Validation of the Near-Death Experience Content Scale in cardiac arrest survivors.
Tobias Anker Stripp, Niels Christian Hvidt
Danish medical journal June 23, 2026 DOI: 10.61409/a12251012 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Cross-sectional survey Qualitative Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 226 |
| Population | Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors in Denmark (2016-2020) who reported memories of their arrest |
| Measures | Near-Death Experience Content Scale (NDE-C) |
| Topics | Near-death experience |
| Key findings | The Danish NDE-C showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92) and a factor structure consistent with the original instrument, though global fit indices were mixed (CFI = 0.858, TLI = 0.831, RMSEA = 0.093, SRMR = 0.062). The authors suggest the scale is suitable for overall scoring, screening, and guiding clinical dialogue, but subscale interpretation should be cautious until validated in larger samples. |
Abstract
Near-death experiences (NDEs) are phenomena reported by individuals who have been, or perceived themselves to be, close to death. Although extensively studied internationally, no validated questionnaire exists in Danish. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Danish version of the Near-Death Experience Content Scale (NDE-C). We conducted a cross-sectional survey of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors (2016-2020) identified through the Danish Cardiac Arrest Register. Survivors reporting memories of their arrest completed the 20-item Danish NDE-C. Among the 2,262 invited patients, 855 responded (37.8%), and 226 completed the NDE-C. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.92). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the conceptual five-factor structure; however, global fit indices were mixed (comparative fit index = 0.858; Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.831; root mean squared error of approximation = 0.093; standardised root-mean squared residual = 0.062). Factor loadings and discriminant validity were satisfactory. The Danish NDEC scale showed excellent internal consistency and a preliminary factor structure consistent with the original instrument. Supported by prior qualitative work, the scale appears suitable for overall scoring, screening and guiding clinical dialogue about NDEs. However, subscale interpretation should be approached with caution until validated in larger samples. This study represents an important step towards systematic NDE research on prevalence estimates, cross-cultural comparisons and evidence-based clinical care for experiencers and their relatives in Denmark. This work was supported by the University of Southern Denmark and the University of Copenhagen, and funded by Samfonden, Denmark. Not relevant.