Spirituality: Description, Measurement, and Relation to the Five Factor Model of Personality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it