Avalilação PREreview Estruturada de Mental Health Across Religious and Spiritual Categories: A Longitudinal Study Among Parents and Their Children

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction of the preprint clearly explains the objective of the research, stating that the purpose of the current study is to longitudinally examine how individuals belonging to various spiritual and religious categories compare in their well being, focusing on depression and anxiety. The research investigates four specific identity groupings: spiritual but not religious (SBNR), religious and spiritual (RAS), religious but not spiritual (RBNS), and neither spiritual nor religious (NSNR). The aim is to better understand the possible contemporary implications of shifting connections to both religion and spirituality, and to determine how the mental health of both children and their parents is affected by the conjunction of spirituality and religiosity, the lack of either, or having one identity separate from the other.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The research methods are somewhat appropriate because while the study employs a robust longitudinal design and multilevel growth curve modeling to examine well-being across spiritual and religious categories over time, addressing a need for research on shifting R/S connections, certain methodological choices limit its scope. This longitudinal approach, spanning eight years for parent-child dyads, is crucial for investigating the temporal precedence of mental health and R/S practices, and the use of highly reliable standardized measures for depression and anxiety, along with checks for measurement invariance, indicates rigorous execution. However, the researchers acknowledge that the study did not measure religious coping, which the literature indicates often mediates the relationship between R/S and anxiety, meaning the methods fail to incorporate a best practice identified in prior research regarding anxiety. Moreover, the sample demographics are generally homogeneous, derived primarily from only three Western US states, which restricts the generalizability of the findings and lessens the robustness of the foundation for drawing conclusions about diverse populations.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The conclusions are highly supported because they are consistently thorough and provide a realistic interpretation of the data without overreaching or drawing conclusions not reflected in the results. The study accurately reports that at baseline, children identifying as Spiritual but not Religious (SBNR) had the highest levels of anxiety and depression, while children identifying as Religious and Spiritual (RAS) had the lowest depression levels, with the difference between SBNR and RAS being significant across every baseline mental health measure. Longitudinally, the finding that SBNR children were the only category to show a significant decrease in depression and the only group whose anxiety did not significantly increase over time is directly supported by the multilevel growth curve results. Similarly, the data confirms the conclusion that all adult groups except the Religious but not Spiritual (RBNS) category demonstrated a significant decrease in depressive symptoms over time. While the authors offer interpretations, they maintain scientific standards by explicitly stating that they cannot infer causation and by discussing limitations such as the study's failure to measure religious coping, a known mediator for the relationship between religiosity/spirituality and anxiety, and the generally homogeneous sample demographics.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

The data presentations are highly appropriate and clear, effectively communicating the complex longitudinal results. The study utilizes tabular data, specifically Table 1, which employs superscripts to efficiently communicate baseline differences in depression and anxiety across the four religious and spiritual categories for both children and parents, making immediate comparisons straightforward. For the longitudinal component, the results of the multilevel growth curve modeling are detailed numerically in Table 2 and visually represented through figures (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3) that display the trajectories of child depression, child anxiety, and parent depression across time. This combined approach of detailed statistical tables and clear visual growth models is highly suited for interpreting how mental health changes over an eight year span by R/S group. Lastly, the researchers demonstrated transparency by noting they did not examine parent anxiety over time, as measurement invariance tests indicated that a growth curve model would be inappropriate for that variable.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The authors demonstrate very clearly, with depth and insight, how they discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research. They clearly explain that at baseline, children identifying as Spiritual but not Religious (SBNR) had significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression compared to children who identified as Religious and Spiritual (RAS), who had the lowest depression levels, a difference significant across every baseline measure. This distress in SBNR individuals is interpreted as possibly resulting from a search for transcendent connection without the structure, doctrines, or social support of organized religious practices, potentially leaving them confused. Longitudinally, they note that the SBNR children were the only group to show a significant decrease in depression and no significant increase in anxiety, interpreting this as either a regression to the mean or as evidence that increased spirituality may improve adolescent mental health. The authors contextualize the general mental health trends by suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to high baseline depression, and the increase in anxiety might represent stresses from post-COVID societal reintegration. They also interpret the adult finding that the Religious but not Spiritual (RBNS) category was the only one whose depressive symptoms did not significantly decrease over time as potentially stemming from cognitive dissonance related to participating in religious practices without spiritual internalization. For future research, the authors clearly identify limitations and next steps, urging researchers to investigate mental health changes accompanying shifts in R/S identity groups (such as conversion or apostasy). Most importantly, they highlight the omission of religious coping as a limitation, explaining that future studies must measure this variable as it is a known mediator that distinguishes between positive religious coping (a protective factor) and negative religious coping (associated with greater distress) in relation to anxiety. They also emphasize the need for more diverse demographics in future research, given the current sample's homogeneity from only three Western US states.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The preprint is highly likely to advance academic knowledge because it addresses significant gaps in the existing literature by conducting a longitudinal study over eight years on parent child dyads, specifically differentiating four distinct religious and spiritual (R/S) categories. The majority of prior research typically grouped religion and spirituality together, or focused primarily on adult populations, whereas this study provides a crucial longitudinal examination of adolescents, a group for whom research is noted as extremely sparse. By investigating the Religious and Spiritual (RAS), Spiritual but not Religious (SBNR), Religious but not Spiritual (RBNS), and Neither Spiritual nor Religious (NSNR) categories, the research offers nuanced findings, such as the unique trajectory of SBNR children who started with the highest baseline depression and anxiety but were the only group to show a significant decrease in depression and no significant increase in anxiety over time. The longitudinal design is essential for better understanding the temporal precedence of R/S practices and mental health, especially anxiety, where this relationship has been difficult to establish. Furthermore, the study contributes to future academic discourse by clearly outlining next steps, including the necessity of examining R/S grouping shifts and measuring religious coping, which is a known mediator that the current study did not assess, thus providing a foundation for subsequent rigorous research.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

The clarity, depth, and insight demonstrated in the discussion ensure the preprint is well-positioned to advance future academic inquiry

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.