Concepto de Dios en Niños

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHILDRENS GOD CONCEPT
AND SPECIFIED PARENTAL PREDICTORS, AND THE DIFFERENCE IN

CHILDRENS GOD CONCEPT ACROSS AGE GROUPS
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty o f
the School o f Educational Ministries
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
In Partial Fulfillment
o f the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor o f Philosophy
By
Sungwon Kim
December 2007
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3289560
Copyright 2007 by
Kim, Sungwon
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3289560
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2007 Sungwon Kim

All rights reserved. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to
reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen
by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction.
APPROVAL SHEET

CHILDENS GOD CONCEPT ACROSS AGE GROUPS
Sungwon Kim
Marcia McQuitty, Guidance Cotrimittee Chairperson,

Associate Professor o f Childhc^ocJ/Ministry
Robert Welch, Committee Member, Dean o f School o f Educational Ministries
esley Blacl^Associate Dean for Ph.D., School o f Educational Ministries
Date _
Z K o o l
TO MY HEAVENLY FATHER,
THE INSPIRATION FOR THIS STUDY
TO MY EARTHLY FATHER AND MOTHER,
MIRRORS OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER

CHILDRENS GOD CONCEPT ACROSS AGE GROUPS
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of
the School of Educational Ministries
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
By
Sungwon Kim
December 2007
ABSTRACT
NAME OF AUTHOR:
Sungwon Kim
DATE DEGREE GRANTED:
December 2007
NAME OF DEGREE:
Doctor o f Philosophy
SCHOOL:
ADVISOR:
Dr. Marcia McQuitty, Associate Professor o f

Childhood Education
TITLE:
A study o f the relationship between childrens

God concept and specified parental predictors, and the
difference in childrens God concept across age groups
PROBLEM: The problem o f this study was to determine the relationship between
childrens God concept and the specified predictor variables. These variables were
parents religiosity, as measured by the Religiosity in Daily Life Scale, and a positive
parent-child relationship and a negative parent-child relationship, as measured by the
Parent-Child Interaction Questionnaire. It was also the problem o f this study to measure
the difference in God concept scores across the seven age groups from six through twelve
years.
PROCEDURES: The Childrens God Concept Questionnaire (CGCQ) was developed
following the recommended procedures. It was administered to children from ages six
through twelve in large churches in Tarrant County, TX. The Religiosity in Daily Life
Scale (RIDLS) and the Parent-Child Interaction Questionnaire (PCIQ) were administered
to one o f the participant childs parents to measure parents religiosity and their positive
and negative relationships with their child. With a sample size o f 140, a multiple
regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between childrens God
concept and three parental variables. In addition, a one-way ANOVA was performed to
determine the difference in childrens God concept among age groups from six through
twelve years.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The regression procedure revealed that a positive
parent-child relationship and a negative parent-child relationship were significant
negative predictors o f childrens God concept. The further regression procedure including
a childs age and the number o f church activities indicated that age was a positive
predictor, and a positive parent-child relationship as well as a negative parent-child
relationship were negative predictors o f childrens God concept. Additionally, significant
differences were found in childrens God concept scores among the seven different age
groups. The findings indicated that both a parent-child relationship and the childs age
were related to childrens God concept. This research also indicated that children
develop more biblical and positive God concepts as they grow.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................................................................................
xi
LIST OF F IG U R E S ..............................................................................................................
xiii
P R E F A C E .............................................................................................................................
xiv
Chapter
1. IN TRO D U CTIO N ...................................................................................................
Introductory S ta te m e n t........................................................................................
Statement o f the P ro b le m ...................................................................................
Purpose o f the S tu d y ............................................................................................
Significance o f the Study ...................................................................................
H ypothesis.............................................................................................................
P o p u latio n .............................................................................................................
Sampling
.............................................................................................................
In stru m e n ts...........................................................................................................
The Children's God Concept Q uestionnaire............................................
The Religiosity in Daily Life Scale .........................................................
14
The Parent-Child Interaction Q uestionnaire............................................
14
Limitations ...........................................................................................................
15
A ssu m p tio n s.........................................................................................................
15
D efinitions.............................................................................................................
16
D e s ig n ....................................................................................................................
vii
16
Chapter
Page
2. SYNTHESIS OF RELATED LITERA TU RE.......................................................
17
God C o n c e p t.........................................................................................................
17
P a re n ts....................................................................................................................
20
Parents' R elig io sity .....................................................................................
22
Parent-Child R elationship..........................................................................
24
Age ........................................................................................................................
28
Developing the Children's God Concept Q uestionnaire.................................
31
Theological Perspectives ..........................................................................
31
Developmental U nderstandings................................................................ 33
Methodological Considerations ................................................................ 35
Other God Concept Instrum ents...............................................................
39
Theological Foundations.....................................................................................
43
3. PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING DATA .......................................................
47
Preliminary Preparation .....................................................................................
47
Data C o lle ctio n ....................................................................................................
48
Problems Encountered .......................................................................................
49
4. ANALYSIS OF D A T A ............................................................................................ 50
Procedures for Analyzing Quantitative Data ................................................... 50
Procedures for Analyzing Qualitative Data ..................................................... 50
Data Screening ....................................................................................................
51
Demographic Inform ation...................................................................................
59
Descriptive Statistics............................................................................................ 61
Testing the H ypotheses.......................................................................................
viii
61
Chapter
Page
Qualitative Data A n a ly sis...................................................................................
65
Other Findings....................................................................................................... 81
5. INTERPRETATIONS AND RECO M M EN D A TIO N S.....................................
86
The Childrens God Concept Q uestionnaire....................................................
86
Hypothesis 1 .........................................................................................................
88
Hypothesis 2 ......................................................................................................... 90
Qualitative Data ..................................................................................................
91
Other Findings ....................................................................................................
93
Implications for the Ministry ............................................................................. 94

Recommendations for Further Study ................................................................ 97
Theological Reflections .....................................................................................
98
Conclusion .........................................................................................................
101
Appendix
1. ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE PH. D. COMMITTEE
CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SU B JEC TS.................... 103
2. HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH CONSENT FORM ...............................
105
3. PARTICIPATING CHURCHES ......................................................................
106
4. LIST OF THE PANEL OF E X P E R T S .............................................................
107
5. LETTER TO THE VALIDATION P A N E L .....................................................
108
6. ITEMS CHOSEN BY THE P A N E L ..................................................................
112
7. CRONBACH'S A L P H A .....................................................................................
114
8. FINAL CRONBACH'S A L P H A ........................................................................
116
9. THE CHILDREN'S GOD CONCEPT Q U ESTIO N N A IR E..........................
117
ix
Appendix
Page
10. THE RELIGIOSITY IN DAILY LIFE S C A L E ..............................................
120
11. THE PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION QUESTIONNAIRE ....................
121
12. DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE GOD CONCEPTS ....................
123
13. PERMISSION TO USE THE R ID L S ...............................................................
126
14. PERMISSION TO USE THE P C I Q .................................................................
127
15. RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM R E S E A R C H E R
128
16. RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN ...............
129
17. LETTER TO P A R E N T S .....................................................................................
130
18. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE SU R V E Y ........................
131
19. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...........................................................
133
20. CHILDREN'S DRAWINGS OF G O D .............................................................
134
21. ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS BY AGE ............................
141
22. ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS BY G E N D E R ....................
143
23. ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONS BY BANDED VARIABLE GROUPS . . . .
147
24. MULTIPLE REGRESSION INCLUDING OTHER PR ED ICTO RS
149
25. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH GOD CONCEPT QUESTION . . 1 5 0

26. ANTHROPOMORPHISM BY AGE ...............................................................
151
B IB L IO G R A PH Y ...............................................................................................................
152
Vita
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Extreme Values o f C G C Q .....................................................................................
52
2. Casewise D iagnostics.............................................................................................. 53
3. Mahalanobis Distance Values without O utliers..................................................
55
4. Frequency Distribution o f G en d er........................................................................
60
5. Frequency Distribution o f Age ............................................................................. 60

6. Descriptive Statistics o f the V ariables..................................................................
61
7. Correlation Matrix for Regression M o d e l...........................................................
62
8. Regression Model S u m m ary .................................................................................
62
9. ANOVA for Regression M o d el............................................................................. 62

10. Regression C oefficients.......................................................................................... 63
11. Test o f Homogeneity o f V a ria n c e s......................................................................
63
12. Age Group Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................
64
13. One-Way ANOVA across Ages ..........................................................................
64
14. Post-Hoc Tests across A g e s...................................................................................
65
15. Frequency o f "Who Is G o d ?"................................................................................. 66

16. Frequency o f "Where Is G o d ? " ............................................................................. 67
17. Frequency o f "What Can God Do?" .................................................................... 67
18. Frequency o f "How Do You Feel When You Think about G o d ? " .................. 68
19. Frequency o f "When Do You Feel that God is Close to You?" .....................
xi
68
Table
Page
20. Frequency o f "What Do You Pray to God a b o u t? " ............................................
69
21. Frequency o f "How Can You Become a Child o f G o d ? " .................................
70
22. Frequency o f "Is God like Your F a th e r? " ...........................................................
71
23. Frequency o f "Is God like Your Mother?" .........................................................
72
24. Frequency o f "Tell Me a Story about G o d ? ".......................................................
73
25. Frequency o f Drawing Pictures o f G o d ...............................................................
74
26. "Who is God?" * Age C ro sstab u latio n................................................................ 76

27. "Where is God?" * Age C rosstabulation.............................................................
77
28. "How Can You Become a Child o f God?" * CGCQ C rosstabulation
80
29. Correlations between Individual CGCQ Question and an Independent Variable
81
30. One-Way ANOVA for Individual CGCQ Question among Age Groups . . . .
83
31. One-Way ANOVA for CGCQ among Combined Age G ro u p s........................ 84

32. One-Way ANOVA for CGCQ among Church Activity Numbers .................
xii
85
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Boxplots o f C G C Q ....................................................................................................
53
2. Normal P-P Plots o f Regression Standardized R esid u a l.....................................
57
3. Scatterplots o f C G C Q ..............................................................................................
57
4. Histograms o f CGCQ, RIDLS, PCIQP,and P C IQ N .............................................
59
5. Mean Plots o f CGCQ by Age .................................................................................
65
xiii
PREFACE
He has a golden crown on his head. H es very pretty. He glows and loves
everybody in the world. Hes standing in heaven in a chariot o f fire. He is smiling and
looking down at the earth. He is greeting everyone who comes up into heaven. And He
hugs and kisses everyone who comes up on both cheeks. That is my picture o f God. This
beautiful account was written by an eight-year-old girl who was asked to describe God in
the pilot study. Her description has been a reminder to me and helped me overcome my
difficulties as I finished this project.
I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Mrs. Lela Walton Simpson,
my American grandmom, who has taught me English for more than five years. Without
her investment and sacrifice in my life, my American life would be much different. Her
being is like an umbrella for my rainy days.
I also wish to extend my deep gratitude to Dr. Robert Mathis, who helped me in
statistics with a warm supportive heart, and Dr. William Yount, who inspired me by the
excellence o f his classes and who guided the direction o f my first draft o f this dissertation.
A special thank you goes to Dr. Tommy Bridges who proofread my proposal and to Dr.
Robert Phillips who helped with the final manuscript o f the dissertation. My gratitude
also extends to both Dr. Vaughan Mak and Ms. Naomi Kaneshiro, who proofread my
dissertation with their timely and helpful responses to my inquiries.
My gratefulness also extends to ten panel members who evaluated the Childrens
God Concept Questionnaire. A special thank you goes to Dr. Majorie Gunnoe and Dr.
Jamie Wieber, who allowed me to use their instruments for this study. I am indebted to
the childrens ministers, parents, and children who participated in the pilot and main
studies. I am especially thankful to the one hundred forty children who have revealed
their big pictures o f God and challenged my thoughts concerning childrens God concept.
They are my teachers as well.
xiv
I am grateful for my Binnerri Church family for their love and prayer, and I am
particularly grateful for the Toddler Department, which has provided joyous
opportunities o f ministry for me. The many dear friends who provided support are too
numerous to mention by name. However, the special friendship and love o f Sumiwaty, a
long-time prayer partner; Rachael Susilo, a helper for the preliminary English tests for
entering Ph.D program; Eunsun Suh, a godly advisor; Haeryung Jeon, a lifelong friend;
and Youngmi Son, a compassionate prayer supporter were substantially significant.
My deepest gratitude goes to my parents whose love, support, and sacrifice have
been remarkable. I thank God for them.
Last and foremost, I would like to give thanks to God, who has invited me to His
kingdom work and who has daily molded me according to His will. I am grateful for His
faithfulness, grace, and provision for this memorable pilgrimage. Resonating with the
apostle Pauls confession, I too claim that by the grace o f God I am what I am.
To Him, all the glory!
Sungwon Kim
Fort Worth, Texas
December 2007
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introductory Statement
Teaching religious concepts is one o f the primary tasks o f Christian education.1
Among religious concepts, the God concept is a pillar in any religion because an
individuals faith originates from the God concept.3 The importance o f knowing God is
found in Jeremiah 9:23:
This is what the LORD says: Let not the wise man boast o f his wisdom or the
strong man boast o f his strength or the rich man boast o f his riches, but let him who
boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD,
who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,
declares the LORD.4
'Renzo Vianello, Kalevi Tamminen, and Donald Ratcliff, The Religious Concepts o f
Children, in Handbook o f Children's Religious Education, ed. Donald Ratcliff (Birmingham:
Religious Education Press, 1992), 56.
2James Leo Garrett, Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical,
vol 1, 2nd ed. (North Richland Hills: Bibal Press, 2000), 213; William K. Kay and Liz Ray,
Concepts o f God: The Salience of Gender and Age, Journal o f Empirical Theology 17, no. 2
(2004): 238; Dimitris Pnevmatikos, Conceptual Changes in Religious Concepts o f Elementary
Schoolchildren: The Case o f the House Where God Lives, Educational Psychology 22, no. 1
(2002): 93; Ted Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept o f God, [on-line]; accessed 30
January 2006; available from http:// www.iiot.com/ted/papers/childs god concept.html: Internet;
and Kalevi Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth: An Empirical Study
(Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1991), 160.
3Stanley J. Grenz, Theology fo r the Community o f God (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 8: and Clark H. Pinnock, Systematic Theology, in The
Openness o f God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding o f God, eds. Clark
Pinnock et al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 102.
4Throughout this paper the New International Version (NIV) will be cited.
2
This verse introduces the power o f knowing who God is while portraying God as a kind,
just, and righteous Being.
The extent o f the God concepts influence varies in each individuals faith and
life. For example, one persons God concept could exert a positive influence on the
development o f the self concept.5 It could have an effect on religious feelings and
practices such as having a daily devotional or seeking Gods lordship and guidance.6
Another persons God concept could influence religious coping styles in suffering.7 Even
ethnic prejudice is affected by ones God concept.

Among various influences on the spiritual development o f a child, parents are
the most important agent. In the formation o f the God concept especially, the role o f
sBruce Evan Blaine, Pamala Trivedi, and Amy Eshleman, Religious Belief and the
Self-Concept: Evaluating the Implications for Psychological Adjustment, Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin 24, no. 10 (1998): 1041; Simone A. De Roos, Siebren Miedema, and Jurjen
Iedema, Attachment, Working Models o f Self and Others, and God Concept in Kindergarten,
Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 40, no. 4 (2001): 609; Leslie J. Francis, Harry M.
Gibson, and Mandy Robbins, God Images and Self-Worth among Adolescents in Scotland,
Mental Health, Religion & Culture 4, no. 2 (2001): 106; and Lee A. Kirkpatrick and Phillip R.
Shaver, An Attachment-Theoretical Approach to Romantic Love and Religious Belief,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, no. 3 (1992): 269.
6Simone A. De Roos, Jurjen Iedema, and Siebren Miedema, Influence o f Maternal
Denomination, God Concepts, and Child-Rearing Practices on Young Childrens God Concepts,
Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 43, no. 4 (2004): 519; Pinnock et al., preface to The
Openness o f God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding o f God (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 8; and Wade C. Rowatt and Lee A. Kirkpatrick, Two
Dimensions o f Attachment to God and Their Relation to Affect, Religiosity, and Personality
Constructs, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 41, no. 4 (2002): 644-45.
Elizabeth A. Maynard, Richard L. Gorsuch, and Jeffrey P. Bjorck, Religious Coping
Style, Concept o f God, and Personal Religious Variables in Threat, Loss, and Challenge
Situations, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 40, no. 1 (2001): 65, 70.
8Brian Laythe et al., Religious Fundamentalism as a Predictor o f Prejudice: A TwoComponent M odel, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 41, no. 4 (2002): 624.
parents cannot be overstated. Research indicates that parental religiosity9 and a positive
parent-child relationship10 are related to a childs God concept. Rizzuto describes the
philosophical foundation o f the parental influence on a childs God concept as follows:
The relational-representational experience with objects which starts with the parents
and ends with the childs creation o f the divinity closes the first cycle o f
representational development at the time o f the resolution o f the Oedipus
conflict.. . . It [the fantasy o f the child] is out o f this matrix o f facts and fantasies,
wishes, hopes, and fears, in the exchanges with those incredible beings called
parents, that the image o f God is concocted.11
i
The God concept study began in the last century.
Researchers have shown a
continuous interest in the God concept during the last five decades;
17
in particular, an increased
9Wan-Ning Bao et al., Perceived Parental Acceptance as a Moderator of Religious

Transmission among Adolescent Boys and Girls, Journal o f Marriage and the Family 61, no. 2
(1999): 363; Simone A. De Roos, Jurjen Iedema, and Siebren Miedema, Effects o f M others and
Schools Religious Denomination on Preschool Childrens God Concepts, Journal o f Beliefs &
Values 24, no. 2 (2003): 174; and Lee A. Kirkpatrick and Phillip R. Shaver, Attachment Theory
and Religion: Childhood Attachments, Religious Beliefs, and Conversion, Journal fo r the
Scientific Study o f Religion 29 no. 3 (1990): 315.
10Bao et al., Perceived Parental Acceptance as a Moderator o f Religious
Transmission among Adolescent Boys and Girls, 363; John R. Buri and Rebecca A. Mueller,
Psychoanalytic Theory and Loving God Concepts: Parent Referencing versus Self-Referencing,
The Journal o f Psychology 127, no. 1 (1993): 18; Kenneth E. Hyde, Religion in Childhood and
Adolescence (Birmingham: Religious Education Press, 1990), 96; and Vianello, Tamminen, and
Ratcliff, The Religious Concepts o f Children, 63.
u Ana-Maria Rizzuto, The Birth o f the Living God: A Psychoanalytic Study (Chicago:
University o f Chicago Press, 1979), 6-7.
12Earl Bames, Theological Life o f a California Child, Pedagogical Seminary 2
(1892): 442-48; and A. W. Brown, Some Records of the Thoughts and Reasoning o f Children,
Pedagogical Seminary 2 (1892): 358-96.
13Orlo Strunk, Jr., Perceived Relationship between Parental and Deity Concepts,
Psychological Newsletter 10 (1959): 222-26; Ronald Goldman, Religious Thinking fro m
Childhood to Adolescence (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964); Bernard Spilka, Philip
Armatas, and June Nussbaum, The Concept o f God: A Factor-Analytic Approach, Review o f
Religious Research 6, no. 1 (1964): 28-36; Richard. L. Gorsuch, The Conceptualization o f God
as Seen in Adjective Ratings, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 7, no. 1 (1968): 56-64;
Antoine Vergote et al., Concept o f God and Parental Images, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f
4
body o f research was published during the last decade.14 Nevertheless, recent studies
have failed to identify the factors that account for variations among individuals in their
Religion 8, no. 1 (1969): 79-87; David Elkind, The Development o f Religious Understanding in
Children and Adolescents, in Research on Religious Development: A Comprehensive Handbook,
ed. Merton P. Strommen (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1971): 655-85; Marven O. Nelson, The
Concept o f God and Feeling toward Parents, Journal o f Individual Psychology 27, no. 1 (1971):
41-49; Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Michael Argyle, God as a Father-Projection: The Theory
and the Evidence, British Journal o f Medical Psychology 48, no. 1 (1975): 71-75; Bernard
Spilka, James Addison, and Marguerite Rosensohn, Parents, Self, and God: A Test of
Competing Theories o f Individual-Religion Relationships, Review o f Religious Research 16, no.
3 (1975): 154-65; V. Peter Pitts, Drawing the Invisible: Childrens Conceptualization o f God,
Character Potential 8, no. 1 (1976): 12-24; W. ChadN ye and Jerry S. Carlson, The
Development o f Concept o f God in Children, Journal o f Genetic Psychology 145, no. 1 (1984):
137-42; Jerry C. Jolley and Steven J. Taulbee, Assessing Perceptions o f Self and God:
Comparison o f Prisoners and Normals, Psychological Reports 59 (1986): 1139-46; David Heller,
The Childrens God (Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, 1986); Hyde, Religion in
Childhood and Adolescence (1990); Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth
(1991); and Maare E. Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and Adolescents: A
Phenomenographic Study o f Drawings, British Journal o f Religious Education 19, no.l (1996):
33-44.
14Jane Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God,
Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 36, no. 1 (1997): 25-43; Linda Mans Wagener,
Childrens Understanding o f Self, Relationship, and God: Implications for Clinical Practice,
Journal o f Psychology and Christianity 17, no. 1 (1998): 66-76; Amy K. Eshleman et al.,
Mother God, Father God: Childrens Perceptions o f Gods Distance, The International Journal
fo r the Psychology o f Religion 9, no. 2 (1999): 139-46; Mark A. Kunkel et al., God Images: A
Concept M ap, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 38, no. 2 (1999): 193-202; Simone A.
De Roos, Jurjen Iedema, and Siebren Miedema, Young Childrens Descriptions o f God:
Influences o f Parents and Teachers God Concepts and Religious Denomination o f Schools,
Journal o f Beliefs & Value 22, no. 1 (2001): 19-30; De Roos, Miedema, and Iedema, Attachment,
Working Models o f Self and Others, and God Concept in Kindergarten (2001); Leslie J. Francis,
God Images, Personal Wellbeing and Moral Values: A Survey among 13-15 Year Olds in
England and Wales, in Imagining God: Empirical Explorations fro m an International
Perspective, ed. Hans-Georg Ziebertz (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001): 125-44;
Francis, Gibson, and Robbins, God Images and Self-Worth among Adolescents in Scotland
(2001); Zehavit Gross, My Mind is My God- Images o f God and Self-Definition, in Imagining
God: Empirical Explorations fro m an International Perspective, ed. Hans-Georg Ziebertz (New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001): 171-89; Dona Kennamer Hood, Young Childrens
Perceptions o f God in the Context o f a Protestant Faith Community (Ph.D. diss., The University
o f Texas at Austin, 2001); Enzo Pace, The Younger Generations Images o f God and Religion in
Italy, in Imagining God: Empirical Explorations from an International Perspective, ed. HansGeorg Ziebertz (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001): 71-80; Ulrich Riegel and HansGeorg Ziebertz, Images o f God in a Gender Perspective: An Empirical Typology, in Imagining
God: Empirical Explorations fro m an International Perspective, ed. Hans-Georg Ziebertz (New
5
personal God concept.15 Furthermore, Kunkel et al. question the effectiveness o f an
empirical approach using a structured questionnaire for measuring the God concept.16
Based on the needs mentioned, this study involves three areas o f investigation:
the development o f an instrument intended to measure childrens God concept, the
investigation o f any parental influence on the God concept, and the differences in the
God concept among various age groups. Increased information about childrens God
concept, as well as parental influences on it, should enrich the current understanding o f
childrens religious developmental characteristics and parental roles in these childrens
religious development. It should also provide implications for parents and Christian
educators regarding how to teach and communicate about God to children.17
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001): 229-44; Pnevmatikos, Conceptual Changes in

Religious Concepts o f Elementary Schoolchildren (2002); Justin L. Barrett and Rebekah A.
Richert, Anthropomorphism or Preparedness? Exploring Childrens God Concepts, Review o f
Religious Research 44, no. 3 (2003): 300-12; De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Effects of
Mothers and Schools Religious Denomination on Preschool Childrens God Concepts (2003);
Joyce E. Bellous, Simone A. de Ross, and William Summey, A Childs Concept o f God, in
Childrens Spirituality: Christian Perspectives, Research, and Applications, ed. Donald Ratcliff
(Eugene: Cascade Books, 2004), 201-18; De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Influence of Maternal
Denomination, God Concepts, and Child-Rearing Practices on Young Childrens God Concepts
(2004); Kay and Ray, Concepts o f God (2004); Simone A. de Roos, Young Childrens God
Concepts: Influences o f Attachment and Religious Socialization in a Family and School
Context, Religious Education 101, no. 1 (2006): 84-103; and Jane R. Dickie et al., Mother,
Father, and Self: Sources o f Young Adults God Concepts, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f
Religion 45, no. 1 (2006): 57-71.
15De Roos, Miedema, and Iedema, Attachment, Working Models o f Self and Others,
and God Concept in Kindergarten, 607; and De Roos, Idemena, and Miedema, Influence of
Maternal Denomination, God Concepts, and Child-Rearing Practices on Young Childrens God
Concepts, 519.
16Kunkel et al., God Images, 194.
17Hood et al., The Psychology o f Religion: An Empirical Approach, 2nd ed. (New
York: The Guilford Press, 1996), 67; and Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept o f
God.
6
Statement of the Problem
The problem o f this study was to determine the relationship between childrens
God concept and specified predictor variables. These variables include parents
religiosity, as measured by the Religiosity in Daily Life Scale, and a positive parent-child
relationship and a negative parent-child relationship, as measured by the Parent-Child
Interaction Questionnaire.
A further problem o f this study was to determine the differences in childrens
God concept across age groups from six through twelve years.
Purpose of the Study

The purposes o f this study were:
1.
To determine the relationship between childrens God concept and parents

religiosity, a positive parent-child relationship, and a negative parent-child
relationship.
2.
To identify significant predictors contributing to childrens God concept.
3.
To determine the difference in childrens God concept for age groups from six
through twelve years.
Significance of the Study

This study was significant in that:
1. It developed a valid and reliable survey instrument to measure childrens God
concept.
Researchers who have used psychodynamic approaches to examine the
psychoanalytic roots o f ones God concept have encountered criticism for their
1o
methodological and conceptual problems.
Kunkel et al. also question the validity o f a
God concept instrument using structured questions;19 furthermore, Wagener points out
the lack o f standardized instruments to measure childrens faith development.
0(\
From
Hydes perspective, the investigation o f faith development with the cognitive and
affective dimensions o f belief is a demanding area o f study.
21
Based on the critics and suggestions from God concept researchers, a valid
instrument should be developed by including not only structured questions but also openended questions.22
2.
It examined parental predictors o f childrens God concept.

Anderson indicates the necessity for further study o f parental influence on
childrens spirituality, while pointing out the inappropriateness o f the existing

methodology.23 Slater also points out the limitations o f childrens religious concept study
and calls for additional study o f childrens religious concepts with various methods and
instruments.24
I8Hood et al., The Psychology o f Religion, 55.

,9Kunkel et al., God Images, 194.
20Wagener, Childrens Understanding o f Self, Relationship, and God, 73.
21Hyde, Religion in Childhood and Adolescence, 49-50.
220pen-ended questions and unstructured questions are used interchangeably in this
paper.
23David W. Anderson, Childrens Spirituality and Family Relationships, in
Exploring C hildrens Spiritual Formation: Foundational Issues, ed. Shirley K. Morgenthaler
(River Forest: Pillars Press, 1999), 240-42.
24Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept o f God.
3.
It provided information regarding the impact of age on childrens God concept.

This investigation contributed to substantiate Dickie et al. who made the
prediction that childrens God concepts would change the most between the ages four to
7 c
five and ages seven to eight.
Hypotheses
The hypothesis o f this study was that parents religiosity and a positive parentchild relationship would be significant positive predictors of childrens God concept,
while a negative parent-child relationship would be a significant negative predictor of
childrens God concept.
A further hypothesis o f this study was that there would be significant
differences in childrens God concept across the age groups from six through twelve
years.
Population
The population for this study consisted o f children ages six through twelve and
one o f their parents from selected Southern Baptist churches which maintain a resident
membership o f 750 or greater in Tarrant County, TX. All churches were drawn from the
Tarrant Baptist Association Annual Report for the year 2005.
Sampling
A cluster sample o f fifty percent (twenty-three churches) was drawn from the
forty-five Southern Baptist churches in Tarrant County with a resident membership of
25Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God, 27.
750 or more. Eight from the twenty-three churches elected to participate in the study, but
only seven churches returned the survey (Appendix 3). All six- through twelve-year-old
children and one o f their parents in these churches were invited to participate in this study.
The total sample size was 140 parent-child pairs.
Instruments
The Childrens God Concept Questionnaire (CGCQ)
After examining the survey instruments that measure childrens God concept,
the researcher determined that there was not a valid God concept instrument that would
meet the needs o f this study. It therefore became necessary to develop a new instrument.
The following were the recommended steps followed in developing the
instrument:26
1.
Defining the objective for the research

The objective o f the research was to explore childrens God concept in terms
o f their knowledge or understanding o f God as well as their feelings and attitudes toward
God. A further objective was to identify parental predictors o f childrens God concept
and to determine the difference in childrens God concept for various age groups.
26Robert F. Devellis, Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. (Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003), 60-100; Donna M. Mertens, Research M ethods in Education and
Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches (Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, 1998), 313-315; Mildred L. Patten, Questionnaire Research: A Practical
Guide, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing, 2001), 1-64; and William R. Yount, Research
Design and Statistical Analysis in Christian Ministry, 3rd ed. (Fort Worth: Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1999), 10-7-10-8.
10
2.
Generating an item pool o f questions

Based on the theoretical foundation, an item pool o f forty structured questions
and thirteen open-ended questions was developed. To have construct validity o f the
instrument, the instrument was developed based on supportable theories.27 To show
construct validity o f the Childrens God Concept Questionnaire, the theological
understanding o f God, developmentally appropriate God concepts, methodological
considerations, and other God concept instruments were introduced and used as the
theoretical basis o f the instrument.
3.
Conducting a validation test

Nine professors and one doctoral candidate who are specialists in theology,
childhood education, or statistics were invited to serve as a panel o f experts (Appendix

4)28 to evaluate the developed item pool. They were asked to evaluate content validity,
that is, whether the questions properly represented the construct.
9Q
The item pool and a
cover letter were e-mailed to the panel o f experts on September 1, 2006, requesting them
to evaluate each question (Appendix 5). Fifty-three questions were ranked by Likert scale
27Daniel R. Hittleman and Alan J. Simon, Interpreting Educational Research: An

Introduction fo r Consumers o f Research, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.,
2 0 0 2 ), 111.
28Patten recommends ten panel members and Yount recommends five to eight panel
members, see Patten, Questionnaire Research, 57; and Yount, Research Design and Statistical
Analysis in Christian Ministry, 10-7.
29Lorraine Rumbel Gay and Peter Airasian. Educational Research: Competencies fo r
Analysis and Applications, 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2003), 136-37;
Schuyler W. Huck, Reading Statistics and Research, 4th ed. (Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.,
2004), 89; Burke Johnson and Larry Christensen, Educational Research: Quantitative,
Qualitative, and M ixed Approaches, 2nd ed. (Boston: A Pearson Education Company, 2004), 143;
and Mertens, Research Methods in Education and Psychology, 315.
11
(1: least, 5: most) for both relevance and clarity o f the item.30 Empty blanks were also
provided for questions that the developer failed to include.31 When the evaluations were
returned to the developer, each items relevance and clarity were calculated. Based on the
total relevance scores from the nine panel members, thirty-eight questions that received a
relevance score o f forty or higher out o f a possible total o f forty-five were selected. The
questions that had a high score on relevance and a low score on clarity were modified
based on comments from panel members and advice from guidance committee members.
A revised item pool was sent to the panel members for the second evaluation on October
12,2006. A second revision was conducted based on seven panel members evaluations
and comments that were returned to the researcher. The final twenty-four structured
questions, ten open-ended questions, and a drawing prompt were chosen from the panel
members evaluations (Appendix 6).
4.
Formatting the survey and writing instructions

The instrument was entitled the Childrens God Concept Questionnaire
(CGCQ). The survey was estimated to take between twenty and twenty-five minutes to
complete. The structured questions were developed in the form o f a three-point Likert
scale with 1 being no, 2 being sometimes, and 3 being yes accompanied by
sad, neutral, and happy faces (, , ).32 For the items that showed negative
30Robert K. Gable, Instrument Development in the Affective Domain, 2nd ed. (Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), 239-40.
31DeVellis, Scale Development, 86.
32For young children, providing happy, neutral, and sad faces for measuring attitudes
as choices are effective, see Patten, Questionnaire Research, 42.
12
correlations with other items, reverse scoring was applied.
A high total score reflected a
biblically sound understanding o f God and a positive attitude toward God.

The first part o f the questionnaire contained an introductory sentence
explaining the purpose and use o f the questionnaire and promising confidentiality.
Instructions for answering the questions were given on the first page o f the questionnaire
in addition to sample questions for practicing directions.34 A brief explanation of the
drawing prompt was also elicited from children to help the researcher avoid subjective
interpretations.
5.
Conducting a pilot study

The pilot test was conducted in November 2006 with thirty-two target-aged
children at two o f the population churches. Patten recommends that twenty-five or more
respondents who represented the target population should be invited to a pilot study.35
The second pilot study was conducted two to three weeks after the first pilot study. The
second pilot study at one o f the churches was conducted by e-mail. The last question was
modified from draw a picture o f God and write about your picture to since you cannot
draw a picture on a computer, please explain it with your words. Twenty-two children
participated in the second pilot study.
33DeVellis, Scale Development, 91; and Julie Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual: A Step
by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS Version 12, 2nd ed. (New York: Open University
Press, 2005), 79.
34Merten, Research Methods in Education and Psychology, 314.
35Patten, Questionnaire Research, 57.
13
6.
Testing reliability and revising the instrument

The reliability o f the pilot study was ensured using Cronbachs alpha
coefficient to determine the internal consistency o f the instrument.36 The Cronbachs

alpha coefficients o f the CGCQ was r = .58. The alpha level o f .58 is not an acceptable
level, as the common minimum limit for the Cronbachs alpha o f a scale is .70.37 The
test-retest reliability o f twenty-two childrens responses was .70. Items with no variance
and with low item-total correlations were removed or modified. The items that showed
higher values in the column Alpha if Item Deleted than the final alpha value were
i n
removed.
Three items were removed and four items were modified respectively. Nine
items were added from the first item pool and were revised based on the
recommendations from the advisors.
Another pilot study was conducted with children at one o f the population
churches. The Cronbachs alpha was r = .62 (Appendix 7). Removing six items with low
item-total correlations yielded the Cronbachs alpha o f r = .70 (Appendix 8). The
Childrens God Concept Questionnaire was finalized with twenty-four structured
questions, ten open-ended questions, and drawing a picture o f God (Appendix 9).
36Gable, Instrument Development in the Affective Domain, 210-11; Johnson and

Christensen, Educational Research, 137; Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 90; and Yount,
Research Design and Statistical Analysis in Christian Ministry, 8-4-8-5.
37Joseph F. Hair et al., Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998), 118.
38Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 92.
14
The Religiosity in Daily Life Scale (RIDLS)
The Religiosity in Daily Life Scale developed by Gunnoe is an eleven-item
questionnaire designed to measure the extent to which religious beliefs affected parents
ordinary lives.
TO
Among the items, ten are assessed in a five-point Likert format, ranging
from one (never true) to five (always true). The one item indicates how often the family
members attend the church on a scale ranging from one (never) to five (2 or 3 times a
week) (Appendix 10). A high total score indicates a high level o f religiosity. The
Cronbachs alpha reliability score for mothers is r = .95 and for fathers is r = .96.40
The Parent-Child Interaction Questionnaire (PCIQ)

The Parent-Child Interaction Questionnaire was developed by Wieber for use
in her dissertation. The PCIQ measures both negative and positive relationships through
behaviorally based items and is intended to measure the quality o f the parent-child
relationship rather than parental attitudes, beliefs, or values. Part A has two subscale
scores, positive interactions and negative interactions. Each subscale consists o f fourteen
items, using a seven-point Likert scale 41 Part B is composed o f thirty-five items that
measure the frequency and valence o f specific activities in which parents and children
participate together. The frequency was measured in a seven-point Likert scale and the
39Marjorie Gunnoe, E. Mavis Hetherington, and Davis Reiss, Parental Religiosity,

Parental Style, and Adolescent Social Responsibility, Journal o f Early Adolescence 19, no. 2
(1999): 208.
40Ibid., 208-09.
41Jamie L. Wieber, Assessing Positive and Negative Parent-Child Interactions:
Extending Findings from Parent Global Self-Reports to Child Reports and Parent Telephone
Interviews (Ph.D. diss., Bowling Green State University, 2002), 31.
15
valence was measured with three options negative, neutral, and positive.42 Only Part A
was used in the current study (Appendix 11). The Cronbachs alpha coefficients for each
subscale in Part A are as follows: mothers reports o f positive interactions r = .94;
fathers reports o f positive interactions r = .91; mothers reports o f negative interactions
r = .87; and fathers reports o f negative interactions r = .85.43
Limitations
The following limitations o f this study were recognized:
1.
This study involved participants on a voluntary basis; only churches whose

ministers were willing to participate, and only children whose parents
consented to their participation were included in the study.
2.
The results o f this study might be limited to the generalization o f churches with a
resident membership o f 750 or greater due in part to the use o f cluster sampling
and its inherent lack o f randomization.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study:
1.
The instruments used in the study were sufficient to assess each variable.
2.
The participants responded to the questions honestly.
3.
The child participants had the ability to understand the questions.
4.
Facilitators chosen for the study from each church had the ability to administer
the survey to children and to parents without causing any bias in the answers.
42Ibid 51.
43Ibid.
16
Definitions
The following terms were defined for the purpose o f this study:
1.
God Concept: the totality o f understanding o f God, feelings and attitudes toward
God, and belief in God, composed o f cognitive and affective domains as measured
by the Childrens God Concept Questionnaire (CGCQ)
2.
Anthropomorphism: describing God as a human figure (Exodus 15:3 and Numbers

12:8), e.g., an old, bearded man who lives in heaven, or including human
attributes and emotions (Genesis 2:2; 6:6; Exodus 20:5; and Hosea 11:8)44
3.
Parents Religiosity: the importance o f religion in parents life composed o f

multiple dimensions, beliefs and practices, 5 as measured by the Religiosity in
Daily Life Scale (RIDLS)
4.
Parent-Child Relationship: the frequency o f positive and negative parent-child

interactions46 as measured by the Parent-Child Interaction Questionnaire
(PCIQ)
Design
This study utilized a descriptive research design. A multiple regression
analysis was used to determine whether childrens God concept was predicted by parents
religiosity and a parent-child relationship. A one-way ANOVA was employed to
determine the difference in childrens God concept for the age groups ranging from six
through twelve years.
44Barrett and Richert, Anthropomorphism or Preparedness? 300: Walter A. Elwell,

ed., Evangelical Dictionary o f Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), s.v.
anthropomorphism ; Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth, 163; and
Vianello, Tamminen, and Ratcliff, The Religious Concepts o f Children, 57.
Transmission among Adolescent Boys and Girls, 363.
46Wieber, Assessing Positive and Negative Parent-Child Interactions, 51.
CHAPTER 2
SYNTHESIS OF RELATED LITERATURE
God Concept
Faith or religiosity should be discussed beyond ones knowledge o f God. What
matters in faith is not only knowledge but also beliefs, feelings, and actions. Tamminen
classifies religiosity into the following categories: religious experiences, religious beliefs,
and religious thinking.1 Astley examines recent studies and identifies the dimensions o f
religion as ones attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors.
The same principle also applies to the God concept, which is composed of
affective as well as cognitive domains. The inclusion o f cognitive and affective domains
in the God concept is supported by God concept researchers, including the following:
Bellous, de Roos, and Summey; De Roos, Idemena, and Miedema; and Hyde.3 Hyde
states, What we think about God our concept o f God is related to what we feel about
'Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth, 31, 67, 93.

2Jeff Astley, The Philosophy o f Christian Religious Education (Birmingham:
Religious Education Press, 1994), 116.
3From the De Roos, Iedema, and Miedemas study, the descriptive aspect refers to
information regarding who God is, what God looks like, where God is, what God can do, what
God wants o f people, and what a child wants to say to God. The evaluative aspect involves the
positive and negative feelings that a child relates to God, for instance, God as a loving,
comforting, or stem, rejecting Being, see Bellous, de Roos, and Summey, A Childs Concept of
God, 202; De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Young Childrens Descriptions of God, 20; and
Hyde, Religion in Childhood and Adolescence, 64.
17
18
God; while the cognitive and affective are related, affective religiousness is an
independent dimension.4 Heller divides his God concept interview questions into five
categories: description o f God, belief in God, feelings toward God, communication or
relationship with God, and God and famous people.5 Similarly, Trent, Osborne, and
Brunner divide the God concept into five headings under the three categories o f knowing,
loving, and living: knowing about God refers to who God is and what God has done;
loving God means that you can have a relationship with God; and living with and for God
means that you can be all God wants you to be and you can do all God wants you to do.6
Wuebker defines the God concept as the ideas, perceptions, and descriptions
that a person has regarding the essence and attributes o f the Supreme Being (e.g., kind,
powerful, distant).7 Bellous, De Roos, and Summey define the God concept as the
union o f ideas, feelings, and images each person associates with God.8 According to De
Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, childrens God concept has a function to elucidate biblical
information the children give about the nature o f God.9 For the purpose o f this study, the
4Hyde, Religion in Childhood and Adolescence, 64.

5Heller, The C hildrens God, 15.
6John Trent, Rick Osborne, and Kurt Bruner, Parents Guide to the Spiritual Growth
o f Children: Helping Your Children Develop a Personal Faith (Wheaton: Tyndale House
Publishers, 2000), 273.
?Michael J. Wuebker, Sexual Abuse o f Children, Ages 7 to 12, and Its Effect on
Their Concept o f God (Ph. D. diss., Walden University, 2000), 10.
8Bellous, de Ross, and Summey, A Childs Concept o f God, 202.
9De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Effects o f Mothers and Schools Religious
Denomination on Preschool Childrens God Concepts, 166.
19
term, God concept, is used and defined as the totality o f understanding o f God, feelings
and attitudes toward God, and belief in God.
Examining the God concept can be made more effective by knowing
influential factors such as age10 and gender.11 Church attendance is also one o f the
predictors o f the God concept.
19
O Keeffe found a positive relationship between regular
church attendance and a positive attitude toward God.
Heller identifies three influences on a childs God concept: (1) the

communication between parents and other family members about religious concepts and
rituals, (2) a childs interpretation o f family atmosphere and parents, and (3) a childs self
concept.14 Wakefield and Clark assert that a childs view of God as a father is affected
when any o f the following occurs: (1) a human father has a good relationship with his
child, (2) a father is available when his child needs him, (3) a father prays with his child
during bed time, (4) a father displays disappointment in the childs poor report card, (5)
the Sunday school teacher describes what God is like, (6) a friend describes thunder as
God being mad, and (7) an anthropomorphic picture o f God, a bearded old man, is shown
10Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept o f God; Tamminen, Religious

Development in Childhood and Youth, 193-94; and Vianello, Tamminen, and Ratcliff, The
Religious Concepts o f Children, 58.
n Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept o f God.
12Doris A. Freese and J. Omar Brubaker, The Churchs Educational Ministry, in
Christian Education: Foundations fo r the Future, eds. Robert E. Clark, Lin Johnson, and Allyn K.
Sloat (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 397-98; and Bernadette O Keeffe, Christian Children at
School: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, in Research in Religious Education, eds. Leslie J.
Francis, William K. Kay, and William S. Campbell (Macon: Smyth and Helwys Publishing,
1996), 302.
130 Keeffe, Christian Children at School, 302.
14Heller, The C hildrens God, 106.
20
to the child.15 Hyde indicates factors that influence childrens God concept, including
what children have learned at home or in church and what pictures and words were used
to describe G od.16 Slater divides factors responsible for childrens God concept into
external and internal influences. Family and culture are examples o f external influences,
while innate understanding and the work o f the Holy Spirit belong to the category of
internal influences.17
In summary, age, gender, self-concept, parent-child relationship, religious
training at home and in church, church attendance, and teaching materials are generally
accepted factors that influence childrens God concepts.
Parents
It is no exaggeration to state that parental impact on childrens God concept is
important.18 Children hear and learn who God is through their parents. Parents
explanation o f life experiences discloses the nature o f God.19
Freud consolidates the foundation o f the connection between the image of
ones earthly father and heavenly Father.20 For him, Everything is the son-father
15Norman Wakefield and Robert E. Clark, Children and Their Theological

Concepts, in Childhood Education in the Church, eds. Robert E. Clark, Joanne Brubaker, and
Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 348.
16Hyde, Religion in Childhood and Adolescence, 70.
18Wuebker, Sexual Abuse o f Children, Ages 7 to 12, and Its Effects on Their
Concept o f God, 25; and Wakefield and Clark, Children and Their Theological Concepts, 349.
19Wakefield and Clark, Children and Their Theological Concepts, 349.
20Pehr Granqvist, Religiousness and Perceived Childhood Attachment: On the
Question of Compensation or Correspondence, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 37,
21
relationship: God is the exalted father, and the longing for the father is the root o f the
need for religion.
") 1
Vergote and Tamayo also explain the parental influence in forming
ones God concept:

Our hypothesis is that the parental figures are symbolic mediators for the
representation o f God because they have psychological significance in themselves.
The human being forms its relationship with itself, with others, and with God via
multiple intersubjective processes within the family constellation, the effects of
which are determined by symbolic references.22
The parents religious commitment, denomination, God concept, child-rearing
attitudes, and parenting styles, and the childs image o f the preferred parent have all been
shown to have an influence on a childs God concept.
For the purpose o f this study,
only parents religiosity and a parent-child relationship are chosen as influential factors o f
childrens God concept.
no. 2 (1998): 351; Hyde, Religion in Childhood and Adolescence, 83; and Paul C. Vitz, Faith o f
the Fatherless: The Psychology o f Atheism (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999), 16.
21Sigmund Freud, The Future o f an Illusion, trans. W. D. Robson-Scott (Garden City:
Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), 36.
22Antoine Vergote and Alvaro Tamayo, The Parental Figures and the Representation
o f God: A Psychological and Cross-Cultural Study (New York: Mouton Publishers, 1981), 11.
23Buri and Mueller, Psychoanalytic Theory and Loving God Concepts, 18; De Roos,
Iedema, and Miedema, Effects o f M others and Schools Religious Denomination on Preschool
Childrens God Concept, 44; Bradley R. Hertel and Michael J. Donahue, Parental Influences on
God Images among Children: Testing Durkheims Metaphoric Parallelism, Journal fo r the
Scientific Study o f Religion 34, no. 2 (1995): 194, 196; Hyde, Religion in Childhood and
Adolescence, 96; Laura Lippman, Erik Michelsen, and Eugene C. Roehlekepartain, Indicators of
Child, Family and Community Connections: The Measurement o f Family Religiosity and
Spirituality, [on-line]; accessed 30 January 2006; available from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
onnections-papers04/paperl.htm; Internet; Scott M. Myers, An Interactive Model o f Religiosity
Inheritance: The Importance o f Family Context, American Sociological Review 61, no. 5 (1996):
864-65; Daniel N. McIntosh and Bernard Spilka, Religion and the Family, in Handbook o f
Family Religious Education, eds. Blake J. N eff and Donald Ratcliff (Birmingham: Religious
Education Press, 1995), 51; and Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth, 195.
22
Parents Religiosity
Religiosity is an important matter to American parents. Religious affiliation
was reported by ninety-five percent o f American parents,24 and ninety percent o f them
wanted their children to be religiously trained.
*ye
According to Myers, parents religiosity

-y /r
has the most important part to play in any childs religiosity.
Myers strengthened his
argument from research that when a high quality parent-child relationship interacted with
the parents religiosity, the transmitting o f this religiosity was enhanced.
97
Another study
revealed a supportive finding o f Myers view; Kirkpatrick and Shaver studied adults
God concept, including beliefs about God and a personal relationship with God. The
interaction o f the maternal attachment styles and maternal religiosity was a predictor o f
the God concept.28
De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema found that mothers denomination and
religiosity had an impact on childrens God concept. Children whose mothers attended
church perceived God as more loving than children o f non-believing mothers. Children
whose mothers were Orthodox Reformed and Pentecostal showed higher scores on the
24Annette Mahoney et al., Religion in the Home in the 1980s and 1990s: A MetaAnalytic Review and Conceptual Analysis o f Links between Religion, Marriage, and Parenting,
Journal o f Family Psychology 15, no. 4 (2001): 559.
25Chris J. Boyatzis, Religious and Spiritual Development: An Introduction, Review
o f Religious Research 44, no. 3 (2003): 215.
26Myers, An Interactive Model o f Religiosity Inheritance, 864.
27Ibid 865.
28Kirkpatrick and Shaver, Attachment Theory and Religion, 315, 323.
23
omnipotence o f God than those whose mothers were Catholic.29 Another study conducted
by the same researchers revealed that parents and school teachers God concepts
predicted childrens God concepts in different ways. Parents contributed to the affective
domain o f childrens God concept, while teachers had an impact on its cognitive domain.
For instance, parents would convey God as a loving friend, while teachers would convey
the biblical contents about God.
Religious socialization within the family is another key factor in the
development o f a childs God concept and religiosity.
31
King, Furrow, and Roth
maintained that family communication, family activities, peer communication, and peer
activities contributed to an adolescents experience o f God.
Communication with
parents regarding religious topics appeared to be the most influential predictor of their
God concept.33
The influential factors on a childs God concept include the following: parents
high level o f religiosity, religious training in the family, and the familys religious
29De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Effects o f M others and Schools Religious
Denomination on Preschool Childrens God Concepts, 174.
30De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Young Childrens Descriptions o f God, 27.
31De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Effects o f M others and Schools Religious
Denomination on Preschool Childrens God Concepts, 166; Hyde, Religion in Childhood and
Adolescence, 236; and Pamela Ebstyne King, James L. Furrow, and Natalie Roth, The Influence
o f Families and Peers on Adolescent Religiousness, Journal o f Psychology and Christianity 21,
no. 2 (2002): 116.
32King, Furrow, and Roth, The Influence o f Families and Peers on Adolescent
Religiousness, 114.
33Ibid., 114, 116.
24
denomination. Interaction between parents religiosity and their attachment to a child
results in the enhancement o f a childs religiosity or God concept.
Parent-Child Relationship
Parents are effective influences in their childs God concept because the
quality o f a parent-child relationship in the early years lays the foundations for a childs
God concept in later years.34 It is generally accepted by researchers that children who
have a close and positive relationship with parents view God with a positive image: God
loves, cares, forgives, remains close, and is powerful.35 In particular, God was viewed as
a nurturing and powerful Being by the children who considered their parents as having
the same characteristics as in the research o f Dickie et al.
The original correspondence hypothesis postulates that securely attached
individuals have a solid basis for the development o f a future God concept.37 This
suggestion was developed from Bowlbys theory that the stable working model accounts
for a positive interpretation o f a future relationship.
In this perspective, ones God
concept reflects the early parent-child relationship. Positive and biblical God concepts
34Hyde, Religion in Childhood and Adolescence, 96; McIntosh and Spilka, Religion
and the Family, 44; and Wakefield and Clark, Children and Their Theological Concepts, 349.
35Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God, 31;
Tamminen, Religions Development in Childhood and Youth, 195; and Vianello, Tamminen, and
Ratcliff, The Religious Concepts of Children, 63.
36Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God, 31, 37-38.
37Pehr Granqvist and Berit Hagekull, Religiousness and Perceived Childhood
Attachment: Profiling Socialized Correspondence and Emotional Compensation, Journal fo r the
Scientific Study o f Religion 38, no. 2 (1999): 256.
38Ibid.
25
2
improve when children possess a secure attachment.
On the other hand, the revised
correspondence hypothesis proposes that both parental religiosity and the quality o f the
parent-child relationship predict childrens acceptance o f the parents religion.
Specifically, the God concept o f securely attached children would parallel the God
concept o f their attachment figures, rather than their relationship with them.40 In contrast
to correspondence hypothesis, the compensation hypothesis assumes that insecurely
attached individuals would be more likely to have a solid God concept. Its theoretical
foundation can be found from Ainsworths theory that significant others rather than
parents may function as influences for insecurely attached young children. God, therefore,
can be a substitute attachment figure for insecurely attached individuals41
Kirkpatricks study supports the compensation hypothesis. Women with both
insecure-avoidant and insecure-anxious attachment styles were more likely to seek a new
relationship with God than their secure counterparts. Women with the insecure-anxious
style were more likely to report having a religious experience o f conversion than the
insecure-avoidant and secure respondents.42 Granqvist reported interesting findings
examining the relationships among paternal attachment, paternal religiosity, and a
39Ibid.; Bellous, de Ross, and Summey, A Childs Concept of God, 210; and De
Roos, Miedema, and Iedema, Attachment, Working Models o f Self and Others, and God
Concept in Kindergarten, 608.
40Bellous, de Ross, and Summey, A Childs Concept of God, 210-11; and Granqvist
and Hagekull, Religiousness and Perceived Childhood Attachment, 257.
4IGranqvist and Hagekull, Religiousness and Perceived Childhood Attachment, 256;
Lee A. Kirkpatrick, God as a Substitute Attachment Figure: A Longitudinal Study o f Adult
Attachment Style and Religious Change in College Students, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 24, no. 9 (1998): 962.
42Lee A. Kirkpatrick, A Longitudinal Study o f Changes in Religious Belief and
Behavior as a Function o f Individual Differences in Adult Attachment Style, Journal fo r the
26
relationship with God. According to him, individuals securely attached to fathers had a
more intimate relationship with God than their insecure counterparts at high paternal
religiosity. On the contrary, individuals insecurely attached to fathers reported a more
intimate relationship with God than the secure counterparts at low paternal religiosity.43
The correspondence hypothesis has been supported by research findings.
According to Kirkpatrick and Shaver, God was perceived as a more loving, less controlling,
and less distant Being to the subjects who are securely attached during adulthood than
their insecure counterparts.44 McDonald et al. also found that young adults avoidance of
God was revealed to be associated with a low level o f parental warmth and support.45
Bao et al. support both the revised correspondence and compensation
hypotheses. They reported that when a high level o f parental acceptance was present, a
positive relationship existed between a mothers God concept and that o f her daughter.
They found, however, that a fathers religiosity, church attendance, and God concept had
a greater impact on the God concept o f the daughter with low parental acceptance than
the daughter with moderate or high parental acceptance.46 The researchers explained the
unexpected result by suggesting that the fathers perceived acceptance o f the daughter,
Scientific Study o f Religion 36, no. 2 (1997): 212-13.

43Granqvist, Religiousness and Perceived Childhood Attachment, 358.
44Kirkpatrick and Shaver, An Attachment-Theoretical Approach to Romantic Love
and Religious Belief, 270.
45Angie McDonald et al., Attachment to God and Parents: Testing the
Correspondence vs. Compensation Hypotheses, Journal o f Psychology and Christianity 24,
no. 1 (2005): 24, 26.
Transmission among Adolescent Boys and Girls, 369.
27
unlike that o f a mother, seemed to have a compensatory role in transmitting the fathers
God concept to his daughter.47
Parents discipline styles as well as attachment styles influence a childs God
concept.48 Parental nurturance and authoritativeness were positively related to the childs
concept o f a loving, comforting, and nurturing God. Parental authoritarianism was
negatively correlated with the childs loving, comforting, and nurturing God concept.49
Dickie et al. found that power-oriented discipline resulted in children perceiving God as
less nurturing compared to no power-oriented discipline. Love-oriented discipline
resulted in concepts o f a nurturing and powerful God.50
Dickie et al. recently conducted similar research to find whether parental levels
o f punishing/judging discipline style would affect a young adult childs God concepts.
The results indicated that the mothers punishing/judging discipline style, not the fathers,
affected the young adults God concepts. For example, the highest scores on closeness to
God were obtained from young men who reported a high level o f maternal
punishing/judging discipline and young women who reported a low level o f maternal
punishing/judging discipline. A high level o f religiosity was also associated with high
and low levels o f the m others punishing discipline but not with a middle level of
discipline.51
47Ibid.
4SHood et al., The Psychology o f Religion, 67.
49Buri and Mueller, Psychoanalytic Theory and Loving God Concepts, 21.
50Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God, 36-37.
51Dickie et al., Mother, Father, and Self: Sources o f Young Adults Gods Concepts,
62.
28
The parent-child relationship influences a childs God concept. Although the
three hypotheses differ in their assumptions, the unifying concept remains that parents
play a highly influential role in their childrens future faith development.
Age
As an indicator o f a childs cognitive abilities, age serves as a significant
variable in informing the God concept.
From this perspective, previous God concept
studies have concentrated on age differences.53 Different researchers have identified a

similar stage development o f God concepts based on a Piagetian framework.54
Vianellos study indicated that at the ages o f six to seven, children began to
understand the omniscience o f God. Children affirmed the omnipotence o f God by age
eight, and they finally conceived the omnipresence o f God and His nature as a spirit by
eleven to twelve.55
52Heller, The Childrens God, 39; and Vianello, Tamminen, and Ratcliff, The
53Em est Harms, The Development o f Religious Experience in Children, American
Journal o f Sociology 50, no. 2 (1944): 112-22; Goldman, Religious Thinking fro m Childhood to
Adolescence (1964); Elkind, The Development of Religious Understanding in Children and
Adolescents(1971); Robert Williams, A Theory o f God-Concept Readiness: From the Piagetian
Theories o f Child Artificialism and the Origin of Religious Feeling in Children, Religious
Education 66, no. 1 (1971): 62-66; James W. Fowler, Stages o f Faith: The Psychology o f Human
Development and the Quest fo r M eaning (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981); Heller, The
Childrens G od (1986); Robert Coles, The Spiritual Life o f Children (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1990); Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God (1997); and Kay
and Ray, Concepts o f God (2004).
54Harms, The Development o f Religious Experience in Children (1944); Goldman,
Religious Thinking fro m Childhood to Adolescence (1964); Elkind, The Development o f
Religious Understanding in Children and Adolescents( 1971); Stanley N. Ballard and J. Roland
Fleck, The Teaching o f Religious Concepts: A Three Stage Model, Journal o f Psychology and
Theology 3, no. 3 (1975): 164-71; Fowler, Stages o f Faith ( 1981); and Nye and Carlson, The
Development o f Concept o f God in Children (1984).
55R. Vianello, Ricerche Psiologiche sulla Religiosita Infantile (Firenze: Giunti, 1980);
29
Heller, who studied children from ages four to twelve, maintained that younger
children tended to have a positive God concept, often relating God to play and fun.56
Tamminen, whose subjects were children from grades one to eleven, found that God was
mentioned as loving, helping, and forgiving more often among younger children than
among older children. Children considered God as Creator with His omnipotence and
power more frequently than did adolescents.57 By contrast, Dickie et al. suggested that
God was portrayed as a more nurturing and powerful Being who was identifiable with
their parents by the older children when compared to the younger children among their
child subjects from ages four to ten. God was more likely to be identified as a father by
older children and a mother by younger children.58
Childrens anthropomorphic understanding o f God is one o f the frequent topics
in the God concept study.59 Anthropomorphism is describing God with human
characteristics; for example, God could be described as an old bearded man who lives in
heaven. Anthropomorphism also means attributing humanly psychological characteristics
to the nature o f God such as God as loving, helping, trustworthy, or punishing.60 Tamm,
quoted in Vianello, Tamminen, and Ratcliff, The Religious Concepts o f Children, 58.
56Heller, The C hildrens God, 40-41.
57Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth, 193-94.
58Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God, 31.
59Goldman, Religious Thinking fro m Childhood to Adolescence (1964); Elkind, The
Development o f Religious Understanding in Children and Adolescents (1971); Nye and Carlson,
The Development o f Concept o f God in Children (1984); Tamminen, Religious Development in
Childhood and Youth (1991); Vianello, Tamminen, and Ratcliff, The Religious Concepts of
Children (1992); Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and Adolescents (1996); and
Barrett and Richert, Anthropomorphism or Preparedness? (2003).
60Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept of God; Tamminen, Religious
30
who studied subjects from ages nine to nineteen, found that anthropomorphism is more
common among younger children with the exception o f twelve- and thirteen-year-olds.61
Tamminen, however, found that anthropomorphism was not a dominant trait in the God
concept at any age o f childhood.62
Kay and Ray investigated childrens God concepts from ages four through
eleven using a drawing o f their picture o f God.
The result indicated that six out of
twenty-two picture elements using Slaters categories were significantly different across
the ages. These elements included long hair, abstraction, and a female image o f God
which were more common with older children. Elements such as a cloud or sun cave,
Jesus as God, and any egocentric elements were more common among younger
children.64 Ladd, McIntosh, and Spilka used a drawing o f God in an effort to find out
how children represent God in terms o f symbols and gender. Older children were more
likely to use symbols. The middle age group from ages seven to eleven portrayed God as
a man, while younger group from ages three to six and older group from ages twelve to
eighteen drew gender neutral pictures.65
Development in Childhood and Youth, 163; and Vianello, Tamminen, and Ratcliff, The
61Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and Adolescents, 39.
62Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth, 193.
63Kay and Ray, Concepts o f God, 238.
64Ibid., 246.
65Kevin L. Ladd, Daniel N. McIntosh, and Bernard Spilka, Childrens God Concepts:
Influences o f Denomination, Age, and Gender, The International Journal fo r the Psychology o f
Religion 8, no. 1 (1998): 52.
31
The influence o f parents religiosity and a parent-child relationship on
childrens God concept has been underscored by theoretical support and research findings.
The effect o f age upon a childs God concept has been an interesting area since much
research regarding this topic has been examined. This study investigates the influence o f
these variables on childrens God concept.
Developing the Childrens God Concept Questionnaire

Theological Perspectives
Issler defines theology as the study o f Godwho God is and what he has
provided for his creation, both now and forever.66 Therefore, an examination o f theology
is a prerequisite to studying ones God concept. The belief in God as Creator is the
starting point o f the Christian belief and the proof o f monotheism.67 The doctrine o f
creation is closely connected with the doctrine o f Gods omnipotence.68 In turn, Gods
omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence prove Gods etemality.69
Erickson divides the acts o f God into two categories: creation as Gods
originating work and providence as Gods continuing work.70 He classifies Gods
66Klaus Issler, Theological Foundations o f Christian Education, in Introducing

Christian Education: Foundations fo r the Twenty-First Century, ed. Michael J. Anthony (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 35.
67John B. Cobb, Jr. Does It Make Sense to Talk about God? in Essentials o f
Christian Theology, ed. William C Placher (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 64;
and Albert E. Greene, Reclaiming the Future o f Christian Education: A Transforming Vision
(Colorado Springs: Association o f Christian Schools International, 1998), 80, 91.
68Cobb, Does It Make Sense to Talk about God? 64.
69Grenz, Theology fo r the Community o f God, 92.
70M illard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998),
413.
32
attributes as the attributes o f greatness and attributes o f goodness.71 The greatness o f God
includes spirituality, personality, life, infinity, and constancy.72 Erickson identifies the
goodness o f God with ten attributes, clustered within three groups: moral purityholiness,
righteousness, and justice; integritygenuineness, veracity, and faithfulness; and love
benevolence, grace, mercy, and persistence.73 Similar to Ericksons distinction between
Gods acts and attributes, Cunningham divides Gods character and dealings with man
into Gods internal relations and external relations.74 He summarizes Gods internal
relations as Gods characteristics o f compassionate love, superabundant donation, and
passionate involvement. Creation, redemption, sanctification, and revelation are Gods
external relations with the created order.75
Garrett, Grenz, and Rice emphasize love as the most important attribute of
God.76 Garrett and Grenz, however, consider both holiness and love, which are
emphasized in the Old Testament and in the New Testament respectively, as the
71Ibid., 293.
72Ibid., 294-308.
73Ibid., 310-23.
74David S. Cunningham, W hat Do We Mean by God?: The Doctrine o f God, in
Essentials o f Christian Theology, ed. William C Placher (Louisville: W estminster John Knox
Press, 2003), 84.
75Ibid., 86-90.
76Garrett, Systematic Theology, 239; Grenz, Theology fo r the Community o f God, 72;
and Richard Rice, Biblical Support o f a New Perspective, In The Openness o f God: A Biblical
Challenge o f the Traditional Understanding o f God, eds. Clark Pinnock et al. (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1994), 18-19.
33
foundational attributes o f God.
77
Righteousness acts as a bridge between these two
70
attributes.
The love and the justice o f God are fully expressed in Jesus Christs
atonement for sin as shown on the cross. While the justice of God requires the payment
o f the penalty for sin, the love o f God aims for the restoration o f fellowship with human
beings.79
In conclusion, theology lays the foundation o f the God concept. The God
concept requires knowing and understanding Gods attributes and acts throughout history.
Perceiving a biblically balanced view o f God is an important task that Christians need to
achieve.
Developmental Understandings
Downs lists the foundational theological concepts that should be taught to
children: (1) God is present and real, (2) God is to be feared and loved, (3) God is to be
obeyed, (4) God is to be served, (5) involvement in church is important, and (6) Jesus
loves us.80 Aside from these basic concepts, more specific concepts can and should be
learned during childhood.
The common perceptions o f God for six- and seven-year-olds can be drawn
77Garrett, Systematic Theology, 239; and Grenz, Theology fo r the Community o f God,
93.
78Garrett, Systematic Theology, 239, 265, 273.
79Erickson, Christian Theology, 324; and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 568-69.
80Perry G. Downs, Teaching fo r Spiritual Growth: An Introduction to Christian
Education (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 147-50.
34
from different studies as follows: (1) God loves all people,
ft1
(2) God is everywhere, (3)
God can do anything, and (4) God knows everything82 (more detailed information in
Appendix 12). Researchers suggest the following God concepts for eight- and nine-yearolds: (1) God is creator: He made the universe and all in it;83 (2) God loves all people;84
(3) God is all powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere; (4) God wants me to pray and
answers prayer;85 and (5) Jesus is the Son o f God, the Savior86 (the complete list in
Appendix 12).
Ten- to twelve-year-olds87 understand the following God concepts: (1) God is
omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient; (2) God is a triune Being: Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit; (3) God cares for and protects His people; (4) God is holy, eternal, just, and
81V. Gilbert Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, in Childhood

Education in the Church, eds. Roberts E. Clark, Joanne Brubaker, and Roy B. Zuck (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1986), 369-70; LifeWay, Levels o f Biblical Learning', and Trent, Osborne, and
Bruner, Parents Guide to the Spiritual Growth o f Children, 21 A.
82LifeWay, Levels o f Biblical Learning', and Trent, Osborne, and Bruner, Parents
Guide to the Spiritual Growth o f Children, 274.
83Sarah Eberle, Understanding Third and Fourth Graders, in Childhood Education in
the Church, eds. Roberts E. Clark, Joanne Brubaker, and Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody Press,
1986), 145; and LifeWay, Levels o f Biblical Learning.
84Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, 371; Eberle, Understanding
Third and Fourth Graders, 145; and Lifeway, Levels o f Biblical Learning.
85Michelle Anthony, Childhood Education, in Introducing Christian Education:
Foundations fo r the Twenty-First Century, ed. Michael J. Anthony (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2001), 213; Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, 371; and LifeWay,
Levels o f Biblical Learning.
86Anthony, Childhood Education, 213; and Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts
to Children, 371.
87Beers and Lifeway provide the God concepts for ten- and eleven-year-olds. Trent,
Osbome, and Brunner list the God concepts for children aged ten through twelve.
35
perfect;88 (5) God wants His people to worship Him; (6) God wants us to pray to Him;89
and (7) God wants me to find His will and follow it90 (more details in Appendix 12).
Examining childrens God concept at different developmental stages provides
ideas of what to teach about God at certain ages. The more children grow, the more
abstract and detailed concepts they are able to learn.
Methodological Considerations
A variety o f methods have been used to measure the God concept o f children.
Among them, the use o f structured and unstructured questions to measure a childs
religious beliefs or God concept has both benefits and limitations.91 De Roos, Iedema,
and Miedema as well as Kunkel et al. express the common opinions regarding the
advantage and disadvantage o f using structured and unstructured questionnaires.
Reliability is the strength o f a structured questionnaire.
It is not certain, however, to
what extent the structured questionnaire is able to accurately measure the subjects God
88Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, 372; and LifeWay, Levels o f

Biblical Learning.
89Lifeway, Levels o f Biblical Learning', and Trent, Osborne, and Brunner, Parents
Guide to the Spiritual Growth o f Children, 276.
90Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, 372; and Trent, Osbome, and
Brunner, Parents Guide to the Spiritual Growth o f Children, 276.
91Elkind, The Development o f Religious Understanding in Children and
Adolescents, 668-69; Stanley N. Graven, Things that Matter in the Lives o f Children: Looking
at Childrens Spiritual Development from a Developmentalist Perspective, in Exploring
Childrens Spiritual Formation: Foundational Issues, ed. Shirley K. M orgenthaler (River Forest:
Pillars Press, 1999), 43; and Kunkel et al., God Images, 194.
92De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Young Childrens Descriptions o f God, 26; and
Kunkel et al., God Images, 194.
36
concept. This approach also may not reveal the underlying structure o f the God concept.93
Therefore, deeper and more varied information concerning subjects God concept can be
revealed from the unstructured questionnaire rather than from the structured
questionnaire.94 The accuracy and validity o f these approaches, however, are debated
issues.95
Elkind compares the different results using structured and unstructured
approaches. The former showed only slight age differences in the God concept, while the
latter revealed clear stages in the God concept developm ent96 Hutsebaut and Verhoeven
compare two approaches as well. The structured method is beneficial because it is quick
to analyze the data and helpful to show correlations with other measurements. The
unstructured method is also effective in that subjects can freely express their thoughts
about God without any limitations.
07
De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema suggest that the
structured questionnaire may be expanded and refined by using the result from the
QO
unstructured questionnaire.
Tamminen used various approaches to measure childrens God concept. While
employing the unstructured measure, he provided subjects with the following three
93Kunkel et al., God Images, 194.

95Graven, Things that Matter in the Lives o f Children, 43.
Adolescents, 668-69.
97Dirk Hutsebaut and Dominic Verhoeven, Studying Dimensions o f God
Representation: Choosing Closed or Open-Ended Research Questions, The International Journal
fo r the Psychology o f Religion 5, no. 1 (1995): 59.
37
sections: (1) a fill-in section with the sentence, When I think about God ..
as well as
its corresponding question, What comes into your mind when you think about God? (2)
the essay section with the question, What is my God like? and finally, (3) the
projective-photograph measure: with several pictures, the text stating, This girl/boy is
Karin/Marin. She/he is sitting and thinking about God and Jesus. She/he is
thinking . . . Tammi nen also used structured measures, in which multiple choice
questions such as What is best about God? were provided with the following four
answer choices: (1) God is great and powerful and rules the world, (2) God gives people
security, (3) God forgives people their wrongdoings, and (4) God influences people so
that they are good to each other.100 Secondly, Tamminen used structured measures
utilizing the semantic differential technique; for example, the subject would be given a
choice between distant and close or between real and unreal.101
Having children draw a picture is a popular method to measure childrens God
concept,102 and its usefulness is well recognized.103 According to Slater, because o f its
simplicity, familiarity, and accuracy, drawing a picture o f God is an important means to
"Tam m inen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth, 166.

100Ibid., 166-67.
101Ibid., 170.
I02Harms, The Development o f Religious Experience in Children (1944); Pitts,
Drawing the Invisible (1971); Heller, The Childrens God (1986); Tamminen, Religious
Developm ent in Childhood and Youth (1991); Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and
Adolescents(1996); Pnevmatikos, Conceptual Changes in Religious Concepts o f Elementary

Schoolchildren (2002); Mariana Hwang, Understanding Korean-American Childrens Christian
Identity Development in Relation to Their Concepts o f God (Ph. D. diss., Talbot Theological
Seminary, 2003); and Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept o f God.
103Heller, The Children's God, 13; Pitts, Drawing the Invisible, 13; and
Pnevmatikos, Conceptual Changes in Religious Concepts o f Elementary Schoolchildren, 96.
38
identify childrens God concept.104 Harms pioneered with the use o f pictures drawn by
children to probe their God concept, arguing that childrens verbal expression limits their
ability to convey true concepts.105 Another reason for using pictures is that the ideas of
children are verbalisms. Even if children use words over and over again in appropriate
situations, they may not understand the accurate meaning o f the words.106 However, there
is an objection to using a drawing when measuring childrens God concept because it is
suggested that a drawing may lead children toward anthropomorphism, describing God as
human.107
Harms insistence on allowing subjects freedom in measuring their God
concept has been widely accepted. Researchers have used diverse methods in measuring
the God concept: pictures or drawings, word association, adjective ratings, open-ended
questions or interview, letters written to God, semantic differentials, Q-sorts,
standardized scales, sentence completions, essays, or projective photographs.108

Adolescents, 665; Heller, The C hildrens God, 13; Hyde, Religion in Childhood and
Adolescence, 74; Kay and Ray, Concepts o f God, 241; and Pnevmatikos, Conceptual Changes
in Religious Concepts o f Elementary Schoolchildren, 95.
106Pnevmatikos, Conceptual Changes in Religious Concepts o f Elementary
Schoolchildren, 95.
I07Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and Adolescents, 34.
108About pictures or drawings, see Harms, The Development o f Religious Experience
in Children (1944); Oliver E. Graebner, Child Concepts o f God, Religious Education 59, no. 3
(1964): 234-41; Heller, The C hildrens God (1986); and Rodney L. Bassett et al., Picturing God:
A Nonverbal Measure o f God Concept for Conservative Protestants, Journal o f Psychology and
Christianity 9, no. 2 (1990): 73-81; about word associations, see Jean-Pierre Deconchy, The Idea
of God: Its Emergence between 7 and 16 Years, in From Religious Experience to a Religious
Attitude, ed. Andre Godin (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1965), 97-108; about adjective
ratings, see Gorsuch, The Conceptualization of God as Seen in Adjective Ratings, (1968); and
Carl W. Roberts, Imagining God: Who is Created in Whose Image? Review o f Religious
39
In summary, different methods with advantages and disadvantages have been
used to measure childrens God concept. It is assumed that a more accurate understanding
o f childrens God concept can be known by using various methods.
Other God Concept Instruments

A few other God concept instruments have been developed. Commonly asked
God concept questions could be drawn by synthesizing the questions from each
instrument. De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema developed the following open-ended God
concept questions:
(1) Did you ever hear about God? What is God? (2) What does God look like? (3) Is
God a man, a woman, or something else? (4) Where is God? (5) What is God able to
do? (6) What is praying? (7a) When do you pray? (7b) What are you doing when
you pray? (7c) What do you say when youre praying? (7d) How do you feel when
youre praying (happy, sad, afraid, angry)? (8) What have adults and children to do
according to God? and (9) What would you say to God if you could phone him?109
The same researchers also developed a 23-item questionnaire using a threepoint Likert scale to measure childrens God concept. The questionnaire consists o f five
Research 30, no. 4 (1989): 375-86; about open-ended questions and interview, see Jacques
Janssen, Joep De Hart, and Marcel Gerardts, Images o f God in Adolescence, International
Journal fo r the Psychology o f Religion 4, no. 2 (1994): 105-21; about letters written to God, see
David J. Ludwig, Timothy Weber, and Douglas Iben, Letters to God: A Study o f Childrens
Religious Concepts, Journal o f Psychology and Theology 2, no. 1 (1974): 31-35; about semantic
differentials, see Peter Benson and Bernard Spilka, God Image as a Function o f Self-Esteem and
Locus o f Control, Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 12, no. 3 (1973): 297-310; and
Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth (1991); about Q-sorts, see Marven O.
Nelson, The Concept o f God and Feelings toward Parents, Journal o f Individual Psychology 27,
no. 1 (1971): 46-49; and Benson and Spilka, God Image as a Function o f Self-Esteem (1973);
about standardized scales, see Gorsuch, The Conceptualization of God as Seen in Adjective
Ratings (1968); and about sentence completion, essays, and projective photographs, see
Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth (1991).
109De Roos, Iedema, Miedema, Young Childrens Descriptions o f God, 22.
40
sub-scales: Potency o f God, Punishing God, Caring God, Loving God, and God is like
their parents.110 The questionnaire is composed o f the following items:
(I) God is nice, (2) You can talk with God, (3) God is very strong, (4) God thinks
its bad when you do something you are not allowed to do, (5) God is strict, (6) God
listens to you, (7) God can comfort you, (8) God punishes when you do naughty
things, (9) God cares for people and animals, (10) God watches if you do your best,
(I I ) Im afraid o f God, (12) God helps people, (13) God looks (is) like daddy, (14)
God makes me happy, (15) God loves me, (16) God is the boss, (17) God wants to
make the world beautiful, (18) God sees everything you do, (19) God is angry when
you do something bad, (20) You can ask God anything, (21) God punishes often,
(22) God is a friend o f mine, and (23) God looks (is) like mummy.111
Tamminen developed an instrument o f belief statements with a five-point
Likert scale. The following statements about God are part o f the instrument that consists
o f sixty statements:
I believed that God created the earth and everything on it; God hated those who
have sinned; God always punishes bad deeds and rewards good deeds; if I do
something good, God rewards me for it; when I pray, I feel I am close to God; if
things go well, I dont need God; God forgives me when I have been bad; we can
use prayer to persuade God to do our will; God is like man in appearance; I think
Jesus really was the Son o f God; we can trust in God through all difficulties; I can
always trust in God; it is irrelevant whether somebody believes in God or not;
causing somebody injury is also an offence against God; God does not love us when
we have done something bad; God is frightening; God lives far away beyond the
stars; we can be happy without believing in God; God has a plan for everyones life;
God only loves those who believe in Him; I feel that God does not exist; God lets us
do what we want to do; I believe that God brought Jesus back from death; I often
feel God is with me; I am sure that God exists; God takes care o f all people; God
only forgives people who promise not to sin anymore; after surviving difficulties, I
have often thought that God helped me; and belief in God is the best basis for
solving lifes problem.
n0De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema, Influence of Maternal Denomination, God

Concepts, and Child-Rearing Practices on Young Childrens God Concepts, 526.
11'item s were received through the e-mail from Simone A. De Roos.
112Tamminen, Religious Development in Childhood and Youth, 358-61.
41
Francis developed the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity in order to
measure the attitude o f children in England from ages eight through sixteen. The twentyfour items consist o f affective responses to God, Jesus, Bible, prayer, and church.113 The
following items measure childrens God concept: God helps me to lead a better life, I like
to learn about God very much, God means a lot to me, I believe that God helps people, I
believe that God listens to prayer, God is very real to me, the idea o f God means much to
me, I know that God helps me, and I find it hard to believe in G od.114
Dickie et al. developed an instrument to measure three characteristics o f God
with illustrations depicting fourteen adjectives as follows: powerful (fair, strong, leading,
protecting, and powerful), nurturing (loving, patient, warm, listening, caring, helpful, and
empathic), and punishing (punishing and judging). This instrument uses pictures for each
characteristic and a five-point Likert scale.115
Hood included the following guided questions for the interview with the
children in her dissertation:
(1) Tell me about God, (2) Where is God? (3) What does God do? (4) Can you see
God? (5) Does God ever feel sad? angry? happy? lonely? When? (6) Do you talk to
God? How? When? What do you say? (7) Are there any questions you would like to
ask God? (8) How do you know about God? (9) Do all children know about/believe
in God? (10) Tell me a story about God, (11) How do you feel about God, and (12)
When you think about God do you ever feel sad? happy? afraid?116
113Thomas E. Evans and Leslie J. Francis, Measuring Attitude toward Christianity

through the Medium o f W elsh, in Research in Religious Education, eds. Leslie J. Francis,
William K. Kay, and William S. Campbell (Macon: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 1996), 280.
114Ibid., 284.
115Dickie et al., Mother, Father, and Self, 60.
116Hood, Young Childrens Perceptions of God in the Context o f a Protestant Faith
Community, 101-02.
42
Hwang used the following interview questions with children in her
dissertation: Children were asked to draw a picture o f God and themselves together and
then explain the picture. She then showed the following Bible story pictures: Jesus with
children, Jesus on the cross, Jesus healing sick people, Jesus feeding five thousand, Noah
and the flood, Adam and Eves expulsion from the garden, and destruction o f Sodom and
Gomorrah. Children were then asked to select one picture that showed their image o f God
and answer the following questions:
(a )
(b )
(c )
(d )
(e )
(f)
(g)
(h )
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
Why did you pick this picture?

From this picture, what do you think God is like?
Can you tell me your experience that made you think o f God that way?
I know that you attend the church every Sunday. Why do you go to the church
every Sunday?
What do you do to worship God?
How do you feel during the worship? or how does the worship make you feel?
What do you like to do the most during the worship?
I am sure you pray during the worship. Why do you pray to God?
When you pray, what kinds o f things do you say to God?
When do you feel like praying to God? or when do you want to pray to God?
When you pray, how do you feel?
Have you gotten any answer from God for your prayer?
Have you feared God? Why? 117
The examination o f theological foundations, developmental understanding, and
other God concept instruments gives suggestions o f what to measure. The inquiry of
methodological considerations and other God concept instruments provides the directions
of how to measure.
U7Hwang, Understanding Korean-American Childrens Christian Identity

Development in Relation to Their Concepts o f God, 166-67.
43
Theological Foundations
According to Calvin, true wisdom consists o f the knowledge of God and
knowledge o f oneself.118 These two ideas are inseparably intertwined. Calvin, however,
places the priority on the knowledge o f God over the knowledge o f humanity, since the
former brings into existence and imposes limitations on the latter.119 The foundation of
the Christian faith is knowing God; therefore, the doctrine of God is the primary
theological study for Christians.
10 0
For instance, ones doctrinal understanding o f the
creation, incarnation, redemption, grace, and sovereignty depends on the doctrine of

God.121
In Deuteronomy 10:17-18, various attributes o f God are found in M oses
instruction to the Israelites before they entered the promised land: For the LORD your
God is God o f gods and Lord o f lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows
no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause o f the fatherless and the widow,
and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. The Bible is filled with family
metaphors to describe Gods love: God as nursing, nurturing Mother (Isaiah 49:15;
66:12-13; and Hosea 11:1-4), God as father who carried His son (Deuteronomy 1:31),
Israel as son (Exodus 4:22-23 and Jeremiah 31:9), believers as children or adopted
children o f God (Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14-16; and Galatians 4:1-7), and God as
118Jean Calvin, C alvins Institutes, abridged ed. ed. Donald K. McKim (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 1.
u9Benjamin A. Reist, A Reading o f C alvins Institutes (Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1991), 9-10.
120Stanley Grenz, Theology fo r the Community o f God (Nashville: Broadman and
Holman Publishers, 1994), 33; and Pinnock et al., preface to The Openness o f God, 8.
121Pinnock et al., preface to The Openness o f God, 8.
44
faithful Husband o f His wayward wife Israel (Hosea 1-4).122 Hosea uses a metaphor o f a
parents longing for a wayward child to express Gods unfailing love for Israel:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out o f Egypt I called my son. But the
more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and
they burned incense to images. It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by
the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cord o f
human kindness, with ties o f love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down
to feed th e m .. . . How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over,
Israel? . . . My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused.123
God intends for the Christian home to be a spiritual greenhouse and expects the
parent to be the primary gardener for the childrens faith development.124 Luther states
that the best blessing in marriage occurs when God gives children and entrusts their
parents with work o f a noble nature, to teach children to serve God. Parents do the duties
o f apostles and bishops for their children by accomplishing Gods commands to teach
their children.125 Children cannot see the invisible God, but they can see their parents
who are aware o f Gods presence in their daily lives. Parents are agents who introduce
122Diana R. Garland, Fam ily M inistry: A Comprehensive Guide (Downers Grove:

InterVarsity Press, 1999), 329.
123Hosea 11:1-4, 8.
124Anthony uses analogy of the greenhouse for the Christian family, see Anthony,
Childhood Education, 206; Jack O. Balswick and Judith K. Balswick, The Family: A Christian
P erspective on the C ontem porary Home, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 116-17;
Downs, Teaching f o r Spiritual Growth, 147; Lawrence O. Richards, A Theology o f Christian
Education (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishers, 1983), 193-95; and Charles A. Tidwell, The
Educational M inistry o f a Church: A Comprehensive M odel fo r Students a n d M inisters
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 7.

125EwaId M. Plass, ed., What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology f o r the
Active Christian (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), 907.
45
the heavenly Father to their children through religious attitude and actions as well as a
i 'y r
godly lifestyle that honors God.

The Bible strongly supports the teaching o f the next generation. In the first part
of the Bible, Gods commands to teach the law were repeated and stressed.127 In Exodus
12:25-27, God instructs the people, When you enter the land that the Lord will give you
as he promised, observe this ceremony. And when your children ask you, What does this
ceremony mean to you? then tell them, It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who
passed over the houses o f the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck
down the Egyptians. The command o f teaching children is also included in
Deuteronomy 6:1-2,4-9. In this passage, Moses admonishes the Israelites to remember
Gods work in the past, to teach Gods commands, and to love, fear, and serve God.128
When contemplating what to teach to children, both the attitudes o f fear and
love for God are appropriate and important. The attitude o f fearing God originates from
His holiness while the attitude o f loving Him comes from His mercy. W hen children have
an unbalanced attitude between fear and love, the result is an unbalanced faith. When the
fear o f God is overemphasized, the result is a punitive view o f God; however, when
loving Him is the sole attitude o f children, the result is a cavalier manner toward God.129
126Downs, Teaching fo r Spiritual Growth, 147.

127Tidwell, The Educational M inistry o f a Church, 6.
128Robert W. Pazmino, Foundational Issues in Christian Education: An Introduction
in Evangelical Perspective, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 19-20.
129Downs, Teaching fo r Spiritual Growth, 147.
46
In conclusion, faith starts and grows by knowing God. By knowing Him, the
doctrines will be shaped biblically. The Bible is a primary resource to tell what God did
and who God is. It also contains Gods commendation for parents to teach their children
about Him.
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING DATA
Procedures for Collecting Data

Preliminary Preparation
Steps taken to prepare for data collection included the following:
1.
Permission for the use o f the Religiosity in Daily Life Scale (Appendix 13) and the
Parent-Child Interaction Questionnaire (Appendix 14) was requested and received
from instrument developers.
2.
The Childrens God Concept Questionnaire was developed following required

procedures.
3.
Approval by the Ph.D. committee concerning the protection of subjects was secured
(Appendix 1).
4.
Twenty-three Southern Baptist churches with resident membership of 750 or more

in the Tarrant Country, Texas were selected by using a table o f random numbers.1
5.
Initial contact was made by e-mail to the childrens ministers of selected churches to
explain the purpose of the study and to request their cooperation and permission to
conduct a survey. Eight out o f twenty-three churches agreed to participate in this
study.
6.
A packet o f information containing a cover letter from the researcher (Appendix 15),
a letter o f endorsement from the chairman of the guidance committee (Appendix 16),
and one copy o f each instrument was sent to the ministers of participating
churches.
7. One week after the packets were mailed, an e-mail was sent to the ministers to ask if
the information had arrived and to set a time for an appointment to explain the study.
Thomas Black, D oing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated

Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,
1999), 730.
47
48
8.
At the meeting with the ministers, a detailed information o f the study including
procedures for the extraction o f the sample, the collection o f data, and the
recruitment o f facilitators was discussed. Copies o f the letter to parents (Appendix
17) and Human Subjects Research Consent Form (Appendix 2) were delivered to the
ministers during the initial meeting.
9.
Two facilitators, a school teacher and a seminary student, were recruited from two
churches to conduct the survey at their own church. The survey from the
other churches was conducted by the researcher, the childrens minister, or Sunday
school teachers. All coordinators who conducted the childrens survey were
provided with guidelines on how to administer the survey (Appendix 18). Two
facilitators were remunerated for their services.
10. Parents were asked to participate in the research by parents newsletter, e-mail, or
verbal announcement in Adult Sunday School by the ministers or facilitators. All
parents with children from ages six through twelve were invited to participate in the
study.
Data Collection
The following process was used to collect the data:
1.
Copies o f the letter to parents and the Human Subjects Research Consent Form
were distributed to the parents by the survey coordinators. One parent
was asked to fill out a consent form granting permission for his child to
complete the survey and to use the results for the study. The childs first name and
age were requested in order to match the parents questionnaires with the childs
questionnaire.
2.
The parental questionnaires were handed to the parents who signed up for
participation. The demographic questionnaire was located at the end o f the
questionnaires (Appendix 19).2 Each questionnaire was coded with the church
identification number and the participant number for confidentiality.
3.
Children whose parents turned in the RIDLS and the PCIQ were invited to
participate in the survey. The administrator read aloud the questionnaire to group o f
children through the second grade.3 The completed CGCQ was put in an envelope
2Patten, Questionnaire Research , 28; and Yount, Research D esign and Statistical
Analysis in Christian M inistry, 10-7.
3Patten recommends that questionnaire should be read aloud to groups of children up
to grade two. see Patten, Questionnaire Research, 42.
49
and sealed. Refreshments and a token o f appreciation were provided for each child
after the completion o f the CGCQ.
4.
The completed surveys from each church were collected by the researcher. During
the visit, a thank-you card with a token o f appreciation was delivered to the
childrens ministers o f participating churches.
Problems Encountered
Several problems were encountered in the process in developing the instrument,
collecting the data, and analyzing the data:
1.
Ten panel members were invited to evaluate the Childrens God Concept
Questionnaire. Only nine panel members responded to the first evaluation,
and seven evaluated the second validation test.
2.
The original instrument that received two validation tests and was tested in the pilot
study showed a low alpha value. The problem was corrected by deleting or revising
the problematic questions.
3.
Childrens ministers from the eight churches agreed to participate in this study.
Data collection at one church was not completed even after the researcher delivered
the survey materials and the gifts for children. As a result, the church whose
childrens minister did not respond was not included in the study.
4.
Several revisions had to be made before finalizing the answer categories of

the open-ended questions. It was necessary to make new categories when frequent
unexpected answers appeared: Lord, King, or Ruler to the question 1;
combination o f two or more to the question 6; discipline role to the questions 8
and 9; and personal experiences to the question 10.
5.
A few answers to open-ended questions were hard to categorize. Some responses

could belong to two or more categories. Categories that showed a stronger
connection with the written answers were chosen. For example, one response to the
question, What can God do? was, God can save me from my sins and do not sin
Himself. This response was categorized into other responses, but it could also be
in the category o f saving. Yet another child drew a man on a cloud and explained
that God is in heaven and he is watching us. This was categorized into Gods
acts, but it also could have been in the man or inconsistent explanation.
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Procedures for Analyzing Quantitative Data

Quantitative data from the three questionnaires were converted to the SPSS
and prepared for analysis as follows:
1.
The three questionnaires, CGCQ, RIDLS, and PCIQ, were matched based
on the childs first name and age recorded on the human subjects research consent
form and the God concept questionnaire.
2.
The matched questionnaires were assigned a subject number. Any questionnaires

which have more than two unmarked or double marked items on the structured
questionnaire were omitted, and the parent-child pair was dropped from the study.
3.
All data was converted to the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software
program for Windows version 15.0.
4.
The scores o f the negatively worded items and non-biblical items in the CGCQ were
reversed.1 Item numbers o f 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 23 were reversed.
5.
The first item score of the RIDLS was counted as a mean score (total frequency
numbers from all family members divided by family numbers).
6.
The total scores o f the CGCQ, RIDLS, PCIQP (PCIQ Positive), and PCIQN (PCIQ
Negative) were computed and analyzed.
Procedures for Analyzing Qualitative Data

The following six steps were taken for qualitative data analysis.
Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 79.
50
51
1.
Following the approach o f Merriam,2 categories were borrowed from former God
concept research and were developed by checking frequent responses in the data
from open-ended questions and drawings o f God.
2.
The researcher assigned numbers for categories. The data was converted to the SPSS
program to be analyzed.
3.
The frequency o f each category o f the question counted.
4.
Examples o f some categories were introduced.
5.
The responses were analyzed by age and gender using the crosstab under
the section, Descriptive Statistics.
6.
The CGCQ, RIDLS, PCIQP, and PCIQN were collapsed into three groups (low,
middle, and high) using the Visual Bander procedure. These procedures were
performed to find if there were any characteristics o f responses by the divided
groups.
Data Screening
Checking for Errors
Data screening began with checking data sets for errors. Prior to analysis,
scores o f each variable and data input o f structured questions and demographic
information were examined for accuracy o f data entry and missing values, and for
checking assumptions through the SPSS program. Checking for errors involved
examining out o f range scores from minimum and maximum values and inspecting the
2Sharan B. Merriam, Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach (San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988), 137.
Adolescents; Wilma H. Heflin, A Comparison o f the Religious Concepts o f Children in
Selected Southern Baptist Churches in the United States and in Selected Baptist Union Churches
in England (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1994); Slater, The
Development o f Childrens Concept o f God; and Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and
Adolescents.
52
frequencies o f valid and missing cases.4 Errors and missing values were found and
corrected. Five missing values on the questions, My religious beliefs influence the way I
interact with my spouse, and two missing values on other questions were substituted
with the mean score o f other subjects.5
Examining Outliers
Univariate outliers can be identified from box plots, histograms, normal
probability plots, detrended normal probability plots, and the extreme values table.
Multivariate outliers can also be identified from the Mahalanobis distance value, the
casewise diagnostics table, the standardized residuals scatterplots, and the normal
probability plots o f the regression standardized residuals.6
Table 1: Extreme values of CGCQ
CGCQ
Highest
Lowest
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Case
Number
43
91
124
132
29
39
10
83
71
38
Value
72.00
72.00
72.00
72.00
71.00
52.00
52.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
4Hair et al., M ultivariate D ata Analysis, 50; and Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 40-42.
5Hair et al., M ultivariate D ata Analysis, 54; and Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S.
Fidell, Using M ultivariate Statistics, 5th ed. (Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007), 67.
6Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 61-62, 143, 151-152; and Tabachnick and Fidell,
Using M ultivariate Statistics, 74.
53
Outliers o f the independent variable were found from the extreme values table,
the box plots, and the casewise diagnostics table. The extreme values table (Table 1)
indicated the five highest case numbers (43, 91, 124, 132, 29) and the five lowest case
numbers (39, 10, 83, 71, 38) with their values.
The boxplot (Figure 1) o f the distribution o f scores classified case numbers of
10, 38, and 47 as outliers.
7 5 .0 0 -
7 0 .0 0 -
6 5 .0 0 -
47.00
' 38.00
55.0 0 -
10.00
5 0 .0 0 CG CQ
Figure 1: Boxplots
For detecting multivariate outliers, the casewise diagnostics table (Table 2)

which presented the unusual cases with standardized residual values above 3.0 or below
-3.0 was used. Case numbers o f 10, 39, and 83 were found as outliers.
Table 2: Casewise diagnostics3

Case Number
Std. Residual
10
-3.535
-3.421
39
83
-3.297
a. Dependent Variable: CGCQ
CGCQ
52.00
52.00
54.00
Predicted
Value
65.6031
65.1625
66.6859
Residual
-13.60311
-13.16246
-12.68591
By compiling and analyzing the information using different methods, three

case numbers o f 10, 39, and 83, were found to be common outliers. Further examination
54
on the influence o f these outliers was conducted by running two multiple regression
analyses with and without the outliers. Two results were different: the adjusted R square
with the outlier was .037, while the adjusted R square without the outlier was .061.
Therefore, three outliers were deleted from the data set as Pallant recommends,7 leaving
137 cases for analysis.
Outliers should be checked for the independent as well as dependent
variables.8 Similar processes were used for detecting outliers o f the independent variables
as used in finding those o f the dependent variable. By inspecting the extreme values table
(case number 85 with the value o f 35 and case number 87 with the value o f 39.5) and the
boxplots (case number 85) o f RIDLS, the researcher decided to remove case number 85.
The extreme value table and the boxplots indicated the same outliers o f PCIQP (case
number 35 with the value o f 63 and case number 34 with the value o f 64) and these were
eliminated. The table o f extreme values and the boxplots o f PCIQN indicated the same
outliers (case number 136 with the value o f 53 and case number 87 with the value o f 65)
as well. Based on the results, the case numbers o f 136 and 87 were excluded from the
data file.
After outliers were removed from each variable, further investigation was
conducted to identify multivariate outliners. Since the maximum value for Mahalanobis
distance was less than the critical value (p = .001, d f = 2) o f 16.27, it was assumed that
there were no more substantial multivariate outliers.9
7Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 143.

8Ibid.
9Ibid., 252.
55
Table 3: Mahalanobis distance values without outliers
Mahalanobis Distance
Highest
Lowest
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Case
Number
127
33
28
59
72
80
116
57
61
84
Value
15.28554
12.47207
11.94931
10.74591
10.12144
.40118
.52900
.71175
.87902
.96576
Meeting the Assumptions

The last section of the data screening dealt with meeting the assumptions of
multiple regression analysis and one-way analysis o f variance. The major assumptions for
multiple regression are samples size, multicollinearity and singularity, outliers, and
normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity.10
Sample Size. Tabachnick and Fidell provide the formula for calculating
minimum sample size as N > 50 + 8m (m = number o f independent variables).11 Stevens
suggests a different guideline o f fifteen subjects per predictor,12 while Hair et al. provide
fifteen to twenty subjects per predictor.13 The 140 sample size with three predictors in
this study meets the minimum sample size requirements.
10Hair et al., Multivariate Data Analysis, 164-76; Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 14243; and Tabachnick and Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics, 72-86.
"Tabachnick and Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics, 123.
"James Stevens, Applied Multivariate Statistics fo r the Social Sciences, 3rd ed.
(Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996), 72.
13Hair et al., Multivariate Data Analysis, 166.
56
Multicollinerity and singularity. Multicollinerity and singularity occur when
variables are very highly correlated. It was checked by examining highly correlated
independent variables such as .90 or above.14 There was no case that violated the
assumption o f multicollinearity. Other multicollinearity indicators are tolerance and VIF
values. A tolerance value o f less than .10 or a VIF value o f above 10 means
multicollinearity. The tolerance values for each independent variable were .78, .72,
and .90 and the VIF values were 1.29,1.40, and 1.11, which remained below the cut-off
values. The data did not violate the multicollinearity assumption. Singularity, which
occurs in the cases o f the combination o f independent variables,15 was not applied.
Normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. The other assumptions of

multiple regression analysis are normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. Checking for
the violation o f these assumptions is possible by examining the normal probability plot
and the residuals scatterplot. The normal probability plot (Figure 2) shows the expected
normal values o f residuals against the actual normal values o f CGCQ residuals. The
points in the straight diagonal line indicate normality. The slightly deviated distribution
from the straight diagonal line was found from the plot. In the scatterplot o f the
standardized residuals (Figure 3), the relationship between residuals and the predicted
value o f CGCQ was shown. Although several points in this plot were far out, most of
14Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 142; and Tabachnick and Fedell, Using M ultivariate
Statistics, 88.
15Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 143; and Tabachnick and Fedell, Using M ultivariate
Statistics, 88.
57
them were located around zero. This plot may suggest that there were some left-over
relationships between the CGCQ and the residuals that were not explained by the model.
Dependent Variable: CGCQ

1 .0 '
0 .8 Q _
E
3
u
0 .6 -
0 .4 X
LLI
0 .2 0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Observed Cum Prob

Figure 2: Normal P-P plot o f regression standardized residual

4 -
2-
-4
-3
0
2
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
-2
Figure 3: Scatterplot
58
Normal distribution o f data is assessed by either inspecting the shape of
distribution or examining skewness and kurtosis values.16 Tabachnick and Fidell
recommend using the former instead o f the latter because standard errors for skewness
and kurtosis are not as important as their actual size and the shape o f the distribution with
large samples;17 however, Hair et al. recommend using both the graphical plots and
statistical tests.18 From the histograms (Figure 4), the normal distribution o f each variable
was expected except that o f RIDLS. To test for multivariate normality, Mahalanobis
distances were calculated. Since the maximum value at 15.29 was less than the critical
value o f chi-square at .16.27, multivariate normality was assumed.
2520-
20-
15-
15-
5-
5-
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
M ean =
66.1971
Std. De j. =
3.42798...
CGCQ
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
Mean =
49.6683
Std. Dev. =
3.69706
N =139
RIDLS
16Hair et al., M ultivariate D ata Analysis, 71; Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual, 51 -52;
and Tabachnick and Fidell, Using M ultivariate Statistics, 79-80.
17Tabachnick and Fidell, Using M ultivariate Statistics, 80.
18Hair et al., M ultivariate D ata Analysis, 73.
59
25-
15-
10 -
15-
LL
10 -
5-
5-
70.00
80.00
PCIQP
90.00
100.00
M ean =
83.7536
Std. Dev. =
7.25129
N =138
j T
10.00
Mean =
30.7826
I I | I I I I I | I I I 1.1 | I
2o!oO
30.00
4o!oO
50.00
'=
Figure 4: Histograms
The parametric statistical techniques, including analysis o f variance, require

the following assumptions: use o f interval or ratio data on the dependent variable, random
sampling, independence o f observations, normal distribution, and homogeneity of
variance.19 The first three assumptions were confirmed without any statistical analysis.
Homogeneity of variance. Homogeneity o f variance was tested by examining

Levenes test. Insignificant results (F = 1.85, p =.16) revealed approximately equal
variance.
Demographic Information
During the study, demographic data was collected on each respondent.
Participants included 140 children raging in age from six through twelve years and one o f
their parents from seven Southern Baptist churches in Tarrant Country, Texas. Frequency
analyses were completed on the demographic information gathered for gender, age, race,
the relationship with the participant parent, and school type.
19Pallant, SPSS Survival M anual, 196-98.
60
O f the 140 children who participated, seventy-six were boys and sixty-four
were girls (Table 4). The participants included 3 six-year-olds, 15 seven-year-olds, 22
eight-year-olds, 30 nine-year-olds, 32 ten-year-olds, 28 eleven-year-olds, and 10 twelveyear-olds (Table 5).
Table 4: Frequency distribution of gender
Boy
Girl
Total
Frequency
76
64
140
Percent
54.3
45.7
100.0
Valid Percent
54.3
45.7
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
54.3
100.0
Table 5: Frequency distribution of age
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Frequency
3
15
22
30
32
28
10
140
Percent
2.1
10.7
15.7
21.4
22.9
20.0
7.1
100.0
Valid Percent
2.1
10.7
15.7
21.4
22.9
20.0
7.1
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
2.1
12.9
28.6
50.0
72.9
92.9
100.0
Caucasians represented the highest percentage among ethnicities (N = 123,

87.9 %). The majority o f children attended public school (N = 122, 87.1%), followed by
private Christian school and home school (N = 9, 6.4% respectively). One o f the parents
was asked to fill out the parental questionnaire: 56 fathers and 83 mothers (40% and
59.3%) filled out the parental survey. The category o f other responses was marked by
both parents who answered the questionnaire together (N = 1, .70%). Concerning the
parental relationship to a child, most o f the children were biological children (N = 135,
96.4%), and the rest o f them were adopted children (N = 4, 2.9%) and other response
(N = 1, .70%).
61
Descriptive Statistics
Inspection o f the means, medians, standard deviations, minimum and
maximum scores o f each variable was performed for plausibility (Table 6). For instance,
the total mean score o f CGCQ was 66.2, and the standard deviation was 3.43 with the
minimum score o f 54 and the maximum score o f 72. Close scrutiny o f the mean and the
median scores revealed that the mean scores o f the three predictor variables were only
slightly different from the median scores.
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of the variables
Valid
Missing
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Variance
Skewness
Std. Error o f Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error o f Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum
CGCQ
137
3
66.20
67.00
3.43
11.75
-.85
.21
1.29
.41
54.00
72.00
RIDLS
139
1
49.67
49.50
3.70
13.67
-.24
.21
-.50
.41
39.50
55.00
PCIQP
138
2
83.75
84.00
7.25
52.58
-.09
.21
-.58
.41
68.00
98.00
PCIQN
138
2
30.78
29.00
6.91
47.78
.60
.21
-.16
.41
16.00
48.00
Testing the Hypotheses

The analyses outlined above were utilized to test the following null hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
Parents religiosity, a positive parent-child relationship, and a negative parentchild relationship would not be significant predictors o f childrens God concept. A
standard multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the degree and
direction o f relationship between childrens God concept and predictor variables.
The Pearson correlation matrix (Table 7) indicates that a statistically
significant negative relationship was found between CGCQ and PCIQN (r = .20,
62
p = .009). Table 8 shows the model summary. The adjusted R square for the model
was .06, signifying that only 6.0% o f the variance was predicted by the three predictors.
Table 9, the ANOVA table, shows that R for regression was significantly different from
zero F (3, 131) = 3.86, p = .011. Therefore, the model was viable.
Table 7: Correlation matrix for regression model
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
CGCQ
RIDLS
PCIQP
PCIQN
CGCQ
RIDLS
PCIQP
PCIQN
CGCQ
1.000
-.019
-.120
-.204
.414
.082
.009
RIDLS
-.019
1.000
.472
-.149
.414
.000
.041
PCIQP
-.120
.472
1.000
-.313
.082
.000
PCIQN
-.204
-.149
-.313
1.000
.009
.041
.000
.000
Table 8: Regression model summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model
R
R Square
the Estimate
Square
1
,285a
.081
.060
3.32261
a Predictors: (Constant), PCIQN, RIDLS, PCIQP
b Dependent Variable: CGCQ
Table 9: ANOVAb for regression model

Sum of
df
Squares
1
Regression
127.981
3
Residual
1446.203
131
Total
1574.184
134
a Predictors: (Constant), PCIQN, RIDLS, PCIQP
Model
Mean Square
42.660
11.040
F
3.864
Sig.
,011a
Table 10 shows the coefficient table. Two o f the three independent variables
were statistically significant predictors o f childrens God concept. Both PCIQN (t = -3.04,
p = .003) and PCIQP (t = -2.30, p = .023) were significant negative predictors. Between
63
the two predictors, PCIQN made a larger contribution to the dependent variable with a
beta of -.27.
Table 10: Regression coefficients3

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
MODEL
1 (Constant)
RIDLS
PCIQP
PCIQN
77.05
.05
-.11
-.13
95% Confidence
Interval for B
Standardized
Coefficients
Std.
Error
Beta
4.88
.09
.05
.04
.05
-.23
-.27
Sig.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
15.80
.51
-2.30
-3.04
.000
.608
.023
.003
67.40
-.13
-.20
-.22
86.70
.22
-.02
-.05
Correlations
Zero
Part
Order
-ial
Part
-.02
-.12
-.20
.05
-.20
-.26
.04
-.19
-.26
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolera
-nee
VIF
.78
.72
.90
1.29
1.40
1.11
Hypothesis 2
There would be no difference in childrens God concept among different age
groups from six through twelve years. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine
whether significant God concept differences existed among the seven age groups. A non
significant result from Levenes test at p = .49 revealed approximately equal variance
(Table 11). Table 12 shows the means, standard deviations, standard errors, and the 95 %
confidence intervals for means, minimums, and maximums o f CGCQ scores for children
ages six through twelve. A statistically significant difference was found in God concept
scores for the seven age groups F (6,130) = 3.50, p = .003 (Table 13). Despite reaching
statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores between the groups was quite
small. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .14.
Table 11: Test o f homogeneity o f variances

CGCQ
Levene
Statistic
.911
dfl
6
df2
130
Sig.
.489
64
Table 12: A ge group descriptive statistics
CGCQ
N
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
3
14
21
29
32
28
10
137
Mean
66.0000
63.7143
64.6667
66.1379
66.8750
67.7857
66.5000
66.1971
Std.
Deviation
2.64575
4.44502
3.77271
3.10212
2.52408
2.97343
3.56682
3.42748
Std. Error
1.52753
1.18798
.82327
.57605
.44620
.56192
1.12793
.29283
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
59.4276
72.5724
61.1478
66.2808
62.9494
66.3840
64.9579
67.3179
65.9650
67.7850
66.6327
68.9387
63.9484
69.0516
65.6180
66.7762
Minimum
Maximum
69.00
70.00
70.00
72.00
70.00
72.00
71.00
72.00
64.00
54.00
54.00
61.00
61.00
62.00
60.00
54.00
Table 13: One-way ANO VA across ages
CGCQ
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
221.992
1375.686
1597.679
df
6
130
136
Mean Square
36.999
10.582
F
3.496
Sig.
.003
Post-hoc comparison using the LSD test indicated that significant differences
were found between the seven-year-old group (M = 63.71, SD = 4.45) and the nine-yearold group (M = 66.14, SD = 3.10), between the seven-year-old group (M = 63.71, SD =
4.45) and the ten-year-old group (M = 66.88, SD = 2.52), between the seven-year-old
group (M = 63.71, SD = 4.45) and the eleven-year-old group (M = 67.79, SD = 2.97),
between the seven-year-old group (M = 63.71, SD = 4.45) and the twelve-year-old group
(M = 66.50, SD = 3.57), between the eight-year-old group (M = 64.67, SD = 3.77) and
the ten-year-old group (M = 66.88, SD = 2.52), and finally, between the eight-year-old
group (M = 64.67, SD = 3.77) and the eleven-year-old group (M = 67.79, SD = 2.97)
(Table 14, significant results only).
65
Table 14: Post-hoc tests across ages
LSD
95% Confidence Interval
(I) age
(J) age
Mean
Difference (I-)
9
10
11
12
10
8
11
7
9
10
7
8
11
7
8
12
7
* The mean difference
7
Std. Error
Sig.
.024
.003
.000
.041
.017
.001
.024
.003
.017
.000
.001
.041
-2.42365'
1.05867
-3.16071*
1.04238
-4.07143*
1.06480
-2.78571*
1.34688
-2.20833*
.91357
-3.11905*
.93907
2.42365*
1.05867
3.16071*
1.04238
2.20833*
.91357
4.07143*
1.06480
3.11905*
.93907
2.78571*
1.34688
is significant at the .05 level.
Lower Bound
-4.5181
-5.2229
-6.1780
-5.4504
-4.0157
-4.9769
.3292
1.0985
.4009
1.9648
1.2612
.1211
Upper Bound
-.3292
-1.0985
-1.9648
-.1211
-.4009
-1.2612
4.5181
5.2229
4.0157
6.1780
4.9769
5.4504
The means plot (Figure 5) provides a visual depiction o f group mean

differences.
68.00-
65.0064.0063.006
10
11
12
Age
Figure 5: Mean plots of CGCQ by age
Qualitative Data Analysis

Children were asked to answer both structured and open-ended questions to
reveal their God concept. The analysis o f their responses to open-ended questions follows.
66
General Findings
A total o f 140 children answered the first open-ended question, Who is God?
as follows: Creator was given by 37 children; Lord, King, or Ruler by 22 children;
Savior by 16 children; loving One or Father by 14 children; Jesus by 13 children;
Holy Spirit by 11 children; the powerful Being by 9 children; Man by 6 children;
and other responses by 12 children (Table 15).
Table 15: Frequency of Who is God?

Frequency
Creator
Lord, King, Ruler
Savior
Loving One
Jesus
Holy Spirit
Powerful One
Man
Other responses
Total
37
22
16
14
13
11
9
6
12
140
Percent
26.4
15.7
11.4
10.0
9.3
7.9
6.4
4.3
8.6
100.0
The category other responses included the following responses: Protector

(7, boy);20 my Shelter (8, boy); I am (10, 2 girls); God is the one and only God (10,
girl); God is the only Holy One (10, girl); He is the holy Person who has existed for a
long time (8, girl); He is my Redeemer, Creator, and King (12, girl); He is someone
special (8, girl); and It is impossible to describe who He is (11, boy).
The question, Where is God? was answered as follows: in heaven by 75
children; everywhere by 51 children; in my heart by 7 children; and other responses
20The number indicates a childs age and the word boy or girl tells a childs
gender.
by 7 children (Table 16). The category other responses included the following: in
America (7, boy); in this room right now (7, girl); and heaven and with me or in my
heart (9, two girls; 9, boy; 11, two girls).
Table 16: Frequency of Where is God?

Frequency
Heaven
Everywhere
My heart
Other responses
Total
75
51
7
7
140
Percent
53.6
36.4
5.0
5.0
100.0
The answers to the question, What can God do? were as follows:
everything by 85 children; everything except sin by 14 children; helping by 17
children; performing miracles by 14 children; saving by 3 children; and other
responses by 7 children (Table 17).
Table 17: Frequency of What can God do?

Frequency
Everything
Everything except sin
Helping
Performing miracles
Saving
Other responses
Total
85
14
17
14
3
7
140
Percent
60.7
10.0
12.1
10.0
2.1
5.0
100.0
The responses categorized in other responses included the following: He

controls the universe (7, boy); God can help me forgive my brother and sister (8, girl);
He can give us rain (9, girl); and God can do anything except make us have faith in
him (11, boy).
68
To the open-ended question, How do you feel when you think about God?
the following responses were received: happy or good by 114 children; safe by 14
children; and other responses by 12 children (Table 18).
Table 18: Frequency of How do you feel when you think about God?
Frequency
Good, Happy
Safe
Other responses
Total
114
14
12
140
Percent
81.4
10.0
8.6
100.0
I feel happy because God sent His Son to save my life (10, girl) and I feel
great because He forgives me (11, girl) were examples o f the category o f good or
happy. As for the category other responses, the following examples were found: I am
nervous because o f my sins (10, boy); I am sad, because He died on the cross (10,
girl); I feel weird because I cant believe He died for my sins (7, boy); and I feel that I
should worship all the time because I love Him and I want to praise Him nonstop (12, girl).
The question, When do you feel that God is close to you? elicited these
answers: always by 59 children; in my difficult times by 23 children; in prayer by
20 children; during religious activities by 10 children; in happy times by 8 children;
and other responses by 20 children (Table 19).
Table 19: Frequency of When do you feel that God is close to you?
Always
In my difficult times
In prayer
During religious activities
In happy times
Other responses
Total
Frequency
59
23
20
10
8
20
140
Percent
42.1
16.4
14.3
7.1
5.7
14.3
100.0
69
I feel close to God when I am worshipping Him (12, girl) and God is close
to me at church (11, boy) were examples o f the category during religious activities.
God is close to me when I get in trouble (7, girl; 10, boy) and God is close to me
whenever I am alone (8, girl) were categorized as in my difficulties. Other
responses included the following: when someone dies (10, girl); when I die He raises
me to heaven (10, boy); when I do something good (9, girl); all the times when I do
bad things (11, boy); when I sleep (7, boy); whenever I go somewhere (8, boy); and
when people are around me (8, boy).
The categories o f responses to the question, What do you pray to God about?
were as follows: everything by 36 children; combination o f two or more by 26
children; m yself or my needs by 25 children; my family by 20 children; for others
by 18 children; forgiveness by 4 children; thankfulness by 2 children; and other
responses by 9 children (Table 20).
Table 20: Frequency of What do you pray to God about?

Frequency
Everything
Combination o f two or more
Myself or my needs
My family
For others
Forgiveness
Thankfulness
Other responses
Total
36
26
25
20
18
4
2
9
140
Percent
25.7
18.6
17.9
14.3
12.9
2.9
1.4
6.4
100.0
Examples o f m yself and my needs included the following: for me to do

what he wants me to do (11, boy); I will go to heaven (8, girl); and God helps me in
taking more steps toward taking away the pain and suffering o f the society (12, girl).
The category for others included these responses: for everyone that needs to be saved
70
(7, girl; 9, girl); for my granny who died (9, girl); my friend Elizabeth will get better
from cancer (11, girl); and for poor people that need a house and money (9, girl).
When asked the question, How can you become a child o f God? the children
responded with these answers: believing in Jesus by 84 children; having good
conduct by 14 children; getting baptized by 12 children; and other responses by 30
children (Table 21).
Table 21: Frequency of How can you become a child of God?

Frequency
Believing in Jesus
Having good conduct
Getting baptized
Other responses
Total
84
14
12
30
140
Percent
60.0
10.0
8.6
21.4
100.0
Obeying the ten commandments (9, boy) and being respectful, respect your
elders! (10, girl) were examples o f having good conduct. The category other
responses were comprised o f these answers: growing up (7, two girls); going to
church (9, boy); I already am (7, girl; 11, girl; 12, boy); When God comes into my
heart (8, boy); believing in God and doing what the Bible says (6, boy); and being a
Christian (7, two boys; 7, girl; 8, boy; 9, boy; 11, boy; 12, two boys).
Children replied to the question, Is God like your father? with the following
responses: yes by 116 children; no by 20 children; both by 3 children; and an
other response by 1 child. The childrens opinions were also questioned by the inquiry,
If you say yes, how? If you say no, why not? The answers included: They love, care,
help, or watch over me by 50 children; They made me by 31 children; Both are
fathers by 10 children; They discipline me by 4 children; My father does not have
divine attributes by 8 children; and other responses by 37 children (Table 22).
71
Table 22: Frequency of Is God like your father?
Frequency
Love and care for me
Made me
Both are fathers
Discipline me
Absence of divine attributes
Other responses
Total
50
31
10
4
8
37
140
Percent
35.7
22.1
7.1
2.9
5.7
26.4
100.0
The category discipline included answers such as, Yes, because they watch
everything I do and they tell me what to do and what not to do (9, girl) and Yes,
because they give me instructions and I must obey them (9, girl). The category of
absence o f divine attributes included the following examples: No, because my father
cannot do miracles (10, boy); No, because my father cannot do everything (8, girl; 9,
girl); No, because God is almighty (11, boy); No, because my father has sinned (7,
girl; 10, boy; 11, girl); No, because my father is not holy (8, boy); and No, because
God is better(10, girl). The category both are fathers included the following responses:
Yes, because God is my holy Father (11, boy); Yes, because God is my heavenly
Father (9, boy; 9, girl); and Yes, because God is my spiritual Father (10, two boys).
The following were the examples o f the category other responses : Yes,
because God is a boy (10, boy); Yes, because my father is the image o f God (7, girl;
9, girl); Yes, because they are powerful (9, girl; 11, girl); Yes, because they are very
special (8, boy); Yes, because they are my bosses (7, boy); Yes, because I obey
them (9, girl); Yes, because He is my father and he is mean sometimes (7, boy); No,
because He is bigger (7, boy); No, because He is not my birth father (10, girl); No,
because my dad is mean (9, girl); and No, because God is not a parent. He is a
protector and an element o f love (12, girl).
72
Cases where the responses to the first question were classified into both and
the responses to the second question were classified into other responses were as
follows: Yes, because they teach and love me, and no, because God is not here so I cant
see Him, but my father is here (11, girl) and No, but yes! He is our Father but not our
birth father (10, girl).
The question, Is God like your mother? was given to the children, and their
responses were the following: yes by 76 children; no by 57 children; both by 5
children; and other responses by 2 children. The next question was, If you say yes, how?
If you say no, why not? and the answers received were as follows: They love, care,
help, and watch over me by 47 children; They made me by 14 children; They
discipline me by 3 children; God is not a woman by 35 children; and My mother is
absent o f divine attributes by 6 children; and other responses by 35 children (Table 23).
Table 23: Frequency of Is God like your mother?

Frequency
Love and care for me
Made me
Discipline me
Not a woman
Absence of divine attributes
Other responses
Total
47
14
3
35
6
35
140
Percent
33.6
10.0
2.1
25.0
4.3
25.0
100.0
Examples o f the category, They love and care for me included the following:
Yes, because He takes care o f me when I am sick (10, girl) and Yes, because my mom
takes care o f me, but God takes care o f me more (9, girl). Examples o f the category,
God is not a woman included the following: No, because God does not cook (10,
girl) and No, because He did not get pregnant and He is not a girl (11, girl). In the
73
category, the absence o f divine attribute, these answers were given: No, because she is
not perfect (10, boy) and No, because God made the world not my mother (9, girl).
Other responses included: Yes, because both are sweet (7, girl); Yes, because He
gives me clothes, food, and water (10, boy); Yes, because I obey them (8, girl); Yes,
because He is my authority (11, girl); No, because He doesnt yell at me (11, boy);
and No, because He is my spiritual Father (12, girl). The children who answered both
wrote the following: Sort of. H es not a girl, but He watches over us (12, girl); Kind of,
He is more like my father, but I guess He could be both (10, boy); and Im not sure
because in the Bible
[sic]
refers to God as the Father but I think He kind o f could be a
mother but kind o f not (11, girl).

The children responded to the prompt, Tell me a story about God, as follows:
creation by 28 children; Jesus by 33 children; Old Testament story by 17 children;
New Testament story by 16 children; Gods attributes by 9 children; personal
experiences by 18 children; no response by 10 children; and other responses by 9
children (Table 24).
Table 24: Frequency of Tell me a story about God

Frequency
Creation
Jesus
OT
NT
Gods attributes
Personal experiences
No response
Other responses
Total
28
33
17
16
9
18
10
9
140
Percent
20.0
23.6
12.1
11.4
6.4
12.9
7.1
6.4
100.0
The examples o f personal experience were One day our air conditioner was
broken and God fixed it (9, girl); I prayed for my dad to get a job and he did (11, boy);
74
and God healed my hurt fingers (10, boy). Other responses included He is a nice
man (10, girl); He is a great man (9, boy); God made miracles ( 8 , girl; 9, girl; 11,
boy; 10, girl); and for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (9, girl).
The childrens drawings o f God were classified as follows: invisible by 12
children; creation by 5 children; Gods acts by 12 children; Gods attributes by 7
children; Jesus by 10 children; cross by 13 children; religious symbol by 17
children; man by 31 children; inconsistent explanation by 15 children; no response
by 11 children; and other responses by 7 children (Table 25).
Table 25: Frequency of drawing pictures of God

Frequency
Invisible
Creation
Gods acts
Gods attributes
Jesus
Cross
Religious symbol
Man
Inconsistent explanation
No response
Other responses
Total
12
5
12
7
10
13
17
31
15
11
7
140
Percent
8 .6
3.6
8 .6
5.0
7.1
9.3
1 2 .1
2 2 .1
10.7
7.9
5.0
1 0 0 .0
The category invisible included the following answers: I cant draw God
because no one has seen his face but Jesus (11, boy); I cannot draw a picture. He is
everywhere and everything (11, boy); I cannot draw the mightiness o f God (12, boy);
and I dont think He has a shape at all (9, girl). Gods acts consisted o f these: God
and the rainbow (12, girl); the Adam and Eve Story (10, boy); and God took 5 loaves
o f bread and 2 fish and fed 5,000 men (10, girl). One example o f the category Gods
75
attributes involved a drawing o f a star with this explanation: This is to show how
powerful and bright God is (11, boy). Religious symbols included the following the
burning bush (11, boy); a shepherd (10, boy); an angel (9, boy; 11, boy); a light
(9, girl; 10, two boys; 11, girl); and He holds the world in his hands (11, two girls)
(Examples in Appendix 20).
Inconsistent explanation means that the picture and its explanation did not
match. It was illustrated by following examples: God is very good to me, accompanied
by Jesus in the picture (10, girl); He is awesome, accompanied by a man in the picture
( 8 , boy); I do not know what he looks like, accompanied by a big circle in the picture
(7, boy); God is a savior o f the world, accompanied by a big man in the picture (7,
boy); Pray to me, accompanied by a long haired man in the picture (7, girl); He made
animals, accompanied by Jesus in the picture (7, boy); and the king o f everything,
accompanied by a man in the picture (9, boy). Other responses included the following
examples: God is a spirit. He could look any way He wants, accompanied by a question
mark in the picture (11, boy) and God can be in any form but He came to Earth a while
ago in the form o f Jesus so I dont know what to draw (11, girl).
Analysis by Age
When the responses to the question, Who is God? were analyzed by age, the
findings were as follows. First, the concept o f God as Creator was common in older
children: more than 90% o f the category was from children aged nine or older, while no
children aged six or eight gave such a response. Second, only younger children
considered God as man : the response man was given by children aged six to nine,
while no children aged ten to eleven gave such an answer. Third, only older children
viewed God as Holy Spirit : more than 90% o f these responses were from the nine-year-
76
olds or older children. Fourth, only younger children perceived God as Jesus: more than
90% of these responses came from the nine-year-olds or younger children (Table 26).
Table 26: Who is God? * age crosstabulation
6
Creator
Lord, King
Savior
L oving One
Count
Others
Total
Total
12
16
37
8.1%
.0%
16.2%
43.2%
% within age
Count
.0%
20.0%
.0%
24.3%
30.0%
18.8%
57.1%
8.1%
30.0%
100.0%
26.4%
22
% w ithin category
.0%
13.6%
31.8%
9.1%
27.3%
18.2%
.0%
100.0%
% w ithin age
.0%
20.0%
31.8%
6.7%
15.7%
% within category
.0%
12.5%
% w ithin age
.0%
I
18.8%
14.3%
.0%
16
6.3%
18.8%
43.8%
6.3%
12.5%
100.0%
13.3%
4.5%
10.0%
21.9%
3.6%
20.0%
10.0%
14
7.1%
7.1%
21.4%
21.4%
21.4%
7.1%
14.3%
100.0%
33.3%
6.7%
13.6%
10.0%
9.4%
3.6%
20.0%
15.7%
13
7.7%
15.4%
30.8%
38.5%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
33.3%
13.3%
18.2%
16.7%
3.1%
.0%
.0%
9.3%
11
% w ithin category
.0%
.0%
9.1%
36.4%
36.4%
18.2%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
.0%
4.5%
13.3%
12.5%
7.1%
.0%
7.9%
% within category
.0%
22.2%
.0%
22.2%
11.1%
22.2%
22.2%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
13.3%
.0%
6.7%
3.1%
7.1%
20.0%
7.9%
% within category
16.7%
33.3%
33.3%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
33.3%
13.3%
9.1%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.3%
12
% within category
.0%
.0%
33.3%
8.3%
33.3%
16.7%
8.3%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
.0%
18.2%
3.3%
12.5%
7.1%
10.0%
8.6%
15
22
30
32
28
10
140
2.1%
10.7%
15.7%
21.4%
22.9%
20.0%
7.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Count
Count
% within age
Man
11
% within category
Powerful One
10
.0%
% w ithin age
H oly Spirit
A ge
9
% within category
% within category
Jesus
Count
Count
Count
Count
Count
% within category
% within age
Two findings emerged when analyzing responses to the question, the place of
the Gods presence by age. First, the response rates o f heaven decreased as the age o f
the children increased: 100 % o f the six-year-olds, 80% o f the seven-year-olds, 5 9 . 1% of
the eight-year-olds, 46.4% o f the eleven-year-olds, and 20% o f the twelve-year-olds.
Second, the concept o f omnipresence increased with increasing age except for the ten-
77
year-olds: 6.7% o f the seven-year-olds, 22.7% o f the eight year-olds, 40% o f the nineyear-olds, 46.4% o f the eleven-year-olds, and 80% o f the twelve-year-olds (Table 27).
Table 27: Where is God? * age crosstabulation
6
Heaven
Count
% within category
Everywhere
M y heart
Others
Total
% within age
Count
7
3
A ge
9
8
12
10
11
13
16
16
Total
12
13
75
100.0%
26.4%
4.0%
16.0%
17.3%
21.3%
21.3%
17.3%
2.7%
100.0%
59.1%
5
53.3%
12
50.0%
46.4%
80.0%
1
12
13
20.0%
8
% w ithin category
.0%
2.0%
9.8%
23.5%
23.5%
25.5%
15.7%
100.0%
% w ithin age
.0%
6.7%
22.7%
40.0%
37.5%
46.4%
80.0%
4.3%
Count
51
% within category
.0%
.0%
28.6%
.0%
57.1%
14.3%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
12.5%
3.6%
.0%
7.9%
% w ithin category
.0%
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
13.3%
9.1%
6.7%
.0%
3.6%
.0%
5.0%
15
22
30
32
28
10
140
2.1%
10.7%
15.7%
21.4%
22.9%
20.0%
7.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Count
% within category
% within age
Older children felt more safe than younger children when they thought about
God: no response describing safe feelings was given by the six- and eight-year-olds;
14.3% o f the response by the seven- and nine-year-olds; and 85.7% o f the response by
the ten- through twelve-year-olds. Older children felt close to God in prayer and
during religious activities : 80% o f the category in prayer and 100 % o f the category
during religious activities came from the nine- through twelve-year-olds. Younger
children, on the other hand, chose in happy times : 100 % o f responses from the seventhrough ten-year-olds (Table A1 in Appendix 21).
Older children wrote thankfulness and forgiveness o f sins as their prayer
requests: 100 % o f the responses o f each category were from the nine-year-olds or older.
The response rate o f believing in Jesus to the question, How can you become a child
o f God? increased with age except for the six- and eleven-year-olds: 33% of the six-
78
year-olds; 20% o f the seven-year-olds; 54.5% o f the eight-year-olds; 60% o f the nineyear-olds; 71.9% o f the ten-year-olds, 67.9% o f the eleven-year-olds, and 80% o f the
twelve-year-olds (Table A2 in Appendix 21).
Analysis o f drawings o f God by age revealed that the younger children did not
respond with the answer o f invisible : more than 90% o f the responses came from the
nine-year-olds or older children. Anthropomorphism decreased with increasing age:
43.3% o f the nine-year-olds and 21.9% o f the ten-year-olds compared to 3.6% o f the
eleven-year-olds and 10% o f the twelve-year-olds (Table A3 in Appendix 21).
Analysis by Gender
The responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed by gender. Among
140 children, 76 (54.3%) were boys and 64 (45.7%) were girls. Gender differences to the
question, Who is God? were found in the following categories: the answer powerful
One was given by 6 boys (66.7% o f the category) and 3 girls (33.3%); man by 4 boys
(66.7%) and 2 girls (33.3%); and Jesus by 8 boys (61.5%) and 5 girls (38.5%) (Table
A4 in Appendix 22).
In the process o f analyzing the responses regarding the place o f Gods
presence, it was discovered that 2 boys (28.6% o f the category) and 5 girls (71.4%) gave
the answer in my heart. The children showed distinct gender differences on the
question, When do you feel that God is close to you? as follows: during religious
activities by 8 boys (80% o f the category) and 2 girls (20 %); in happy times by 6 boys
(75%) and 2 girls (25%); and in difficult times by 7 boys (30.4%) and 16 girls (69.5%)
(Table A5 in Appendix 22).
Eleven boys (78.6%) compared to 3 girls (21.4%) answered that they can be
children o f God by having good conduct. To the question, Is God like your father?
79
How? a majority o f the respondents o f the answer, Both God and father are fathers
were boys: 9 boys (90%) and 1 girl (10%).
To the request, Tell me a story about God, more boys than girls chose
creation (19 boys (67.9% o f the category) and 9 girls (32.1%)) Old Testament story
(12 boys (70.6%) and 5 girls (29.4%)) and New Testament story (10 boys (62.5 %) and
6 girls (37.5%)). More girls than boys chose personal experience (11 girls (61.1%) and
7 boys (38.9%)) (Table A 6 in Appendix 22). Childrens drawings o f God also showed
gender differences: creation (5 boys (100% o f the category) and no girl (0%)), and
invisible and Gods acts (8 boys (66.7%) and 4 girls (33.3%) for both categories)
were boys favorite answers. On the other hand, more girls drew Jesus (9 girls (90%)
and 1 boy (10%)) (Table A7 in Appendix 22).
Analysis by Grouped CGCQ, RIDLS, PCIQP, PCIQN Scores

Variables, CGCQ, RIDLS, PCIQP, and PCIQN, were divided into three groups.
The answers were analyzed by low, middle, and high scoring groups o f each variable.
God depicted as Creator showed a low rate in both the low level PCIQP group and high
level PCIQN group: 7 (18.9%) out o f 37 children for both groups. Lord, King, or Ruler
concept showed a lower rate in the middle and high PCIQN groups: 10 children (47.6%)
in the low group, 6 children (29.6%) in the middle group, and 5 children (23.9%) in the
high group.
Children showed a decreased response rate to heaven as Gods residence
place as their CGCQ scores increased: 33 children (62.3% o f the group) in the low group,
25 children (52.1%) in the middle group, and 15 children (41.7%) in the high group.
To the question, When do you feel that God is close to you? high response
rates in prayer and during religious activities were received from the high level o f
80
RIDLS group: 9 children (45% o f the category, in prayer) and 6 children (60% o f the
category, during religious activities) (Table A 8 in Appendix 22).
The response rate o f the answer believing in Jesus to the question, How can
you become a child o f God? increased with increasing CGCQ scores: 30 children
(83.3% o f the group) in the high group, 32 children in the middle group (66.7%), and 21
children (39.6%) in the low group. Only 2 children (5.6% o f the group) in the high
CGCQ group answered, having good conduct as compared to 5 children (10.4%) in the
middle group and 6 children (11.3%) in the low group (Table 28).
Table 28: How can you become a child of God? * CGCQ crosstabulation
Believing in Jesus
Having good conduct
Getting baptized
Others
Total
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
CGCQ (Banded)
6 6 .0 0 -6 8 . 0 0
<= 65.00
21
32
25.3%
38.6%
39.6%
66.7%
6
5
46.2%
38.5%
10.4%
11.3%
6
5
50.0%
41.7%
11.3%
10.4%
20
69.0%
37.7%
53
38.7%
1 0 0 .0 %
20.7%
12.5%
48
35.0%
1 0 0 .0 %
Total
69.00+
30
36.1%
83.3%
2
15.4%
5.6%
83
. %
60.6%
13
1 0 0 .0 %
9.5%
100 0
12
8.3%
2 .8 %
3
10.3%
8.3%
36
26.3%
1 0 0 .0 %
. %
8 .8 %
29
1 0 0 .0 %
2 1 .2 %
137
1 0 0 .0 %
1 0 0 .0 %
100 0
Regarding childrens drawings o f God, the response rate to the answer

invisible increased with increasing CGCQ scores: 1 child (8.3% o f the category) in the
low group, 5 children (41.7%) in the middle group, and 6 children (50%) in the high
group. The response, man, decreased with increasing CGCQ scores: 13 children
(44.8% o f the category) in the low group, 12 children (41.4%) in the middle group, and 4
children (13.8%) in the high group (Table A9 in Appendix 23).
81
Other Findings
Additional tests, other than those for the proposed hypotheses, were performed
using correlation analysis, a multiple regression, a t-test, and one-way ANOVA to further
examine other findings o f this study.
The Correlation of Individual God Concept Question

The relationship between individual God concept questions and other variables
was investigated using several Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient tests.
There were statistically significant correlations between CGCQ 2 and CGCQT (Total)
(r - .485, p < .000); CGCQ 2 and age (r - .217, p - .010); CGCQ 8 and PCIQP (r = .298,
p < .000); CGCQ 10 and CGCQT (r = .392, p < .000); CGCQ 10 and age (r = .198,
p = .019); CGCQ 11 and CGCQT (r = .372, p < .000); CGCQ 11 and the number o f
church activities (r = .207, p = .014); CGCQ 18 and CGCQT (r = .354, p < .000); and
CGCQ 18 and age (r = .179, p = .034) (Table 29).
Table 29: Correlations between individual CGCQ question and an independent variable
CGCQ2
CGCQT
.485***
.0 0 0
RIDLS
PCIQP
PCIQN
AGE
-.043
.619
-.018
.836
-.126
.141
.217**
.0 1 0
ACTI
VITY
.174
.040
CGCQ8
.042
.620
.077
.367
.298***
.0 0 0
-.082
.340
.039
.646
-.154
.071
CGCQ
CGCQ
10
11
.392***
372***
.0 0 0
-.005
.955
-.113
.186
-.062
.470
.198*
.019
.144
.091
.0 0 0
- .0 0 2
.977
.030
.730
-.053
.537
.124
.143
.207*
.014
CGCQ
18
3 5 4 ***
CGCQT
RIDLS
PCIQP
PCIQN
.0 0 0
-.060
.480
-.182
.033
.083
.330
.179*
.034
.0 0 2
.986
-.019
.829
- .1 2 0
.164
-.204*
.017
.316***
.0 0 0
.207*
.015
.472***
.0 0 0
-.149
.083
.007
.939
.108
.204
*
Correlation is significant at the .05 level.
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level.
*** Correlation is significant at the .001 level.
- 313***
.0 0 0
-.072
.403
- .0 0 2
.985
.075
.383
-.090
.293
82
Further correlation analyses were used to explore the relationships between
two variables among dependent and independent variables or demographic information.
Significant positive relationships were found between CGCQT and age (r = .316,
p < .000); CGCQT and the number o f church activities (r = .207, p = .015); and RIDLS
and PCIQP (r = .472, p < .000). Significant negative relationships were found between
CGCQT and PCIQN (r = -.204, p = .017) as well as PCIQP and PCIQN (r = -.313,
p < .000) (Table 29).
Other Predictors of Childrens God Concept

From correlation analyses, it was found that age and the number o f church
activities had a significant relationship with the God concept. After including age and the
number o f church activities in the independent variables, a multiple regression analysis
was conducted. The Pearson correlation matrix (Table A10 in Appendix 24) displays the
correlations between the variables, indicating that CGCQ had statistically significant
positive relationships with both age (r = .32, p < .000) and the number o f church activities
(r = .21, p = .008). A statistically significant negative relationship between CGCQ and
PCIQN (r = -.20, p = .009) was found.
In the model summary table (Table A 11 in Appendix 24), the adjusted R
square for the model was .16, signifying that 15.7% o f the variance was predicted by the
five predictors. ANOVA table (Table A12 in Appendix 24) indicates that the five
predictor variables significantly predicted the CGCQ scores F (5, 129) = 5.98, p < .000.
Therefore, the model was viable. In the coefficients table (Table A13 in Appendix 24),
three o f five independent variables were statistically significant: age (t = 3.45, p = .001),
PCIQP (t = -2.10, p = .038), and PCIQN (t = -3. 31, p = .001). Among the three, age
made the largest, contribution.
83
Analysis of Individual God Concept Question across Age Groups
An additional investigation o f specific mean differences in individual CGCQ
question among age groups was conducted by using a one-way ANOVA. Levenes test
revealed approximately an equal variance. A statistically significant difference was found
in CGCQ 2 (F [6,133] = 2.71, p = .016); CGCQ 7 (F [6 , 133] = 2.46, p = .027);
CGCQ 10 (F [6 , 133] = 2.31, p = .038); CGCQ 11 (F [6 , 133] = 3.24, p = .005);
and CGCQ 20 (F [6,133] = 2.90, p = .011) (Table 30, significant results only).
Table 30: One-way ANOVA for individual CGCQ question among age groups
Sum of
Squares
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
13.271
108.701
121.971
133
139
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.409
30.727
34.136
133
139
CGCQ 10 Between Groups

Within Groups
Total
4.537
43.599
48.136
133
139
CGCQ 11
10.236
69.935
80.171
133
139
CGCQ 2
CGCQ 7
CGCQ 20
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
2 .0 0 1
15.235
17.286
Mean Square
F
6
133
139
Sig.
2.706
.016
.568
.231
2.459
.027
.756
.328
2.307
.038
1.706
.526
3.244
.005
.333
.115
2.902
.011
2 .1 2 2
.817
Analysis by Combined Age Groups

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine if significant differences in
CGCQ for combined age groups existed. Subjects were divided into three groups
according to their age (Group 1: the seven- and eight-year-olds; Group 2: the nine- and
ten-year-olds; and Group 3: the eleven- and twelve-year-olds). Since seven age groups
could not be divided into three groups, the six-year-old group, containing only three
84
participants, was excluded from the analysis. There was a statistically significant
difference in God concept for the three age groups F (2, 131) = 9.28, p < .000 (Table 31).
Post-hoc comparisons using the LSD reveals that the Group 1 mean (M = 64.24,
SD = 4.07) was significantly lower than the mean o f Group 2 (M = 66.52, SD = 2.79)
and Group 3 (M = 67.45, SD = 3.14).
Table 31: One-way ANOVA for CGCQ among combined age groups
CGCQ
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
196.563
1386.996
1583.560
df
2
131
133
Mean Square
98.282
10.588
F
9.283
Sig.
.0 0 0
Analysis by Church Activity Numbers

Further analysis utilizing a one-way ANOVA was employed to investigate
CGCQ mean differences among the number o f church activities in which the children
participated. The validity o f the warning that Post hoc tests are not performed for CGCQ
because at least one group has fewer than two cases was shown. Two cases had 7 as
their activity numbers, but one case was excluded due to the outlying score in CGCQ.
91
Therefore, the remaining one case was transformed to the closest number o f 6 .
Levenes test o f homogeneity o f variances was insignificant at .58. The one

way ANOVA reflected the significant difference in childrens God concept among
groups divided by the number o f participating church activities F (4, 132) = 3.06,
p = .019 (Table 32). Post-hoc analysis using LSD revealed a significantly lower mean
21Tabachnick and Fidell recommend changing outliers to the next extreme score in
the distribution, see Tabachnick and Fidell, U s i n g M u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c s , 77.
85
for Group 4 (M = 65.35, SD = 3.67) than that o f the Group 5 (M = 65.61, SD =3.28).
The Group 4 mean (M = 65.35, SD = 3.67) was also lower than the Group 6 mean
(M = 67.73, SD = 2.94).
Table 32: One-way ANOVA for CGCQ among church activity numbers
CGCQ
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
135.450
1462.229
1597.679
df
4
132
136
Mean Square
33.863
11.077
F
3.057
Sig.
.019
Analysis by Gender
The difference in CGCQ scores between boys and girls was examined using an
independent samples t-test. There was no significant difference in God concept scores for
boys (M = 65.76, SD = 3.28) and girls (M = 66.71, SD = 3.55; t (135) = -1.64, p = .10).
Analysis by Demographic Information

Additional exploration was performed to determine any differences in
childrens God concept for the groups divided by paternal or maternal relationships, the
relationship with the participating parent (biological or adopted), ethnicity, school type,
and the number o f church activities. The results revealed that there was no difference in
childrens God concept among the groups divided by demographic information except for
the number o f church activities.
CHAPTER 5
INTERPRETATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The diagnosis o f childrens God concepts is a vital part o f childrens spiritual

development, because knowing God is one o f the most important elements in personal
faith. Additionally, knowing childrens God concept is important because providing
Christian educators with suggestions regarding what to teach is difficult without knowing
more about what children already know.
This study sought to identify significant predictors o f childrens God concept
as measured by the Childrens God Concept Questionnaire (CGCQ). The data was
collected from 140 children from seven randomly selected large churches in Tarrant
County, Texas. A standard multiple regression procedure was implemented to analyze the
data. This study also sought to determine whether childrens God concept scores differed
among seven age groups from six through twelve. A one-way ANOVA was used to
measure the significant difference in God concept scores among the age groups.
The Childrens God Concept Questionnaire (CGCQ), developed by the
researcher, was used for this study. Items were finalized after the two validation tests and
pilot studies. The internal consistency measured by Cronbachs alpha and the test-retest
reliability for the instrument reached .70 respectively.
The Childrens God Concept Questionnaire

Questions that revealed a large variance were the following: questions about
86
87
the harmony between G ods love and holiness or justice (numbers 4 and 23), salvation by
having good conduct (number 2), Gods anthropomorphism (number 11), and Gods
omnipotence (numbers 18). Questions that showed a small variance had the following
characteristics: questions regarding Gods omniscience and omnipresence (numbers 1,15,
and 19), questions regarding biblical facts (numbers 6 and 8), and questions concerning
childrens trust in God (numbers 13 and 19) (Table A in Appendix 24). Not every
question in the childrens God concept questionnaire revealed significant relationships
with other variables or significant differences among various age groups. The common
questions that showed relationships with other variables, differences for ages groups, and
a large variance included the following: obtaining salvation by good conduct (number 2 ),
Gods power or omnipotence (numbers 10 and 18), and Gods anthropomorphism
(number 11 ).
Regarding Gods omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, Vianello
found that children ages six to twelve developed the concept o f Gods omniscience first,
followed by Gods omnipotence, and Gods omnipresence at last .1 The present study,
however, yielded inconsistent findings that children ages six to twelve had the concepts
of Gods omniscience and omnipresence. They, however, showed a large variance in the
answers to the question regarding Gods omnipotence. In other words, their
understanding o f Gods omnipotence was not fully developed.
!R. Vianello, Ricerche Psiologiche sulla Religiosita Infantile', quoted in Vianello,

Tamminen, and Ratcliff, The Religious Concepts o f Children, 58.
88
Hypothesis 1
The purpose o f the first hypothesis was to identify predictors o f childrens God
concept. On the basis o f theoretical foundation, it was hypothesized that parents
religiosity and a positive parent-child relationship would be positive predictors, and a
negative parent-child relationship would be a negative predictor. The standard multiple
regression results indicated that a negative parent-child relationship and a positive parentchild relationship were significant negative predictors o f childrens God concept. O f the
two predictors, the more influential predictor was a negative child-parent relationship.
Unlike other findings, the multiple regression found that parents religiosity
was not a significant predictor o f childrens God concept. One possible explanation is the
lack o f normality in parents religiosity as found in the histogram (Figure 4) and a
significant result o f the Kolmogorov-Smimov Statistic. When the assumption of
normality is not met, the results o f statistical tests are not valid. Regarding abnormality,
childrens God concept, parents religiosity, and a positive parent-child relationship
produced negative skewness values (-.849, -.235, and -.093 respectively) while a negative
parent-child relationship showed a positive skewness value (.599). One explanatory
factor o f this statistical abnormality is the possibility o f social desirability. Another
explanation is that the samples recruited from Sunday school classes or a mission
program o f the large Southern Baptist churches might not properly represent the general
population. The samples represent strong Christians who yielded high scores on God
concept, religiosity, and a positive parent-child relationship.
2Hair et al., Multivariate Data Analysis, 70.
89
Another explanation for this unexpected result may be found in how the degree
o f religious training, rather than parents religious beliefs, influences childrens God
concepts. This explanation is supported by the finding that parents religiosity did not
show a significant relationship with the number o f church activities children engaged,
while the number o f church activities had a positive relationship with God concept score.
Surprisingly, a positive parent-child relationship was not a significant positive
predictor o f childrens God concept. Instead, both positive and negative parent-child
relationships were significant negative predictors o f childrens God concepts. Several
explanatory factors are associated with this finding. One possible explanation could be
the compensation hypothesis. It theorizes that insecurely attached subjects pursue a
strong belief in God and a high level o f spirituality because they look for substitute
attachment figures. Another explanation o f the finding regarding a parent-child
relationship may have been the result o f using an improper measurement. If the study had
measured the degree o f biblical parenting, including loving, teaching, and disciplining,
instead o f positive and negative parent-child interactions such as spending time together,
having fun together, and yelling at each other, or insulting each other, the result may have
been different.3
It is also plausible that a parent-child relationship might be only a predictor for
the affective domain o f childrens God concept. Most o f the former God concept research
done by Dickie et al., Hyde, and Tamminen, Vianello, and Ratcliff has shown a positive
relationship between parent-child attachment and childrens image o f God as a loving,
3On this point, the view was inspired by the discussion with Dr. Richard Ross.
90
nurturing, punishing, or powerful Being. The focus o f these studies was how children
feel about God. However, within the current study, the affective domain was only one of
the parts o f the God concept. Parental impact on childrens God concept due to positive
or negative parent-child relationships might be only in the affective domain, not in the
cognitive domain as De Roos, Iedema, and Miedema insist .4
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis utilized a one-way ANOVA to reveal significant
differences in the God concept scores among the seven age groups. The result indicated
significant differences in the God concept scores among the age groups, which was
congruent with the previous findings. Childrens God concept scores increased from ages
seven to eleven, with the exceptions o f those ages six and twelve. Specifically, the
biggest differences with other age groups were found at age seven as shown in post-hoc
tests. This finding was documented and predicted by Dickie et al. as well as Slater; these
researchers claimed that the God concept changes the most around age seven .5
Regarding the God concept score o f the six-year-olds, only three children and
one o f their parents participated in the study. Through close scrutiny, it was found that
one of the children showed a high score o f 69 on God concept (compared to the means o f
63.71 for the seven-year-olds and 66.67 for the eight-year-olds). Other special
characteristics were that one parent showed a maximum score o f 55 on religiosity scale,
5Dickie et al., Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f God, 27; and
Slater, The Development o f Childrens Concept o f God.
91
and the other parent reported one o f the highest scores, 95 on a positive relationship with
a child. It can be concluded that these three six-year-old children and their parents
showed exceptional characteristics compared to other participants.
Qualitative Data
In analyzing participants responses to the open-ended questions, the following
findings were discovered: the most frequent responses to the question, Who is God?
were Creator (26.4%), Lord, King, or Ruler (15.7%), and Savior (11.4%). Older
children ages ten to twelve years did not express anthropomorphism by answering Man
to the question, Who is God? Drawing human images o f God also was not common
among older children ages eleven to twelve (Table A3 in Appendix 20).
When asked to define the way o f salvation, children answered with believing
in Jesus (60%), having good conduct (10%), and getting baptized (8 .6 %). The
response rate o f believing in Jesus increased with increasing age and God concept
scores. Children understand the way o f salvation more clearly with an increase of both
age and the level of God concept understanding.
Children made a reply o f yes (82.9%) or no (14.3%) to the question, Is
God like your father? The most frequent reasons for their responses were, They love,
help, or watch over me (35.7%) and They made me (22.1%). Another similar question,
Is God like your mother? was asked and responded to with yes (54.3%) or no
(40.7%). The higher rate o f 40.7% regarding the lack o f similarity between God and
mother in comparison with the rate o f 14.3% regarding the lack o f the similarity between
God and father was found. Children responded with yes because They love, help, or
watch over me (33.6%) and They made me (10%); other children answered no
92
mainly because God is not a woman (61.4% o f total no respondents). The findings
suggest that children more often perceived God with male characteristics.
Childrens drawings o f God represented man (22.1%), religious symbol
(12.1%), inconsistent explanation (10.7%), and the cross (9.3%). Concerning
childrens anthropomorphism, there was a maximum rate o f drawing a man
at nine, a decline at ten, and almost an absence at eleven and twelve: only one child from
the eleven- and twelve-year-old groups gave this response. This finding is consistent with
Tamms finding that anthropomorphism is more common among younger children .6 It is,
however, unlike Heflins assertion that such anthropomorphisms are carried into adult
life . 7
The decline in rate o f use o f anthropomorphism by age found in childrens
drawings o f God was not consistent with the finding from the structured question, God
looks like a man. Response rates to the answer choices o f yes or sometimes to the
question were high across the seven age groups (Table A 15 in Appendix 26). Another
important fact is that the category man was the most frequent response (2 2 . 1%) in the
drawings o f God while it was not included as a main response (only 4.3 %) in the openended question, Who is God? The results support Tamms argument that the drawing
o f God tends to predispose children toward anthropomorphism.
Finally, the use o f religious symbols was increased until the age o f ten as
Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and Adolescents, 33.
?Heflin, A Comparison o f the Religious Concepts o f Children in Selected Southern

Baptist Churches in the United States and in Selected Baptist Union Churches in England, 114.
8
Tamm, The Meaning o f God for Children and Adolescents, 34.
93
supported by Kay and Rays as well as Ladd, McIntosh, and Spilkas finding .9 As in Kay
and Rays study , 10 it was found that Jesus as God was more common among younger
children.
Other Findings
Further correlation analyses were used to explore the relationships between
two variables among dependent and independent variables, or demographic information.
Positive relationships were found between childrens God concept and age, between
childrens God concept and the number o f church activities, and between parents
religiosity and a positive parent-child relationship. Negative relationships were found
between childrens God concept and a negative parent-child relationship and between a
positive parent-child relationship and a negative parent-child relationship. From the
findings, it is fairly certain that children engaging in more church activities by and large
reflect a high level o f God concept. Based on a statistically significant positive
relationship between parents religiosity and a positive parent-child relationship, it is
supported that a high level o f parents religiosity is associated with a high level of
positive parent-child relationship. A statistically significant negative relationship between
a positive parent-child relationship and a negative parent-child relationship confirmed
that each instrument measures opposite dimensions o f parent-child relationship.
Ladd, McIntosh, and Spilka, Childrens God Concepts, 52; and Kay and Ray,
Concepts of God, 246.

10Kay and Ray, Concepts of God, 246.
94
Implications for the Ministry
The Developmentally Appropriate God Concepts
God has revealed truths about Him self through the pages o f the Bible. Children
at any age level are capable o f learning doctrines and Biblical truths if they are taught in
an age-appropriate and interesting way .11 Stephens identifies the following spiritual tasks
that a child may achieve to: ( 1) see oneself as a positive spiritual being; (2 ) develop selfmotivation to understand God and learn about spiritual concepts; (3) learn to trust God
for guidance and support; (4) learn to enjoy spiritual experiences such as worship, prayer,
and devotions; (5) begin to love and serve others voluntarily; and ( 6 ) begin an individual,
personal relationship with God.
19
This study provided a theoretical basis regarding a
developmentally appropriate God concept in each stage. It also showed which God
concepts appeared and disappeared at certain ages. Based on developmental theories and
these results, educators may choose to teach the appropriate God concepts for certain
ages of children.
Parent-Child Relationship First

How Christian parents can be a model o f God, keep a positive relationship
with the children, and effectively lead the children to spiritual growth has been a matter
o f concern and interest for many ages. The result o f this study indicated that a parents
religiosity is associated with a positive parent-child relationship. Smith and Kim also
n V. Gilbert Beers, Nurturing Children at Home, in
T h e C h r i s t i a n E d u c a t o r s
H a n d b o o k o f F a m i l y L i f e E d u c a tio n : A C o m p le te R e s o u r c e o n F a m i ly L i f e I s s u e s in th e L o c a l
C h urch ,
eds. Kenneth O. Gangel and James C. Wilhoit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 121.
12Larry D. Stephens, B u i l d i n g a F o u n d a t i o n f o r
Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 158-59.
Y o u r C h i l d s F a i t h
(Grand Rapids:
95
support the result by stating that family religious activity, parental worship service
attendance, and parental prayer were related to positive family relationships .13 Hemphill
and Ross insist that the transmission o f a parents faith to their child is evident when
parents keep a strong positive heart connection with their child .14
Education at Church
Church is an important place for children to grow spiritually. The importance
o f church was shown in this study as the number o f church activities was significantly
related to childrens God concept score. Children grow spiritually in church where they
feel true belonging, remain involved in service and ministry, and receive experience and
education .15 When parents and the church serve as a team, a synergy effect on childrens
spiritual growth will be expected .16 Although parents and the church cooperate for
teaching the next generation, their primary roles are distinct. Parents take the primary
responsibility for nurturing their childrens faith. The church equips and
helps as the parents teach faith to their children and partner with the church in this
kingdom work.
17
,3Christian Smith and Phillip Kim, Family Religious Involvement and the Quality o f
Family Relationships fo r Early Adolescents (Chapel Hill: National Study o f Youth and Religion,
2003), 7.
14Ken Hemphill and Richard Ross, Parenting with Kingdom Purpose (Nashville: B &
H Publishing Group, 2005), 56-57.
15Scottie May et al., Children Matter: Celebrating Their Place in the Church, Family,
and Community (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 138-43.
16Ibid., 165.
17Ibid., 166.
96
For equipping parents, churches must shoulder the responsibility o f training
them to function as God intended and to overcome the less-than-ideal cycle 18 because
training parents eventually influences the spiritual lives o f both the children and
parents .19 Parents can learn and grow through parenting education, which teaches and
supports parents by providing the following: partnership with church leaders and teachers,
information on educating children, exposure to teaching methods, and fellowship with
other parents.
Parents also evaluate their childs level o f spirituality and adjust their
parental tasks and roles through a constant interaction with church educators.
Curriculum Evaluation
The curriculum is a plan designed for learners to grow that needs to be
evaluated. Pazmino raised the questions o f what, why, where, when, how, who, and for
1
whom for the curriculum evaluation criteria.
Cully chose biblical and educational
assumptions as fundamental issues for examining the Christian curricula.
O')
Based on
Pazmino and Cullys evaluation standards, the significant criteria for Christian
18David M. Carder, Parenting Programs in the Church, in
H a n d b o o k o n F a m i l y L i f e E d u c a tio n : A C o m p le te R e s o u r c e o n F a m i ly L i f e I s s u e s in th e L o c a l
C hurch,
eds. Kenneth O. Gangel and James C. Wilhoit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 162.
19Charles M. Sell,
House, 1995), 288.
F a m ily M in is tr y ,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
20Robert J. Choun and Michael S. Lawson,
T h e C h r i s t i a n E d u c a t o r s H a n d b o o k o n
C h i l d r e n 's M i n i s t r y : R e a c h i n g a n d T e a c h i n g t h e N e x t G e n e r a t i o n ,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1998), 210.

21
Pazmino,
F o u n d a ti o n a l I s s u e s in C h r is tia n E d u c a tio n ,
226-27.
22Iris Cully, Changing Patterns o f Protestant Curriculum, in C h a n g i n g P a t t e r n s

ed. Marvin J. Taylor (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), 229-30.
R e lig io u s E d u c a tio n ,
of
97
curriculum can be condensed to what, when, and how to teach. Theological and
developmental foundations o f childrens God concept, combined with the results from
this study, may be helpful in providing insights regarding these matters.
Recommendations for Further Study

First, further studies need to measure the level o f spiritual involvement o f both
of the parents as well as the child at home and at church in the relationship with
childrens God concept. It is because parents religious beliefs did not show a relationship
with childrens God concept, while the number o f church activities involved did show
such a relationship in this current study.
Second, this current study did not show a difference in childrens God concept
for the father participant group and mother participant group. Additional inquiry is
needed regarding the influence o f a preferred parent or mothers influence on childrens
God concept. Researchers including Bao et al., Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, and De Roos,
Iedema, and M iedema have shown much interest in the maternal influence on childrens
God concepts since the mother is likely to be more directly involved in a childs life.
Third, samples in the current study were predominantly Caucasians from large
Baptist churches. Further study is recommended to replicate the first hypothesis for the
purpose o f finding significant relationships between childrens God concept and parental
variables with non-specific samples.
Finally, it would be advisable to conduct an in-depth study using both
structured and unstructured methods to find out the influential factors on childrens God
concepts,. These methods may prove to be more conclusive because quantitative methods
show the statistical relationship with other variables or the difference in different groups
98
and are easy to analyze. Qualitative methods, on the other hand, yield both more detailed
and more abundant information that structured questionnaires cannot provide.
Theological Reflections
Packer asserts that the purpose o f life is to know God. Furthermore, he insists
that the best thing in life, which provides the most joy and gratification, is the knowledge
o f God. As recorded in Hosea 6 :6 , For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and
acknowledgment o f God rather than burnt offerings, it is evident that man pleases God
most by knowing Him .23
As all creatures grow, human beings also grow toward the One who created
them .24 In the current study, children showed high scores in their God concept based on
increasing age. The Bible emphasizes the necessity o f Christian growth. Ephesians 4:15
says, Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is
the Head, that is, Christ. Additionally, 2 Peter 3:18a also urges growing in Christ: But
grow in the grace and knowledge o f our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Children are meant to grow spiritually within a Christian family because God
intends that children learn and experience who God is through their parents. Gaultiere
and Gaultiere define Christian parenting as incamational because parents, the
ambassadors o f God, reveal who God is. After internalizing an image o f his parent and
23James I. Packer, K nowing G od (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 29.

24
Beers, Nurturing Children at Home, 119.
99
God, a child forms his self-concept in relation to God, his parents, and others.
Balswick
et al. list the biblical principles o f covenant, grace, empowerment, and intimacy as the
foundations o f a theology o f parent-child relationships .26 Similarly, Chartier suggests
seven dimensions o f Christian parenting through the model o f the heavenly Fathers love
with the following actions: care, respond, discipline, give, respect, know, and forgive.
97
Regarding parents responsibility to teach children, Deuteronomy 6:4-9

commands:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These
commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on
your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the
road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands
and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes o f your houses and
on your gates.
God commanded parents to take seriously their responsibility o f teaching their
children as they camped in the plains outside o f the Promised Land, awaiting Gods
instructions before occupying Canaan. When the Israelites entered the land, they were
expected to keep these instructions and obey them.
98
Two lessons are found from this
2 5 William Gaultiere and Kristi Gaultiere, The Spiritual Development o f Your Child,
in T h e C o m p l e t e P a r e n t i n g B o o k : P r a c t i c a l H e l p f r o m L e a d i n g E x p e r t s , eds. David Stoop and Jan
Stoop (Grand Rapids: Revell, 2004), 188-89.
26Balswick et al.
R e la tio n s h ip - E m p o w e r m e n t P a r e n tin g : B u ild in g F o r m a tiv e a n d
F u lfillin g R e la tio n s h ip s w ith Y o u r C h ild r e n
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 37-46.
27Myron R. Chartier, Parenting: A theological Model, J o u r n a l

no. 1 (1978): 55-61.
o f P s y c h o lo g y a n d
T h e o lo g y 6 ,
28James R. Slaughter, Toward a Biblical Theology o f Family, in
T h e C h r is tia n
E d u c a t o r s H a n d b o o k o n F a m i l y L i f e E d u c a t i o n : A C o m p l e t e R e s o u r c e o n F a m i l y L i f e I s s u e s in
th e L o c a l C h u r c h ,
eds. Kenneth O. Gangel and James C. Wilhoit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1996), 26.
100
narrative. First, it is a prerequisite for parents to have and maintain a relationship with
God before teaching children how to love God .29 Second, parents need to teach about
God and His commandments formally as well as informally, using every occasion o f
lifes daily routines .30
Throughout the Bible, God exhorts His people to use formal instruction as
shown in Deuteronomy 32:46, which says, Take to heart all these words I am giving as a
warning to you today, so that you may command your children to carefully follow all the
words o f this law. Other passages with this theme include Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalms
78:4-7; Proverbs 22:6; and Ephesians 6:4 .31 Regarding informal teaching, Sell states that
Everything in the life o f the child is related to the spiritual, and everything a parent does
will help or hinder a childs moral values, self-discipline, interpersonal relationship skills,
etc., all o f which are spiritual.
As shown in the study, positive and negative parent-child relationships are
predictors o f childrens God concept, therefore, Hemphill and Ross are right to
emphasize a heart connection between the parent and child as a prerequisite for spiritual
transformation .33 Such a heart connection is recorded in Malachi 4:6a: He [Elijah] will
29M ay et al., Children Matter, 33; and Ibid., 26-27.

30Choun and Lawson, The Christian Educator's Handbook on Children's Ministry:
Reaching and Teaching the Next Generation, 20; and Slaughter, Toward a Biblical Theology o f
Family, 27.
31Hemphill and Ross, Parenting with Kingdom Purpose, 82-83.
32
Sell, Family Ministry, 288.
33Hemphill and Ross, Parenting with Kingdom Purpose, 57.
101
turn the hearts o f the fathers to their children, and the hearts o f the children to their
fathers.
Finally, the work o f the Holy Spirit plays an important role in ones spiritual
growth and God concept development. In Ephesians 1:7, Paul prays, I keep asking that
the God o f our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit o f wisdom
and revelation, so that you may know him better. It is the Spirit o f God who reveals
Himself and helps people know Him better.
Conclusion
The current study was conducted to identify parental predictors on childrens
God concepts. Parents religiosity, a positive parent-child relationship, and a negative
parent-child relationship were hypothesized as predictors and tested. A finding o f the
study revealed that a negative parent-child relationship and a positive parent-child
relationship were significant negative predictors o f childrens God concept. Parents
religiosity was not a significant predictor. While parents religiosity showed no statistical
relationship with childrens God concept, the number o f church activities showed a
positive relationship with childrens God concept. When age and the number o f church
activities were added to the analysis, it was found that age, a negative parent-child
relationship, and a positive parent-child relationship were predictors o f childrens God
concept.
Another finding o f the study revealed the significant differences in childrens
God concept scores for seven age groups. Childrens God concept scores increased from
ages seven to eleven years. Several studies have been conducted regarding the effect of
age in childrens God concept differences. Most o f them used a drawing o f God or
102
open-ended questions to find the differences in the God concept. In this study, however, a
Likert scale was used to confirm that childrens God concepts develop biblically and
positively as they grow. Answers from open-ended questions and drawings o f God
revealed much information that structured questions could not reveal regarding childrens
God concepts. The information from open-ended questions revealed more detailed
differences in childrens God concept for the groups divided by their ages and other
variables.
In conclusion, this current study was undertaken with the premise that parents
would significantly influence their childrens God concept. Although the parental impact
on childrens God concept was only partially proven in the current study, it is biblically
supported that God expects and demands parents to be effective influences in their childs
spiritual life.
APPENDIX 1
ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE
PH.D. COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
1. Title of Study: The relationship between children God concept and specified parental
predictors and the difference in childrens God concept across age groups
2. Researcher: Sungwon Kim
3. Estimated beginning date of study: September 2006
4. Estimated duration of the study: Twelve months
5. Brief description of the study

5.1. What will the subjects do or what will be done to them? Children will complete the
God concept questionnaire.
5.2. How many subjects will there be and how will they be recruited? A cluster sample o f
twenty-three churches will be drawn from the forty-five Southern Baptist churches in Tarrant
County that have a resident membership o f 750 or more. All six- through twelve-year-old
children in sampling churches will be invited to participate in the study.
5.3. What is the sex, age, race, and institutional affiliation of the subjects? Both girls and
boys aged six through twelve years who attend Southern Baptist churches will be the subjects.
There is no racial distinction.
5.4. Will the subjects be informed that they are participating in a research study? Yes
5.5. Where will the study be conducted? In one o f the church class rooms
5.6. How many hours will each subject be asked to participate in/or devote to the study?
Twenty-five minutes
5.7. Will physical exertion of physical labor or activity be involved in the proposed
research project? If so, describe the physical requirements necessary for participation.
None.
6. The potential risks to human subjects involved in this research: Childrens first name
and age will be written on the childrens questionnaire and the human subject consent form to
match the parents and childs questionnaires.
7. The steps to be taken to protect the rights and welfare of the individuals involved:
After the researcher matches parents and childrens questionnaires, the first names o f a child
and age on the human subjects consent form and the childrens questionnaire will be erased.
103
104
8. The method for obtaining informed consent from the subjects or from the person
legally responsible for the subjects: Parents will put their signature on the human subject
consent form if they are willing to participate in the study and if they allow their children to
answer to the questionnaire.
Signature of Researcher::
CZ)dt 0
Signature of Chairperson:
Action of Ph.D. Committee:
Hr*
"
^ _____ Date
O Z - o Z - ->
Date
C ) l A i \ 4 a a s < . _______Date__
APPENDIX 2
HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH CONSENT FORM
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate as a subject in this research study. This form will provide a
brief description of the research goals, methodology, and your rights as a participant. If you have
any questions or feedback regarding the following information or the research project in general,
please feel free to contact me. You may also address questions about the study or any complaint
regarding your participation in the study, to the Chairperson of my Guidance Committee.
Researcher:
Chairperson:
Sungwon Kim
Dr. Marcia McQuitty
P.O. Box 22875
P.O. Box 22156
Fort Worth, TX 76122
Fort Worth, TX 76122
Sungwonl33 l@hotmail.com
MMcOuittv@swbts.edu
Research Goals
The topic of this study is A study of the Relationship between Childrens God Concept and
Specified Parental Predictors and the Difference in Childrens God Concept. The purpose of this
research is to determine the relationship between childrens God concept and parental predictors
as well as the effect of age upon childrens God concept differences.
Methodology
Between March xx and May xx, 2007, the children aged six through twelve whose parents turned
in the parental survey will answer the Childrens God concept questionnaire. It will take
approximately twenty-five minutes.
Participants Rights and Consent Declaration
I understand that information obtained from this research will be kept strictly confidential. I give
my permission for the use of this information with the understanding that my identity will be
protected at all times. I understand that my name or other identifying information will never be
disclosed or referenced in any way, in any written or verbal context. I understand that transcripts
will be stored securely by the researcher and the questionnaires will be destroyed after they are
used.
I understand that participation in this study is completely voluntary. I may refuse to participate or
withdraw at any time without explanation. If I refuse to participate, or elect to withdraw my
consent to further participation in this research study, I understand that any information I have
provided until the time of my withdrawal will be destroyed by the researcher.
I agree to the terms set forth in this document.
Parent/Guardians Signature__________________________ Date _______________
Researchers Signature
Date _______________
Your child/childrens first name and age
1.
________
2.
___________
105
APPENDIX 3
PARTICIPATING CHURCHES
1. Birdville Baptist Church

2. Cornerstone Baptist Church
3. First Keller Baptist Church
4. Gambrell Street Baptist Church
5. Retta Baptist Church
6. Shady Oaks Baptist Church
7. Wedgewood Baptist Church
106
APPENDIX 4
LIST OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS
Dr. Gerardo A. Alfaro, Ph. D,
Associate Professor o f Systematic Theology
Dr. Holly Catterton Allen, Ph. D.
Associate Professor o f Christian Ministries
Director o f the Children & Family Ministry Program
John Brown University
Dr. Joy Cullen, Ph. D.
Director o f Naylor Childrens Center
Dr. Norma Hedin, Ph. D.
Professor o f Christian Education
B. H. Carroll Institute
Dr. Wilma Heflin, Ph. D.
Consultant in Childhood Education
Adjunct Professor o f Childrens Ministry
Hardin-Simmons University
Dr. Lizette F. Knight, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary
Mrs. Charlene Jin Lee
Doctoral Candidate in Christian Education
Union Theological Seminary
Dr. Robert Mathis, Ph. D.
Associate Vice President for Institutional Assessment
Professor o f Administration
Dr. Mary Scottie May, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor o f Christian Formation & Ministry
Wheaton College
Dr. William Yount, Ph. D.
Professor and Assistant Dean o f Foundations o f Education
107
APPENDIX 5
LETTER TO THE VALIDATION PANEL
Dear D r.______
Greetings in Christ!
I am honored to have you participate on my panel o f experts. Thank you for taking the
time to assist me in developing the childrens God concept questionnaire. My research will
focus on two problems. The first problem o f my study is to determine the relationship
between childrens God concept and their parents religiosity as well as the parent-child
relationship. Another problem o f this study is to determine the difference in childrens God
concept across seven age groups from six through twelve years.
The background information is about the instrument I am developing:
O Title: The Childrens God Concept Questionnaire
Purpose: To measure the God concept of children, aged six through twelve
Definition of the God concept: A totality of knowledge, understanding, belief,
feeling, and relationship that one has about God, composed of cognitive and
affective domains
0 Contents:
a. Cognitive Domain- What God Has Done (Questions 1-16)
Who God Is (Questions 17-24)
b. Affective Domain- Feeling/Attitude toward God (Questions 25-29)
Living with/for God (Questions 30-40)
Format: Structured questions, open-ended questions, drawing a picture of God
Coding:
a. For structured items, Yes, Sometimes, and No will be used as choices with
happy, neutral, and sad faces (, , ).
b. For the items whose correlations with other items are negative, reverse scoring will
be applied.
c. The high total score means a biblically sound understanding about God and a
positive attitude toward God.
Other considerations: When ultimately given to the children, questions regarding similar
concepts will be asked at different places on the list.
Please evaluate each item. In the spaces, please write the number for both the
relevance o f the item (how relevant each item is to the God concept) and the clarity/
conciseness o f the item (utilizing 1 for the least and 5 for the most). Blank spaces are
provided for your comments. Additional spaces on the bottom are provided for the addition
of items. Please mail or e-mail your evaluation to me by September 12th.
Thank you for your invaluable help.
Sincerely,
Sung-Won Kim
E-mail: sungw onl331 @,hotmail.com
108
109
Part I: Structured Questions
Please evaluate each of the two areas (R-Relevance, C-Clarity/Conciseness) below using the
formula- 1 for the least and 5 for the most. Provide your comments on the space provided.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Questions
Comments
God created the world. He made

everything.
Flowers are formed from the seed and
grow by themselves.
God sent Jesus to save people from
their sins.
I believe that God brought Jesus back
from death.
Someday, I will be in heaven with
God.
The miracles that God performed as
told in the Bible are real.
God can do everything.
War and famine around the world
mean that God is not in control.
There are some things God cannot
control.
God cares and provides for people.
God judges what is right from what is
wrong.
God sometimes needs to punish
people because He is right.
God will forgive me if I ask Him.
God answers some prayers, but not all
prayers.
God is now working in me through the
Holy Spirit.
God has the best plan for everyone
including me.
God can watch me when I am in
church, but not when I am at school.
God lives too far away to take care o f
me.
God does not know what he does not
see.
110
Questions
No
21
God does not care about my sins

because He loves me.
God hates sin.
22
He always keeps His promises.
23
God looks like a man: an old man with

a beard.
God loves me.
20
24
26
I am afraid o f God because He

punishes me.
I am happy when I think o f God.
27
God is strong.
28
God is fair.
29
God is my friend.
30
I need Gods forgiveness for my sins.
31
God wants me to pray to Him.
32
God wants me to obey and respect

Him.
I feel sorry when I do something
wrong because God knows.
I try to do nice things to make God
happy.
I can be Gods child by believing in
Jesus.
I can be Gods child by accepting
what Jesus did for me.
I can be Gods child by doing right
things.
God wants me to become like Jesus.
25
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Comments
I want to tell others about God and

Jesus.
If things go well, I do not need God.
Ill
Additional questions you might add to the pool:
Part I I : Unstructured Questions

Please evaluate each o f the two areas (R-Relevance, C-Clarity/Conciseness) below using the
form ula-1 for the least and 5 for the most. Provide your comments on the space provided.
No
Questions
1
2
Draw a picture o f God and write about

your picture.
Who is God?
What does God look like?
Where does God live? Where is He

now?
What do you feel when you think
about God?
When do you feel close to God?
What do you pray to God?
What can God do?
Is there anything God cannot do?
10
Tell me a story about God.
11
How can you be G ods child?
12
Is God like your father?

How?
Is God like your mother?
How?
13
Comments
Additional questions you might add to the pool:
APPENDIX 6
ITEMS CHOSEN BY THE PANEL
1. Instructions: The following questions ask about God. There is no right or wrong answer.
Mark x for the answer you think is best.
Questions
No
1
God made the world and everything in it.
God sent Jesus to show us how much God loves us.
I can become a child of God by doing right things.
God is powerful.
I am afraid of God because He punishes me.
I try to do good things to make God happy.
God raised Jesus from the dead.
8
9
God does not know what I am thinking because He cannot

see my thoughts.
God cares about people.
10
God looks like a man.
11
All the miracles God performed in the Bible were real.
12
I am happy when I think of God.
13
God has the best plan for everyone.
14
God can watch me only when I am in the church.
15
God is my friend.
16
God is too far away to take care of me.
17
There are some things God cannot control.
18
God always keeps His promises.
19
God loves me.
20
I need God to forgive me when I do something wrong.
21
God wants me to obey Him.
22
God does not care about my sins because He loves me.
23
Popular kids do not really need Gods help.
24
I want to tell others about God.
Yes
Sometimes
112
No
113
2. Instructions: Write short sentences about what you think of the questions.
No
Questions
Who is God?
Where is God?
What can God do?
How do you feel when you

think about God? Why?
When do you feel that God is

close to you?
What do you pray to God

about?
How can you become

a child of God?
Is God like your father?

If you say yes, how?
If you say no, why not?

10
Tell me a story about God.
Answers
3. Draw a picture of God and write about your picture.
APPENDIX 7
CRONBACHS ALPHA
RELIABILITY
1.
.
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7.
8 .
9.
2
.
.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
2 0 .
2 1 .
2 2 .
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
10
11
VAR00002
VAR00003
VAR00004
VAR00005
VAR00006
VAR00007
VAR00008
VAR00010
VAR00011
VAR00012
VAR00013
VAR00014
VAR00015
VAR00016
VAR00017
VAR00018
VAR00019
VAR00020
VAR00021
VAR00022
VAR00023
VAR00024
VAR00025
VAR00026
VAR00027
VAR00028
VAR00029
VAR00030
VAR00001
VAR00009
* * * VAR00001
* * * VAR00009
ANALYSIS
Mean
2.8125
1.5938
2.8750
2.7188
2.7188
2.9063
2.4375
2.9688
2.7188
2.7188
2.7188
1.7500
2.9375
2.6875
2.9375
2.9063
2.8438
2.6875
2.8125
2.5625
2.6250
2.9688
2.7188
2.9375
2.9375
2.1563
1.9063
2.6563
3.0000
3.0000
- S C A L E ( ALPHA)
Std Dev
.3966
.8747
.4212
.5227
.6832
.3902
.6189
.1768
.5227
.5811
.4568
.7620
.2459
.6927
.2459
.2961
.5149
.5923
.5923
.7156
.5536
.1768
.5811
.3536
.3536
.8466
.9284
.5453
.0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0
Cases
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
has zero variance

has zero variance
* * * Warning * * * Determinant of matrix is close to zero: 5.802E-32

Statistics based on inverse matrix for scale ALPHA
are meaningless and printed as .
114
115
RELIABILITY
N of Cases =
Statistics for
Scale
ANALYSIS
32.0
Mean Variance
74.2188 21.5958
Inter-item
Correlations
N of
Std Dev Variables
4.6471
28
Mean Minimum
.0659 -.3914
Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
71.4063
VAR00002
72.6250
VAR00003
71.3438
VAR00004
71.5000
VAR00005
71.5000
VAR00006
71.3125
VAR00007
71.7813
VAR00008
71.2500
VAR00010
VAR00011
71.5000
71.5000
VAR00012
71.5000
VAR00013
VAR00014
72.4688
71.2813
VAR00015
71.5313
VAR00016
71.2813
VAR00017
71.3125
VAR00018
71.3750
VAR00019
71.5313
VAR00020
71.4063
VAR00021
71.6563
VAR00022
71.5938
VAR00023
71.2500
VAR00024
71.5000
VAR00025
71.2813
VAR00026
71.2813
VAR00027
72.0625
VAR00028
72.3125
VAR00029
71.5625
VAR00030
Maximum
.8028
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
21.4103
19.4032
20.8135
19.7419
18.7097
20.8669
21.5958
21.5484
20.6452
18.0645
21.0968
19.8700
20.4667
20.5796
21.0474
20.2218
19.7258
19.8054
19.1522
18.2974
21.7974
21.2258
18.6452
21.1764
21.1764
23.0927
19.5766
20.5121
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability Coefficients
Alpha = .6156
Range
1.1942
Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.0077
.1852
.1574
.3403
.4094
.1618
-.0666
.0098
.1426
.6465
.0692
.1686
.4802
.0853
.2162
.4829
.3509
.2731
.4037
.4551
-.0983
.2079
.5206
.0905
.0905
-.2721
.1409
.1592
Max/Min Variance
-2.0511
.0465
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.6205
.6098
.6095
.5912
.5773
.6093
.6349
.6171
.6108
.5534
.6168
.6102
.5963
.6199
.6085
.5923
.5904
.5967
.5817
.5695
.6350
.6107
.5685
.6143
.6143
.6761
.6187
.6093
28 items
Standardized item alpha = .6641
APPENDIX 8
FINAL CRONBACHS ALPHA
Reliability
****** Method 2 (covariance matrix) will be used for this analysis ******
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
* * * VAR00001
has zero variance
* * * VAR00009
has zero variance
N of Cases =
Statistics for
Scale
Inter-item
Correlations
32.0
N of
Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
58.2500 20.9032 4.5720
22
Mean Minimum
.1063 -.2993
Reliability Coefficients
Alpha = .7031
Maximum
.8028
Range Max/Min Variance

1.1021 -2.6818
.0464
22 items
Standardized item alpha = .7235
116
APPENDIX 9
THE CHILDRENS GOD CONCEPT QUESTIONNAIRE
T h e Childrens God C on cep t Q uestionnaire
I am conducting a survey to find out what you think about God.

Your ans we rs will be used only tor my study and will not be shown to anyone,
I appreciate your help.
Sincerely,
Sungwon Lim
Doctoral Candidate in Educational Ministries,
Your first n a m e : ____________________Age:
I . Instructions: Mark x for th e answer you think is bes t. Please practice with
following sample questions.
Questions
No
1
Exodus is t h e first book of th e Bible.
Jesus is th e son of God.
Christians make right choices.
2 + 3 = 6
Mr. Bush is t h e president of t h e United S t a t e s .
Yes
Sometimes
No
117
118
2. Instructions: The following questions ask about God. There is no right or wrong
answer. Mark x to r t h e answer you think is bes t.
No
Questions
God knows what my name is.
1 can become a child ot God by doing right things.
God makes th e wind blow.
God sometimes has to punish people.
A rich family does not need Gods help.
God s en t Je s us to sav e me from my sins,
1 am afraid ot God b ec a u se He punishes me.
All t h e miracles God performed in th e Bible were

real.
God will ta k e me to heaven when 1 die.
9
1
11
13
14
God has th e b e s t plan to r everyone.
I1?
God can watch me only when 1 am in th e church.
lb
\1
God is so powerful t h a t He can do anything except

sin.
God is too far away to ta k e c a r e of me.
18
There ar e some things God cannot control.
19
God always keeps His promises.
20
Man was formed from a monkey,
21
God raised Jesu s from th e dead.
22
God loves me even when 1 make mistakes.
23
God does not c a r e about my sins beca use He loves

me.
1 want to tell o th e rs about God.
24
Sometimes
No
God cannot do anything about all th e poor and

hungry people in th e world.
God looks like a man.
1 need God to torgive me when 1 do something
wrong.
When 1 f ac e problems, 1 can tr u s t God will help me.
12
Yes
119
3. Instructions: Write s ho rt s en te nc es about what you think of th e questions.
Q u e stio n s
Answers
No
1
Who is God?
Where is God?
What can God do?
How do you feel when you

think about God? Why?
*5
When do you feel t h a t

God is close to you?
What do you pray to God

about?
How can you become

a child of God?
Is God like your fa th e r?

If you say no, why nof?

10
Tell me a story about

God.
4. Draw a picture ot God and write about your picture.
APPENDIX 10
THE RELIGIOSITY IN DAILY LIFE SCALE
The following pages contain a number o f statements about your religious beliefs and
values. Read each statement carefully and think about how well it describes you. Work
quickly and give your first impression about the statement.
1. How often do you and your family members attend religious service or activities?
Two or Three times a week

Once a week
At least once a month
A few times a year
Never
You
5
Spouse
5
Cl
5
C2
5
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
2-11. Sometimes religious beliefs and values affect other areas o f peoples lives. How
often is each o f the statements below true? Circle your answer.
2. My religion makes me feel better about

myself
3. My religion comforts me during difficult
times
4 . 1 enjoy my religion
5. My religious beliefs influence the way I
interact with my spouse
6. My religious beliefs influence the way I
interact with my (step) children
(e.g., express affection, discipline)
7. My religious beliefs influence any
difficult decisions I make
8 . 1 try to provide my (step) children
with religion in the home (e.g.,
prayers at meals, family devotions, etc.)
9. My social activities involve my
church and its members
1 0 .1 talk about religion and religious
beliefs in my interactions with my
family
1 1 .1 talk about religion and religious
beliefs in my social interactions
with my friends
Rarely
True
Occasi
onally
True
Usually
True
120
APPENDIX 11
THE PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Part A: All parents and children have positive and negative times together. Below is a list
o f various types o f interactions that you may or may not engage in with your child
(mom/dad), please indicate how often each type o f interaction has occurred between you
and your child (mom/dad) i n t h e l a s t y e a r .
HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU AND YOUR CHILD....
Some
times
Al
ways
1. Enjoyed each others company?
2. Played together?
3. Had minor arguments or conflicts

(e.g. spats, got on each others
nerves)?
4. Had major disagreements (e.g., big

fights, blow ups)?
5. Had fun together?
6. Made each other feel better or put

each other in a good mood?
7. Yelled at each other?
8. Had interactions that involved one or

both o f you crying?
9. Shown affection toward each other

(e.g. hugging, kissing, cuddling)?
10. Been silly and playful with each other

(e.g. tickled, made faces)?
11. Refused to talk to each other?
12. Had a conflict where one o f you hit or

slapped the other?
13. Spent time together in a manner that

was pleasant for both o f you?
122
N ever
Som e
A l
times
ways
14. Agreed or seen things in the same

way?
15. Had interactions that included one or
both o f you stomping out o f the
room?
16. Gotten into power struggles with
each other?
17. Participated in activities together that
are enjoyable to you both?
18. Said funny things to each other?
19. Sworn at each other?
20. Had interactions where you hurt each

others feelings?
21. Done nice things for each other?
22. Said positive (encouraging,

affectionate, loving) things to each
other?
23. Pushed or shoved each other?
24. Gotten angry and upset with each

other?
25. Laughed together?
26. Had enjoyable conversations or chats

together?
27. Insulted each other or called each

other names?
28. Thrown things at each other?
APPENDIX 12
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE GOD CONCEPTS
Specialists suggested listed the following God concepts for six- and seven-year-olds:
Beers'
LifeWay
(Grades 1-2)2
God loves me and God is special- no
one and nothing can
my family and my
be compared to God.
friends.
God is Creator.
God loves all the
God is everywhere.
people of the
God hears and
world.
God wants people answers prayer.
God has concern
to love Him too.
God wants people and care for all
to give their lives to people.
God loves and
Him.
God provides food forgives people.
God wants people to
for people by
letting plants grow. worship Him.
God wants me to
God takes care of
the world He made. obey, respect, and
honor Him.
God is good, but
God is powerful.
He is also against
God is fair and can
evil.
be trusted.
God wants us to
God is real, the only
pray and read our
true God.
Bibles.
God is holy and
cannot fail; God
has all power to
help me.
Trent. Osborne, Bruner

(five- and six-year-olds)3
God is your loving Father.
In some ways, you are just like God.
In other ways, you are very different from God.
God tells you about Himself, His son, Jesus, and His
plan for you in the Bible.
God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for you.
God has prepared a place for you in heaven.
You can have a relationship with God by accepting
what Jesus did for you.
God wants to have a relationship with you.
You can talk to God through prayer.
You can thank God and Jesus for all Theyve done and
still do for you.
You can ask God for wisdom and guidance.
You can read about God and His son, Jesus, in the
Bible or in a Bible storybook.
God has a plan for you.
The Bible tells you the kind of person God wants you
to be.
Gods way works best.
God wants you to put only good things into your heart.
When you sin, you should ask God to forgive you- and
He will.
God wants you to spend time with other Christians.
God wants you to help others and be nice to them.
God wants you to obey Him and follow Jesus in
everything.
God wants you to share and take good care of
everything He gives you.
God wants you to understand and memorize Bible
verses.
'Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, 369-70.

2LifeWay, L e v e l s
o f B ib lic a l L e a r n in g .
3Trent, Osborne, and Bruner, P a r e n t s
G u id e to th e S p ir itu a l G r o w th o f C h ild r e n ,
291-318.
123
274,
124
Eight- and nine-year-olds understand the following God concepts:
Beers4
God is all
powerful, and
wise, and
everywhere.
God is present
with me at all
times.
God wants to
help me as I
grow.
God loves me
and wants me
to love God.
God made the
universe and all
in it.
God wants me
to pray each
day.
God always
answers
prayers with
yes, no, or
wait.
God loves
people all over
the world.
God the Holy
Spirit is a
person who is
spirit.
When I
receive Jesus as
my Savior, the
Holy Spirit
comes into my
life.
LifeWay
(grades3-4)5
God is uniqueno one and
nothing can be
compared to
Him.
As Creator, God
is to be praised.
God is every
where at all
times.
God hears
peoples prayers
and communi
cates with them.
God has concern
and care for all
people.
God loves and
values all people.
God loves
people enough to
provide forgive
ness for sin.
God is worthy
of praise and
worship.
God deserves
respect,
obedience, and
honor.
God is allpowerful.
God is faithful
and just.
God is all
knowing.
God is real, the
only true God.

(seven- to nine-year-olds)6
You can be sure that God is real.
There is only one God.
God exists in three Persons.
God is eternal.
Jesus is both God and Man.
Nothing exists apart from God.
Gods character is true, honest, loving, compassionate,
generous, selfless, forgiving, merciful, trustworthy, faithful, just,
impartial, and holy.
The Bible is true. It is Gods Word, and you can trust it.
God made sure all stories in the Bible together tell the One Big
Story.
The Bible you have is exactly what God wanted to give you.
God wants you to learn and study the Bible.
The world is full of sin. There is an enemy in the world. Not
everyone obeys God.
Jesus died to save you from the penalty for sin.
Jesus defeated sin and Satan.
Jesus is the only way to God.
You read the Bible to learn about who God is and what He has
done and is doing.
You can pray your own prayers with your parents.
Prayer benefits you in many ways.
Keep praying.
You can trust God and turn your life over to Him.
You should learn to seek God.
Jesus gives you peace.
God wants you to learn and grow and become like Jesus.
Growth is a learning process.
Your character should match Gods character.
God wants you to develop your talents.
God wants you to develop the fruit of the Spirit.
God wants you to mature and develop your personality.
Church is Gods idea.
God wants you to understand what a blessing people and good
relationships are.
God has taught you right from wrong.
The Ten Commandments are a good guide for life.
God wants you to share your faith.
4Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, 371.

5LifeWay, L e v e l s
o f B ib lic a l L e a r n in g .
6Trent, Osborne, and Brunner, P a r e n t s

275,319-56.
125
The following God concepts will be understood by ten- and eleven-year-olds:
Beers7
God is Spirit,
who is
everywhere, but
whose home is in
heaven.
God is all
powerful, but He
permits evil
things to happen.
God is all wise,
but He permits
people to choose
between Him and
sin, even though
He knows what is
best.
God is one, but
He is a triune
being: Father,
Son, and Holy
Spirit.
God is
absolutely
perfect, holy, and
just.
God hates all
sin.
God cares for
and protects His
children.
God wants to
show me His will
for my life.
LifeWay
(grades 5-6)8
God is holy, eternal, and
perfect.
God the Creator is to be
worshiped, not His
creations.
God is omnipresent.
God knows the desires of
my heart but still wants me
to pray.
Gods care and concern
exist in spite of peoples
circumstances.
Gods love is not limited
by time, space, culture, or
ethnicity.
God proved His
unconditional love for
people through the sacrifice
of Jesus Christ.
God wants people to
worship Him with
everything they are.
Because God deserves
respect, obedience, and
honor, God nurtures and
disciplines Christians.
God is omnipotent.
God is truthful,
dependable, and reliable.
God is omniscient.
People believe in different
gods, but there is only one
true God.
God is God the Father,
God the Son, and God the
Holy Spirit (Trinity).

(ten- to twelve-year-olds)9
Not everyone believes the truth about God, but
there are ways you can respond to their objections.
God wants you to explore the One Big Story.
God put the Bible together in a fascinating way.
You need to learn how to study the Bible.
God lets His people serve Him and express their
worship of Him in different ways.
God gave us an accurate record of His Son, Jesus.
God wants you to tell others about what Jesus has
done.
Jesus will return as Judge and there will be a new
heaven and a new earth.
You can pray on your own.
You can read the Bible on your own.
You can learn to worship God and Jesus on your
own or in a group.
God wants you to choose to grow, learn, and seek
His wisdom.
Gods grace: You do not have to do it on your
own. God is working in you by His Holy Spirit.
God wants you to find and follow His will for your
life.
God wants you to choose to commit your entire life
and everything you have to Him.
God wants you to choose His way because you
love Him and want to be like Jesus.
God wants you to learn to seek and follow His
Spirits leading.
You need to learn how to resist Satan and
temptation.
You need to get involved in church and find your
place in the body of Christ.
?Beers, Teaching Theological Concepts to Children, 372.

8LifeWay,
L e v e ls o f B ib lic a l L e a r n in g .
9Trent, Osborne, and Brunner, P a r e n t s

276,357-84.
APPENDIX 13
PERMISSION TO USE THE RIDLS
From :
Marjorie Gunnoe <mgunnoe@calvin.edu>
Date:
Wednesday August 16, 2006, 4:15:49 pm
To:
<sungwonl331@ hotmail.com>
Subject: RIDLS
Dear Sungwon Kim,

I am pleased to have you use RIDLS in your dissertation. I'm not sure where you got the
scale ... I sort o f recall giving it the name RIDLS when Blake Snider asked to use the
scale. Maybe you got it from him? Regardless, the cite for the scale something like this ...
"A scale developed by Gunnoe, introduced in..."
Gunnoe, M. L., Hetherington, E.M., and Reiss, D. (1999). Parental religiosity, parenting
style, and adolescent social responsibility. Journal o f Early Adolescence, 19 (2), 199-225.
I have done some psychometric work on it that has not been published. I can't seem to put
my hands on these analyses at the moment but I recollect that it can be as subscales
(feelings, influence, activities maybe) but all o f these factors then loaded on a second
order factor so I just used it as one global scale. In other words, if you don't have space to
include all the items, you are likely to still get a very high alpha with a reduced set o f
items. Do whatever works best for your project.
Please send me copies o f your research when it is done and best wishes on a successful
dissertation.
Marji Gunnoe
126
APPENDIX 14
PERMISSION TO USE THE PCIQ
F ro m :
wiebers@juno.com <wiebers@juno.com>
Date :
July 24,2006, 5:48:37 pm
To :
sungw on!331@hotmail.com
Subject:
Re: permission for using the instrument
Sungwon,
I think you sent me a previous message about this & I deeply apologize for not getting
back to you. Your research sounds very interesting & you certainly have my permission
to use the PCIQ in your dissertation. Please make a note to send me a copy o f your final
results (even just the Discussion section would give me a good overview). I currently
work at Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services in Grand Rapids, MI & have a big
interest in integrating faith & psychology.
Good luck with your work,
Jamie
127
APPENDIX 15
RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM RESEARCHER
February **, 2007
D e a r _____________ ,
My name is Sung-Won Kim and I am a Ph.D. student in Childhood Education at
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Thank you for taking the time to read the letter and consider the possibility to participate
in my study.
Several days ago, I contacted you by e-mail to let you know that your church has been
randomly selected to participate in my doctoral dissertation on the relationship o f
childrens God concept and parents religiosity as well as a parent-child relationship. A
solid God concept may influence ones self concept, the degree o f commitment, and
religious feelings, experiences, and devotional practices. Additionally, it is hoped that the
study will show that parents religiosity and a parent-child relationship are the factors that
influence childrens God concept. Awareness o f the parental role in the formation of
childrens God concepts is gaining wider attention and needs further study.
Would you be willing to participate in this study by administrating some inventories to
parents and to their children, ages six through twelve? The questionnaires will be
administered during the Sunday school session or at another convenient time and will
take approximately ten minutes for parents and twenty to twenty-five minutes for
children. The summary o f the results along with an appreciation gift will be offered as an
incentive for participating.
In a few days, I will contact you by phone to set up an appointment to discuss this study
further. Thank you for your consideration for your involvement in this study.
Sincerely,
Sung-Won Kim
128
APPENDIX 16
RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN
February 6, 2007
Dear Church Leader,
It is my privilege to write this letter o f introduction on behalf o f Ms. Sungwon Kim,
doctoral student in childhood education at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Sungwon has been working with children in churches in the metroplex for several years
while pursuing her doctoral degree. She comes from a rich background o f childrens
ministry in her native Korea. She has reached a point in her doctoral work where she
must write a dissertation in her chosen field o f study.
We know that all children are developing in the physical, mental, social and emotional
areas. Children are also developing in the spiritual realm as they relate to parents, attend
church programs and worship services. Ms. Kim is in the process o f developing an
instrument that will allow us to discern a childs concept o f God and the impact o f the
parent-child relationship and parent religiosity on their childs God concept. Gathering
this information will help us further understand the role that parents play in their childs
spiritual development. Let me encourage you to help Ms. Kim in her data collection for
this study. The information gathered will be handled professionally and discreetly.
I will be happy to answer any questions or concerns you might have regarding Ms. Kim
as one o f our doctoral students and the nature o f her study. Thank you for assisting her in
this study.
Gratefully,
Marcia McQuitty
129
APPENDIX 17
LETTER TO PARENTS
Dear Parents
Greetings in the name o f Lord!
My name is Sung-Won Kim and I am a Ph.D. student in Childhood Education at
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I am writing my dissertation regarding the
relationship o f childrens God concept and parents religiosity as well as a parent-child
relationship. I would appreciate if you could assist me by participating the research.
It has been known that a solid God concept may influence ones self concept, the degree
o f commitment, and religious feelings, experiences, and devotional practices.
Additionally, it is hoped that this study will show that parents religiosity and a parentchild relationship are the factors that influence childrens God concept. Awareness o f the
parental role in the formation o f childrens God concept is gaining wider attention and
needs further study.
The parental surveys for measuring parents religiosity and a parent-child relationship
will be administered at the same time. Personal information concerning your family and
your child will not be released. Would you be willing to participate in this study by
completing surveys and letting your child answer the God concept questionnaire?
Please indicate your willingness and availability to participate in the study in the consent
form enclosed. The summary o f results along with a small gift for your child will be
offered as an incentive for participating. Thank you in advance for your participation in
the study.
Sincerely,
Sung-Won Kim
130
APPENDIX 18
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE SURVEY
1. Cooperation with your childrens minister is important.

2. During the meeting with parents, introduce yourself, the purpose o f the study, and
their role in the study. Request their help. For example, My name i s ________ . I am
helping with the data collection for Sungwon Kims dissertation. The purpose o f the
study is to determine the indices o f parental influences on childrens God concept
and the associated age differences. With your help, we are able to contribute to one o f
the important areas in childrens spiritual development. All the results from you and
your child will be held in confidence. The small gifts for participating children are
prepared along with the refreshments. There are two things you must do for the study:
First, please sign the consent form. Second, fill out the two parental surveys. It will
take about ten minutes.
3. Instruct the parents to complete the consent form.
4. Conduct the parental surveys. Be sure that the parents answer every question.
5. While administering the childrens survey, it is desirable to have less than ten
children at the same time if possible.
6. Hand out the supplies before starting the survey (i.e., the questionnaire, pencils with
an eraser, and markers).
7. Explain the purpose o f the survey by saying, The purpose o f this survey is to find out
what you know about God and how you feel toward him. Answer the questions as you
know and feel, not as you think you ought. This is not a test, and there is no right or
wrong answer. Your answers will not be shown to anyone.
8. Continue the instructions by saying, Here are questions that tell what you think about
God. Read each question and decide whether or not it describes the way you think
about God. If it is what you think, mark x under yes. If it is not what you think, then
mark x under no. If you are not sure about the question or you think it is true
sometimes mark x under sometimes. Lets practice with sample questions. For the
question, Mr. Bush is the president o f the United States, you mark x under yes. For
the question, Three plus five equals seven, you mark x under no. Answer every
131
132
question, even if some are hard to decide. Do not mark in more than one place.
Remember that there is no right or wrong answer.
9. After delivering the instructions, individual items should be read aloud to the children
especially those o f the first and second graders, but ideally to others as well. Each item
should be read twice. If a child is uncertain about the meaning o f a word, it is
permissible to define it for him or her. The explanation, however, should not provide
any clue for their answer.
10. Be sure that every question is completed.
11. Provide refreshments and gifts when the survey is complete.
12. Be sure that the classroom is as clean as before the survey began.
APPENDIX 19
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
For better understanding o f your answers, the following information needs to be gathered.
Your answer will be held in the strict confidence.
1. How old is your child? Include all if you have more than one child aged 6-12.
6
7
8
9
10
o il
12
2. Indicate your relationship with your child/children who will answer survey. If more
than one child participates in the study, write their ages in ( ).
Father-Son ( )
a Father-Daughter (
)
Mother-Son (
)
Mother-Daughter (
)
3. Indicate your relationship with your child. If more than one answer applies, write the
ages o f your children.
Biological child (
)
Step child (
)
Adopted child (
)
Foster care (
)
O ther:____________________
4. Which o f the following best describes your racial or ethnic background?
African American
Caucasian
Asian American
Pacific Islander
Hispanic/Latino
O ther:________________
5. What type o f school does your child attend? If more than one answer applies, write the
ages o f your children.
Public school (
)
Private Christian school (
)
Home school (
)
O ther:___________________
6. What activities does your child engage in at the church? (Check all that apply.)
Sunday morning worship
Sunday evening worship
Sunday School
Discipleship Training
Mission program
Music program
Other:_______________
133
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX 20
Creator
Ten-year-old boy
CHILDRENS DRAWINGS OF GOD
>
- 1
......
.....
t:
T=
134
Creator
Nine-year-old boy
- 4:
'
The Fruit o f the Tree o f Knowledge - Gods Acts

Eight-year-old girl
titaw/l Uut/h;
Guarding the Earth - Gods Acts

Nine-year-old girl
h y
(!r
i<5*o rcvh
'* * " iJt
i.
Groi 1^
^
lh
I'y"
,c
am^r.-w,
+**+
iolev,'
V v W tfi-
W VV1 < ^ * r y U i y
God is in heaven with believers - Gods Attributes

Ten-year-old girl
Empty Tomb - Jesus

Eight-year-old boy
;Jesus on the Cross-Cross

Nine-year-old boy
Jesus on the Cross- Cross1

Eight-year-old girl
137
Light - Religious Symbol

Nine-year-old girl
Angel - Religious Symbol'

Nine-year-old girl
138
ft
Christian with a Fish Necklace - Man

Nine-year-old girl
Man
Six-year-old girl
139
140
-t-J s
P
x-
Ci
D
3\~~^
r-
^
_S
cjL lJ
Inconsistent
Ten-year-old boy
+0)
.
->
cS
o
s*_>
Invisible
Eleven-year-old boy
CO
cc
~H
-''
<.
Z 3
v \
~~^
<: :>
APPENDIX 21
ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS BY AGE
Table Al: When do you feel that God is close to you? * age crosstabulation
A ge
7
6
Count
A lw ays
12
17
13
59
13.6%
20.3%
28.8%
22.0%
5.1%
100.0%
66.7%
26.7%
36.4%
40.0%
53.1%
46.4%
30.0%
42.1%
23
% within category
.0%
21.7%
17.4%
26.1%
17.4%
13.0%
4.3%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
33.3%
18.2%
20.0%
12.5%
10.7%
10.0%
16.4%
20
% within category
.0%
15.0%
5.0%
10.0%
25.0%
30.0%
15.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
20.0%
4.5%
6.7%
15.6%
21.4%
30.0%
14.3%
10
% within category
.0%
.0%
.0%
30.0%
10.0%
30.0%
30.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
3.1%
10.7%
30.0%
7.1%
% w ithin category
.0%
12.5%
37.5%
25.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
6,7%
13.6%
6.7%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
5.7%
20
5.0%
10.0%
30.0%
25.0%
15.0%
15.0%
.0%
100.0%
33.3%
13.3%
66.7%
26.7%
36.4%
10.7%
.0%
14.3%
15
22
10
140
2.1%
10.7%
15.7%
21.4%
22.9%
20.0%
7.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Count
Count
Happy tim es
Other responses
Count
% within category
% within age
Count
Total
Total
12
6.8%
Count
Religious activities
11
10
% w ithin age
Prayer
3.4%
% within category
D ifficult tim es
% within category
% within age
Table A2: How can you become a child of God? * age crosstabulation
A ge
6
B elieve in Jesus
Count
Other responses
10
11
Total
12
12
18
23
19
84
3.6%
14.3%
21.4%
27.4%
22.6%
9.5%
100.0%
33.3%
20.0%
54.5%
60.0%
71.9%
67.9%
80.0%
60.0%
14
% within category
.0%
7.1%
21.4%
35.7%
21.4%
14.3%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
6.7%
13.6%
16.7%
9.4%
7.1%
.0%
10.0%
12
% w ithin category
.0%
8.3%
16.7%
33.3%
33.3%
8.3%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
6.7%
9.1%
13.3%
12.5%
3.6%
.0%
8.6%
10
30
6.7%
33.3%
16.7%
10.0%
6.7%
20.0%
6.7%
100.0%
66.7%
66.7%
22.7%
10.0%
6.3%
21.4%
20.0%
21.4%
15
22
30
32
28
10
140
2.1%
10.7%
15.7%
21.4%
22.9%
20.0%
7.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Count
Count
% within category
% within age
Total
% within age
Get baptized
1.2%
% within category
G ood conduct
Count
% within category
% within age
141
142
Table A3: Drawing a picture of God * age crosstabulation
A ge
6
Invisible
Creation
Acts
Attributes
Jesus
Cross
R eligious
sym bol
Man
Count
Other
responses
Total
11
10
Total
12
12
.0%
.0%
8.3%
16.7%
8.3%
50.0%
16.7%
100.0%
% w ithin age
.0%
.0%
4.5%
6.7%
3.1%
21.4%
20.0%
8.6%
% within category
20.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
60.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
33.3%
.0%
.0%
3.3%
9.4%
.0%
.0%
3.6%
12
% w ithin category
.0%
8.3%
8.3%
16.7%
25.0%
41.7%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
6.7%
4.5%
6.7%
9.4%
17.9%
,0%
8.6%
% within category
.0%
.0%
14.3%
14.3%
42.9%
28.6%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
.0%
4.5%
3.3%
9.4%
7.1%
.0%
5.0%
10
% w ithin category
10.0%
20.0%
10.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
.0%
100.0%
% w ithin age
33.3%
13.3%
4.5%
3.3%
6.3%
10.7%
.0%
7.1%
13
% w ithin category
.0%
7.7%
46.2%
15.4%
7.7%
15.4%
7.7%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
6.7%
27.3%
6.7%
3.1%
7.1%
10.0%
9.3%
17
Count
Count
Count
Count
Count
Count
% within category
.0%
5.9%
11.8%
17.6%
41.2%
11.8%
11.8%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
6.7%
9.1%
10.0%
21.9%
7.1%
20.0%
12.1%
13
31
3.2%
12.9%
12.9%
41.9%
22.6%
3.2%
3.2%
100.0%
33.3%
26.7%
18.2%
43.3%
21.9%
3.6%
10.0%
22.1%
15
% within category
.0%
33.3%
13.3%
13.3%
13.3%
6.7%
20.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
33.3%
9.1%
6.7%
6.3%
3.6%
30.0%
10.7%
11
% within category
.0%
9.1%
27.3%
18.2%
9.1%
27.3%
9.1%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
6.7%
13.6%
6.7%
3.1%
10.7%
10.0%
7.9%
% within category
.0%
.0%
14.3%
14.3%
28.6%
42.9%
.0%
100.0%
% w ithin age
.0%
.0%
4.5%
3.3%
6.3%
10.7%
.0%
5.0%
15
22
30
32
28
10
140
2.1%
10.7%
15.7%
21.4%
22.9%
20.0%
7.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
% within age
N o response
% within category
% w ithin category
Inconsistent
Count
Count
Count
Count
% within category
% within age
APPENDIX 22
ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS BY GENDER
Table A4: Who is God? * gender crosstabulation
Gender
B oy
Creator
Lord, K ing, Ruler
Savior
L oving One
Jesus
H oly spirit
Count
21
16
37
% within category
56.8%
43.2%
100.0%
% within gender
27.6%
25.0%
26.4%
11
11
22
% within category
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
% within gender
14.5%
17.2%
15.7%
16
% w ithin category
56.3%
43.8%
100.0%
% within gender
11.8%
10.9%
11.4%
Count
Count
Count
14
% within category
57.1%
42.9%
100.0%
% within gender
10.5%
9.4%
10.0%
13
% within category
61.5%
38.5%
100.0%
% within gender
10.5%
7.8%
9.3%
11
45.5%
54.5%
100.0%
6.6%
9.4%
7.9%
Count
Count
% within category
% within gender
Powerful One
Count
% within category
% within gender
Man
Count
% within category
% within gender
Other responses
Count
% within category
% within gender
Total
Total
Girl
Count
% within category
% within gender
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
7.9%
4.7%
6.4%
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
5.3%
3.1%
4.3%
12
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
5.3%
12.5%
8.6%
76
64
140
54.3%
45.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
143
144
Table A5: When do you feel that God is close to you? * gender crosstabulation
Gender
B oy
A lw ays
D ifficult tim es
Count
33
26
59
% within category
55.9%
44.1%
100.0%
% w ithin gender
43.4%
40.6%
42.1%
16
23
30.4%
69.6%
100.0%
9.2%
25.0%
16.4%
11
20
% within category
45.0%
55.0%
100.0%
% within gender
11.8%
17.2%
14.3%
Count
% within category
% within gender
Prayer
R eligious activities
Happy tim es
Count
Count
10
% within category
80.0%
20.0%
100.0%
% within gender
10.5%
3.1%
7.1%
75.0%
25.0%
100.0%
7.9%
3.1%
5.7%
13
20
% within category
65.0%
35.0%
100.0%
% within gender
17.1%
10.9%
14.3%
76
64
140
54.3%
45.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
% within category
% within gender
Other responses
Total
Total
Girl
Count
Count
% within category
% within gender
Table A6: Tell me a story about God * gender crosstabulation
Gender
B oy
Creation
Jesus
OT
NT
Attributes
Count
19
28
% within category
67.9%
32.1%
100.0%
% within gender
25.0%
14.1%
20.0%
15
18
33
% within category
45.5%
54.5%
100.0%
% within gender
19.7%
28.1%
23.6%
12
17
% within category
70.6%
29.4%
100.0%
% within gender
15.8%
7.8%
12.1%
Count
Count
Count
10
16
% w ithin category
62.5%
37.5%
100.0%
% within gender
13.2%
9.4%
11.4%
55.6%
44.4%
100.0%
6.6%
6.3%
6.4%
11
18
38.9%
61.1%
100.0%
9.2%
17.2%
12.9%
10
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
6.6%
7.8%
7.1%
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
3.9%
9.4%
6.4%
76
64
140
54.3%
45.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
% within category
% within gender
Personal experience
Count
% within category
% within gender
N o response
Count
% within category
% w ithin gender
Other responses
Count
% within category
% w ithin gender
Total
Total
Girl
Count
% w ithin category
% w ithin gender
Table A7: Drawing a picture of God * gender crosstabulation

Gender
Invisible
Creation
Count
12
% within category
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
% within gender
10.5%
6.3%
8.6%
100.0%
.0%
100.0%
6.6%
.0%
3.6%
Count
% within category
% within gender
G ods acts
G ods attributes
Count
12
% within category
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
% within gender
10.5%
6.3%
8.6%
57.1%
42.9%
100.0%
5.3%
4.7%
5.0%
10
10.0%
90.0%
100.0%
1.3%
14.1%
7.1%
13
46.2%
53.8%
100.0%
7.9%
10.9%
9.3%
17
% within category
47.1%
52.9%
100.0%
% within gender
10.5%
14.1%
12.1%
17
14
31
% w ithin category
54.8%
45.2%
100.0%
% within gender
22.4%
21.9%
22.1%
15
% within category
60.0%
40.0%
100.0%
% within gender
11.8%
9.4%
10.7%
Count
% w ithin category
% w ithin gender
Jesus
Count
% within category
% within gender
Cross
Count
% within category
% within gender
R eligious sym bol
Man
Inconsistent
N o response
Other responses
Count
Count
Count
Count
11
% within category
72.7%
27.3%
100.0%
% within gender
10.5%
4.7%
7.9%
28.6%
71.4%
100.0%
2.6%
7.8%
5.0%
76
64
140
54.3%
45.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
% within category
% within gender
Total
Total
Girl
B oy
Count
% within category
% within gender
APPENDIX 23
ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONS BY BANDED VARIABLE GROUPS
Table A8: When do you feel that God is close to you? * banded RIDLS
crosstabulation
RIDLS (Banded)
< = 4 8 .0 0
A lw ays
D ifficult tim es
Prayer
R eligious activities
Count
Total
Total
18
59
% within category
42.4%
27.1%
30.5%
100.0%
% within RIDLS
43.1%
45.7%
39.1%
42.4%
23
% within category
34.8%
26.1%
39.1%
100.0%
% within RIDLS
13.8%
17.1%
19.6%
16.5%
20
% within category
35.0%
20.0%
45.0%
100.0%
% within RIDLS
12.1%
11.4%
19.6%
14.4%
Count
Count
Count
10
30.0%
10.0%
60.0%
100.0%
5.2%
2.9%
13.0%
7.2%
% within category
85.7%
14.3%
.0%
100.0%
% w ithin RIDLS
10.3%
2.9%
.0%
5.0%
20
% within category
45.0%
35.0%
20.0%
100.0%
% within RIDLS
15.5%
20.0%
8.7%
14.4%
% within RIDLS
Other responses
51.51+
16
% within category
Happy tim es
4 8 .0 1 - 5 1 .5 0
25
Count
Count
Count
% within category
% w ithin RIDLS
58
35
46
139
41.7%
25.2%
33.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
147
148
Table A9: Drawing a picture of God * banded CGCQ crosstabulation
CGCQ (Banded)
< = 65.00
Invisible
Creation
Count
12
% within category
8.3%
41.7%
50.0%
100.0%
% w ithin CGCQ
1.9%
10.4%
16.7%
8.8%
60.0%
40.0%
.0%
100.0%
5.7%
4.2%
.0%
3.6%
12
33.3%
16.7%
50.0%
100.0%
7.5%
4.2%
16.7%
8.8%
28.6%
71.4%
.0%
100.0%
3.8%
10.4%
.0%
5.1%
10
40.0%
20.0%
40.0%
100.0%
7.5%
4.2%
11.1%
7.3%
Count
% within CGCQ
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
G ods attributes
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Jesus
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Cross
Count
12
33.3%
25.0%
41.7%
100.0%
7.5%
6.3%
13.9%
8.8%
17
% within category
47.1%
29.4%
23.5%
100.0%
% within CGCQ
15.1%
10.4%
11.1%
12.4%
13
12
29
% within category
44.8%
41.4%
13.8%
100.0%
% within CGCQ
24.5%
25.0%
11.1%
21.2%
15
% within category
60.0%
26.7%
13.3%
100.0%
% within CGCQ
17.0%
8.3%
5.6%
10.9%
11
36.4%
45.5%
18.2%
100.0%
7.5%
10.4%
5.6%
8.0%
14.3%
42.9%
42.9%
100.0%
1.9%
6.3%
8.3%
5.1%
% within category
% within CGCQ
R eligious sym bol
Man
Inconsistent
N o response
Count
Count
Count
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Other responses
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
Total
Total
69.0 0 +
5
% w ithin category
G ods acts
66.00-68.00
1
Count
% within category
% within CGCQ
53
48
36
137
38.7%
35.0%
26.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
APPENDIX 24
MULTIPLE REGRESSION INCLUDING OTHER PREDICTORS
Table A10: Correlation matrix for regression model
CGCQ
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
CGCQ
RIDLS
1.000
-.019
PCIQP
PCIQN
-.120
-.204
RIDLS
PCIQP
-.019
1.000
.472
PCIQN
-.120
.472
-.149
Age
Activity
-.2,04
-.149
.316
.007
.207
.108
1.000
-.313
-.072
-.002
1.000
.075
.075
1.000
-.090
.376
-.090
.376
1.000
Age
.316
.007
-.313
-.072
Activity
.207
.108
-.002
,414
.082
.009
.000
.008
.000
.041
.469
.201
.192
.102
CGCQ
RIDLS
.414
PCIQP
PCIQN
.082
Age
.000
.469
.201
.192
Activity
.008
.102
.492
.147
.000
.041
.009
.000
.000
.492
.147
.000
.000
Table Al l : Regression model summaryb
Model
R Square
.434a
Adjusted R
Square
.188
Std. Error o f
the Estimate
.157
3.14733
a Predictors: (Constant), Activity, PCIQP, PCIQN, Age, RIDLS

Table A12: ANOVAb for regression model

Sum of
Squares
296.352
1277.831
1574.184
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
df
Mean Square
5
129
134
F
5.983
59.270
9.906
Sig.
.0003
a Predictors: (Constant), Activity, PCIQP, PCIQN, Age, RIDLS

Table A 13: Regression coefficients3

Unstandardized
Coefficients
MODEL
1 (Constant)
RIDLS
PCIQP
PCIQN
Age
Activity
B
69.80
.02
-.09
-.14
.67
.22
Standardized
Coefficients
Std.
Error
4.96
.08
.04
.04
.20
.29
Beta
.02
-.20
-.28
.30
.07
95% Confidence
Interval for B
t
Sig.
Lower
Bound
14.09
.26
-2.10
-3.30
3.45
.77
.000
.792
.038
.001
.001
.444
60.00
-.14
-.18
-.22
.29
-.35
Upper
Bound
79.59
.19
-.01
-.06
1.06
.78
Correlations
Zero
Part
Order
-ial
Part
-.02
-.12
-.20
.32
.21
.02
-.18
-.28
.29
.07
149
.02
-.17
-.26
.27
.06
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolera
-nee
VIF
.77
.71
.89
.85
.83
1.31
1.41
1.13
1.18
.120
APPENDIX 25
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EACH GOD CONCEPT QUESTION
Table A 14: Descriptive statistics for each God concept question
Godl
God2
God3
God4
God5
God6
God7
God8
God9
GodlO
G odll
God 12
Godl 3
Godl4
Godl 5
God 16
Godl 7
Godl 8
God 19
God20
God21
God22
God23
God24
Valid N
N
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Mean
3.0000
1.9857
2.8643
2.6429
2.7929
2.9357
2.7786
2.9357
2.8000
2.7786
1.6857
2.9286
2.9429
2.9071
2.9500
2.7857
2.8714
2.6214
2.9857
2.9286
2.8643
2.9286
2.1143
2.8643
Std. Deviation
Variance
.00000
.000
.93675
.43598
.60062
.52965
.29894
.49556
.29894
.46766
.58847
.75946
.33162
.28817
.31501
.27680
.57258
.46213
.70423
.16903
.35264
.48296
.33162
.92981
.38330
.877
.190
.361
.281
.089
.246
.089
.219
.346
.577
.110
.083
.099
.077
.328
.214
.496
.029
.124
.233
.110
.865
.147
150
APPENDIX 26
ANTHROPOMORPHISM BY AGE
Table A15: God looks like a man. * age crosstabulation
A ge
6
Y es
Count
% w ithin category
No
Total
14
10
11
18
17
12
5
Total
6
69
4.3%
8.7%
20.3%
26.1%
24.6%
7.2%
8.7%
100.0%
100.0%
40.0%
63.6%
60.0%
53.1%
17.9%
60.0%
49.3%
11
14
46
% within category
.0%
10.9%
13.0%
13.0%
23.9%
30.4%
8.7%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
33.3%
27.3%
20.0%
34.4%
50.0%
40.0%
32.9%
25
% within category
.0%
16.0%
8.0%
24.0%
16.0%
36.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within age
.0%
26.7%
9.1%
20.0%
12.5%
32.1%
.0%
17.9%
15
22
30
32
28
10
140
2.1%
10.7%
15.7%
21.4%
22.9%
20.0%
7.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% within age
Som etim es
7
3
Count
Count
Count
% within category
% within age
151
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Astley, Jeff. T h e P h i l o s o p h y
Education Press, 1994.
o f C h r is tia n R e lig io u s E d u c a tio n .
Birmingham: Religious
Balswick, Jack O. and Judith K. Balswick. T h e F a m i l y : A C h r i s t i a n P e r s p e c t i v e

C o n t e m p o r a r y H o m e , 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Balswick, Judy, Jack Balswick, Boni Piper, and Don Piper.
o n th e
R e la tio n s h ip -E m p o w e r m e n t
P a r e n tin g : B u ild in g F o r m a tiv e a n d F u lfillin g R e la tio n s h ip s w ith Y o u r C h ild r e n .
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003.

Black, Thomas.
D o in g Q u a n tita tiv e R e s e a r c h in th e S o c ia l S c ie n c e s : A n I n te g r a te d
A p p r o a c h to R e s e a r c h D e s ig n , M e a s u r e m e n t a n d S ta tis tic s .
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, 1999.
Calvin, Jean. C a l v i n s I n s t i t u t e s , Abridged ed. Edited by Donald K. McKim. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Choun, Robert J. and Michael S. Lawson.
T h e C h r is tia n E d u c a t o r 's H a n d b o o k o n
C h i ld r e n 's M in is tr y : R e a c h i n g a n d T e a c h in g th e N e x t G e n e r a tio n ,
2nd ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Coles, Robert.
T h e S p ir itu a l L ife o f C h ild r e n .
Devellis, Robert F. S c a l e D e v e l o p m e n t :
Sage Publications, 2003.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990.
T h e o r y a n d A p p lic a tio n s ,
Downs, Perry G. T e a c h i n g f o r S p i r i t u a l G r o w t h : A n I n t r o d u c t i o n
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. E v a n g e l i c a l
Academic, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J.
Fowler, James W.
D ic tio n a r y o f T h e o lo g y ,
C h r is tia n T h e o lo g y ,
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks:
to C h r is tia n E d u c a tio n .
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
S ta g e s o f F a ith : T h e P s y c h o lo g y o f H u m a n D e v e lo p m e n t a n d th e
Q u e s t f o r M e a n in g .
San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981.

152
153
Freud, Sigmund. T h e F u t u r e o f a n I l l u s i o n . Translated by W. D. Robson-Scott. Garden
City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957.
Gable, Robert K. I n s t r u m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
Garland, Diana R. F a m i l y M i n i s t r y :
InterVarsity Press, 1999.
in th e A ffe c t iv e D o m a in ,
A C o m p r e h e n s iv e G u id e .
2nd ed. Boston:
Downers Grove:
Garrett, James Leo, Jr. S y s t e m a t i c T h e o l o g y : B i b l i c a l , H i s t o r i c a l ,

Vol. 1. North Richland Hills: BIBAL Press, 2000.
a n d E v a n g e lic a l,
2nd ed.
Gay, Lorraine Rumbel and Peter Airasian. E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : C o m p e t e n c i e s f o r

A n a l y s i s a n d A p p l i c a t i o n s , 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.,
2003.
Goldman, Ronald. R e l i g i o u s T h i n k i n g f r o m
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964.
C h ild h o o d to A d o le s c e n c e .
London:
Green, Albert E. R e c l a i m i n g t h e F u t u r e o f C h r i s t i a n E d u c a t i o n : A T r a n s f o r m i n g
Colorado Springs: Association o f Christian Schools International, 1998.
Grenz, Stanley J. T h e o l o g y
Publishers, 1994.
fo r th e C o m m u n ity o f G o d .
_________ . T h e o l o g y f o r t h e C o m m u n i t y
Publishing Company, 2000.
o f G od.
V is io n .
Nashville: Broadman and Holman
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Grudem, Wayne. S y s t e m a t i c T h e o l o g y : A n I n t r o d u c t i o n
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
to B ib lic a l D o c tr in e .
Grand
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and W illiam C. Black.
M u l t i v a r i a t e D a t a A n a l y s i s , 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998.
Heller, David.
T h e C h i l d r e n s G o d .
Hemphill, Ken and Richard Ross.

Publishing Group, 2005.
Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, 1986.
P a r e n tin g w ith K in g d o m P u r p o s e .
Nashville: B & H
Hittleman, Daniel R. and Alan J. Simon. I n t e r p r e t i n g E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : A n

I n t r o d u c t i o n f o r C o n s u m e r s o f R e s e a r c h , 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education, Inc., 2002.
Hood, Ralph W., Jr., Bernard Spilka, Bruce Hunsberger, and Richard Gorsuch. T h e
P s y c h o l o g y o f R e l i g i o n : A n E m p i r i c a l A p p r o a c h , 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford
Press, 1996.
154
Huck, Schuyler W.
Inc., 2004.
R e a d in g S ta tis tic s a n d R e s e a r c h ,
Hyde, Kenneth E. R e l i g i o n i n
Education Press, 1990.
4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education
C h ild h o o d a n d A d o le s c e n c e .
Birmingham: Religious
Johnson, Burke and Larry Christensen. E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : Q u a n t i t a t i v e , Q u a l i t a t i v e ,

a n d M i x e d A p p r o a c h e s , 2nd ed. Boston: A Pearson Education Company, 2004.
May, Scottie, Beth Posterski, Catherine Stonehouse, and Linda Cannell. C h i l d r e n M a t t e r :
C e l e b r a t i n g T h e i r P l a c e i n t h e C h u r c h , F a m i l y , a n d C o m m u n i t y . Grand Rapids:
W illiam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.
Merriam, Sharan B. C a s e S t u d y R e s e a r c h i n E d u c a t i o n :
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988.
Mertens, Donna M.
A Q u a lita tiv e A p p r o a c h .
San
R e s e a r c h M e th o d s in E d u c a tio n a n d P s y c h o lo g y : I n te g r a tin g
D iv e r s ity w ith Q u a n tita tiv e & Q u a lita tiv e A p p r o a c h e s .
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, 1998.
Packer, James I.
Pallant, Julie.
K n o w in g G o d .
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
S P S S S u r v iv a l M a n u a l: A S te p b y S te p G u id e to D a ta A n a ly s is U s in g S P S S
V e r s i o n 1 2 , 2nd ed.
New York: Open University Press, 2005.
Patten, Mildred L. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Pyrczak Publishing, 2001.
Pazmino, Robert W.
R e s e a r c h : A P r a c tic a l G u id e ,
2nd ed. Los Angeles:
F o u n d a t i o n a l I s s u e s in C h r i s t i a n E d u c a t i o n : A n I n t r o d u c t i o n in
E v a n g e lic a l P e r s p e c tiv e ,
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.
Pinnock, Clark H., Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger.
T h e O p e n n e s s o f G o d : A B ib lic a l C h a lle n g e to th e T r a d itio n a l U n d e r s ta n d in g o f
G od.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Plass, Ewald M., ed. W h a t L u t h e r S a y s : A P r a c t i c a l I n - H o m e A n t h o l o g y f o

C h r i s t i a n . Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986.
Reist, Benjamin A. A
Press, 1991.
R e a d i n g o f C a l v i n s I n s t i t u t e s .
Richards, Lawrence O.
Publishers, 1983.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox
A T h e o lo g y o f C h r is tia n E d u c a tio n .
Rizzuto, Ana-Maria. T h e B i r t h o f t h e L i v i n g
University o f Chicago Press, 1979.
r th e A c tiv e
Grand Rapids: Zondervan
G o d : A P s y c h o a n a ly tic S tu d y .
Chicago:
155
Sell, Charles M.
1995.
F a m ily M in is tr y ,
Smith, Christian and Phillip Kim.
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
F a m ily R e lig io u s In v o lv e m e n t a n d th e Q u a lity o f
F a m ily R e la tio n s h ip s f o r E a r ly A d o le s c e n ts .
Chapel Hill: National Study o f Youth
and Religion, 2003.

Stephens, Larry D. B u i l d i n g a F o u n d a t i o n f o
Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
r Y o u r C h i l d s F a i t h .
Stevens, James. A p p l i e d M u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c s f o r
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.
Tabachnick, Barbara G. and Linda S. Fidell.
Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.
th e S o c ia l S c ie n c e s ,
3rd ed. Mahway:
U s in g M u ltiv a r ia te S ta tis tic s ,
Tamminen, Kalevi. R e l i g i o u s D e v e l o p m e n t i n C h i l d h o o d
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1991.
Tidwell, Charles A.
Grand Rapids:
5th ed. Boston:
a n d Y o u th : A n E m p ir ic a l S tu d y .
T h e E d u c a tio n a l M in is tr y o f a C h u rc h : A C o m p r e h e n s iv e M o d e lf o r
S tu d e n ts a n d M in is te r s .
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.
Trent, John, Rick Osborne, and Kurt Bruner.
P a r e n ts G u id e to th e S p ir itu a l G r o w th o f
C h ild r e n : H e lp in g Y o u r C h ild r e n D e v e lo p a P e r s o n a l F a ith .
Wheaton: Tyndale
House Publishers, 2000.

Vergote, Antoine and Alvaro Tamayo.
T h e P a r e n ta l F ig u r e s a n d th e R e p r e s e n ta tio n o f
G o d : A P s y c h o lo g ic a l a n d C r o s s -C u ltu r a l S tu d y .
New York: Mouton Publishers,
1981.
Vianello, R. R i c e r c h e P s i o l o g i c h e s u l l a R e l i g i o s i t a I n f a n t i l e . Firenze: Giunti, 1980.
Quoted in Renzo Vianello, Kalevi Tamminen, and Donald Ratcliff. The Religious
Concepts o f Children. In H a n d b o o k o f C h i l d r e n s R e l i g i o u s E d u c a t i o n , ed. Donald
Ratcliff, 56-81. Birmingham: Religious Education Press, 1992.
Vitz, Paul C. F a i t h o f t h e F a t h e r l e s s :
Publishing Company, 1999.
Yount, William R.
T h e P s y c h o lo g y o f A th e is m .
Dallas: Spence
R e s e a r c h D e s ig n a n d S ta tis tic a l A n a ly s is in C h r is tia n M in is tr y ,
3rd ed.
F o rt W orth: S outhw estern B aptist T heological Sem inary, 1999.
Articles
Anderson, David W. Childrens Spirituality and Family Relationships. In E x p l o r i n g
C h i l d r e n s S p i r i t u a l F o r m a t i o n : F o u n d a t i o n a l I s s u e s , ed. Shirley K.
Morgenthaler, 231-46. River Forest: Pillars Press, 1999.
156
Anthony, Michelle. Childhood Education. In
In tr o d u c in g C h r is tia n E d u c a tio n :
F o u n d a t i o n s f o r t h e T w e n t y F i r s t C e n t u r y ,
ed. Michael J. Anthony, 205-16. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Ballard, Stanley N. and J. Roland Fleck. The Teaching o f Religious Concepts: A Three
Stage M odel. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y a n d T h e o l o g y 3, no. 3 (1975): 164-71.
Bao, Wan-Ning, Les B. Whitbeck, Danny R. Hoyt, and Rand D. Conger. Perceived
Parental Acceptance as a Moderator o f Religious Transmission among Adolescent
Boys and Girls. J o u r n a l o f M a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y 61, no. 2 (1999): 362-74.
Barnes, Earl. Theological Life o f a California Child. P e d a g o g i c a l
442-48.
S e m in a r y
2 (1892):
Barrett, Justin L. and Rebekah A. Richert. Anthropomorphism or Preparedness?

Exploring Childrens God Concepts. R e v i e w o f R e l i g i o u s R e s e a r c h 44, no. 3
(2003): 300-12.
Bassett, Roney L., Susan Miller, Kelly Anstey, Karen Crafts, Jim Harmon, Yun Lee,
Jennifer Parks, Michelle Robinson, Hans Smid, Wendy Sterner, Carrie Stevens,
Bethany Wheeler, and Dary H. Stevenson. Picturing God: A Nonverbal Measure o f
God Concept for Conservative Protestants. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y
9, no. 2 (1990): 73-81.
Beers, V. Gilbert. Teaching Theological Concepts to Children. In C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n
i n t h e C h u r c h , eds. Roberts E. Clark, Joanne Brubaker, and Roy B. Zuck, 363-79.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
_________ . Nurturing Children at Home. In
T h e C h r i s t i a n E d u c a t o r s H a n d b o o k o f
F a m ily L ife E d u c a tio n : A C o m p le te R e s o u r c e o n F a m ily L ife I s s u e s in th e L o c a l

C h u r c h , eds. Kenneth O. Gangel and James C. Wilhoit, 119-26. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1996.
Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin and Michael Argyle. God as a Father-Projection: The Theory

and the Evidence, B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f M e d i c a l P s y c h o l o g y 48, no. 1 (1975): 71-75.
Bellous, Joyce E., Simone A. de Ross, and William Summey. A Childs Concept of
God. In C h i l d r e n s S p i r i t u a l i t y : C h r i s t i a n P e r s p e c t i v e s , R e s e a r c h , a n d
A p p l i c a t i o n s , ed. Donald Ratcliff, 201-18. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2004.
Benson, Peter and Bernard Spilka. God Image as a Function o f Self-Esteem and Locus
o f Control. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 12, no. 3 (1973): 297-310.
Blaine, Bruce Evan, Pamala Trivedi, and Amy Eshleman. Religious B elief and the SelfConcept: Evaluating the Implications for Psychological Adjustment. P e r s o n a l i t y &
S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n 24, no. 10(1998): 1040-52.
157
Boyatzis, Chris J. Religious and Spiritual Development: An Introduction.

R e l i g i o u s R e s e a r c h 44, no. 3 (2003): 213-19.
R e v ie w o f
Brown, A. W. Some Records o f the Thoughts and Reasoning o f Children.

P e d a g o g i c a l S e m i n a r y 2 (1892): 358-96.
Buri, John R. and Rebecca A. Mueller. Psychoanalytic Theory and Loving God
Concepts: Parent Referencing versus Self-Referencing. T h e J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y
127, no. 1 (1993): 17-28.
Carder, David M. Parenting Programs in the Church. In
H a n d b o o k o n F a m i l y L i f e E d u c a t i o n : A C o m p l e te R e s o u r c e o n F a m i l y L i f e I s s u e s in
eds. Kenneth O. Gangel and James C. Wilhoit, 157-73. Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.
th e L o c a l C h u rc h ,
Chartier, Myron R. Parenting: A theological Model. J o u r n a l

T h e o l o g y 6, no. 1 (1978): 54-61.
o f P s y c h o lo g y a n d
Cobb, John B., Jr. What Do We Mean by God?: The Doctrine o f God. In E s s e n t i a l s o
C h r i s t i a n T h e o l o g y , ed. William C. Placher, 60-76. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2003.
Cully, Iris. Changing Patterns o f Protestant Curriculum. In C h a n g i n g P a t t e r n s o f

R e l i g i o u s E d u c a t i o n , ed. Marvin J. Taylor, 220-33. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984.
Cunningham, David S. What Do We Mean by God?: The Doctrine o f God In
E s s e n t i a l s o f C h r i s t i a n T h e o l o g y , ed. William C Placher, 76-92. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
Deconchy, Jean-Pierre. The Idea o f God: Its Emergence between 7 and 16 Years. In
F r o m R e l i g i o u s E x p e r i e n c e t o a R e l i g i o u s A t t i t u d e , ed. Andre Godin, 97-108.
Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1965.
McDonald, Angie, Richard Beck, Steve Allison, and Larry Norsworthy. Attachment to
God and Parents: Testing the Correspondence vs. Compensation Hypotheses.
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y 24, no. 1 (2005): 21-28.
de Roos, Simone A. Young Childrens God Concepts: Influences o f Attachment and
Religious Socialization in a Family and School Context. R e l i g i o u s E d u c a t i o n 101,
no. 1 (2006): 84-103.
De Roos, Simone A., Juijen Iedema, and Siebren Miedema. Young Childrens
Descriptions o f God: Influences o f Parents and Teachers God Concepts and
Religious Denomination o f Schools. J o u r n a l o f B e l i e f s & V a l u e 22, no. 1 (2001): 9-30.
_________ . Effects o f M others and Schools Religious Denomination on Preschool
Childrens God Concepts. J o u r n a l o f B e l i e f s & V a l u e s 24, no. 2 (2003): 165-81.
158
_________ . Influence o f Maternal Denomination, God Concepts, and Child-Rearing

Practices on Young Childrens God Concepts. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o
R e l i g i o n 43, no. 4 (2004): 519-35.
De Roos, Simone A., Siebren Miedema, and Jurjen Iedema. Attachment, Working
Models o f Self and Others, and God Concept in Kindergarten. J o u r n a l f o r t h e
S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 40, no. 4 (2001): 607-18.
Dickie, Jane R., Lindsey V. Ajega, Joy R. Kobylak, and Kathryn M. Nixon. Mother,
Father, and Self: Sources o f Young Adults God Concepts . ' " J o u r n a l f o r t h e
Dickie, Jane R., Amy K. Eshleman, Dawn M. Merasco, Amy Shepard, Michael Vander
Wilt, and M elissa Johnson. Parent-Child Relationships and Childrens Images o f
God. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 36, no. 1 (1997): 25-43.
Eberle, Sarah. Understanding Third and Fourth Graders. In C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n
C h u r c h , eds. Roberts E. Clark, Joanne Brubaker, and Roy B. Zuck, 135-48.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
in th e
Elkind, David. The Development o f Religious Understanding in Children and

Adolescents. In R e s e a r c h o n R e l i g i o u s D e v e l o p m e n t : A C o m p r e h e n s i v e H a n d b o o k ,
ed. M erton P. Strommen, 655-85. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1971.
Eshleman, Amy K., Jane R. Dickie, Dawn M. Merasco, Amy Shepard and Melissa
Johnson. Mother God, Father God: Childrens Perceptions o f Gods Distance.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l f o r t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f R e l i g i o n 9, no. 2 (1999): 139-46.
The
Evans, Thomas E. and Leslie J. Francis. Measuring Attitude toward Christianity through
the Medium o f W elsh. In R e s e a r c h i n R e l i g i o u s E d u c a t i o n , eds. Leslie J. Francis,
William K. Kay, and William S. Campbell, 279-93. Macon: Smyth and Helwys
Publishing, 1996.
Francis, Leslie J. God Images, Personal Wellbeing and Moral Values: A Survey among
13-15 Year Olds in England and Wales. In I m a g i n i n g G o d : E m p i r i c a l E x p l o r a t i o n s
f r o m a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e , ed. Hans-Georg Ziebertz, 125-44. New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001.
Francis, Leslie J., Harry M. Gibson, and Mandy Robbins. God Images and Self-Worth
among Adolescents in Scotland. M e n t a l H e a l t h , R e l i g i o n & C u l t u r e 4 , no. 2
(2001): 103-08.
Freese, Doris A. and J. Omar Brubaker. The Churchs Educational Ministry. In
C h r i s t i a n E d u c a t i o n : F o u n d a t i o n s f o r t h e F u t u r e , eds. Robert E. Clark, Lin Johnson,
and Allyn K. Sloat, 395-410. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.
Gaultiere, William and Kristi Gaultiere. The Spiritual Development o f Your Child. In
159
T h e C o m p le te P a r e n tin g B o o k : P r a c tic a l H e lp f r o m L e a d in g E x p e r ts ,
eds. David
Stoop and Jan Stoop, 169-90. Grand Rapids: Revell, 2004.

Gorsuch, Richard L. The Conceptualization o f God as Seen in Adjective Ratings.
J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 7, no. 1 (1968): 56-64.
Graebner, Oliver E. Child Concepts o f God. R e l i g i o u s
41.
E d u c a tio n
59, no. 3 (1964): 234-
Granqvist, Pehr. Religiousness and Perceived Childhood Attachment: On the Question

o f Compensation or Correspondence. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n
37, no. 2 (1998): 350-67.
Granqvist, Pehr and Berit Hagekull. Religiousness and Perceived Childhood
Attachment: Profiling Socialized Correspondence and Emotional Compensation.
J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 38, no. 2 (1999): 254-73.
Graven, Stanley N. Things that Matter in the Lives o f Children: Looking at Childrens
Spiritual Development from a Developmentalist Perspective. In E x p l o r i n g
C h i l d r e n s S p i r i t u a l F o r m a t i o n : F o u n d a t i o n a l I s s u e s , ed. Shirley K. Morgenthaler,
39-68. River Forest: Pillars Press, 1999.
Gross, Zehavit. My Mind is My God: Images o f God and Self-Definition. In I m a g i n i n g
G o d : E m p i r i c a l E x p l o r a t i o n s f r o m a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e , ed. Hans-Georg
Ziebertz, 171-89. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001.
Gunnoe, Marjorie, E. Mavis Hetherington, and Davis Reiss. Parental Religiosity,
Parental Style, and Adolescent Social Responsibility. J o u r n a l o f E a r l y A d o l e s c e n c e
19, no. 2(1999): 199-225.
Harms, Ernest. The Development o f Religious Experience in Children. A m e r i c a n
J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y 50, no. 2 (1944): 112-22.
Hertel, Bradley R. and Michael J. Donahue. Parental Influences on God Images among
Children: Testing Durkheims Metaphoric Parallelism. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c
S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 34, no. 2 (1995): 186-99.
Hutsebaut, Dirk and Dominic Verhoeven. Studying Dimensions o f God Representation:
Choosing Closed or Open-Ended Research Questions. T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l
f o r t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f R e l i g i o n 5, no. 1 (1995): 49-60.
Issler, Klaus. Theological Foundations o f Christian Education. In I n t r o d u c i n g C h r i s t i a n
E d u c a t i o n : F o u n d a t i o n s f o r t h e T w e n t y - F i r s t C e n t u r y , ed. Michael J. Anthony,
35-44. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Janssen, Jacques, Joep De Hart, and Marcel Gerardts. Images o f God in Adolescence.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l f o r t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f R e l i g i o n 4, no. 2 (1994): 105-21.
160
Jolley, Jerry C. and Steven J. Taulbee. Assessing Perceptions o f Self and God:
Comparison o f Prisoners and Normals. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s 59 (1986): 1139-46.
Kay, William K. and Liz Ray. Concepts o f God: The Salience o f Gender and Age.
J o u r n a l o f E m p i r i c a l T h e o l o g y 17, no. 2 (2004): 238-51.
King, Pamela Ebstyne, James L. Furrow, and Natalie Roth. The Influence o f Families
and Peers on Adolescent Religiousness. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y
21, no. 2 (2002): 109-20.
Kirkpatrick, Lee A. A Longitudinal Study o f Changes in Religious Belief and Behavior
as a Function o f Individual Differences in Adult Attachment Style. J o u r n a l f o r t h e
_________ . God as a Substitute Attachment Figure: A Longitudinal Study o f Adult
Attachment Style and Religious Change in College Students. P e r s o n a l i t y a n d
S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n 24, no. 9 (1998): 961-73.
Kirkpatrick, Lee A. and Phillip R. Shaver. Attachment Theory and Religion: Childhood
Attachments, Religious Beliefs, and Conversion. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y
o f R e l i g i o n 29, no. 3 (1990): 315-34.
_________ . An Attachment-Theoretical Approach to Romantic Love and Religious
Belief. P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n 18, no. 3 (1992): 266-75.
Kunkel, Mark A., Stephen Cook, David S. Meshel, Donald Daughtry, and Anita
Hauenstein. God Images: A Concept Map. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y
R e l i g i o n 38, no. 2 (1999): 193-202.
o f
Ladd, Kevin L., Daniel N. McIntosh, and Bernard Spilka. Childrens God Concepts:
Influences o f Denomination, Age, and Gender. T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l f o r t h e
P s y c h o l o g y o f R e l i g i o n 8, no. 1 (1998): 49-56.
Laythe, Brian, Deborah G. Finkel, Robert G. Bringle, and Lee A. Kirkpatrick. Religious
Fundamentalism as a Predictor o f Prejudice: A Two-Component Model. J o u r n a l
f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 41, no. 4 (2002): 623-35.
Ludwig, David J., Timothy Weber, and Douglas Iben. Letters to God: A Study o f
Childrens Religious Concepts. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y a n d T h e o l o g y 2, no. 1
(1974): 31-35.
Mahoney, Annette, Kenneth I. Pargament, Nalini Tarakeshwar, and Aaron B. Swank.
Religion in the Home in the 1980s and 1990s: A Meta-Analytic Review and
Conceptual Analysis o f Links between Religion, Marriage, and Parenting. J o u r n a l
o f F a m i l y P s y c h o l o g y 15, no. 4 (2001): 559-96.
161
Maynard, Elizabeth A., Richard L. Gorsuch, and Jeffrey P. Bjorck. Religious Coping
Style, Concept o f God, and Personal Religious Variables in Threat, Loss, and
Challenge Situations. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 40, no. 1 (2001):
65-74.
McIntosh, Daniel N. and Bernard Spilka. Religion and the Family. In H a n d b o o k
F a m i l y R e l i g i o u s E d u c a t i o n , eds. Blake J. N eff and Donald Ratcliff, 36-60.
Birmingham: Religious Education Press, 1995.
o f
Myers, Scott M. An Interactive Model o f Religiosity Inheritance: The Importance o f

Family Context. A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 61, no. 5 (1996): 858-66.
Nelson, Marven O. The Concept o f God and Feelings toward Parents. J o u r n a l
I n d i v i d u a l P s y c h o l o g y 27, no. 1 (1971): 46-49.
o f
Nye, W. Chad and Jerry S. Carlson. The Development of Concept o f God in Children.
J o u r n a l o f G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y 145, no. 1 (1984): 137-42.
O Keeffe, Bernadette. Christian Children at School: Their Religious Beliefs and
Practices. In R e s e a r c h i n R e l i g i o u s E d u c a t i o n , eds. Leslie J. Francis, William K.
Kay, and William S. Campbell, 295-309. Macon: Smyth and Helwys Publishing,
1996.
Pace, Enzo. The Younger Generations Images o f God and Religion in Italy. In
I m a g i n i n g G o d : E m p i r i c a l E x p l o r a t i o n s f r o m a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e , ed.
Hans-Georg Ziebertz, 71-80. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001.
Pinnock, Clark H. Systematic Theology. In
T h e O p e n n e s s o f G o d : A B ib lic a l
C h a l l e n g e t o t h e T r a d i t i o n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f G o d , eds. Clark Pinnock, Richard

Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, 101-25. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Pitts, V. Peter. Drawing the Invisible: Childrens Conceptualization o f God.

P o t e n t i a l 8, no. 1 (1976): 12-24.
C h a r a c te r
Pnevmatikos, Dimitris. Conceptual Changes in Religious Concepts o f Elementary

Schoolchildren: The Case o f the House Where God Lives. E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y
22, no. 1 (2002): 93-112.
Rice, Richard. Biblical Support for a New Perspective. In
The O penness o f G od: A
eds. Clark Pinnock,

Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, 11-58. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
B ib lic a l C h a lle n g e to th e T r a d itio n a l U n d e r s ta n d in g o f G o d ,
Riegel, Ulrich and Hans-Georg Ziebertz. Images o f God in a Gender Perspective: An

Empirical Typology. In I m a g i n i n g G o d : E m p i r i c a l E x p l o r a t i o n s f r o m a n
162
ed. Hans-Georg Ziebertz, 229-44. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers, 2001.
I n te r n a tio n a l P e r s p e c tiv e ,
Roberts, Carl W. Imagining God: Who is Created in Whose Image?

R e l i g i o u s R e s e a r c h 30, no. 4 (1989): 375-86.
R e v ie w o f
Rowatt, Wade C. and Lee A. Kirkpatrick. Two Dimensions o f Attachment to God and
Their Relation to Affect, Religiosity, and Personality Constructs. J o u r n a l f o r t h e
Slaughter, James R. Toward a Biblical Theology o f Family. In
T h e C h r is tia n
E d u c a t o r s H a n d b o o k o n F a m i l y L i f e E d u c a t i o n : A C o m p l e t e R e s o u r c e o n F a m i l y
eds. Kenneth O. Gangel and James C. Wilhoit, 1332. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.
L ife I s s u e s in th e L o c a l C h u r c h ,
Spilka, Bernard, James Addison, and Marguerite Rosensohn. Parents, Self, and God: A
Test o f Competing Theories o f Individual-Religion Relationships. R e v i e w o f
R e l i g i o u s R e s e a r c h 16 no. 3 (1975): 154-65.
Spilka, Bernard, Philip Armatas, and June Nussbaum. The Concept o f God: A FactorAnalytic Approach. R e v i e w o f R e l i g i o u s R e s e a r c h 6, no. 1 (1964): 28-36.
Strunk, Orlo, Jr. Perceived Relationship between Parental and Deity Concepts.
P s y c h o l o g i c a l N e w s l e t t e r 10 (1959): 222-26.
Tamm, Maare E. The Meaning o f God for Children and Adolescents: A
Phenomenographic Study o f Drawings. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f R e l i g i o u s
no. 1 (1996): 33-44.
E d u c a tio n
19,
Vergote, Antoine, Alvaro Tamayo, Luiz Pasquali, Michel Bonami, Marie-Rose Pattyn,
and Anne Custers. Concept o f God and Parental Images. J o u r n a l f o r t h e S c i e n t i f i c
S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n 8, no. 1 (1969): 79-87.
Vianello, Renzo, Kalevi Tamminen, and Donald Ratcliff. The Religious Concepts of
Children. In H a n d b o o k o f C h i l d r e n s R e l i g i o u s E d u c a t i o n , ed. Donald Ratcliff,
56-81. Birmingham: Religious Education Press, 1992.
Wagener, Linda Mans. Childrens Understanding o f Self, Relationship, and God:
Implications for Clinical Practice. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y 17, no. 1
(1998): 66-76.
Wakefield, Norma and Robert E. Clark. Children and Their Theological Concepts. In
C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n i n t h e C h u r c h , eds. Roberts E. Clark, Joanne Brubaker, and
Roy B. Zuck, 347-62, Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
163
Williams, Robert. A Theory o f God-Concept Readiness: From the Piagetian Theories o f
Child Artificxalism and the Origin o f Religious Feeling in Children. R e l i g i o u s
E d u c a t i o n 66, no. 1 (1971): 62-66.
Dissertations
Heflin, Wilma H. A Comparison o f the Religious Concepts o f Children in Selected
Southern Baptist Churches in the United States and in Selected Baptist Union
Churches in England. Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
1994.
Hood, Dona Kennamer. Young Childrens Perceptions o f God in the Context o f a
Protestant Faith Community. Ph.D. diss., The University o f Texas at Austin, 2001.
Hwang, Mariana. Understanding Korean-American Childrens Christian Identity
Development in Relation to Their Concepts o f God. Ph. D. diss., Talbot
Theological Seminary, 2003.
Wuebker, Michael J. Sexual Abuse o f Children, Ages 7 to 12, and Its Effect on their
Concept o f God. Ph. D. diss., Walden University, 2000.
Wieber, Jamie L. Assessing Positive and Negative Parent-Child Interactions: Extending
Findings from Parent Global Self-Reports to Child Reports and Parent Telephone
Interviews. Ph.D. diss., Bowling Green State University, 2002.
Others
LifeWay,
L e v e ls o f B ib lic a l L e a r n in g .
Lippman, Laura, Erik Michelsen, and Eugene C. Roehlekepartain, Indicators o f Child,

Family and Community Connections: The Measurement o f Family Religiosity and
Spirituality [on-line]; Accessed 30 January 2006. Available from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/connections-papers04/paper 1.htm; Internet.
Slater, Ted. The Development o f Childrens Concept o f God [on-line]; Accessed 30
January 2006. Available from http:// www.iiot.com/ted/papers/childs god
concept.html; Internet.
VITA
Sungwon Kim was bom in Seoul, Korea. She is the oldest child of Mr. Ilwoong Kim and
Mrs. Youngja Kim.
Ms. Kim earned a bachelor degree in Early Childhood Education from Chongshin
University, Seoul, Korea. She has received three masters degrees: the Master of Divinity from
Chongshin Theological Seminary, the Master of Arts in Early Childhood Education from
Chongshin Graduate School, and the Master of Arts in Christian Education from Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary. She is currently a doctoral candidate at Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, majoring in Childhood Education in the School of Educational Ministries.
During her college years, God called her to childrens ministry. Upon her completion of
undergraduate studies, she took the first step toward ministry by becoming a preschool minister
while pursuing training in theology. She has served in Korean churches as a preschool minister
for eleven years, and has also gained experience as a kindergarten teacher. Currently, she is
serving as a preschool minister at Binnerri church in Richardson, TX.
As the topics of her former theses and current dissertation indicate, her major interests
have been childrens theological concept formation, the parental impact upon it, and parenting
education. She gave an official presentation entitled, Parenting Styles and their Impact on
Childrens Spiritual Development at the second Childrens Spirituality Conference: Christian
Perspectives held in June, 2006. The culmination of her presentation resulted in her paper being
published. She is the author of a chapter entitled, Parenting Styles and Childrens Spiritual
Development in the book Nurturing Childrens Spirituality: Christian Perspectives and Best
Practices (in press).
Ms. Kim enjoys spending time with young children, playing the piano, swimming,
decorating, and cooking.

Concepto de Dios en Niños

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concepto de Dios en Niños

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHILDRENS GOD CONCEPT

AND SPECIFIED PARENTAL PREDICTORS, AND THE DIFFERENCE IN

UMI Number: 3289560

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright 2007 Sungwon Kim

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHILDRENS GOD CONCEPT

Marcia McQuitty, Guidance Cotrimittee Chairperson,

Robert Welch, Committee Member, Dean o f School o f Educational Ministries

esley Blacl^Associate Dean for Ph.D., School o f Educational Ministries

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHILDRENS GOD CONCEPT

DATE DEGREE GRANTED:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dr. Marcia McQuitty, Associate Professor o f

A study o f the relationship between childrens

Statement o f the P ro b le m ...................................................................................

Purpose o f the S tu d y ............................................................................................

Significance o f the Study ...................................................................................

The Children's God Concept Q uestionnaire............................................

The Religiosity in Daily Life Scale .........................................................

The Parent-Child Interaction Q uestionnaire............................................

A ssu m p tio n s.........................................................................................................

2. SYNTHESIS OF RELATED LITERA TU RE.......................................................

Parents' R elig io sity .....................................................................................

Developing the Children's God Concept Q uestionnaire.................................

Theological Perspectives ..........................................................................

3. PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING DATA .......................................................

Preliminary Preparation .....................................................................................

Data C o lle ctio n ....................................................................................................

Problems Encountered .......................................................................................

Demographic Inform ation...................................................................................

Qualitative Data A n a ly sis...................................................................................

The Childrens God Concept Q uestionnaire....................................................

Other Findings ....................................................................................................

Implications for the Ministry ............................................................................. 94

3. PARTICIPATING CHURCHES ......................................................................

4. LIST OF THE PANEL OF E X P E R T S .............................................................

5. LETTER TO THE VALIDATION P A N E L .....................................................

6. ITEMS CHOSEN BY THE P A N E L ..................................................................

8. FINAL CRONBACH'S A L P H A ........................................................................

9. THE CHILDREN'S GOD CONCEPT Q U ESTIO N N A IR E..........................

10. THE RELIGIOSITY IN DAILY LIFE S C A L E ..............................................

11. THE PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION QUESTIONNAIRE ....................

12. DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE GOD CONCEPTS ....................

13. PERMISSION TO USE THE R ID L S ...............................................................

14. PERMISSION TO USE THE P C I Q .................................................................

15. RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM R E S E A R C H E R

16. RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN ...............

17. LETTER TO P A R E N T S .....................................................................................

18. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE SU R V E Y ........................

19. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...........................................................

20. CHILDREN'S DRAWINGS OF G O D .............................................................

21. ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS BY AGE ............................

22. ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS BY G E N D E R ....................

23. ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONS BY BANDED VARIABLE GROUPS . . . .

24. MULTIPLE REGRESSION INCLUDING OTHER PR ED ICTO RS

25. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH GOD CONCEPT QUESTION . . 1 5 0

4. Frequency Distribution o f G en d er........................................................................

5. Frequency Distribution o f Age ............................................................................. 60

7. Correlation Matrix for Regression M o d e l...........................................................

8. Regression Model S u m m ary .................................................................................

9. ANOVA for Regression M o d el............................................................................. 62

12. Age Group Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................

13. One-Way ANOVA across Ages ..........................................................................