Measuring Paranormal Beliefs: Scales, Validity, and Limits

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Extraordinary Experiences & Anomalistic Psychology · Written by Artificial Sapiens

A paranormal belief scale is a research questionnaire designed to measure how strongly respondents endorse specified claims about phenomena such as extrasensory perception, precognition, psychokinesis, ghosts, superstition, or other experiences interpreted as paranormal. It measures responses to statements; it does not test whether a claimed event actually occurred or whether a paranormal explanation is scientifically established. Its value depends on the questions it asks, the population completing them, the scoring method, and evidence supporting the interpretation of the results.

The best-known example is the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS), a 26-item questionnaire traditionally organized into seven dimensions. Researchers have also evaluated the Australian Sheep–Goat Scale (ASGS), which focuses more specifically on belief in psi-related phenomena, and a newer Paranormal and Supernatural Beliefs Scale developed through classical and modern test theory. These tools answer overlapping but distinct measurement questions. None provides a clinical diagnosis, a universal cutoff separating believers from nonbelievers, or a scientific test of supernatural reality. Tobacyk, 2004; Drinkwater et al., 2018; Dean et al., 2021.

What Does a Paranormal Belief Scale Actually Measure?

A psychological scale operationalizes an abstract idea by turning it into observable responses. For paranormal beliefs, the observable responses are ordinarily degrees of agreement or disagreement with propositions. The target construct is endorsement of particular beliefs as defined by the instrument. Agreement can vary with conviction, familiarity with an idea, uncertainty, the meaning of a term, and the participant's cultural and linguistic context.

This distinction matters because the words “paranormal belief” cover a heterogeneous collection of claims. Someone might strongly endorse the possibility of telepathy while rejecting astrology or ghost sightings. Someone else may regard a traditional religious proposition as sacred faith while finding the questionnaire's paranormal label foreign or inappropriate. A total score can conceal these patterns. A questionnaire's categories are methodological choices that must be evaluated, rather than a natural classification of every person's worldview. The RPBS factor literature documents precisely this tension between an overall tendency to endorse items and differences among the content domains. Drinkwater et al., 2017.

A measure of belief is also distinct from a measure of personal experience. Believing that ghosts exist, having once felt an unexplained presence, feeling distressed by that experience, and reporting evidence of an independently verified event are four separate observations. A well-designed study uses different questions and corroborating methods to address each one. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing place interpretation and intended use at the center of psychological measurement.

How Paranormal Belief Measurement Developed

Early questionnaires attempted to standardize a field in which investigators previously used single yes-or-no questions or loosely defined belief categories. Standardized multi-item measures made it possible to compare samples, estimate reliability, assess subdomains, and investigate associations with other psychological variables. Their development also exposed a central problem: the researchers' definition of what counts as paranormal shapes the resulting measure.

Tobacyk's revised scale, published in 2004, consolidated a 26-item, seven-domain approach and used seven response positions. Tobacyk described revisions to content and response options intended to improve reliability and validity relative to earlier versions. Subsequent researchers revisited its structure with larger datasets, alternative latent-variable models, and attention to differential item functioning. Tobacyk, 2004; Lange et al., 2000; Drinkwater et al., 2017.

More recent work asks whether shorter and more focused instruments can produce clearer measurements. Dean and colleagues developed the Paranormal and Supernatural Beliefs Scale by examining an initial pool of items using both classical test theory and a Rasch measurement approach. This provides an instructive example of how item selection, dimensionality, response categories, and the range of belief levels targeted can change a scale's behavior. Dean et al., 2021.

Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS): Structure and Domains

The RPBS contains 26 items rated on a seven-point agreement scale. Its conventional subscales are traditional religious belief, psi, witchcraft, superstition, spiritualism, extraordinary life forms, and precognition. The original design permits researchers to inspect subscale endorsements and a broad combined score. These are categories in an instrument, not a claim that all seven constitute one coherent social or spiritual identity. Tobacyk, 2004.

Traditional religious belief

This subscale includes propositions framed in the language of particular religious traditions. Its inclusion has important implications for scope and fairness. A participant can hold an ordinary religious conviction without interpreting that conviction as paranormal. A comparative study that combines religious and nonreligious items therefore needs to explain exactly which construct the total measures and why that choice serves the research question.

Religion and spirituality as psychological phenomena have their own conceptual and methodological literature. The English Hub treats this religious domain under its separate Psychology of Religion and Spirituality article. In a paranormal-belief study, the appropriate statement is that a questionnaire contains tradition-specific religious items, with corresponding content-validity implications. Nothing about a response adjudicates sacred truth.

Psi, spiritualism, and precognition

Items grouped under psi generally refer to alleged abilities or interactions beyond conventional sensory and physical explanations; spiritualism items concern certain communication or survival claims; and precognition concerns knowledge allegedly obtained before an event through an extraordinary process. They can correlate, but participants may distinguish them sharply. The boundaries of these subscales are hypotheses about responses, tested through factor analysis rather than assumed from labels alone. Drinkwater et al., 2017.

Witchcraft, superstition, and extraordinary life forms

These domains include varied statements whose interpretation depends on history, culture, and ordinary language. An item labeled witchcraft may be read as a claim about real-world causal powers, a description of a cultural practice, or a word with different social connotations. Superstition can concern expectations about luck or particular actions. Extraordinary life forms are another substantive category with its own conceptual boundaries. Agreement in these domains cannot safely be treated as interchangeable without evidence.

Researchers should report the exact version of the RPBS, its response format, how items were grouped, and whether any were adapted or omitted. Small changes to wording or classification can materially alter comparability with published findings. Tobacyk, 2004.

Is Paranormal Belief One Trait or Several?

A single total score assumes that responses can be meaningfully summarized on a broader dimension. Seven subscale scores assume interpretable differences between domains. Both assumptions can receive some support while remaining imperfect. The important question is which score has sufficient evidence for a particular scientific purpose.

In a study involving 560 Australian adults, Lange and colleagues reported substantial differential item functioning in the original RPBS structure associated with age, gender, or both. Their analysis questioned whether the proposed seven dimensions were sufficiently stable across respondents and supported an alternative organization after examining biased items. This critique illustrates why an apparently tidy factor solution is not itself proof of fairness. Lange et al., 2000.

Drinkwater and colleagues later analyzed aggregated data from 3,764 participants and compared ten competing factorial models. A seven-factor bifactor model achieved the most favorable fit among the models tested, with a strong general factor and weaker but interpretable specific factors. Their findings support using the scale at both broad and more differentiated levels within the evaluated context. This result does not erase the earlier methodological criticism: different datasets, estimation methods, definitions of satisfactory fit, and population characteristics can produce different conclusions. Drinkwater et al., 2017.

What a bifactor result means

In a bifactor representation, items can reflect both an overarching factor and narrower content-specific factors. This model can help explain why many different paranormal propositions correlate while some content retains a distinguishable meaning. A strong general factor can make a total score useful for certain research comparisons, but a small or unreliable specific factor may not support confident person-level interpretation.

A good model fit is evidence about how a proposed statistical structure describes responses in the studied data. It is not confirmation that the named construct exists as a single natural entity, that group differences are causal, or that identical parameters will recur in every cultural setting. Researchers should inspect factor loadings, residual patterns, factor reliability, sample composition, and independent replication, as well as fit indices. The differing RPBS analyses offer a case study of these requirements. Lange et al., 2000; Drinkwater et al., 2017.

The Paranormal and Supernatural Beliefs Scale

Dean and colleagues introduced a scale-development program that began with 29 candidate statements, including novel and adapted items. A sample of 231 adults used seven-point agreement responses. Classical psychometric analyses produced a 14-item measure represented by one overarching factor, which the authors described as supernatural beliefs. A separate Rasch approach led to a 13-item measure using four response categories. Dean et al., 2021.

The study reported high internal consistency and strong test–retest reliability for the classical scale. Its Rasch analyses examined item functioning and suggested that the selected model was especially informative in differentiating participants with moderate-to-high endorsement. These are properties of the tested instrument under specific conditions. They do not establish that everyone across all belief levels can be measured with equal precision.

The two versions should be identified explicitly in research reports. A 14-item seven-category version and a 13-item four-category version are not automatically equivalent scoring systems. Altering categories changes the response process and may change which differences are detectable. Before substituting one version for another, a researcher needs evidence that the intended comparisons remain valid.

What Rasch analysis contributes

Rasch modeling compares observed item responses against a model in which item difficulty or endorsement threshold and respondent location contribute to the probability of an answer. When its assumptions are adequately met, the framework helps investigators inspect ordering of items, category functioning, differential item functioning, and the range in which responses discriminate most effectively.

A Rasch model is not a certification stamp. Fit, targeting, residual dependencies, unidimensionality, and stability need evaluation in the actual population. The same research program that produced the shorter scale illustrates how competing analytical approaches can lead to distinct recommended item sets and scoring decisions. Dean et al., 2021.

Australian Sheep–Goat Scale: A More Focused Measure

The Australian Sheep–Goat Scale (ASGS) has been used to study belief in paranormal abilities and related experiences, with particular attention to psi-related beliefs. Its narrower conceptual emphasis makes it different from the RPBS's mix of seven content areas. Researchers who ask a question specifically about beliefs in extrasensory perception should examine whether a focused instrument better matches that question than a broad aggregate scale.

Drinkwater and colleagues evaluated the ASGS factor structure using data from 1,601 respondents and examined convergence with the RPBS in a further comparison sample of 320. Their findings provided evidence for a general belief dimension together with meaningful specific aspects and supported a relationship between ASGS and RPBS responses. Convergent validity means the measures show an expected association; it does not mean they are interchangeable or that their total scores have the same numerical meaning. Drinkwater et al., 2018.

The ASGS is particularly instructive for distinguishing endorsement of a belief from reports of unusual personal events. Questionnaire designs that ask about both can generate correlations partly because individuals use their experiences to explain their beliefs or interpret experiences through their beliefs. A study must separate these directions rather than infer one from a cross-sectional association.

Comparing the Three Main Instruments

The RPBS offers wide content coverage and a long research history, making it useful when a study explicitly examines several kinds of paranormal endorsement. Its conceptual breadth, inclusion of religious items, and disputed factor structure require careful reporting. The ASGS offers a more concentrated view of psi-related beliefs and experiences, which can reduce conceptual breadth while improving alignment with a narrow question. The Dean and colleagues instrument demonstrates a more recent effort to construct shorter scales with explicit psychometric and Rasch evaluation.

No universal ranking follows from these descriptions. An instrument is appropriate when its item content, response options, validation population, and permissible inferences match the study. If a researcher intends to measure attitudes toward ghosts specifically, none of these broad tools should be assumed optimal without examining item coverage. If a researcher intends to compare belief domains, a single aggregate score may throw away essential information. Tobacyk, 2004; Drinkwater et al., 2018; Dean et al., 2021.

Reliability: When Scores Are Consistent

Reliability concerns the consistency or precision of measurement. Internal-consistency estimates examine how responses to items cohere under a proposed score structure. Test–retest reliability examines stability across observations, within a defined interval and under relevant conditions. Neither metric determines whether the questions capture the intended concept or whether a score can be used to label an individual.

High internal consistency can arise because items are repetitive or share wording and does not automatically establish one coherent underlying factor. A stable score can reflect stable interpretation of a question even when the target construct was poorly defined. An overall reliability coefficient can also obscure weaker subscales. The AERA, APA, and NCME testing standards call for evidence appropriate to each intended score interpretation, while the RPBS studies examine different possible factor structures. Drinkwater et al., 2017.

Measurement precision may vary across the score range. An instrument with items aimed at relatively strong endorsement can distinguish moderate from strong belief while providing limited information among respondents who reject nearly all propositions. This specific targeting issue emerged from the Rasch evaluation in Dean and colleagues' study. Dean et al., 2021.

Validity: Evidence for an Interpretation, Not an Instrument's Reputation

Validity concerns the evidence and reasoning supporting a particular use and interpretation of scores. A scale can be suitable for correlational group research in one population and unsuitable for screening individuals in another. Researchers should ask whether the items adequately represent the defined construct, whether respondents understand them as intended, whether the proposed structure is supported, and whether relationships to other variables behave as hypothesized. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing make intended interpretation and use integral to validity.

Content validity asks whether the substantive questions cover what the construct claims to include. Internal-structure evidence asks whether correlations among items support their proposed scoring. Convergent evidence asks whether related measures behave in related ways. Discriminant evidence asks whether a scale remains distinguishable from constructs that should differ. Criterion-related evidence may be relevant when there is a defensible external criterion, but there is no independently verified universal criterion that would translate every paranormal-belief item into a true-or-false judgment about the universe.

A questionnaire cannot validate alleged psi, ghosts, or supernatural intervention by producing a reliable distribution of opinions about them. Nor can agreement by many respondents establish a scientific external cause. Psychometric validity applies to the inference about endorsement of propositions; claims concerning external events require separate methods, independent evidence, suitable controls, and replication.

Cultural Meaning, Language, and Religious Sensitivity

Belief labels carry different meanings across societies, religions, generations, and communities. Translation is more than substituting words: a term describing communication with the dead, magical practice, or an extraordinary creature may have different cultural connotations. Some participants will understand an item literally, some metaphorically, and others as a question about a tradition they respect without personally endorsing the proposition.

A translated scale requires evidence that the same content and response process operate in the target setting. Researchers can use cognitive interviews, expert cultural review, translation and back-translation, analyses of differential item functioning, and multigroup invariance testing. None should be treated as sufficient alone. The earlier concern about age- and gender-related item functioning on the RPBS illustrates why the assumption of equivalence needs empirical scrutiny. Lange et al., 2000.

The presence of a traditional-religious-belief subscale within an older paranormal scale must not be used to characterize religious people collectively as irrational or clinically unusual. A belief's place inside a historical questionnaire reflects a researcher-defined category. Religious identity, devotional practice, spirituality, and faith-sensitive care belong to a different scientific search intent; see Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: Scope and Evidence.

Measurement Invariance and Group Comparisons

Group averages are interpretable only to the extent that the instrument measures the target construct comparably across groups. Configural invariance concerns similar factor configurations; metric invariance concerns comparable loadings; scalar invariance concerns intercepts or thresholds relevant to mean comparisons. The particular tests differ depending on whether items are treated as ordinal, continuous, or modeled through item response theory.

If a statement becomes easier to endorse in one cultural group because a word carries a different meaning, the same numerical score may reflect a different psychological response. A difference in total scores therefore should not be attributed reflexively to sex, age, nationality, religion, or education. Researchers should report sample characteristics, evaluate differential item functioning, and avoid overinterpreting differences that the scale was never validated to compare.

The tension between the RPBS differential-item-functioning analysis in Lange and colleagues and the later large-sample bifactor work in Drinkwater and colleagues shows why measurement questions remain open to replication and population-specific analysis. A model can show acceptable fit within studied samples without proving invariance in every untested population. Lange et al., 2000; Drinkwater et al., 2017.

Response Biases and the Meaning of Agreement

Questionnaire responses are influenced by the way statements are worded, whether the respondent thinks the survey is anonymous, tendencies toward agreeing, the desire to present a particular identity, and uncertainty about ambiguous statements. A seven-point response scale may appear highly precise while leaving unresolved whether “somewhat agree” means the same thing to different respondents.

An endorsement can sometimes represent curiosity, possibility, personal experience, symbolic interpretation, or firm commitment. Items that force agreement or disagreement may blur these states. Research questions that distinguish confidence, literal belief, cultural affiliation, and lived experience need response options and separate constructs tailored to those distinctions.

Survey order can also matter. If a questionnaire first asks people to recall vivid unexplained experiences, subsequent belief endorsements may be influenced by that framing. Researchers can test such possibilities through counterbalancing, neutral instructions, prespecified analyses, and independent samples. They should avoid claiming that any particular person's beliefs were caused by an individual cognitive bias on the basis of a score alone.

Paranormal Belief Scores and Cognitive Research

Belief scales are frequently used as predictors or correlates in studies of reasoning, pattern perception, cognitive style, and decision-making. Their measurement limitations become limitations on the larger claims. If a broad score mixes religious belief, superstition, and psi endorsement, an association with a cognitive task may differ from an association using a narrowly defined psi scale.

Dean and colleagues' 2022 systematic review synthesized 71 studies involving 20,993 participants, with substantial heterogeneity of findings. Associations were most consistently reported for intuitive thinking, confirmatory bias, conditional reasoning, and perception of randomness. The authors also identified concerns about frequent use of student samples, limited preregistration, multiple testing, and reporting practices. The review does not justify characterizing individuals with a paranormal belief as cognitively deficient or inferring causation from association. Dean et al., 2022.

Different measurements may account for part of the inconsistency across studies, alongside differences in participant recruitment, task design, statistical models, and reporting. A rigorous synthesis documents exactly which scale and scoring system each study used and investigates whether conclusions depend on the operational definition of paranormal belief.

How to Interpret a Paranormal Belief Scale Score

The first step is to identify what the instrument and score actually represent. A high RPBS total means stronger reported endorsement across the specified set of RPBS statements relative to its response scale and sample context. It does not identify which propositions are endorsed unless item or subscale patterns are examined. It does not assign a person to a clinical category or establish whether a paranormal event occurred.

A raw score is also not a population percentile unless a relevant norming study provides that interpretation. The existence of Likert response categories does not, by itself, establish clinically meaningful thresholds or equal-interval psychological units. Reports should present the score range, number of items, coding rules, missing-data handling, reliability or precision estimates, and how the sample was recruited.

When comparing groups, report effect sizes and uncertainty intervals rather than only significance tests. When interpreting a change over time, consider measurement error, response shifts, and whether the construct is expected to be stable or sensitive to experience. When interpreting a specific subscale, check that the subscale has sufficient distinct information and reliability for the proposed use. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.

Can a High Score Diagnose Psychosis or Another Mental Disorder?

No. Paranormal belief questionnaires are not psychiatric diagnostic instruments. A respondent may endorse unusual claims, describe an extraordinary experience, or express uncertainty without meeting criteria for a mental disorder. Clinical assessment requires attention to a person's own account, cultural setting, associated symptoms, distress, impairment, course, and safety. A scale built to study beliefs cannot provide those elements.

Likewise, a low score does not prove psychological health, and a high score does not demonstrate delusion, hallucination, dissociation, schizotypal personality disorder, or schizophrenia. Even correlations between questionnaire scores and other psychological measures are group-level statistical observations with design limitations. For the distinct clinical question, see the English Hub's Delusions: Types, Causes, and How Clinicians Assess Them.

A professional evaluation is appropriate when experiences are frightening or persistent, significantly disturb sleep, interfere with daily functioning, occur alongside additional concerning symptoms, or create safety risks. The goal is to understand and support the individual rather than presume a paranormal belief is an illness.

What Scales Cannot Establish About Paranormal Claims

Psychometric instruments can establish useful facts about reported beliefs, response regularities, test reliability, and the limits of measurement. They cannot independently verify ghost encounters, telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, alien intervention, or any particular mechanism outside conventional scientific understanding. Those claims require research designs appropriate to the external event being alleged.

Neither the presence of statistically reliable beliefs nor a correlation with unusual experiences supplies the missing physical or causal evidence. At the same time, the reality of an individual's reported experience as an object of psychological inquiry should be recognized. The causes of particular experiences require separate investigation. Psychological measures assess endorsement and interpretation; research into external causal claims is governed by distinct evidential requirements.

Designing a Strong Paranormal Belief Study

Define the question before selecting the scale

Investigators should decide whether they need a broad measure of paranormal endorsement, a particular domain such as psi, a measure of reports of experiences, or an assessment of distress. They should then select or develop an instrument whose content actually represents the proposed concept. This order reduces the temptation to redefine the research question to fit an available questionnaire.

Describe the instrument exactly

State the instrument's name, original citation, version, items, response categories, language, modifications, scoring method, and treatment of missing responses. If a researcher modifies the wording or excludes a dimension, report that modification as a new measurement decision rather than imply direct equivalence with the published scale.

Check the sample and measurement properties

Describe recruitment, relevant demographic and cultural characteristics, sample size rationale, response rates, and limitations of representativeness. Report reliability and structural evidence appropriate to the analyzed scores. Where groups are compared, evaluate measurement invariance or differential item functioning. Where the scale is translated, document the translation and cognitive testing process.

Use transparent analysis and proportionate conclusions

Preregister primary hypotheses and intended models where feasible, distinguish exploratory findings, consider multiple comparisons, and share materials and analysis code when ethically permissible. Seek independent replication for consequential conclusions. The review by Dean and colleagues identifies these reproducibility practices as particularly important in a literature marked by multiple analyses and limited preregistration. Dean et al., 2022.

Respect respondents and minimize harm

Obtain informed consent, avoid stigmatizing descriptions of beliefs, handle potentially sensitive spiritual identity information carefully, and clarify that the questionnaire is for research rather than diagnosis or proof of the paranormal. Participants describing distress should be offered appropriate support pathways without interpretive pressure. The testing standards provide the broader ethical and interpretive framework.

Common Measurement Mistakes

One mistake is treating a questionnaire title as a guarantee of construct validity. A second is combining subscales without checking whether their content and structure support the combination. A third is treating internal consistency as proof of validity. A fourth is reading a population mean difference as an inherent property of a culture, sex, age group, or religious community.

Other mistakes include using a self-selected internet sample as though it were nationally representative, changing item wording without new validation, assuming that a translated version is equivalent to the original, and treating correlation as evidence of an external paranormal cause. These errors can persist even when the statistical calculations themselves are correct. The contrasting RPBS structural studies and the broader systematic review illustrate why clear operationalization and methods reporting are essential. Drinkwater et al., 2017; Dean et al., 2022.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most widely used paranormal belief scale?

The Revised Paranormal Belief Scale is one of the most established and frequently used research instruments, with 26 items conventionally grouped into seven domains. Its long use also means that multiple studies have examined and questioned how its scores should be structured and interpreted. Drinkwater et al., 2017.

How many items does the RPBS contain?

The revised instrument contains 26 items using seven agreement positions. Researchers should confirm the version used by a particular study because adaptations, short forms, and modified items cannot automatically be assumed equivalent. Tobacyk, 2004.

What does the RPBS measure?

It measures endorsement of stated propositions grouped into traditional religious belief, psi, witchcraft, superstition, spiritualism, extraordinary life forms, and precognition. This operational definition should always accompany a score so readers understand the construct being represented.

Is the RPBS reliable and valid?

There is published evidence supporting aspects of its reliability and structure, along with important debate about dimensionality and possible item bias. The 2017 large-sample bifactor analysis and the earlier differential-item-functioning critique offer different evidence relevant to specific uses. Validity must be judged for a given score interpretation and population, not as an unconditional label. Lange et al., 2000; Drinkwater et al., 2017.

Is the Paranormal and Supernatural Beliefs Scale the same as the RPBS?

No. Dean and colleagues developed separate versions using classical and Rasch approaches, resulting in 14-item and 13-item forms with different response formats. They are separate instruments that require their own scoring and interpretation guidance. Dean et al., 2021.

What is the Australian Sheep–Goat Scale used for?

The ASGS is used particularly for research into psi-related belief and experiences. A published evaluation examined its factor structure and convergent relationships with the RPBS. Its narrower focus may suit some questions and be inadequate for others. Drinkwater et al., 2018.

Can paranormal beliefs be measured objectively?

Responses can be recorded and analyzed systematically, and the quality of the measurement can be evaluated. The result remains a measure of self-reported endorsement of specified items. It is not an objective demonstration that an alleged external phenomenon exists.

Does a higher score mean that someone is less intelligent?

No. Research investigates statistical relationships between specific belief measures and cognitive tasks, with heterogeneous findings and substantial limits. Individual ability cannot be inferred responsibly from a paranormal belief score. Dean et al., 2022.

Does a score show whether someone has a psychiatric disorder?

No. These questionnaires were designed to investigate beliefs, not diagnose clinical conditions. Clinical evaluation requires a separate, context-sensitive assessment of symptoms, distress, functioning, and other relevant evidence.

Can a paranormal belief questionnaire be used across countries?

Potentially, after careful testing of translation, cultural interpretation, item functioning, and measurement invariance. Directly comparing raw totals across language groups without adequate equivalence evidence can be misleading.

Can researchers use an online paranormal belief quiz as a scientific measure?

Only when its items, administration, scoring, reliability, validity evidence, and intended population are sufficiently documented for the research question. A quiz presenting scores without methodological support should be understood as entertainment or informal self-description rather than a validated psychological assessment.

Related Articles

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: Scope and Evidence — a separate scientific account of religious and spiritual psychological constructs.

Delusions: Types, Causes, and How Clinicians Assess Them — clinical distinctions that should not be inferred from a belief questionnaire.

Big Five Personality Traits: What They Are, What OCEAN Means, and How the Model Works — general personality constructs, distinct from paranormal-belief dimensions.

Paranormal Beliefs: Psychological Research on Why People Believe — the conceptual parent of belief measurement.

Psychic Experiences and ESP: What Psychology Can Study — the separate evidence question about alleged psi experiences.

Paranormal Beliefs and Personality: Associations and Research Limits — the correlational use and limits of belief scale scores.

How Scientists Study Paranormal Claims: Methods and Replication — research design, controls, and scientific replication.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Official edition and access.

Dean, C. E., Akhtar, S., Gale, T. M., Irvine, K., Wiseman, R., & Laws, K. R. (2021). Development of the Paranormal and Supernatural Beliefs Scale using classical and modern test theory. BMC Psychology, 9, 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00600-y.

Dean, C. E., Akhtar, S., Gale, T. M., Irvine, K., Grohmann, D., & Laws, K. R. (2022). Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0267360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267360.

Drinkwater, K., Denovan, A., Dagnall, N., & Parker, A. (2017). An assessment of the dimensionality and factorial structure of the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1693. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01693.

Drinkwater, K., Denovan, A., Dagnall, N., & Parker, A. (2018). The Australian Sheep-Goat Scale: An evaluation of factor structure and convergent validity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1594. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01594.

Lange, R., Irwin, H. J., & Houran, J. (2000). Top-down purification of Tobacyk's Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(1), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00183-X)00183-X.

Tobacyk, J. J. (2004). A revised paranormal belief scale. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23(1), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94.