Spirituality: Description, Measurement, and Relation to the Five Factor Model of Personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article focused on the development and measurement of a factor model of the expressions of spirituality. Study 1 (N = 534) involved the use of factor analysis to examine the latent factor structure in a sample of 11 measures of spiritual constructs. Study 2 (N = 938) focused on the replication of Study 1 results and on the construction and initial validation of an instrument to operationalize the factor model of spirituality. Results indicate that at least 5 robust dimensions of spirituality underlie the spirituality test domain. These dimensions were labeled Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality (COS), Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD), Existential Well-Being (EW-B), Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), and Religiousness (REL). The measure developed, named the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI), takes the form of a 98-item instrument that generated scores demonstrating satisfactory reliability and adequate initial validity. Examination of the relation of spirituality to the Five Factor Model (FFM) as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised revealed that the dimensions of the FFM appear to differentially relate to the major elements of spirituality but are nevertheless conceptually unique, pointing to the possible existence of major aspects of personality not represented in the FFM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".