ArticleBMC psychology2021
Development of the Paranormal and Supernatural Beliefs Scale using classical and modern test theory.
Article in BMC psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- I see moving people: Expectations drive detection of biological motion in noisy point-light displays.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Prevalence, patterns and predictors of paranormal beliefs in The Netherlands: a several-analysts approach.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Exploring the Accuracy and Consistency of a School Readiness Assessment Tool for Preschoolers: Reliability, Validity and Measurement Invariance Analysis.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Variations in Well-Being as a Function of Paranormal Belief and Psychopathological Symptoms: A Latent Profile Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Exploring Asian maternal experiences and mHealth needs for postpartum mental health care.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study describes the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring belief in paranormal phenomena. The work aims to address psychometric and conceptual shortcomings associated with existing measures of paranormal belief. The study also compares the use of classic test theory and modern test theory as methods for scale development.
methodWe combined novel items and amended items taken from existing scales, to produce an initial corpus of 29 items. Two hundred and thirty-one adult participants rated their level of agreement with each item using a seven-point Likert scale.
resultsClassical test theory methods (including exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis) reduced the scale to 14 items and one overarching factor: Supernatural Beliefs. The factor demonstrated high internal reliability, with an excellent test-retest reliability for the total scale. Modern test theory methods (Rasch analysis using a rating scale model) reduced the scale to 13 items with a four-point response format. The Rasch scale was found to be most effective at differentiating between individuals with moderate-high levels of paranormal beliefs, and differential item functioning analysis indicated that the Rasch scale represents a valid measure of belief in paranormal phenomena.
conclusionsThe scale developed using modern test theory is identified as the final scale as this model allowed for in-depth analyses and refinement of the scale that was not possible using classical test theory. Results support the psychometric reliability of this new scale for assessing belief in paranormal phenomena, particularly when differentiating between individuals with higher levels of belief.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.