The Intelligence of Spiritual Intelligence: Making the Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The purpose of this article is to review key models of Spiritual Intelligence (SI) studies supporting its adaptability and biological correlates. Author/s combine/s the theoretical models of SI with the research validating those models, including some studies comparing SI with EI, and showing the association of SI with the kinds of positive results with a brief section on neurological correlates of SI. The questionnaire Integrated Spiritual Intelligence Scale (ISIS) and questionnaire Spiritual Intelligence Self-Report Inventory (SISRI-24) are described in detail, and other measurements of Spiritual Intelligence are also mentioned. Many studies have examined SI outside of an explicitly spiritual or existential context, and they also have shown mixed results.

The structure of the introductory parts and the literature review parts identified the current state of the research question regarding older and new philosophical concepts.

The cited references are from older relevant and recent publications with contemporary research:  from May, (1974) to authors such as Pasyar, N., Rambod, M., & Behrouzi, Z. (2020), Moafi, F., Momeni, M., Tayeba, M., Rahimi, S., & Hajnasiri, H. (2021) and O’Sullivan, L., & Lindsay, N. (2022).

Lines 19, 38 and 668: repair the name in the reference “Striženec”.

Line 55: reference Amram (2007) is missing from the list of references from line 577.

Lines 83 and 92: Kaur, et al. (2015) are mentioned as Kaur, Sambasivan, & Kumar (2015) in the list of references (lines 698-699).

Line 126: references Glaser & Strauss (1967) and Strauss & Corbin (1990) are missing from the list of references from line 577.

Line 461: It is needed an indent from paragraph and italics - 2.6. The Biological Basis for Spiritual Intelligence.

Line 462: Spiritual neuroscience as a new area of study that examines religious and spiritual experiences and behavior as correlates of brain function is mentioned briefly. As a new field of research, it does not belong to the study.

Testability of the hypothesis: Analyzed research aims in the area of multiple intelligences regarding Spiritual Intelligence (SI) are general with the theoretically defined research problems. This is a review study comparing the results of research by other authors. He summarizes these results in a summary table in Appendix A. Some of the SI measures have demonstrated incremental predictive validity even when controlling for other established constructs, such as personality, emotional intelligence, and social intelligence.

Line 548-551: To further understand Spiritual Intelligence, it would be interesting to find the correlation between these different, independently validated SI measures to help discern to what extent they are measuring the same thing.

Conclusions are at the end of the article as a part of chapter 3 - Discussion. The interpretation of the research from other researchers has taken place in light of the relevant theories. This is a review study without its own research using a questionnaire to confirm one of the hypotheses in the cited research.

Since a large number of the published correlational studies involve Islamic populations and relatively fewer studies have assessed the validity of SI models in Budhist, Taoist, Latinx, and Indigenous cultures, much remains to be done to assess the universality of any of these models of SI. Even specific training in SI constructs produces measurable differences to improve the quality of life.

In the end, the author/s discuss/es the topic of the theory of SI, referring to the theory of multiple intelligences.

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the literature research.

Quality and Scientific Soundness: The relevance of the review topic is acceptable. However, I miss clarifying the research question and verification of the questions asked in the process of the argumentation in the author´s own original empirical research. The manuscript’s results in the area of comparison of multiple intelligences theories and empirical research results are generally reproducible.

Significance: Hypotheses are roughly identified. The results are interpreted appropriately and significantly.

This paper may attract a wider readership as a comparative study provides a theoretical basis for further empirical research.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript and believe it is a timely contribution to the ongoing examination of the SI construct. Over the years, I have heard from hundreds of researchers from around the world interested in studying and measuring SI, and it is precisely this kind of review paper that is needed at this time in order to further the field and, importantly, move it in a direction that considers the state of the research and identifies challenges to be overcome.

I did find a few grammatical issues throughout the manuscript, most of which were minor, but I would recommend some additional proofreading prior to submission.

The following are some additional recommendations:

Lines 55 through 66: The sentence structure and organization here are a bit awkward such that I got lost in the wording. I think some minor revisions here grammatically would be helpful (particular at lines 64 and 65), perhaps organizing this section into multiple sentences.

Lines 284 and 285: It would be helpful if the authors explained the reasoning behind the conclusions of Atroszko et al. Specifically, it would be helpful to examine the merits of the conclusion that previous research on the SISRI-24 was “highly problematic,” particularly when the original study by King and DeCicco (2009) indeed found strong support for the four-factor model. There are some nuances here that would be helpful to include and explain further. As it stands, the reference to Atroszko et al.’s conclusion lacks clarity yet seems important to clarify in the broader context of the paper.

In regards to the last paragraph in section 2.4 (lines 409 through 416), I believe an important point to underscore is in regards to the possible limitations that may arise with translated versions of SI self-report measures. The SISRI, for instance, involves references to words such as “consciousness” and “meaning” which can be interpreted very differently depending on the language and method of translation used. This is a challenge I have heard from some researchers who have attempted to translate the measure, and it may be worth underscoring this as a possible limitation and, furthermore, a possible reason for a lack of cross-cultural validity observed in some studies. (Linguistic choices during translation could obscure the original meaning of certain items.) This may apply to SI measures broadly. (Perhaps this is something that could instead be referred to in the discussion.)

More generally speaking, language is a potential limitation of self-report measures of SI. Another concern that arises with the use of such direct language is the potential impact of social desirability, which may also be a function of culture. The eventual development of performance-based assessments of SI, however conceptually challenging at this point, would nevertheless be effective in overcoming this limitation (even if used in conjunction with self-report). This is one additional way that the field could move forward and shed better light on the validity of this construct. Noting this too may be helpful in a paper of this nature.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf