↓ Skip to main content

An Assessment of the Dimensionality and Factorial Structure of the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Assessment of the Dimensionality and Factorial Structure of the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01693
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth Drinkwater, Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parker

Abstract

Since its introduction, the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS) has developed into a principal measure of belief in the paranormal. Accordingly, the RPBS regularly appears within parapsychological research. Despite common usage, academic debates continue to focus on the factorial structure of the RPBS and its psychometric integrity. Using an aggregated heterogeneous sample (N = 3,764), the present study tested the fit of 10 factorial models encompassing variants of the most commonly proposed solutions (seven, five, two, and one-factor) plus new bifactor alternatives. A comparison of competing models revealed a seven-factor bifactor solution possessed superior data-model fit (CFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.933, IFI = 0.945, SRMR = 0.046, RMSEA = 0.058), containing strong factor loadings for a general factor and weaker, albeit acceptable, factor loadings for seven subfactors. This indicated that belief in the paranormal, as measured by the RPBS, is best characterized as a single overarching construct, comprising several related, but conceptually independent subfactors. Furthermore, women reported significantly higher paranormal belief scores than men, and tests of invariance indicated that mean differences in gender are unlikely to reflect measurement bias. Results indicate that despite concerns about the content and psychometric integrity of the RPBS the measure functions well at both a global and seven-factor level. Indeed, the original seven-factors contaminate alternative solutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Unspecified 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 46%
Unspecified 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,962,822
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,869
of 30,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,714
of 320,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#108
of 588 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 588 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.