Author: Nathan Veil (Applied Coherence Institute)
Date: May 12, 2026
Classification: Psychometrics / Behavioral Science / Clinical Research / Systems Measurement
Document Type: Validation Protocol / Research Instrument
Abstract
The Coherence Metrics Framework (Humble, 2026) proposes five domains of human regulatory stability: physiological, cognitive, behavioral, relational, and environmental/institutional. This paper presents a validation protocol for the Coherence Profile (CP‑100), a multi‑domain instrument designed to measure coherence across these domains. The paper proposes a 100‑item questionnaire (20 items per domain) with 5‑point Likert scaling, alongside integration with physiological (HRV) and behavioral (task‑switching frequency, conflict logs) measures. A multi‑phase validation strategy is outlined: item development, pilot testing, factor analysis, reliability testing (internal consistency, test‑retest), convergent/divergent validity (against WHO‑5, PSS, HRV, relationship satisfaction), and normative sampling. Longitudinal and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocols are proposed. The CP‑100 is offered as a research instrument for future validation, not as a clinically ready tool. All items, scoring algorithms, and protocols are provided as open source.
Keywords: coherence profile, validation protocol, psychometrics, regulatory stability, HRV, chronic stress, research instrument
1. Introduction
The Coherence Metrics Framework (Humble, 2026) proposes that human regulatory stability can be measured across five domains:
| Domain | Definition | Example Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Physiological | Autonomic balance, vagal tone | HRV, resting heart rate |
| Cognitive | Attentional stability, reduced fragmentation | Task‑switching frequency, sustained attention |
| Behavioral | Alignment between values and actions | Integrity self‑rating, commitment follow‑through |
| Relational | Co‑regulation quality, conflict frequency | Relationship satisfaction, physiological synchrony |
| Environmental / Institutional | Predictability, procedural fairness, transparency | Noise levels, complaint resolution time |
This paper presents a validation protocol for the Coherence Profile (CP‑100), a multi‑domain instrument designed to operationalize this framework. The CP‑100 includes:
- A 100‑item self‑report questionnaire (20 items per domain)
- Integration with physiological measures (HRV from consumer wearables)
- Integration with behavioral measures (task‑switching logs, conflict frequency)
The protocol is offered as a research instrument for future validation. It is not a clinically ready tool. All items, scoring algorithms, and protocols are provided open source.
2. Instrument Design
2.1 Conceptual Structure
The CP‑100 measures two dimensions per domain:
| Domain | State (short‑term, past 24 hours) | Trait (baseline, past 30 days) |
|---|---|---|
| Physiological | “Today, my body felt calm” | “Generally, my body feels calm” |
| Cognitive | “Today, I could focus without distraction” | “Generally, I can focus without distraction” |
| Behavioral | “Today, I did what I said I would do” | “Generally, I do what I say I will do” |
| Relational | “Today, my interactions felt safe” | “Generally, my relationships feel safe” |
| Environmental | “Today, my environment felt predictable” | “Generally, my environment feels predictable” |
Each dimension is measured by 10 items (5 positively worded, 5 negatively worded).
2.2 Response Scale
All items use a 5‑point Likert scale:
| Value | Label |
|---|---|
| 1 | Strongly disagree |
| 2 | Disagree |
| 3 | Neutral |
| 4 | Agree |
| 5 | Strongly agree |
2.3 Sample Items (Full Instrument Available in Appendix)
Physiological – State (S‑P)
| Item | Direction |
|---|---|
| “Today, my body felt at ease.” | Positive |
| “Today, I felt physically tense.” | Negative |
| “Today, my breathing was calm and steady.” | Positive |
| “Today, I noticed physical signs of stress.” | Negative |
Cognitive – Trait (T‑C)
| Item | Direction |
|---|---|
| “Generally, I can focus on one task without getting distracted.” | Positive |
| “I often find my mind wandering when I need to concentrate.” | Negative |
| “I am able to complete tasks without switching between multiple activities.” | Positive |
| “My attention is frequently pulled in different directions.” | Negative |
Behavioral – State (S‑B)
| Item | Direction |
|---|---|
| “Today, I followed through on my commitments.” | Positive |
| “Today, I said I would do something and then did not do it.” | Negative |
| “Today, my actions matched my values.” | Positive |
| “Today, I acted in ways I later regretted.” | Negative |
Relational – State (S‑R)
| Item | Direction |
|---|---|
| “Today, I felt safe in my close relationships.” | Positive |
| “Today, I experienced conflict that left me drained.” | Negative |
| “Today, I felt understood by someone close to me.” | Positive |
| “Today, I felt alone even when with others.” | Negative |
Environmental – Trait (T‑E)
| Item | Direction |
|---|---|
| “My environment is generally predictable.” | Positive |
| “My living space feels chaotic.” | Negative |
| “The institutions I deal with (bank, work, government) are generally transparent.” | Positive |
| “I often encounter unexpected obstacles when dealing with organizations.” | Negative |
The complete 100‑item instrument is provided in Appendix A (available upon request or as a separate deposit).
3. Scoring Algorithm
3.1 Domain Score Calculation
For each domain, reverse‑score negatively worded items (1→5, 2→4, 3→3, 4→2, 5→1). Then:
Domain Score = (Sum of 20 item responses) / 20
Range: 1‑5, where higher scores indicate higher coherence.
3.2 Dimension Scores
State Coherence Score = (Sum of 10 state items across all domains) / 10
Trait Coherence Score = (Sum of 10 trait items across all domains) / 10
3.3 Composite Coherence Profile Score
CP‑100 Score = (Average of 5 domain scores)
Range: 1‑5.
| Score Range | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 4.5 – 5.0 | High coherence |
| 3.5 – 4.49 | Moderate coherence |
| 2.5 – 3.49 | Mixed / moderate dysregulation |
| 1.5 – 2.49 | Moderate dysregulation |
| 1.0 – 1.49 | Severe dysregulation |
3.4 Physiological Integration
For participants with access to HRV wearables (Oura Ring, Apple Watch, Whoop, etc.):
| HRV Measure | High Coherence Threshold (Provisional) |
|---|---|
| RMSSD (ms) | > 35 (age‑adjusted; normative data needed) |
| HF power (ms²) | > 300 (provisional) |
| Resting heart rate (bpm) | < 70 (provisional) |
HRV measures are not required for the CP‑100 self‑report. They provide convergent validation.
4. Validation Strategy
4.1 Phase 1: Item Development and Pilot Testing
| Step | Description | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Generate 150 candidate items (30 per domain) | — |
| 1.2 | Expert review (coherence researchers, clinicians, witnesses) | 5‑10 experts |
| 1.3 | Cognitive interviewing (participants explain their answers) | 10‑20 participants |
| 1.4 | Reduce to 100 items based on feedback | — |
| 1.5 | Pilot test on 100 participants | 100 |
4.2 Phase 2: Factor Analysis
| Analysis | Purpose | Minimum Sample |
|---|---|---|
| Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) | Identify underlying factor structure | 300 |
| Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Test hypothesized 5‑domain structure | 500 |
Hypothesized factor structure:
- 5 first‑order factors (domains)
- 2 second‑order factors (state, trait)
- 1 third‑order factor (global coherence)
4.3 Phase 3: Reliability Testing
| Reliability Type | Method | Acceptable Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Internal consistency | Cronbach’s α per domain | α ≥ 0.80 |
| Internal consistency | McDonald’s ω | ω ≥ 0.80 |
| Test‑retest reliability | 2‑week interval; Pearson r | r ≥ 0.75 |
| Inter‑rater (for observer version) | Not applicable for self‑report | — |
| Split‑half reliability | Odd‑even correlation | r ≥ 0.80 |
4.4 Phase 4: Validity Testing
Convergent validity: CP‑100 should correlate with:
| Measure | Construct | Expected Correlation |
|---|---|---|
| WHO‑5 Well‑Being Index | Well‑being | r > 0.60 |
| PERMA‑Profiler | Flourishing | r > 0.60 |
| Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | Perceived stress | r < -0.50 |
| HRV (RMSSD) | Physiological regulation | r > 0.30 (moderate) |
| Relationship Satisfaction (DAS) | Relational coherence | r > 0.50 |
| Attention Control Scale (ACS) | Cognitive coherence | r > 0.50 |
Divergent validity: CP‑100 should have weak correlation with:
| Measure | Construct | Expected Correlation |
|---|---|---|
| Social desirability (Marlowe‑Crowne) | Response bias | r < 0.20 |
| Neuroticism (BFI‑10) | Personality | r < 0.30 (should be distinct) |
Known‑groups validity: CP‑100 should distinguish:
| Group | Expected CP‑100 Score |
|---|---|
| Chronic stress / burnout population | < 2.5 |
| Meditators / coherence practitioners | > 4.0 |
| General population | 3.0 – 4.0 |
4.5 Phase 5: Normative Sampling
| Population | Target N | Subgroups |
|---|---|---|
| General adult (multiple countries) | 5,000 | Age, gender, SES, culture |
| Clinical / high‑stress | 1,000 | Burnout, anxiety, depression, chronic illness |
| Coherence practitioners | 500 | Meditators, HRV biofeedback users, witness culture participants |
4.6 Phase 6: Longitudinal and EMA Validation
| Design | Duration | Measures | Hypotheses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Longitudinal | 6 months | CP‑100 monthly + HRV | CP‑100 stability; sensitivity to life events |
| EMA (Ecological Momentary Assessment) | 14 days | Random prompts (10/day): state coherence items + HRV | State CP predicts HRV; environmental events predict state CP |
5. Integration with Behavioral and Physiological Measures
5.1 Behavioral Measures
| Measure | Protocol | Integration |
|---|---|---|
| Task‑switching log | Participant records number of task switches per hour for 7 days | Weekly average correlated with cognitive coherence domain |
| Conflict log | Participant records relationship conflicts (duration, intensity) for 7 days | Weekly average correlated with relational coherence domain |
| Commitment log | Participant tracks commitments made vs. kept for 7 days | Percentage kept correlated with behavioral coherence domain |
5.2 Physiological Measures
| Device | Metric | Sampling Protocol |
|---|---|---|
| Oura Ring / Apple Watch / Whoop | RMSSD, resting heart rate, sleep HRV | Daily average over 7 days |
| Polar H10 (chest strap) | RMSSD, HF power | 5‑minute morning recording, 5‑minute evening recording, 5 days |
HRV measures are optional. They provide convergent validation for the physiological coherence domain.
6. Testable Hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Description | Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| H1: Factor structure | CFA confirms 5‑domain, 2‑factor (state/trait), 1 global factor structure | CFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08 |
| H2: Internal consistency | α ≥ 0.80 for each domain | Cronbach’s α |
| H3: Temporal stability | 2‑week test‑retest r ≥ 0.75 | Pearson correlation |
| H4: Convergent validity | CP‑100 correlates with WHO‑5 (r > 0.60) | Pearson correlation |
| H5: Divergent validity | CP‑100 weakly correlates with social desirability (r < 0.20) | Pearson correlation |
| H6: HRV convergence | CP‑100 physiological domain correlates with RMSSD (r > 0.30) | Pearson correlation |
| H7: Known‑groups validity | CP‑100 distinguishes coherence practitioners from burnout population | t‑test, ANOVA |
| H8: State‑trait differentiation | State items show greater day‑to‑day variability than trait items | Multilevel modeling |
| H9: Environmental sensitivity | Low environmental coherence predicts low state CP | EMA, multilevel modeling |
| H10: Intervention response | Coherence interventions increase CP‑100 scores | Pre‑post t‑test |
7. Limitations
| Limitation | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Self‑report bias | Supplement with behavioral and physiological measures |
| Cultural specificity | Normative sampling across multiple countries; translation validation |
| Literacy requirements | Audio administration option for low‑literacy populations |
| HRV accessibility | HRV integration is optional; CP‑100 remains valid without wearables |
| No clinical cutoffs yet | Normative data needed; provisional scores are interpretive bands |
| Length (100 items) | Short form (CP‑25) proposed for future development |
| Not a diagnostic instrument | CP‑100 is a research tool; not for clinical diagnosis without validation |
8. Research Agenda
| Next Step | Timeline | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Item generation and expert review | Month 1‑2 | SII with consultant network |
| Cognitive interviewing (N=20) | Month 2‑3 | SII |
| Pilot testing (N=100) | Month 3‑4 | SII |
| EFA (N=300) | Month 4‑6 | Academic collaborator |
| CFA (N=500) | Month 6‑9 | Academic collaborator |
| Reliability and validity testing | Month 6‑12 | Academic collaborator |
| Normative sampling (N=5,000) | Month 12‑24 | Multi‑site collaboration |
| EMA validation (N=100) | Month 12‑18 | Academic collaborator |
| Short form development (CP‑25) | Month 18‑24 | SII |
9. Conclusion
This paper has presented a validation protocol for the Coherence Profile (CP‑100), a multi‑domain instrument for measuring human regulatory stability across physiological, cognitive, behavioral, relational, and environmental domains. The protocol includes a 100‑item questionnaire, integration with HRV and behavioral measures, and a multi‑phase validation strategy.
The CP‑100 is offered as a research instrument for future validation. It is not a clinically ready tool. All items, scoring algorithms, and protocols are provided open source to encourage replication, refinement, and collaborative validation.
The coherence metrics framework is no longer a philosophical construct. It is a testable, measurable, and intervenable target for research and practice.
“If we cannot measure coherence, we cannot study coherence. If we cannot study coherence, we cannot cultivate coherence. The CP‑100 is the first step toward measurement.”
10. References
(Full references as provided in the Coherence Metrics Framework paper, plus additional psychometric references)
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.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1‑55.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw‑Hill.
Appendix A: Full CP‑100 Item Set
(Provided as a separate document or upon request, to maintain paper length.)
End of Paper
Leave a Reply