Are NDERF's NDEs Typical of All NDEs Everywhere?

            No study of NDEs could possibly survey all NDErs everywhere.  Therefore, all research studies of NDErs are samples of a small portion of the total population of NDErs.  Consequently, there is some inherent statistical uncertainty in any survey of NDErs.  The large number of NDEs in the studies presented throughout Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences helps the confidence in the research findings of both quantitative and non-quantitative content of NDEs.

            All prior surveys needed to contact NDErs in some manner.  Most prior surveys of NDErs had the limitation of contacting NDErs from a narrow geographic location and/or limited to members of a particular organization.  Prior surveys of NDErs are generally valid, but this illustrates the problems associated with trying to survey a representative sampling of all NDErs everywhere.

            The NDERF survey is accessible to people worldwide, and over a period of many years, with the only restriction being the need for a computer and internet access.  Thus, the NDERF survey methodology may be reasonably considered to allow as valid a sampling of NDErs everywhere as prior published surveys of NDErs.

            The narratives of over 1300 NDEs are posted on NDERF.  I have yet to hear anyone raise the issue that the NDEs posted on NDERF are not consistent with NDEs from other published sources.

     NDEs on NDERF are both typical of other NDEs, and reliable (exerpts from other sections of this part of the website):

            A major advantage of posting NDE accounts on NDERF is that this process essentially eliminates the possibility of posted NDEs being 'copycat' accounts.  A 'copycat' account means all or part of the NDE is copied, or plagiarized, from another source.  The NDERF website has well over 300,000 pages read by over 40,000 unique visitors to the website each month.  If any posted experience is a 'copycat' account, it is highly probable it will be identified by one or more of the vast numbers of NDERF website visitors.

            The enormous number of people reading NDEs posted on NDERF helps assure their validity.  This is a significant advantage unique to the website survey research methodology conducted by NDERF.  The NDERF website has an associated public bulletin board, called the 'Forum'.  The Forum began several years after the NDERF website was started.  The Forum is quite active, with well over 100,000 pages read monthly.  This provides another mechanism to present any concerns about the validity of any posted account.
  
             The NDERF survey itself is a strong disincentive to share falsified accounts.  There were 131 possible responses on the original NDERF survey, and 150 possible responses in the new NDERF survey.  The new survey requires responses to all key questions; thus it is not possible to skip many survey questions.  It probably takes at least 45 minutes, possibly much longer, to read and respond to the survey questions and type in narrative responses.  A confabulated account would almost certainly not be as clear in the mind of the contributor as the remembrance of a real NDE.  It would be enormously difficult to consistently respond to the detailed survey questions based on a confabulated account.