Author: Nathan Veil (Applied Coherence Institute)
Date: May 12, 2026
Classification: Psychometrics / Behavioral Science / Screening Instruments (Proposed)
Document Type: Instrument Development Framework / Validation Protocol
Abstract
The Coherence Profile (CP-100) is a 100‑item multi‑domain instrument measuring regulatory stability across physiological, cognitive, behavioral, relational, and environmental domains. While valuable for research, its length limits deployment in clinical intake, workplace screening, longitudinal tracking, and ecological momentary assessment (EMA). This paper presents a proposed development framework for the CP-25, a 25‑item short form (5 items per domain) derived from CP-100 item reduction. The paper describes proposed item reduction methodology, hypothetical factor loading targets, and desired validation statistics (convergent validity r > 0.90, internal consistency α > 0.80, ROC AUC > 0.95). This is a validation protocol and hypothetical framework only. The CP-25 has not yet undergone empirical validation. Proposed cutoffs for low, moderate, and high coherence are offered as provisional screening targets pending normative data collection.
Status Note: All statistics in this paper are hypothetical validation targets for future empirical studies. No actual data collection has occurred.
Keywords: CP-25, short form, coherence screening, psychometrics, validation protocol, regulatory stability
1. Introduction
| Status | This paper describes a proposed validation framework. All statistics are hypothetical targets for future empirical validation. No actual data collection has been completed. The CP-25 is not yet a validated instrument. |
|---|
2. Proposed Item Reduction Strategy
2.1 CP-100 Item Pool (unchanged)
2.2 Proposed Item Reduction Strategy
| Step | Method | Hypothetical Target |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Factor loadings from CP-100 validation sample (N = 500 planned) | Select 10 highest‑loading items per domain (loading > 0.70) |
| 2 | Item‑total correlations | Eliminate items with r < 0.50 |
| 3 | Content representativeness | Ensure each domain retains state and trait balance |
| 4 | Collinearity check | Eliminate redundant items (r > 0.85) |
| 5 | Expert review | Final selection of 5 items per domain |
3. Hypothetical CP-25 Item Set
| Status | The following items are proposed based on CP-100 content analysis. Empirical validation (factor loadings, item‑total correlations) is required. |
|---|
4. Planned Validation Sample (Proposed)
| Characteristic | Target Percentage |
|---|---|
| Female | 50‑55% |
| Male | 45‑50% |
| Age range | 18‑75 |
| Clinical (high stress) | 25‑35% |
| Coherence practitioners | 15‑25% |
Planned N: 500 for factor analysis; 300 for convergent validation.
Note: This sample has not yet been recruited. These are design targets.
5. Hypothetical Validation Statistics
The following are target thresholds for future empirical validation, not completed results.
| Measure | Hypothetical Target | Desired Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation (CP-25 vs. CP-100) | r > 0.90 | > 0.90 |
| Cronbach’s α (total) | α > 0.90 | > 0.85 |
| Cronbach’s α per domain | α > 0.80 | > 0.80 |
| ROC AUC (high vs. low coherence) | AUC > 0.95 | > 0.95 |
| Sensitivity (detecting low coherence) | > 85% | > 85% |
| Specificity (detecting high coherence) | > 85% | > 85% |
Note: These are hypothetical values. Empirical validation will determine actual performance.
6. Proposed Scoring and Interpretation
| Status | The following interpretive bands are provisional and require normative data for validation. |
|---|
7. Proposed Applications (Contingent on Validation)
“If validated, the CP-25 may be suitable for:”
8. Planned Validation Studies
| Study | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Factor analysis (N = 500) | Planned |
| 2 | Convergent validity with HRV (N = 100) | Planned |
| 3 | Test‑retest reliability (2 weeks, N = 100) | Planned |
| 4 | Known‑groups validity (coherence practitioners vs. burnout) (N = 100 per group) | Planned |
| 5 | EMA validation (14 days, N = 50) | Planned |
9. Limitations
| Limitation | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| No empirical validation has been conducted | This is a proposed framework; validation studies are required |
| Item selection is hypothetical | Actual factor loadings may differ |
| Cutoffs are provisional | Normative data needed |
| Not yet suitable for clinical use | Validation required before deployment |
10. Conclusion
This paper has presented a proposed development and validation framework for the CP-25, a brief multi‑domain coherence screening instrument. Hypothetical item sets, scoring algorithms, and validation targets have been described. The CP-25 has not yet undergone empirical validation. Future work will recruit validation samples, conduct factor analysis, establish psychometric properties, and determine normative cutoffs. Until then, the CP-25 is a research framework, not a deployable instrument.
11. References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. AERA.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 327(8476), 307‑310.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297‑334.
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286‑299.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1‑55.
Humble, D. (2026a). Toward a Unified Coherence Metrics Framework: Operationalizing Human Regulatory Stability Across Physiological, Cognitive, Relational, and Institutional Domains. Zenodo.
Humble, D. (2026b). *Validation Protocol for the Coherence Profile (CP-100): A Multi-Domain Instrument for Measuring Human Regulatory Stability*. Zenodo.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw‑Hill.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287‑297.
Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304‑321.
Simms, L. J., & Watson, D. (2007). The construct validation approach to personality scale construction. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 240‑258). Guilford Press.
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short‑form development. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 102‑111.
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self‑report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167‑194.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. American Psychological Association.
End of Paper
Leave a Reply