Assessing Psychospiritual
Development with the
Interrelatedness Inventory and the Process Characteristics Inventory
Dana Gaynor, Ph.D.
As we head into the 21st
century there are a number of inventories designed to assess psychospiritual development. In this article we will take a look at two
psychospiritual inventories I have
developed over a number of years. The
process included personal exploration, work with clients and research across
nine of the worlds great spiritual traditions as well as in depth work in the
fields of philosophy, physics, chaos theory, psychology and consciousness
studies. This effort led to the
discovery of a fundamental process common to all forms of psychospiritual transformation
(Gaynor, 1999; 2002). Stated simply; as
one grows psychospiritually, one's awareness of the interrelationships that
comprise experience and the potentials they express expands. At the same time one becomes less attached
to exclusive forms of interrelationship in favor of more inclusive views
demonstrating an increased flexibility of belief, feeling, expectation,
self-image and worldview. One is more aware of all aspects of life
"in the moment" and becomes increasingly inner-directed.
In the model to follow,
the term interrelatedness (originally "interconnectedness")
refers to one's awareness of the interrelationships (interconnections) and
underlying potentials existing within and between all aspects of one's
subjective universe. The
Interrelatedness Inventory (II), and its predecessor the Process
Characteristics Inventory (PCI), were designed to operationalize this
definition of interrelatedness. Both assess one’s conscious ability to
integrate the interrelationships and potentials existing internally (inner
world), externally (outer world), between one’s inner and outer worlds, how
flexible these dimensions are and whether one can interrelate them together
within an integrative higher order frame (i.e. can they perceive a higher order
frame uniting their experiences). In
the PCI, two of these characteristics were mixed producing a four dimensional
approach. In the II, the awareness of relationships between aspects of
the external world was separated from one's awareness of one's relationship to
the outside world and the four subscales were expanded to five including: (a) the awareness of interrelationships and
potentials existing between the various aspects of one's external universe or
outer world (outer world relatedness); (b) the awareness of interrelationships
and potentials that exist within or between the various aspects of one's self
(identity integration or inner world relatedness); (c) the awareness of the
interrelationships and potentials existing between the various aspects of one's
self and the various aspects of one's universe( conscious interconnectedness);
(d) the awareness of new and/or alternative potentials or possibilities for
interrelationship (flexibility); and finally (e) the awareness that collectively these interrelationships reflect
a higher order of which one is a part (higher order framing).
In my original work
with the Process Characteristics
Inventory (PCI) (Gaynor, 1999), I
developed the Interconnectedness construct to identify four unique
yet complimentary dimensions of interrelational awareness. These dimensions were identified by
recurring patterns of interrelationship associated with spiritually
transforming and self-actualizing people. The original characteristics
included conscious interconnectedness, identity integration, flexibility and
high-order framing. Based upon
continued research the name was changed to Interrelatedness to better
reflect intent and expanded to include the five associated dimensions discussed
above. Each dimension can be understood
to reflect thresholds of awareness of both an implicit range of potential and
explicit patterns expressing this potential.
The interrelatedness model suggests that psychological changes
associated with experiences of spiritual transformation produce increases in
these dimensions. The Interrelatedness
Inventory was designed and created to assess the levels of interrelational
awareness by dimension and in total.
Both the II and PCI were designed to be administered at various points
in one’s life, using the first assessed results as a baseline for
comparison. The results of such an
undertaking are thought to provide a way of charting, predicting and ultimately
enhancing one’s psychospiritual development.
The original PCI (first version of the II) took three years
to develop. It contained 58 items and
four subscales. The revised II took
another year of development and optimizes this approach. It utilizes 50
questions with five subscales. The
inclusion of the additional subscale occurred because of refinements to item
design. A completed II questionnaire
yields five subscale scores and one total score in comparison with four
subscale scores and one total score on the PCI. About a third of the items are reverse scored across three of the
subscales to reduce response bias in both measures. The response format used in both the II and PCI is a seven-point
Likert scale, in which 1 is equal to “never” and 7 is equal to “always ” for
positively scored questions and the reverse for negatively scored questions. Completing the II or PCI can take up to two
hours under optimum conditions. It
should be completed in private, quiet, comfortable surroundings.
The items or questions developed for the II were designed to
allow for a wide range of expression, cultural orientation, understanding, and
psychological development on the part of the person answering them. Created for an adult population, a variety
of spiritual, moral, and social models informed the question-development
process for both Inventories. A neutral
line of questioning was designed to reduce response bias. All of the questions in the original PCI
provided a personal response area to enable the respondee to clarify or make a
particular point associated with the question.
Hence, there was a mechanism for communication or conscious
interrelationship embodied in the format of the measure. While this design strategy had the added
effect of further reducing of response set bias the incidence of actual usage
was extremely low. This option was
therefore dropped for the revised II.
The II had developed as a fourth phase of the original PCI
development cycle . Phase One research
lasted about 2 years. The nature of spiritual transformation and psychological
development across a variety of the world’s spiritual traditions was explored
and common factors were extrapolated.
Question development took about one year and produced several iterations
of the inventory before a final version was established used in a study
(Gaynor, 1999). A one year follow-up analysis
of questions and answers produced five subscales and subsequent name change for
the II revision.
The first task of the reliability study was to establish test-retest reliability. Participants were Masters level graduate students at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (ITP). Eighteen out of 24 students participating in this reliability study completed both rounds of testing. Pearson r correlations indicated acceptably high test-retest reliability (see Table 1) for the II.
PCI Scores Coefficient
CI .9336
FLEX .9034
HOF .9155
II .9238
TOT .9748
Internal
reliability split-half correlations were performed next (see Table 2). Only scores from the first round of testing
were used. This was thought to minimize
response bias because the students would have had no previous experience of the
PCI; hence, it would provide the purest indication of the qualities
measured. Split-half Pearson r correlations were corrected for the
length of the test by means of the Spearman-Brown “prophesy formula” (FN), and
were acceptably high for the subscale and total scores (See Table 2).
Internal consistency and construct validity
Round one subscale and total scores for the PCI reliability
study were correlated with each other. This provided a measure of internal consistency. As its component subscales are thought to
measure related, but not identical, qualities, these correlations should not be
too perfect, since perfect correlations would mean they are more likely the
same quality. The correlations in Table
3 suggest high internal consistency.
Table 3
PCI validity study (Group 1)
Correlations for
concurrent and criterion validity were calculated for two groups. The first group was composed of those ITP
students who participated in the first round of the reliability study. The ITP group had also participated in a
separate ITP research project within the preceding 10 months, in which they had
taken a suite of 10 measures to be used in a longitudinal study of graduate-student
transformation. The students consented,
in writing, to allow their test-suite results for ITP’s project to be
correlated with their PCI scores (with safeguards in place for maintaining
confidentiality). The first round of
scores of the PCI were correlated with each participants most recent round of
scores for the entire ITP test suite as of April 15, 1998. This was assumed to produce the least bias.
By this means the PCI was correlated with (a)
Self-Expansiveness Level Form (SELF) by Friedman (1983); (b) Index of Core
Spiritual Experience (Inspirit) by Kass, Friedman, Leserman, Zuttermeister, and
Benson (1991); (c) Egocentric Grasping Orientation Inventory (EGO) by Knoblauch
and Falconer (1986); (d) Boundary Questionnaire (BQ) by Hartmann (1991); (e)
Self-Transcendence subscales of the Temperament and Character Inventory; (TCI)
by Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbeck (1993); (f) Spiritual Perspective Scale
(SPS) by Reed (1987); (g) Omega Life Changes Inventory (OLCI) by Ring (1992);
(h) Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) by Shostrom (1964); (i) Change and
Transformation Assessment (CATA) by Braud and Westra (1994); and (j) Profile of
Mood States (POMS) by McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman (1992).
Validity was assessed by calculating the Pearson r correlation coefficients, for each PCI score and test suite score, for each of the 21 ITP students who participated in the first round of the PCI reliability study. Samples of the Pearson r coefficients are compiled in Table 4. Italicized coefficients reflect the highest correlations for each measure.
Table 4
Sample of Validity Coefficients for PCI and ITP Transformation Suite Scales
and Subscales (Group 1 of Reliability Study w/ ITP Students): Highest Scores
Italicized
________________________________________________________ PCIFLEXR1 PCIHOFR1 PCICIR1 PCIIIR1 PCITOT1 ________________________________________________________EGO -.7769 -.6342 -.6313
-.5593 -.6765
( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21) (
21)
P< .001 P= .002
P= .002 P= .008 P= .001
INSPIRIT
.4276 .5756 .4132 .1543 .3256
( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21)
P=
.053 P= .006 P= .063 P= .504 P=
.150
OMEGA
.3738 .4270 .4599
.3548 .2991
( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21) (
21)
P= .095 P= .054
P= .036 P= .115 P= .188
TCI
.3363 .5850 .6947 .1718 .4306
( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21)
P= .136 P= .005 P< .000
P= .456 P= .051
SELF
.3261 .3294 .5703 .3846
.5322
( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21)
P=
.149 P= .145 P= .007 P= .085 P=
.013
SPS
.3035 .4038 .6356 .3825
.4505
( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21) ( 21)
P= .181 P=
.069 P= .002 P= .087 P= .040
POIID
.6166 .6517 .4673 .4834 .5747
( 20) ( 20) ( 20) ( 20) ( 20)
P=
.004 P= .002 P= .038 P= .031 P=
.008
POITC .3587 .4265 .2323
.2324 .3523
( 20) ( 20) ( 20) ( 20) ( 20)
P= .120 P= .061 P= .324 P= .324 P= .128
________________________________________________________ Note: Coefficient /(Cases) /Two-tailed Significance. PCIFLEXR1 = Flexibility scores (Round 1)PCI validity study (Group 2--transformation study
participants)
The second group participating in the validity study was composed
of the co-researchers taking part in the transformation study (Gaynor,
1999). For the second group, the first
round of the PCI (expected to reflect pre transformation experience) was
correlated with the first round of the POI (again expected to reflect pre
transformation experience). This was
originally considered the most unbiased round for scoring because it was the
first exposure to the material. On the
other hand, the second round was intended to reflect current state and would
therefore tend to rely less on long term memory. This in turn might tend to reduce a memory “loading” bias. As the first round of measure taken in this
study was designed to reflect a visualized and imagined experience of the past,
this second assessment could be suggested to demonstrate less bias.
Because of these alternative orientations, both groups were correlated to explore this issue. In either case however, Pearson r indicated acceptably high validity with the POI Inner Direction scale. The total score validity correlations for the pre transformation round of PCI total scores, and the two POI main scores POIID (the POI inner directedness scale) and the POITC (the POI time competency scale) are found in Table 5.
PCITOTS1 POITC1 POIID1
________________________________________________________
PCITOTS1 1.0000 .4316 .7489
( 24) ( 17) ( 17)
P< .001 P= .084 P= .001
POITC1 1.0000 .7140
( 17) ( 17)
P< .001 P= .001
POIID1 1.0000
( 17)
P< .001
________________________________________________________
The second round
of post transformation total score validity correlations are found in Table
6. PCI total score correlations were
acceptably high only for the PCI total score and the POI Inner Direction scale
score in this round. Being the second
exposure to the measure, some form of response bias may have been present.
Table 6
Validity Coefficients for Posttransformation Total
Scores (From Transformation Study--Group 2)
__________________________________________
PCITOTS1 POITC1 POIID1
___________________________________________________
PCITOTS2 1.0000 .2336 .6075
( 25) ( 23) ( 23)
P< .001 P= .283 P= .002
POITC2 1.0000 .2790
( 23) ( 23)
P< .001 P= .197
POIID2 1.0000
( 23)
P<
.001
Note: Coefficient /(Cases) /Two-tailed Significance.
PCITOTS2 = PCI total scores
POITC2 = POI Time-Competency subscale scores
POIID2 = POI Inner-Directedness subscale scores
The II revision of the PCI was developed from August 1999 – August 2000, after a
post-study analysis of the subscale questions demonstrated that the original
Conscious Interconnectedness subscale had two different clusters of questions. One reflected Conscious Interrelatedness or the awareness of the
interrelationships between the various
aspects of one’s self and the various aspects of one’s universe; and the second
reflected what has now been termed Outer
World relatedness or an awareness of interrelatedness within the
environment. The Identity Integration
scale reflects the awareness of interrelationship within and between the
various aspects of self. The Flexibility scale reflects the
ability to restructure one’s awareness of interrelationship in the moment. Finally the Higher Order Framing subscale reflects the awareness of being part
of a greater order.
The PCI has four subscales with two composed of 14 items and
two composed of 15 items for a total of 58 items. The II has five subscales,
each composed of 10 items. Scores are
totaled for each subscale remembering to reverse score those items that have an
asterisk on the enclosed Scoring Forms (see figure 1). Totals are then compiled for each subscale,
and a composite total score is calculated by adding the four or five subscale
scores together respectively.
Both the PCI and II
utilize a holistic model of cognitive consciousness and appears useful in
assessing psychospiritual growth. Their
high psychometric properties and largely content neutral orientation reduce the
possibility of gender bias and suggest it is applicable for people of diverse
cultural and spiritual backgrounds (Gaynor 1999).
Interpretation of the
Interrelatedness Inventory (II)
The interpretation of
the II uses a profile approach. There
are five subscales consisting of ten questions each. The total possible score for each subscale is 70. Individually the subscales represent
alternative types of awareness of interrelationship. Collectively they reflect five dimensions of interrelational
awareness. Low scores would be expected
to reveal a fragmented view of reality, identity fragmentation, rigidity of
thinking and feeling states, limited connection with outside world and a
limited sense of one's "place in the universe". High scores on the other hand suggest
flexibility of thought, feeling, expectation and attachment, as well as a
highly integrated view of reality, a highly integrated identity, a high sense
of connection with the environment and a clear sense of being part of a greater
order. We are continually analyzing a
growing database of scores and are in the process of establishing norms for the
self-selecting population. For a population of 200 adults polled
online, the running mean subscale score was 37. Scores greater than this average would suggest higher than
average interrelatedness. Likewise,
scores below 37 would be expected to reflect a lower than average level of
interrelatedness. The key to utilizing
this inventory however is its ability to establish and set personal baselines
and mapping change over time.
By establishing personal
baselines it is possible to target dimensions of awareness to predict and act
to enhance psychospiritual development.
Using this five dimensional approach we identify developmental areas of
high and low interrelatedness as well as get read of the momentum of current
transformative processes. For instance
if one score is 10 or more points higher than the rest we can suggest this
represents a relatively new insight or awareness in this area and is available
to be used to assist new development in other areas. In the case of two high scores, the lower of the two would
function as a supporting process. The
momentum of transformation would be building.
With three high scores, this momentum exceeds the median threshold and
we can suggest that the transformation is well underway. In the case of lagging scores we can suggest
that these reflect areas of limited awareness requiring special focus. By using scores to identify levels
of interrelational development, counselors can focus on areas with relatively
low levels suggesting a need for additional developmental training, using
higher scored scales to provide insight and leveraging for this work.
The II is available for limited licensing through The PSRI
Product Catalog, accessible online from
www.psychospiritualresearchinstitute.com, e-mail at II@psychospiritualresearchinstitute.com
or through conventional mail:
Interrelatedness Inventory/Catalog, PsychoSpiritual Research Institute
(PSRI), One Pinefield Court, Miller Place, N.Y. 11764. For information and support for II
and PCI products, phone at 631-209-1418 or by email at support@psychospiritualresearchinstitute.com.
References
Cloninger, R., Svrakic, D., & Pryzbeck, T. (1993). A psychobiological model of
temperament and
character. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.
Friedman, H. L. (1983).
The self-expansiveness level form: A conceptualization and
measurement of a
transpersonal construct. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
15(1), 37-50.
Gaynor, D. (1999). Changes In Cognitive Structure Associated
With Experiences of
Spiritual Transformation. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation
Services.
Gaynor, D. (2000). Reality 101. Miller Place: The
Transformation Project.
Hartman, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind. USA: Basic Books.
Kass, J. D., Friedman, R., Leserman, J., Zuttermeister, P.
& Benson, H.(1991). Health
outcomes and a
new index of spiritual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 30(2), 203-211.
Knoblauch, D. L., & Falconer, J.A. (1986). The relationship of a measured Taoist
orientation to
Western personality dimensions. Journal
of Transpersonal
Psychology, 18(1), 73-83.
McNair, D., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. (1992). Profile
Of Mood States. San Diego:
EdITS.
Reed, P. G. (1987).
Spirituality and well being in terminally ill hospitalized adults.
Research
in Nursing and Health, 10, 335-344.
Ring, K. (1992). The Omega Project: Near death experiences,
UFO encounters and
mind at large.
New York: William Morrow.
Shostrom. E. L. (1964).
A test for measurement of self-actualization. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 24, 207-218.
SPSS. (1998). SPSS
Base 8.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.