Exploratory Factor Analysis

Despite modifications made to the model, it remained a poor fit to the data. To evaluate the model further, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure. The 46 items of the Use of Paranormal and New Age Services (UPNAS) Questionnaire were subjected to a comparable Principle Components Analysis (PCA) with direct oblimin rotation using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients above .3, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .872 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was also highly statistically significant at p < .001, all of which surpass acceptable values suggesting data was suitable for factor analysis. PCA revealed 12 components with eigenvalues exceeding 1 explaining a total of 72.13%of the variance. With no clear break in the associated scree plot, Horn’s Parallel Analysis (HPA; Pallant,

2013) was utilised. HPA suggested six components should be retained which together explained 57.50% of total item variance (Table 16).

E2 – E11 Modification Indices – 31.71 Co-varied E1 – E11 Modification Indices – 20.31 Co-varied E1 – E9 Modification Indices – 24.36 Co-varied E1 – E6 Modification Indices – 37.84 Co-varied

139

Table 16: Results from Principal Components Analysis and Horn’s Parallel Analyses

Component Number PCA Eigenvalue HPA Criterion Decision

1 13.78 1.76 Accept 2 4.68 1.69 Accept 3 2.78 1.62 Accept 4 2.11 1.56 Accept 5 1.56 1.52 Accept 6 1.51 1.48 Accept 7 1.36 1.44 Reject

The cut-off for factor loadings was set at .55, in line with the stringent cut-offs proposed previously. In total, 15 items did not load onto any factor (<.55) and three factors were removed as they contained an insufficient number of items (<4). Table 17 presents the final PCA solution for three remaining factors which explained 46.19% of the total item variance.

Table 17: Factor Loadings from the Principle Components Analysis

Factors & Items F1 F2 F3

Factor 1: “Practitioner-Influenced Cognitive-Orientated Coping” Variance = 29.97%; Internal Reliability () = 95.

21. Practitioner truthful .86 23. Practitioner expert .83 18. Practitioner honest .82 28. Practitioner understood they were unique .79 35. Given accurate information .76 39. Help to develop goals .76 44. Practitioner professional .76 38. Personalised to their needs .76 20. Practitioner objective .73 30. Past information given made them believe more .72 31. To feel more in control of life .70 37. Think about future steps .69 41. Look at a situation to understand it better .67 25. Given positive feedback .66 17. Practitioner can contact spirits .65 16. Given information they knew to be true .65 29. Outcome of current/future relationship .63 45. Help understand desires .62

Factor 2: “Avoidance-Orientated Coping” Variance = 10.17%; Internal Reliability () = .79

42. Don’t want to deal directly with a problem .73 46. As a last resort .70 40. Told what they wanted to hear at the time .66 15. Felt rejected by other people .64 36. Previously given false information .61 22. Less trustworthy than family/friends .61 26. Don’t trust own decision making .60

Factor 3: “Lack of Control”

Variance = 6.05%; Internal Reliability () = .79

140

1. Experienced emotional distress .73 5. Life is chaotic .69 4. Change something so things turn out better .64 14. Help to make important decisions .62 6. Take direct action to address a problem .62

The PCA suggested that paranormal coping consists of three internally reliable subscales. However, there are clear similarities when examining the underlying factor structures from the two data sets. Factor 1 consists of 18 items concerned with the extent to which participants viewed the feedback they received as personal, positive, and accurate. This factor also relays participants’ perception of paranormal practitioners as being honest, objective, and professional. These items originally loaded on to the “Authenticity” factor. Additional items are cognitive reappraisal strategies used to aid

understanding (e.g., reconsidering own desires) which originally comprised part of the “Approach-Orientated Coping” factor. Factor 1 was labelled “Practitioner-Influenced

Cognitive-Orientated Coping.”

Factor 2 consists of seven items which reflect participants’ efforts to disengage from difficult issues through avoidance or denial. This factor is similar to the original factor labelled “Avoidance-Orientated Coping.” This label was retained as an accurate

representation of this factor.

Factor 3 consists of six items which reflect triggers of paranormal coping. It represents negative events, experiences of diminished control, and emotional distress experienced prior to participants’ paranormal service use. Additional items represent behavioural actions (e.g., visiting a paranormal practitioner) taken to overcome such events appraised as stressful. Originally these items loaded on to the “Lack of Support/Control” and “Approach-Orientated Coping.” Factor 3 was labelled “Lack of

141

4.17 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

As the underlying factor structure for both sets of data was conceptually similar, the second factor structure proposed was used to create a new CFA model. The data collected in Chapter 3 was used to test the new model, to confirm a new factor structure. The model used the three new factors (Practitioner-Influenced Cognitive-Orientated Coping, Avoidance-Orientated Coping, and Lack of Control) as latent variables. Co- variances were drawn to account for inter-correlations between them. Individual questionnaire items that constructed each latent variable were added as observed variables. Residual delta scores were noted on each of the observed variables to account for measurement error. The model was subjected to first order CFA. A visual examination of the factor loadings revealed one under the recommended cut-off of .70 (Appendix 28). Table 18 presents goodness of fit statistics.

Table 18: Assessment of Model Goodness of Fit

Type of Construct AMOS Output Recommended

Cut-Off

Probability (P) <.001 >.05 CMIN/df 3.28 ≤2-5 Goodness of fit index (GFI) .64 ≥.95 Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) .59 ≥.90 Comparative fit index (CFI) .69 ≥.95 Incremental fit index (IFI) .69 ≥.90 Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) .11 ≤.10

An examination of the model fit statistics suggests the model was a poor fit to the data. To improve this, one item with an unacceptable factor loading was removed. Modification indices suggested 10 residual errors were correlated. These all had scores above 20 and were located on the same latent variable (Gaskin, 2011). These were co- varied and model fit re-examined. Table 19 presents all model adjustments (Appendix 29). Despite this, model fit remained poor (Table 20).

Table 19: Modifications to Model

Variable Issue Action

142

Table 20: Re-assessment of model goodness of fit

Type of Construct AMOS Output Recommended

Cut-Off

Probability (P) <.001 >.05 CMIN/df 2.47 ≤2-5 Goodness of fit index (GFI) .75 ≥.95 Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) .70 ≥.90 Comparative fit index (CFI) .81 ≥.95 Incremental fit index (IFI) .81 ≥.90 Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) .09 ≤.10

4.18 DISCUSSION

The current study aimed to ensure that the Use of Paranormal and New Age Service (UPNAS) Questionnaire was a valid and reliable measure of paranormal coping. The research sought to confirm the five-factor model of paranormal coping and establish concurrent and discriminant validity. The five-factor model of paranormal coping was not supported. A subsequent three-factor model was proposed as an alternative, and successively rejected. Modifications to both models improved goodness of fit statistics, however these remained below the acceptable values for the majority of reported assessments. Nevertheless, both models are conceptually similar and appear to represent, at least in part, participants’ experiences of paranormal coping. Authenticity, Avoidance-Orientated Coping, Lack of Support/Control remained relatively consistent with Approach-Orientated Coping items divided across them. Items loading on to the

E30 – E31 Modification Indices – 22.56 Co-varied E26 – E29 Modification Indices – 21.61 Co-varied E26 – E28 Modification Indices - 47.78 Co-varied E26 – E27 Modification Indices – 30.11 Co-varied E20 – E21 Modification Indices – 34.13 Co-varied E7 – E28 Modification Indices – 33.88 Co-varied E7 – E27 Modification Indices – 41.53 Co-varied E7 – E26 Modification Indices – 23.59 Co-varied E6 – E27 Modification Indices – 34.91 Co-varied E6 – E7 Modification Indices – 77.06 Co-varied E1 – E6 Modification Indices – 25.23 Co-varied

143

Practitioner Abilities subscale were either removed or incorporated into the Authenticity subscale. As such the three new factors were labelled Practitioner-Influenced Cognitive- Orientated Coping, Avoidance-Orientated Coping, and Lack of Control. Due to the similarities between the underlying factor structures, it seemed warranted to collect additional data to determine which model was more representative of paranormal coping. As the initial five-factor model was drawn from a larger pool of items it is possible that these may have influenced the structure that was found. A further discussion of the study findings, strengths, and limitations are provided following the analysis of the additional data.

144