

Bonifay

W. E.

Haviland

M. G

. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437

33.

Reise

S. P.

Moore

T. M.

Haviland

M. G

. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477

34.

Reise

S. P.

Scheines

Widaman

K. F.

Haviland

M. G

. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831

35.

Rodriguez

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G

. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249

36.

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., & Fuller, G. (2019). Sustainable Development Report 2019. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).

37.

Samejima

. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34(S1), 1–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x

38.

Sandy

C. J.

Gosling

S. D.

Schwartz

S. H.

Koelkebeck

. (2017). The development and validation of brief and ultrabrief measures of values. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1231115

39.

Schipolowski

Schroeders

Wilhelm

. (2014). Pitfalls and challenges in constructing short forms of cognitive ability measures. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000134

40.

Schultz

P. W

(2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

41.

Schultz

P. W

. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human–nature relations. In Schmuck

Schultz

P. W.

(Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 62–78). Kluwer Academic.

42.

Tam

K. P

. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004

43.

United Nations General Assembly . (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development .

44.

van der Vijver

Leung

. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Sage Publications.

45.

Vining, J., Merrick, M. S., & Price, E. A. (2008). The distinction between humans and nature: Human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Research in Human Ecology, 15(1), 1–11.

46.

World Commission on Environment and Development . (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

47.

Zinbarg

R. E.

Yovel

Revelle

McDonald

R. P

. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605278814

Nature relatedness is a unidimensional construct: evidence from the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-6) ( La relación con la naturaleza es un constructo unidimensional: evidencias a partir de la escala de Relación con la Naturaleza (NR-6) )

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References