Descriptions of Research Tools Developed Within the Science of Unitary Human Beings

Martha E. Rogers 1914-1994
Rogers’ Science of Unitary Human Beings

Instrument Descriptions of Research Tools Developed Within the

Science of Unitary Human Beings

A project of the SRS Resource Development Committee

2025

Table of Contents

Introductory Comments

Barrett’s Power as Knowing Participation in Change Tool

Ferrence’s Human Field Motion Tool 

Gueldner’s Well-being Picture Scale

Hastings-Tolsma’s Diversity of Human Field Pattern Scale

Johnston’s Human Field Image Metaphor Scale

Matas’ Self Defined Health Promoting Goals Scale

Paletta’s Time Experience Scales

Watson’s Assessment of Dream Experiences

SRS RDC Committee

Introductory Comments

This document is designed as a resource to researchers exploring unitary phenomena through the lens of Rogers’ Science of Unitary Human Beings (SUHB) or its theories. The Society of Rogerian Scholars (SRS) established a Resource Development Committee to work on projects that have the potential to educate students, nurses, researchers, theorists, and educators about the SUHB, its theories, and the resources needed to conduct research, engage in nursing practice, and advance the science. This document reflects the second completed project the RDC has undertaken. The first was the publication of Evolving Rogerian Nursing Science: John R. Phillips’ Unique Contributions (SRS, 2023), an anthology of Phillips’ publications addressing the SUHB and his contributions to expanding the science. The second undertaking of the RDC was to put together a resource of research instruments developed within the SUHB to increase awareness of their existence and provide descriptions of the instruments and previous uses to assist researchers exploring unitary concepts.

From an instrument development perspective all the tools in this document were reviewed by Martha E. Rogers for congruency with the science. This is an essential point as an initial form of validity. It is important to consider that although Rogers did review the instruments, over the years, some language has been clarified and refined. Rogers (1992) is a seminal article regarding the concepts and principles of the science. Others, like Phillips, have proposed further refinements and new theories, many of which can be found in the SRS (2023) book. Several of the instruments have not been used for a period of time. These points are important to consider as it will be essential for current and future researchers to report the reliability and validity estimates for any of the instruments used in their research.

Five of the eight instrument authors in this document have given permission to a designee (individual or SRS) to distribute the instrument. The RDC searched for authors and alternate contacts to obtain permissions. Due diligence was done, which revealed two instrument authors were deceased and no living contact could be identified. At the end of each description, the reader is given contact information for inquiries or permissions for use. The only tool we cannot provide contact information for is Dr. Helen Ferrence (Human Field Motion Tool), In terms of the other seven tools that are available, only the English versions are available and there will be no fee for using the instrument. Those requesting permission for use will be asked for their contact information, the type of work they are planning or a title of the work. Upon completion of the research, we ask that an abstract of the completed work and/or full reference of the published work be provided so data on instrument use can continue to be compiled.

We encourage quantitative researchers exploring unitary phenomena from a SUHB perspectives, to measure unitary concepts from a congruent perspective, specifically, with instruments developed within the science. The RDC appreciates your use of this resource and welcomes any feedback you may have.  

References

Rogers, M. E. (1992). Nursing science and the Space Age. Nursing Science Quarterly, 5, 27-34.

Society of Rogerian Scholars (SRS). 2023. Evolving Rogerian nursing science: John R. Phillips unique contributions. SRS.

Barrett’s The Power as Knowing Participation in Change Tool (PKPCT)

The Power as Knowing Participation in Change tool was the second research instrument developed in collaboration with Dr. Martha E. Rogers. It remains today the most widely used of all the Rogerian tools, having well established reliability. It has been translated into Haitian Creole, Swedish, Japanese, Danish, Korean, Portuguese, German, and French, demonstrating that the capacity of participate knowingly in change is characteristic of all, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, or country of residence.

Although Rogers did not write about power per se, she did emphasize that human beings can knowingly participate in the ongoing change process, although they do not always do so wisely. Barrett searched for a definition of power that would be consistent with the science of unitary human beings, finally coming to the realization that power is the capacity to participate knowingly in change. Through extensive literature review and synthesis of her ideas she realized that the conceptual manifestations of power were the inseparable dimensions of awareness, choices, freedom to act intentionally, and involvement in creating change. These were validated as theoretically consistent through a judges’ study with New York University nursing faculty considered knowledgeable about the science.

Following a second judges’ study she used semantic differential technique to develop and test power as knowing participation in change. She conducted a pilot study of 267 women and men, revised two versions of the tool, Version I and Version II, and then tested them in a national study with 625 women and men from every state. Participants had a minimum of a high school education, were between ages 21 and 60, and were diverse in terms of marital status, geographic residence, and occupation. Reliabilities ranged from .63 to .99, and validity, computed as factor loadings, ranged from .56 to .70 (Barrett, 1986, 1990a, 2003, 2020).

The standard version of the Power as Knowing Participation in Change tool (PKPCT) now used is PKPCT Version II. It consists of the four power dimensions each measured by 12 bipolar adjective pairs randomly reversed and ordered for each dimension. A 13th adjective pair, not included in scoring, is a retest reliability item used only for research.  Caroselli and Barrett (1998), and Kim (2009) conducted reviews of published studies using this tool, finding that the majority reported higher Cronbach alpha reliabilities than what she initially found. Further information on development of the tool and scoring guide can be found in Barrett, 1990b and 2003.

Over 100 studies have been conducted. Research has demonstrated positive correlations between power and such concepts as human field motion, well-being, life satisfaction, empathy, hope, feminism, purpose, perceived health, spirituality, and transformational leadership style. Significant negative correlations have been shown with transactional leadership style, anxiety, distress, chronic pain, alcohol dependence, and hopelessness.

Barrett developed a theory of power as knowing participation in change, commensurate with the tool. “In a nutshell, power is being aware of what one is choosing to do, feeling free to do it, and doing it intentionally (Barrett, 1986, 1989, 1990b, 2010)” (Barrett, 2015, pp. 481-482). Later she recognized that there are two forms of power described by this theory, power-as-freedom, the acausal view in Rogerian science, and power-as-control, the dominant view. Barrett also developed the first Rogerian practice methodology, comprehensively described in Barrett (2020) where she also provided a practice exemplar.

The Barrett/Malinski Short Form of the PKPCT was developed later as a potential tool to use in practice settings, especially in hospitals as it would take less time to complete. The intent is to determine what is most important to the patient/client at that moment, however related to wellbecoming. The four interrelated dimensions are there, each with three adjective pairs from the original tool, with the instruction to respond to each in relation to the present issue or concern for the person that is most pressing. This may or may not be related to the present experience and may shed light on an important issue that otherwise would remain hidden. Although not intended for research, the short form has been used in research to minimize response burden for participants. However, Barrett’s hope was that it would serve as an important clinical tool in practice.

Before Barrett transitioned out of this physical life, she turned the power work over to Dr. Violet Malinski. Anyone interested in further information or permission to use either form of the PKPCT can contact her at viomalin@optimum.net.

References

Barrett, E. A. M. (1986). Investigation of the principle of helicy: The relationship of human field motion and power. In V. M. Malinski (Ed.), Exploration on Martha Rogers’ science of unitary human beings (pp. 173–188). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Barrett, E. A. M. (1990a). An instrument to measure power as knowing participation in change.

In O. Strickland & C. Waltz (Eds.), The measurement of nursing outcomes: Measuring client self-care and coping skills (Vol. 4, pp. 159–180). New York: Springer.

Barrett, E. A. M. (1990b). Health patterning with clients in a private practice environment. In E.A.   M. Barrett (Ed.), Visions of Rogers’ science-based nursing (pp. 31-44).
New York: National League for Nursing.

Barrett, E. A. M. (2003). A measure of power as knowing participation in change. In O. Strickland & C. Delorio (Eds.), Measurement of nursing outcomes: Self-care and coping (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 21–39). New York: Springer.

Barrett, E. A. M. (2010). Power as knowing participation in change: What’s new and what’s next. Nursing Science Quarterly, 23, 47–54.

Barrett, E. A. M. (2020). Barrett’s theory of power as knowing participation in change. In M. C. Smith (Ed.), Nursing Theories and Nursing Practice (5th ed., pp. 479-491).

Caroselli, C., & Barrett, E. A. M. (1998). A review of the power as knowing participation in change literature. Nursing Science Quarterly, 11, 9–16.

Kim, T. S. (2009). The theory of power as knowing participation in change. A literature review update. Visions: The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 16, 40-47.

Ference’s Human Field Motion Tool (HFMT)

Ference’s Human Field Motion Tool is the first quantitative research tool developed within the science of unitary human beings, known then in the late 1970s as the science of unitary man. The tool was developed and tested in 1978 part of her dissertation research entitled The Relationship of Time Experience, Creativity Traits, Differentiation, and Human Field Motion (Ference, 1986). As Ference noted, motion has long been associated with traditional views of human growth and development. Human field motion is a phenomenon associated with what was then called the four-dimensional human energy field. “In its low frequency position it resembles rest. In its higher frequency position it resembles activity” (p. 96).

Based within Rogers’ languaging in the late 1970s, Ference described her study as an empirical investigation of human synergistic development, different from traditional human development describing bio-psychological maturation. Synergistic development represents the whole, not the sum of the parts, and “outcomes” are “holistic, new, and innovatively different” (p. 97). Based on the principle of resonancy, she hypothesized that there is a relationship between human field motion (DV) and synergistic development, defined as “the interrelated set of time experience, differentiation, and creativity traits” (IV), measured with standardized tools (p. 99). Human field motion was identified on the two scales of the semantic differential tool as “My motor is running” and “My field expansion.”

Ference used canonical correlation to examine the relationships between the two sets of variables. Data collection took place at national conferences/meetings, with 213 women and men, ages 30-60, taking part.

Three canonical variates emerged: complexity-diversity pattern with an R of  0.41, p = 0.001; human field motion with an R of 0.37, p = 0.01; and a third not named because it did not achieve significance. Only 42% of the variance was explained by these dimensions, but Ference considered that a “reasonable amount,” especially given the nature of the study, providing future researchers a direction to pursue.

Ference proposed that the complexity-diversity pattern (time experience, creativity traits, and differentiation) changes more slowly than human field motion. She proposed that human field motion “is a characteristic of development that contributes to an identifiable pattern and organization and accounts for a space-time coordinate essential in the synthesis of four-dimensional energy fields” (p. 102). Thus human field motion provides an alternative to traditional views of time and space. Two of her recommendations, then, are to view human field motion as an alternative to time experience and to explore the relationship between human field motion and physical motion. The 1986 chapter by Ference also includes a critique by Joyce Fitpatrick and Ference’s response.

Barrett (1986) developed and tested her Power as Knowing Participation in Change tool in this study testing the hypothesis that there is at least one significant relationship between the set of measures in the Human Field Motion Tool and the power tool (PKPCT). She found statistical support for this hypothesis, suggesting that as human field motion, “an index of unitary human development proceeds, so does the human being’s capacity to participate knowingly” (p. 180). In addition she developed a new method for scoring and analyzing the Human Field Motion Tool.

Butcher (Butcher & Parker, 1988) studied guided imagery using the Human Field Motion Tool and Knapp and Garbut’s Time Metaphor Test to test the hypotheses that participants experiencing an 11 minute guided imagery tape would have higher human field motion scores and lower time metaphor scores than a group experiencing an educational tape. He used a pre-test/post-test design with 60 participants. He found support for lower time metaphor scores but not for human field motion scores. Based on a factor analysis, he questioned the validity of the Human Field Motion Tool.

Benedict and Burge (1990) studied the relationship between human field motion and preferred visible wavelengths, proposing that based on resonancy accelerated human fields were related to higher frequency environmental patterns, assessed on the basis of two projected colors. They failed to support this hypothesis and identified concerns about the human field motion tool based on ambiguity of the language and participants’ lack of understanding about the language of the two dimensions measured.

Anyone interested in the tool, further refinements, and further research can find Dr. Ference on the Internet or LinkedIn.

References

 Barrett, E. A. M. (1986). Investigation of the principle of helicy: The relationship of human field motion and power. In V. Malinski (Ed.), Explorations on Martha Rogers’ Science of

Unitary Human Beings (pp. 173-188). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Benedict, S. C., & Burge, J. M. (1990). The relationship between human field motion and preferred visible wavelengths. Nursing Science Quarterly, 3, 73-80, doi: 10.177/089431849000300208.

Butcher, H. K., & Parker, N. I. (1988). Guided imagery within Rogers’ science of unitary human beings: An experimental study. Nursing Science Quarterly, 1,103-110.

Ference, H. M. (1986). The relationship of time experience, creativity traits, differentiation, and human field motion. In V. Malinski (Ed.), Explorations on Martha Rogers’ Science

Gueldner Well-being Picture Scale (WPS)

The Well-being Picture Scale (WPS) is a 10-item pictorial scale based within Rogers’ science of unitary human beings designed “to measure general well-being in an individual integral to his or her unique human-environmental field process” (Gueldner et al., 2005, p. 43). The non-language-based scale was designed to achieve parsimony and to provide an easy-to-administer scale. For example, the instrument can be used with adults of a wide range of ages, for those with English as second language and/or those with difficulty in responding to lengthy and complex textual-based instruments. Gueldner and colleagues (2005) reported on a revision of the Index of Field Energy (IFE) and presented the development and psychometric properties of the current 10-item version entitled, Well-Being Picture Scale (WPS).  The WPS contains 10 pairs of drawings at opposite sides of a seven-point scale that ranges from 1 to 7. The person responding is asked to mark an x at the point on the scale that describes how they are feeling now. WPS scores range from 10 to 70 with higher scores indicating heightened sense of well-being.

The WPS was developed within a Rogerian science perspective and the Gueldner group (2005) describes how Rogers’ homeodynamic principles are evident within the scale. For example, the principle of resonancy includes changes in pattern from lower to higher among lower and higher frequencies frequency; Gueldner et al. posit a higher frequency is associated with stronger sense of well-being. The instrument authors identify four characteristics that are reflected in the WPS; frequency of movement (intensity), awareness of one’s own energy, action, and power as knowing participation within the field. The four characteristics are defined within the science and are intended to produce one total score (Gueldner et al., 2005). Scoring is done adjusting for reverse scored items, summing the item scores to achieve the total score.

            Estimates of reliability have been reported in samples including young adults, women of childbearing age, older adult men and women (Bongermino-Rose, 2016; Gueldner et al., 2005; Johnston et al., 2011; Reis & Alligood, 2008; Santana et al., 2019) with Cronbach alphas ranging from .83- .91. Gueldner consulted directly with Rogers at the beginning of her work and other Rogerian scholars have been included in early refinement. Field testing was conducted in a series of phases within the scale development work. Details are available in Gueldner and colleagues (2005) article including estimates of convergent validity and factor analysis with principal components analysis and varimax rotation. The instructions and scoring guides for the WPS have been translated in languages including, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, and Taiwanese.  Although the tool was originally intended for use in adult populations, future recommendations included exploring its use in children. Quaranta et al., (2025) reports on development of a pediatric version based on Gueldner’s WPS and on the preliminary work she and Terwilliger and colleagues did on a children’s version. Gueldner’s daughter has given the Society of Rogerian Scholars (SRS) permission to disseminate the tool. For inquiries and requests for permission, contact: Dr. Shirley Conrad at shirleyjconrad@gmail.com

References

Anderson, F. R., & Ashman, J. (2011). Establishing the correlation between well-being and presenting symptomatology in persons who are seriously ill. Visions, The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 18 (1), 41-46.

Bongermino-Rose, M., James, G. D., Gueldner, S. H., & Murnock, C. G. (2016). Evaluating a non-verbal assessment tool in nursing students and staff at the University of Botswana. Faculty Publications, 3727. https//digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/3727.

Davis, B. H., Spake, M.A., & Gray, T. (   ).When the picture talks: Creating monogram booklets for spouses and friends. Unpublished manuscript

Gueldner, S. H., Michel, Y., Bramlett, M. H., Liu, C., Johnston, L. W. , Endo, E. , Minegishi, H. & Carlyle, M. S. (2005). The well-being picture scale: A revision of the index of field energy. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18, 1, 42-50. Doi:10.1177/0894318404272107

Hubbard, J. L., (2011). Evaluation of a brief mindfulness-based program on recall and sense of well-being in a sample of older African Americans. Visions, The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 18 (1), 22-40.

Johnston, N., Guadron, M., Verchot, C., Gueldner, S. (2011). Validation of the well-being picture scale (WPS) as a measure of mood. Visions, The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 18 (1), 8-21.

Linton, M., Dieppe, P., Medina-Lara, A. (2016). Review of 99 self-report measures for  assessing well-being in adults: Exploring dimensions of well-being and  developments over time. BMJ Open 6:e010641. https://doiororg 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010641

Quaranta, J., Darling, R., Chen, M., DeMartino, J., & Kozlowski, M. (2025). Development and  validation of the pediatric well-being picture scale using a mixed-methods research  Design. Nurs.Rep. 15,29. https??doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15010029

Reis, P. & Alligood, M. (2008). Well-being in pregnancy: A pilot study using the Well-being  Picture Scale (WPS). Visions, The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 15 (1), 8-17.

Santana, M. V., Casique, L. C., deJesus Munoz-Torres, T. , Alvarez, A. A. (2019).  Effectiveness of auriculotherapy as a anursing intervention to improve wellness in  alcohol-addicted young adults. Health Pol. 2 (1), 22-26.

Shearer, N. B. C. , Fleury, J. D., Belyea, M. (2010). Randomized control trial of the health  empowerment intervention: Feasibility and impact. Nursing Research, 59 (3), 203- 211. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.obo13e318dbbd4a  

Thakur, R. D. (2017). Feasibility study of health empowerment intervention to evaluate the  effect on self-management, functional health, and well-being in older adults with heart failure. Arizona State University – unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Diversity of Human Field Pattern Scale

Marie Hastings-Tolsma, PhD, CNM, FACNM

The Diversity of Human Field Pattern (DHFP) scale was developed to test the validity of the Rogerian proposition that individuals have the capacity to participate in the process of change. Additionally, the work sought to determine the validity of the construct of diversity of human field pattern. Developed in 1992, the DHFP tool emanated from the proposed theory of diversity of human field pattern (Hastings-Tolsma, 1992) which was developed within the Rogerian Science of Unitary Human Beings (Rogers, 1980, 1990).

Proposed Theory of Diversity of Human Field Pattern

A theory was proposed to increase understanding of how the human field experiences change, as well as mobilize potentials for evolution. DHFP was envisioned as a relative process manifesting an overall persistent preference for how change unfolds. Where there are fluctuations in DHFP, there are differences in personal knowing participation related to engagement with other fields. A host of experiences provide the matrix for an individual’s sense of oneness (Rogers, 1986).

While the individual flow of change is unpredictable in nature, short-term predictability of field patterning may be appraised. It was conceptualized as a process manifesting an overall persistent preference for engaging in change, despite variation as a function of human-environmental process. Fluctuations embody a personal participation in the process of connecting with other fields. Manifestations of the diversity of human field pattern highlight the individual’s experience of oneness and arise from human-environmental field mutual process. The theory proposed that as human awareness of current pattern manifestation preferences is made apparent, potentials for patterning are expanded and options potentiated. Humans impose meaning as a tool in the synthesis and separation of life and that awareness serves to inform and create new possibilities in patterning processes. Acknowledgement of field pattern, however manifested, reveals the meaning given to human-environmental process by the individual.

DHFPS

Manifestations of the diversity of human field pattern highlight the individual’s experience of oneness and arise from a matrix of experiences. The DHFPS identifies the empirical indicants describing the process underlying the varying degrees of change occurring in the evolution of human potentials throughout the life process. The Diversity of Human Field Pattern scale (DHFPS) measures relative diversity of field pattern (see Appendix A). The scale was designed to measure field potential which promotes more varied and innovative field design.

Reliability and Validity: Alphas for the scale ranged from .83 (pilot study, N = 320) to .81 on follow up main study (N = 173). Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .19 to .54 indicating internal consistency and a lack of redundancy. Factor analysis of the construct revealed a unidimensional construct. Validity coefficients ranged from .36 to .62 on pilot study and from .26 to .68 on follow-up study. Factor loadings confirmed a construct where items represented involvement and sensitivity to change and were principally concerned with innovation, variety, a sense of active involvement, and a belief in the possibility of achieving desired potentials. An effort was also made to establish external validity for the DHFPS by performing correlations between the scale and Ference’s (1979) Human Field Motion Test (HFMT), an instrument also derived from a Rogerian framework. Correlations between the DHFPS and the 3 dimensions of the HFMT were all positive and ranged from .45 to .52 (potency - .47; activity - .52; and evaluative - .45). All correlations were significant beyond the .001 level.

Scoring The DHFPS contains 16 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. It is a summated rating scale which measures relative states. An inverse relationship is assumed to exist between the scale score and the relative diversity of human field pattern. The lower the DHFPS score, the greater the level of field pattern diversity. Scores range from 80 to 16. Three items are reverse coded: items 4, 12, and 16.

Use of the DHFPS

Smith and Broida (2007) conducted a study which was designed to demonstrate pattern changes in human energy fields associated with serial Therapeutic Touch (TT) sessions. The work examined TT healers and healees who were paired for an 8-week TT series. Primary outcomes were pulse, blood pressure, pain, and stress. There was expectation of mutual process between the healers and healees which were expected to reflect higher frequency and more diverse field patterns, as measured by DHFP (Hastings-Tolsma, 1992), spirituality (Elkins et al, 1988), and power (PKPCT) (Barrett, 1987). There were 141 TT sessions that were provided to healees with comparison of pandimensional pattern before and after TT treatment. Healers and healees demonstrated parallel changes following TT treatment. Contrary to expectations, manifestation of DHFP were reduced in healers and healees. Study findings did demonstrate a reliable correlation between PKPCT and DHFPS (r(32) = -.57, p < 0.5) indicating theoretical consistency and support for construct validity.

Cronbach’s alphas were 0.66 on pretest (n=17) and .84 on post-test (n=17). Pretest Cronbach’s alphas suggested poor internal consistency but were acceptable on post-test. Healers mean DHFP pretest score was 28.75 (n=4) and post-test was 34.25 (n=4). Healee mean DHFP pretest score was 35.92 (n=13) and post-test was 41.92 (n=13). When combining participants, the mean pretest score was 34.2 (n=17) and the mean post-test score was 40.1 (n=17). The dependent t-test pre- and post- healer-healee combined was t=-2.28, df 16, p=.037. The DHFP scores were significantly (p<.05) correlated with Barrett’s (1987) Knowing Participation in Change (power) score on pre-test (.57); the post-test correlation coefficient was .36 (ns). DHFPS pretest means were lower (greater diversity) than post-test means for healees (18.6-21.1); healer mean scores ranged from 36.0-41.9 (ns) on pre- and post-test, suggesting less diversity. The researchers suggested that findings supported mutual process.

It is possible that less diversity following treatment was an artifact of the small sample size, tool limitations, or need for conceptual clarification.

Hastings-Tolsma (unpublished data,1996) examined DHFP validity and reliability in a convenience sample of healthy adults (N=126). Limited analysis confirmed one unitary factor for the tool with validity coefficients ranging from .38 to .65. In the original work, there were two items (#12, #16) which did not have sufficient loading on the factor and raised questions about the usefulness of these items in the test. Loadings of these items in this work were .39 and .57 respectively, indicating that they were appropriate for retention. The instrument demonstrated a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .87. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .17 to .52 suggesting internal consistency and a lack of redundancy. Findings indicated that future research was needed related to conceptual analysis of DHFP.

Future Directions‍ ‍

The DHFP tool needs to be examined in relationship to the half-dozen (plus) Rogerian-based tools that emanate from nearly two-dozen mid-range theories. Such examination will necessitate careful study of the accuracy of theoretical underpinnings of the Rogerian model, as well as the mid-range theories that have been subsequently developed. Additional testing of the tool is also needed to give further evidence of construct validity. Such testing should be conducted with patients, providers, and generally healthy populations, as well as with varied methodologies. Additionally, specific testing needs to examine the DHFPS in relation to the canonical variable of “complexity-diversity pattern” found in work done by Ference (1979). The tool should also be examined more robustly in relationship to Barrett’s (1987) Power-as-Knowing-Participation-in-Change test (PKPCT). Both the PKPCT and DHFPS purport to measure human participation in field change, and these measures – along with Ference’s Human Field Motion Test (HFMT) detail constructs developed within Rogers’ conceptual model. Dr. Marie Hastings-Tolsma provided this write-up and the SRS Resource Development Committee made three edits for clarity. The three edits included one typo, a change of word from “interaction” to mutual process to enhance consistency and clarity. The third edit was removal of a redundant sentence. Dr. Hastings-Tolsma gave permission for the Society of Rogerian Scholars to distribute her tool. Inquiries and requests for permissions may be sent to: Dr. Shirley Conrad at shirleyjconrad@gmail.com‍ ‍

References

Barrett, E. A. M. (1987). Barrett PKPCT. (Available from Author, 16 East 96th Street, Suite 1A, New York, NY 10028).

Caroselli C & Barrett EA. (1998). A review of the power as knowing participation in change literature. Nurs Sci Q, 11(1):9-16. doi: 10.1177/089431849801100105.

Fawcett, J. (2015). Evolution of the Science of Unitary Human Beings: the conceptual system, theory development, and research and practice methodologies. Visions: The Journal of‍ ‍Rogerian Nursing Science,21(1)https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A437879215/AONE?u=anon~7b92e3c1&sid=googleScholar&xid=129174d4‍ ‍

Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., & Saunders, C. (1988). Toward a humanistic-phenomenological spirituality. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 28(4), 5- 18.

Ference, H.M. (1979). The Relationship of Time Experience, Creativity Traits, Differentiation and Human Field Motion: An Empirical Investigation of Rogers’ Correlates of Synergistic Human Development. Unpublished dissertation for the Ph.D. New York NY: New York University, UMI No. 9237755.

Hastings-Tolsma M. (unpublished). Administration of the DHFP scale in a healthy adult population.

Hastings-Tolsma M. (1992, Feb 15). The relationship of diversity of human field pattern to risk- taking and time experience: An investigation of Rogers’ Principles of Homeodynamics.  New York University. Dissertation Abstracts International # 9237755.

Hastings-Tolsma M. (1997). Measurement in Rogerian science: A review of selected‍ ‍instruments. In M. Madrid (Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian knowing (pp. 91-93). New York: National League for Nursing.

Hastings-Tolsma M. (2006). Toward a theory of diversity of human field pattern. Visions: The‍ ‍Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 14(2), 34-47. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60442c60133ffa41758d58f3/t/60abdac1a3cdad64824475fd/1621875400989/Visions-Volume14.pdf

Hastings-Tolsma M. (2008). Measurement of time experience: a commentary. Visions: The‍ ‍Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 15(2), 91+ https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A198291201/HRCA?u=anon~cd1fc96e&sid=googleScholar&xid=0aacd5b3‍ ‍

Rogers ME. (1980). A science of unitary man. In J. P. Riehl & C. Roy (Eds.). Conceptual models‍ ‍for nursing practice (2nd ed.). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Rogers ME. (1986). Science of unitary human beings. In V. Malinski (Ed.), Explorations on Martha Rogers’ science of unitary human beings (pp. 4-23). Norwalk, CT: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

Rogers ME. (1990). Nursing: Science of unitary, irreducible, human beings: Update 1990. In E.A.   M. Barrett (Ed.), Visions of Rogers' science-based nursing (pp. 5-11). New York: National League for Nursing.

Smith DW & Broida JP. (2007). Pandimensional field pattern changes in healers and healees: Experiencing therapeutic touch. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25(4):217-25; discussion 226-7. doi: 10.1177/0898010106297571.

Johnston Human Field Image Metaphor Scale (HFIMS)

The HFIMS was developed within Rogers’ SUHB and was conceptually defined as the perception of the” infinite wholeness of the human field as it evolves within the human-environmental field process “(Johnston, 1994, p. 7). The HFIMS is a 25 item, five-point Likert-type scale to measure the perception of integrality or perception of human-environmental field wholeness. Linda Johnston (1993, 1994) proposed the scale as a way to examine human field image of individuals and groups from a unitary perspective, i.e., human field image (Phillips, 1990). Scores range from 25 to 125 with higher scores reflecting clearer perceptions of human field and/or integrality.

Instrument development included face and content validity estimates. Johnston (1994) consulted Dr. Martha Rogers to ensure theoretical consistency. Literature and expert consultation was described as contributing to content validity. Multiple reviews by attendees at regional and national meetings of Rogerian scholars were conducted to establish face and content validity of the metaphors used in the scale.  Pilot testing (n = 50) healthy adults was conducted and the correlation of the HFIMS and Gueldner’s Index of Field Energy (IFE) was used to support construct validity (r = .5928, p < .01). Johnston (1993, 1994) reported principal components factor analysis (PCFA) and varimax rotation supported construct validity during the pilot phase. The major testing phase was conducted with healthy adults (n = 358) ranging from 18 to 85 years of age. The same methods to estimate construct validity were conducted.  The correlation between the HFIMS and the IFE was (r = .7056). The factor analysis done during the major testing phase supported three theoretically congruent factors, notably, those demonstrating expressions of clear human field image, expressions of blurred human field image, and the third as integrality. The final form of the HFIMS consisted of 25 metaphors reflecting three theoretically congruent factors. Johnstone concluded the HFIMS demonstrated content and construct validity.

Reliability of the instrument was reported for both the pilot and major testing phases. The reliability coefficient was supported by a Cronbach alpha of .9291 for pilot testing (n = 50) and .9131 for the major testing (n = 358). Johnston (1993, 1994) concluded the HFIMS demonstrated internal consistency reliability.

The HFIMS has been used in samples of healthy adults (Johnston, 1993, 1994), children with asthma (n = 58) (Rosen, 2001) and adults (n = 107) recovering from schizophrenia (Salerno, 2002). Rosen (2001) conducted a quasi-experimental study of a guided imagery modality in children ages 7 through 18 and reported no statistically significant findings with increased human field perceptions in both groups. Rosen concluded increased human field perceptions supported a pattern of increasing diversity in the children and supported Rogers’ homeodynamic principle of helicy.  Human field image was conceptualized as perception of self in Salerno’s correlational study of hope and power as knowing participation in change in adults recovering from schizophrenia. Salerno reported a Cronbach alpha of .93 for the HFIMS and a strong, positive association (r = .73, p = .0000) among perception of self (HFIMS) and hope; power as knowing participation also demonstrated a significant positive association (r = .58, p = .000) with perception of self. Hope contributed 52.83% to the understanding of perception of self; power as knowing participation in change and the combination of hope and power did not add significantly to the explanation. Dr. Johnston authorized the Society of Rogerian Scholars (SRS) to make the instrument available upon request. For inquiries or requests for permission, contact: Dr. Shirley Conrad at shirleyjconrad@gmail.com

References

Johnston, L. W. (1993). The development of the human field image metaphor scale. (Document No. PUZ9323297) [Doctoral Dissertation, Medical College of Georgia] ProQuest Doctoral Dissertation and Theses.

Johnston, L. W. (1994). Psychometric analysis of Johnston’s human field image metaphor scale. Visions: The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 2(1), 7-11.

Phillips, J. R. (1990). Changing human potentials and future visions of nursing: A human field image perspective. In E. A. M. Barrett (Ed.), (1990), Visions of Rogers Science-Based Nursing. New York, NY: National League for Nursing (pp 13-25.

Rosen, M. A. (2001). Effects of guided imagery on dyspnea, medication usage, airway obstruction, and human field image in children with asthma. (Document No. AA13027249)[Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Salerno, E. M. (2002). Hope, power, and perception of self in individuals recovering from schizophrenia: A Rogerian perspective. Visions: The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 10(1), 23-36.

Matas’ The Self Defined Health Promoting Goals Scale.

                  The Self Defined Health Promoting Goals Scale (SDHPG) was developed by Katherine E. Matas in 1996.  It is a standardized vertical visual analogue scale (VAS), 100 mm long, with participants self selecting their health goals and health anchors at each end.  Matas developed the SDHPG scale to examine the magnitude of change in movement toward selected goals of health and well-being (wellbecoming, Phillips, 2024) as defined by each individual. This research approach is consistent with Rogers’ unitary framework and emphasis on the uniqueness of individuals. (Larkin, D. 2001)

            Matas (1996) initially utilized the SDHPG scale in her research project examining the effectiveness of Therapeutic Touch for health promotion in a general population of university faculty, staff and students (N=43).   The SDHPG was administered at baseline, before the initial provision of Therapeutic Touch and subsequently at each visit prior to receiving Therapeutic Touch.  Matas reported that 90% of the participants in the study achieved positive change from their baseline VAS to their final VAS.  The average percent change toward their desired, self selected health promoting goals was 42.4%.  T-tests evaluated the differences between the first and last mean VAS scores indicated significant positive change (p<.0001).  Matas recommended additional studies be conducted to explore how other non-invasive health patterning modalities may promote health by helping people actualize their self defined health goals and augment their power as knowing participation in change.  Rogers emphasized the purpose of nursing is to promote health and well being for all people wherever they are (Rogers, M. 1992).

            Larkin, D. utilized the SDHPG scale in her dissertation research exploring the health patterning modalities of “Ericksonian Hypnotherapeutic Approaches in Chronic Care Support Groups:  A Rogerian Exploration of Power and Self Defined Health Promoting Goals” (2001, 2007). The purpose of Larkin’s study was to examine how traditional support groups and Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic support groups facilitate power as knowing participation in change (Barrett, 1986, 1990) and self defined health promoting goals (Matas, 1996) over time for persons with chronic illness. Measurements of power and self defined health promoting goals were obtained seven times over a ten week period.  Forty-nine participants with chronic illness were randomly assigned to either a traditional or an Ericksonian support group. All nine groups were facilitated by holistic nurses.  All participants were encouraged to share their stories regarding living with chronic illness and to give and receive support in the groups.  Participants in the Ericksonian support groups additionally received experiential education in Ericksonian hypnosis for health promotion.  Results indicated that power and progression towards health promoting goals significantly improved for the participants in both the traditional and Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic support groups.  However, the magnitude of mean change toward self selected health goals for the traditional support groups was 18% as compared to 33.9% for the Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic support groups. Correlations for the participants self defined health promoting goals and power were not found to be significant initially at Time 1 (r =.09), however, the correlations progressively increased over time to a strong correlation at Time 7 r =.62) with a significance of a p<.01.  This finding supports Barrett’s emphasis that power positively relates to health (Barrett, 1990).   For additional reliability and validity details and standardized instructions to help research participants select a personalized health goal, see Larkin’s 2001 dissertation. Dr. Matas designated Dr. Dorothy Larkin (dorothymlarkin@gmail.com) as the contact person for inquiries and requests for permissions.

References

Barrett, E.A.M (1990).  Rogers’ science-based nursing practice. In  E.A.M. Barrett (Ed.), Visions of Rogers’ science based Nursing (pp.31-44).  New York: National League for Nursing.

Barrett, E. A. M. (2010). Power as knowing participation in change: What’s new and what’s next. Nursing Science Quarterly, 23, 47–54.

Barrett, E. A. M. (2020). Barrett’s theory of power as knowing participation in change. In M.C Smith (Ed.), Nursing Theories and Nursing Practice (5th ed., pp. 479-491).

Barrett, E. A. M. (1990b). Health patterning with clients in a private practice environment. In E.A.M. Barrett (Ed.), Visions of Rogers’ science-based nursing (pp. 31-44). New York: National League for Nursing.

Kim, T. S. (2009). The theory of power as knowing participation in change. A literature review update. Visions: The Journal of Rogerian Nursing.

Larkin, D. (2001).  Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic approaches in chronic care support groups: A Rogerian exploration of power and self defined health promoting goals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.

Larkin, D (2007).  Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic approaches in chronic care support groups: A Rogerian exploration of power and self-defined health promoting goals. Nursing Science Quarterly, 20, 357-369

Matas, K. (1996).  Therapeutic touch: A model for community health promotion.  Paper presented at the Sixth Rogerian Conference at New York University.  New York, NY.

Matas, K. (1997).  Therapeutic touch: A model for community health promotion.  In M. Madrid (Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian knowing. (pp 218-229).  New York, NY: National League for Nursing Press.

Paletta’s Temporal Experience Scale (TES)

Paletta (1988) developed the Temporal Experience Scales (TES) to measure patterning manifestations time dragging (DRG), time racing (RAC), and timelessness (TLN) within Rogers SUHB. The conceptual definition of time experience is the “continuous mutual process of the human field with the movement of events in environmental field” (Paletta, 1988, p. 24.) The TES consists of 3 scales each with 8 metaphors (total of 24 items) measured with a 5-point Likert-type response scale (agree strongly to disagree strongly). Several items are reverse scored. Higher scores indicate stronger experience of the manifestation. The TES was first reviewed by a panel of experts and the experts’ classifications were validated by Rogers. Paletta reported these evaluations supported initial validity of the instrument. Preliminary psychometric testing was done in a sample of 305 adult men and women in various occupations. Principal Factor Analysis (PFA) supported three factors (DRG, RAC, and TLN). Cronbach alphas supported internal consistency reliability (.82, .74, and .79 respectively). Paletta concluded the TES was suitable for use in samples of adults’ ages 20 to 50 and that testing indicated support for theoretic congruency, initial validity, and reliability. Further, Paletta found some differences based on sexual, language, educational, and occupational data and recommended these be controlled for in future studies.

Paletta (1988; 1990) conducted a correlational study examining human time and temporal experiences in 120 adult participants. In this study, TES reliabilities were adequate for both TLN (.78) and RAC (.72). However, DRG did not reach an acceptable alpha (.38). Paletta did report partial support for the hypotheses as DRG was inversely and weakly associated with human time and RAC was positively and weakly correlated with human time. TLN did reach statistical significance and was positively (r = .268) associated with human time. Based on regression results (R2 = 0.15), Paletta concluded that the TES are predictive of human time.  The conclusions also addressed the finding that when age was added to the regression, along with the TES, it improved the amount of variance explained in human time. Paletta recommended further testing of the TES instrument in a variety of samples and in relation to other Rogerian-based constructs/concepts.

The TES was used by de Sevo (1991) in an unpublished dissertation examining time experiences in relation to musical sequence complexity preferences in adult women (n = 90) (ages 20-50). de Sevo found the pleasing nature of musical sequence complexity preferences were associated with time experiences. In a study exploring time experiences, depression, and power as knowing participation in change, Malinski (1997) used the TES in a sample of depressed and non-depressed women (n = 400) (ages 25-44). Malinski found reliabilities for the TES of .87, .94., and .74 respectively.  Malinski found both depression and power were associated with temporal experiences. No additional use of the instrument has been found since the Malinski (1997) study. 

The SRS Resource Development Committee’s attempt to locate Dr. Paletta revealed she was deceased. Her husband pre-deceased her and no living relatives came up in the search. The only complete copy of the instructions, scale, and scoring appear in her dissertation. The dissertation indicates Dr. Paletta’s copyright. The Society of Rogerian Scholars has designated a contact for inquires and requests for permission, contact: Dr. Shirley Conrad at shirleyjconrad@gmail.com

References

de Sevo, M. R. (1991). Temporal experiences and the preference for musical sequence complexity: A study based on Martha Rogers’ conceptual system. (Publication No. PUZ9134730) [Doctoral Dissertation, New York University]. UMI.

Malinski, V. M. (1997). The relationship of temporal experience and power as knowing participation in change in depressed and nondepressed women. In Mary Madrid (Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian Knowing, New York: NY, NLN Press, pp. 197-208.

Paletta. J. L. (1988). The relationship of temporal experiences to human time. (Publication ID 8812521) [Doctoral Dissertation, New York University]. Proquest/Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1621B-1622B.

Paletta, J. L. (1990). The relationship of temporal experiences to human time. In E. A.M. Barrett (Ed.), Visions of Rogers science-based nursing. New York: NY, NLN Press, pp 239-252.

Watson’s Assessment of Dream Experience

Juanita Watson’s (1993, 1999) Assessment of Dream Experience (ADE) instrument was developed to measure the experience of dreaming within a Rogerian science perspective. Watson defined dream experience as “an indicator of the longer sleeping/longer waking/beyond waking manifestation of human field patterning which is focused on diversity of the beyond waking experience of dreaming…” (1993, p. 3). The ADE consists of 20 items measured using a four-point Likert-type scale (almost always [4] to almost never [1]). Low diversity items are reverse scored. Higher scores are proposed to indicate higher diversity of dream experience. 

Psychometric testing supported content and construct validity along with adequate reliability for a new instrument. The ADE content validity was supported by a panel of ten (10) expert Rogerian science judges. Watson (1993, 1999) provided a list of words (25) and their antonyms (25) found in the literature to describe dreaming, for a total of 50 words for judging. The panel of judges were asked about consistency with Rogers’ science and to identify if the word connoted more or less diversity in field pattern. Watson set an a priori agreement level at 70%. The content validity test identified 22 words and an initial ADE was constructed with these randomly placed 22 items. Preliminary psychometric testing was conducted with a sample of 100 men and women who indicated they recalled dreaming. The range of scores for the full sample was 41-81 as compared with the possible scores of 22-88, indicating adequate range in the scores. Construct validity was estimated using factor analysis (principal components and principal axis); these analyses were done on the initial psychometric testing sample and repeated with data from the main study. The results of construct validity testing supported a 2-factor solution (indicators of more or less diversity) with two items (free, relaxing) removed from the instrument, thereby yielding a 20 item ADE, which was used in the main study.  Reliability testing was conducted on instruments returned in the initial testing and pilot study. All alphas were greater than .80 with the 20- item version yielding a coefficient alpha of .84. Based on the findings of the pilot study, instructions on the ADE were clarified. Watson determined that the ADE had acceptable reliability. Based on psychometric testing of the ADE Watson concluded that validity and reliability were supported and the instrument was used in the main study.

The ADE was used in samples of adults with broad educational backgrounds, although the main study had a majority (86%) of participants with at least a high school diploma. Men and women participants were included in the initial testing and the pilot and main study focused solely on women. In terms of age as a demographic, the ADE initial psychometric testing sample was adult men and women ages ranging from 20 to 64 years. As the main study was focused on older adult women, the small study pilot sample (n = 19) were women ages 61-76 who were primarily participants in a senior citizen club. The main study sample (n = 66) consisted of older adult women residing in the community; none were residing in health or custodial care facilities. In the main study Watson (1997) reported one significant positive correlation (r = .2945, p< .05) between sleep-wake patterns and dream experiences, which she interpreted as support for dreaming as a beyond waking experience. Watson found no significant correlations with/among the other main variables, i.e., human field motion and time experience.

In 2008 Dr. Watson’s obituary appeared in the Courier Post. The SRS Resource Development Committee made every effort to locate surviving family members. The only apparent family appeared to be a nephew and niece who could not be contacted. Dr. Watson’s dissertation indicates her copyright to the document and it is the only place the instrument appears. The Society of Rogerian Scholars has designated a contact for inquiries and requests for permission, contact: Dr. Shirley Conrad at shirleyjconrad@gmail.com.

References

Rogers, M. E. (1992). Nursing science and the space age. Nursing Science Quarterly, 5, 27-43.

Watson, J. (1993). The relationships of sleep-wake rhythms, dream experience, human field motion, and time experience in older women. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54,12, 6137B.

Watson, J. (1997). Using Rogers’ model to study sleep-wake pattern changes in olde women. In M. Madrid (Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian Knowing (pp. 167-176), New York: National League for Nursing Press.

Watson, J. (1998). Exploring the concept of beyond waking experience. Visions: The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 6 (1), 39-46.

Watson, J. (1999). Measuring dreaming as a beyond waking experience in Rogers’ conceptual model. Nursing Science Quarterly, 12, 245-250.

‍ ‍Society of Rogerian Scholars‍ ‍Resource Development Committee Members

Dr. Violet Malinski, Chair
viomalin@optimum.net

Members

Dr. Howard K. Butcher

Dr. Shirley Conrad

Dr. Arlene T. Farren

Dr. Dorothy Jones

Dr. Dorothy Larkin

Dr. Joyce Perkins

Dr. Marlaine Smith

Dr. Rorry Zahorek