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.

Using data obtained from 4004 participants across eight countries (Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Poland, Slovakia, Uganda, and the U.S.), the factorial reliability, validity and structural/measurement invariance of a 30-item version of Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI-R) was evaluated. The ESI-R measures a five factor model of spirituality developed through the conjoint factor analysis of several extant measures of spiritual constructs. Exploratory factor analyses of pooled data provided evidence that the five ESI-R factors are reliable. Confirmatory analyses comparing four and five factor models revealed that the five dimensional model demonstrates superior goodness-of-fit with all cultural samples and suggest that the ESI-R may be viewed as structurally invariant. Measurement invariance, however, was not supported as manifested in significant differences in item and dimension scores and in significantly poorer fit when factor loadings were constrained to equality across all samples. Exploratory analyses with a second adjective measure of spirituality using American, Indian, and Ugandan samples identified three replicable factors which correlated with ESI-R dimensions in a manner supportive of convergent validity. The paper concludes with a discussion of the meaning of the findings and directions needed for future research.

This article reports on the current status of psychometric testing as it pertains to the measurement and assessment of constructs relevant to humanistic and transpersonal psychologies. In so doing, information is provided on available instruments and associated empirical research findings exploring the relation of humanistic/transpersonal phenomena/concepts to human functioning. The article concludes with a listing of recommendations for investigators who wish to employ standardized assessment instruments in humanistic and/or transpersonal research.

Fredrickson et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(33):13684-13689] claimed to have observed significant differences in gene expression related to hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being. Having closely examined both their claims and their data, we draw substantially different conclusions. After identifying some important conceptual and methodological flaws in their argument, we report the results of a series of reanalyses of their dataset. We first applied a variety of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques to their self-reported well-being data. A number of plausible factor solutions emerged, but none of these corresponded to Fredrickson et al.'s claimed hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions. We next examined the regression analyses that purportedly yielded distinct differential profiles of gene expression associated with the two well-being dimensions. Using the best-fitting two-factor solution that we identified, we obtained effects almost twice as large as those found by Fredrickson et al. using their questionable hedonic and eudaimonic factors. Next, we conducted regression analyses for all possible two-factor solutions of the psychometric data; we found that 69.2% of these gave statistically significant results for both factors, whereas only 0.25% would be expected to do so if the regression process was really able to identify independent differential gene expression effects. Finally, we replaced Fredrickson et al.'s psychometric data with random numbers and continued to find very large numbers of apparently statistically significant effects. We conclude that Fredrickson et al.'s widely publicized claims about the effects of different dimensions of well-being on health-related gene expression are merely artifacts of dubious analyses and erroneous methodology.genomic perspectives | leukocytes | transcriptional response | epigenetics