ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Brief Report

The Noetic Signature Inventory: 12-Factor Confirmatory Analysis

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2023
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

This article is included in the Social Psychology gateway.

Abstract

Background The Noetic Signature Inventory (NSI) is a 44-item self-report questionnaire that evaluates people’s experiences of intuition or inner knowing. Previous research developing and validating the measure demonstrated its validity and reliability, and a 12-factor model describing the variability of noetic experiences was found. This current study aims to confirm this factor model in a new population. 
Methods In a cross-sectional study, 1,752 participants completed demographic information and the NSI. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted on the collected data. 
Results Participants were 49.3  ± 14.8 years old with 16.6 ± 3.4 years of education. They hailed from 62 countries although most were from the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. The CFA results for the 12-factor model were as follows: the chi square statistic equaled 2866.65 with 836 degrees of freedom and p < .001. The model diagnostics demonstrated a very good model fit to the data. All 44 items had factor loadings above the 0.5 cutoff, ranging from 0.58 to 0.77, with an average factor loading of 0.71. 
Conclusions The 12-factor structure of the NSI was confirmed, supporting its potential as a valid and reliable tool for assessing noetic characteristics. However, there are limitations to consider, and further research is needed to confirm and extend the findings in diverse populations and settings. The findings contribute to our understanding of the multidimensionality of these phenomena. Future research could build upon these findings by replicating the factor structure of the NSI in other populations, incorporating objective measures, conducting longitudinal studies, exploring underlying mechanisms, and using qualitative research methods to gain a deeper understanding of inner knowing experiences.

Keywords

intuition, inner knowing, noetic, noetic signature, noetic signature inventory, extended human capacities, parapsychology, consciousness, non-local consciousness

Introduction

Noetic comes from the Greek word noēsis, meaning inner wisdom or direct knowing. Noetic refers to ways of knowing beyond our traditional five senses and noetic information is perceived as different from information involving the intellect or information received through an individual’s five physical senses. William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, described noetic experiences as “states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule, they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time” (James, 1985, pp. 380–381). Examples of noetic experiences include gut hunches that turn out to be correct or just knowing something to be true even though one has no traditional means of having that knowledge or having a dream about the future that comes to fruition. Noetic experiences often transcend the perception of our five senses and are ubiquitous worldwide (Haraldsson, 1985; Wahbeh et al., 2018). Despite the highly prevalent nature of these experiences, there has been limited research effort to understand these phenomena. More recently, assessing these intuitive experiences has gained increased attention as researchers and clinicians recognize the potential positive impact they have on mental health and wellbeing (Kennedy & Kanthamani, 1995a, 1995b). In support of increasing research enquiry, we developed the Noetic Signature Inventory (NSI) through an iterative qualitative and statistical process as a tool to subjectively assess noetic characteristics (Wahbeh, Fry, et al., 2022).

The NSI consists of 44 items that evaluate different aspects of inner knowing (Wahbeh, Fry, et al., 2022). The pilot studies developing and validating the NSI involved administering it to multiple populations. The NSI demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94), convergent and divergent content validity, and test–retest (ICC = 0.88) reliability (Wahbeh, Fry, et al., 2022). The study also found that individuals who reported having had noetic experiences had higher scores on the NSI than those who did not, supporting its construct validity.

Factor analysis of the NSI revealed 12 factors or areas of intuitive knowing. The 12-factors are: (1) General Intuition, (2) Embodied Sensations, (3) Visualizing to Access or Affect, (4) Inner Knowing Through Touch, (5) Healing, (6) Knowing the Future, (7) Physical Sensations from Other People, (8) Knowing Yourself, (9) Knowing Other’s Minds, (10) Apparent Communication with Non-physical Beings, (11) Knowing Through Dreams, and (12) Inner Voice (Wahbeh, Fry, et al., 2022). However, the factor analysis establishing this 12-factor model had inherent bias because participants were enrolled through a third-party recruitment company with paid participants, many of whom recorded invalid responses. This was evaluated by ensuring reverse-coded items aligned with similar non-reverse-coded items. Data cleaning procedures were implemented and numerous invalid records were deleted from the dataset. Thus, the 12-factor model was considered preliminary and a study confirming the 12-factor model in a different population was essential.

The objective of this study was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the NSI to examine its factor structure, thus, evaluating its hypothesized 12-factor structure.

Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited from the Institute of Noetic Sciences membership through e-newsletters, blogs, and online recruitment postings. Inclusion criteria were: (1) age 18 years or older, (2) fluent in English, (3) having had a prior noetic experience, (4) agreed to the study consent form, and 5) completed all items of the NSI. Volunteers arrived at a HIPAA-compliant SurveyMonkey website and were asked eligibility questions. Eligible volunteers were routed to the informed consent form. All volunteers indicated their informed consent to participate in the study by answering affirmative after being presented details of the study and how the data would be used, and all study activities were approved and overseen by the Institutional Review Board at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IORG#0003743; WAHH_2019_01). No specific sample size was determined a priori, besides having at least 440 participants (10 participants for each estimated parameter, as recommended; Anthoine et al., 2014; Bentler, 1995).

Study procedures

After consenting, participants answered demographic questions (age, years of education, gender and racial identification, and country) and completed the 44-items of the NSI.

The NSI is a 44-item subjective questionnaire that evaluates 12 factors of intuitive inner knowing (Wahbeh, Fry, et al., 2022). The 12 factors and their number of items are as follows: General Intuition (10-items); Embodied Sensations (5-items); Visualization/Manifestation (4-items; 1 Reverse Coded); Inner Knowing Through Touch (3-items; 1 Reverse Coded); Healing (3-items; 1 Reverse Coded); Knowing the Future (3-items); Physical Sensations from Other People (3-items); Knowing Yourself (3-items); Knowing Other’s Minds (3-items); Apparent Communication with Non-Physical Beings (3-items; 1 Reverse Coded); Knowing Through Dreams (2-items; 1 Reverse Coded); and Inner Voice (2-items). Items included such statements as, “I have just felt in my body when something is true or not,” and “I have received information about things that will happen in the future.” Participants were asked to, “Please read each statement and move the slider to indicate in general how much you agree or disagree with each statement. There are no right or wrong answers. Just move the slider to the selection you feel is right for you.” The sliding scale was anchored by Strongly Disagree (0), Neither Agree Nor Disagree (50), and Strongly Agree (100). The NSI items are available upon request from the first author.

Statistical analysis

All data cleaning/organization and statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA). Data analyses were conducted in R version 4.2.3. (RRID:SCR_001905; R Development Core Team, 2021). Reverse coded items were transformed. The updated dataset (with reverse coded items) was assessed for multivariate normality using the Mardia Skewness and Kurtosis multivariate normality tests and Shapiro–Wilk univariate normality tests in the R package MVN (Korkmaz et al., 2014).

CFA is a statistical technique commonly used to validate the factor structure of a measure and is based on the assumption that a construct is composed of multiple latent factors, each measured by a set of observed variables (Brown & Moore, 2012). CFA allows researchers to test whether the observed variables are reliable indicators of the latent factors and to identify the underlying factor structure of a measure. Therefore, CFA is a useful tool for assessing the construct validity of a measure. A standard CFA model was fit to the data using the R package lavaan with the latent variable variance constrained to 1. Given that the data did not uphold the assumption of multivariate normality, CFAs were fit using the diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimator and the limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno optimization method (Byrd et al., 1995). The DWLS estimator was used for this CFA, as it was deemed a more appropriate estimator for these data because 0 and 100 data can be considered ordinal or numerical. That is, it does not quite fit ordinal data because there are so many categories, but they do not quite fit numerical data because they do not live on the real number line but an interval.

We assessed the goodness of fit of the model using several fit indices. While Chi-squared was the original test of model fit, and is still expected to be reported, it has limitations in cases of both large or small sample size, and so various other fit metrics have been developed (West et al., 2012). Thus, we used the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The CFI and TLI are both indicators of “goodness-of-fit”, ranging from 0 to 1, with larger values indicating better fit. Of note, TLI values can technically extend below 0 or above 1 in cases of extremely bad or good fit. The typical rules for interpreting CFI and TLI values are that values greater than 0.90 and 0.95, respectively, indicate acceptable fit and very good fit (Hooper et al., 2007; Parry, 2019). RMSEA and SRMR are both indicators of “badness-of-fit”, where 0 corresponds to a perfect fit. For RMSEA, values less than 0.05 correspond to a “close fit”, a value of 0.08 would correspond to “adequate fit”, and values above 0.10 indicate “unacceptable fit” (West et al., 2012). Interpretation of SRMR is similar to RMSEA, with values less than.05 indicating a “good fit”, and values up to 0.10 considered a “acceptable fit” (Cangur & Ercan, 2015).

Results

1752 participants completed the NSI between May 1, 2022 and March 3, 2023, met inclusion/exclusion criteria, and were included in this analysis (Figure 1). Participants could skip items and thus data are presented with number of participant who answered that question. There was no missing data for NSI values as participants were excluded if their NSI was incomplete.

998f805d-d303-46ff-bd35-8e6c759f149a_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Participant recruitment.

Participants were 49.3±14.8 years old (n=1,630) with 16.6±3.4 years of education (n=1,752). Participant gender identifications were 1,246 (71.4%) female, 470 (27.0%) male, and 30 or 1.7% of another gender. Participants could check multiple racial categories that applied to them. The racial breakdown for those who answered the question (n=1,752) was: Native American (155, 7.8%); Native Pacific Islander (22, 1.1%); Asian (125, 6.3%); African (79, 4.0%); Middle Eastern (38, 1.9%); Latinx or Hispanic (147, 7.4%); and European (1427, 71.6%). Most participants were from the USA (1,184, 68.5%), Canada (123, 7.1%), the UK (112, 6.5%), Australia (63, 3.7%), and India (31, 1.8%) were the next highest-represented countries. The remaining participants hailed from 62 other countries with ≤1% of the participants each.

The CFA results for the 12-factor model were as follows: the Chi-squared statistic equaled 2866.65 with 836 degrees of freedom and p < 0.001. The CFI was 0.982, the TLI was 0.980, the RMSEA was 0.037 (90% confidence interval 0.035–0.037), and the SRMR was 0.048. All 44 items had factor loadings above the 0.5 cutoff, ranging from 0.58 to 0.77, with an average factor loading of 0.71. These values represent a very good model fit to the data, as indicated by commonly reported fit statistics (Hooper et al., 2007; Parry, 2019). Additional statistical output are available upon request.

Discussion

In summary, this study confirmed the 12-factor model of the NSI in a large global sample. The participants were mostly Caucasian from the United States although there were participants from 62 different countries and multiple racial backgrounds.

Limitations

There are several limitations to consider in this study. First, the sample was recruited from the Institute of Noetic Sciences membership, which may introduce selection bias as members of this organization may have a higher likelihood of having had noetic experiences compared to the general population. This may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. However, this study was not evaluating prevalence and so recruiting a population that has had noetic experiences is beneficial. While the study population here was somewhat diverse in that around 30% were non-Caucasian, the predominance of Caucasians from Western countries is notable and does not reflect the global population. The NSI being in English limits its use in non-English populations. Another limitation of this study is that we did not include any other questionnaires and thus, can not infer continued content validity in this population, although previous work has already demonstrated this (Wahbeh et al., 2022). Additionally, the study relied on self-report measures, which are subject to recall bias and social desirability bias. Participants may have provided responses that they believed were more socially acceptable or aligned with their beliefs about noetic experiences, leading to potential measurement error. Furthermore, the study did not include any objective measures to validate the self-report measures, which may further limit the validity of the findings. Finally, the test-retest psychometrics of the NSI over time was not assessed through this current study.

Implications of this study

Despite these limitations, this study has important implications for the field of noetic experiences research. The confirmatory factor analysis of the NSI provides evidence for its 12-factor structure, which adds to the growing body of literature on the different aspects of intuitive inner knowing. This finding may facilitate the use of the NSI as a reliable and valid tool for assessing noetic characteristics in future research and clinical practice. The identification of 12 factors of intuitive inner knowing, such as general intuition, embodied sensations, and knowing the future, may also contribute to our understanding of the multidimensionality of noetic experiences and their potential impact on mental health and well-being. Moreover, the study highlights the need for further research to confirm and extend the findings in different populations and settings, which may help to establish the generalizability and robustness of the NSI as a measurement tool. While the NSI likely does not capture every unique iteration of noetic experiences, what it encompasses thus far appears to be generalizable to the populations it has been administered to. We welcome other researchers to use the NSI for their own studies to continue broadening our understanding of the ubiquitous noetic experience. More importantly, this work supports the normalization of these experiences. Long side-lined at best or labeled as mental illness at worst, these experiences warrant further attention from researchers and clinicians alike (Wahbeh et al., 2022).

Recommendations for further research

Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations for future research can be made. First, future studies should aim to replicate the 12-factor structure of the NSI in diverse populations, such as different age groups, cultural backgrounds, and clinical populations, to further establish the validity and generalizability of the measure. Future steps to translate the NSI into non-English languages would increase recruitment of more diverse populations worldwide. Evaluating these intuitive experiences across cultures will certainly aid in our understanding of them. In addition, targeted recruitment in diverse racial populations will support testing the NSI’s generalizability. Additionally, longitudinal studies could be conducted to investigate the stability and change of noetic experiences over time, and to examine their potential predictive value for mental health outcomes.

Other areas of future research should include the exploration of intra- and inter-variation, normative values within the populations already studied, the prevalence of the 12 factors and their interactions with each other, if any, and potentially beneficial applications of the information the NSI provides. Objective measures, such as physiological or neurobiological markers, could also be incorporated to provide convergent validity evidence for the self-report measures of noetic experiences. The NSI paired with biological markers would evaluate any organic origin to the specific expression of each individual’s noetic experiences. Preliminary studies have alluded to some relationship between genetics and noetic experiences (Cohn, 1994, 1999; Neppe & Hurst, 1981; Wahbeh, Radin, et al., 2022) but additional work is needed. Ongoing studies are also evaluating the relationship between structural neuroimaging data and self-report noetic experiences (Pantazatos, 2022). Further research could also explore the underlying mechanisms of noetic experiences, such as the role of cognitive processes, emotional regulation, and neural networks, to gain a deeper understanding of the nature and origins of these phenomena. These areas and more are ripe for further consideration.

Ethics statement

All study activities were approved and overseen by the Institutional Review Board at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IORG#0003743; WAHH_2019_01). The participants endorsed that they had read and understood the consent.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2023
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Wahbeh H and Kriegsman M. The Noetic Signature Inventory: 12-Factor Confirmatory Analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2023, 12:828 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134481.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2023
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.