Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37494339›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

The Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences (INOE): Evidence of validity in the United States and India.

Ann Taves, Elliott Ihm, Melissa Wolf, Michael Barlev, Michael Kinsella, Maharshi Vyas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ann TavesDepartment of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2695-5337
Elliott IhmDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Melissa WolfGevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Michael BarlevDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Michael KinsellaDepartment of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4686-5467
Maharshi VyasDepartment of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers increasingly recognize that the mind and culture interact at many levels to constitute our lived experience, yet we know relatively little about the extent to which culture shapes the way people appraise their experiences and the likelihood that a given experience will be reported. Experiences that involve claims regarding deities, extraordinary abilities, and/or psychopathology offer an important site for investigating the interplay of mind and culture at the population level. However, the difficulties inherent in comparing culture-laden experiences, exacerbated by the siloing of research on experiences based on discipline-specific theoretical constructs, have limited our ability to do so. We introduce the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences (INOE), which allows researchers to compare experiences by separating the phenomenological features from how they are appraised and asking about both. It thereby offers a new means of investigating the potentially universal (etic) and culture-specific (emic) aspects of lived experiences. To ensure that the INOE survey items are understood as intended by English speakers in the US and Hindi speakers in India, and thus can serve as a basis for cross-cultural comparison, we used the Response Process Evaluation (RPE) method to collect evidence of item-level validity. Our inability to validate some items drawn from other surveys suggests that they are capturing a wider range of experiences than researchers intend. Wider use of the RPE method would increase the likelihood that survey results are due to the differences that researchers intend to measure.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonHumansIndiaSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37494339
PMCPMC10370766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.