UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship of age, empathy skill training and cognitive development to nursing students' empathic.. 1989

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1989_A8 D69.pdf [ 4.03MB ]
UBC_1989_A8 D69.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0056014.json
JSON-LD: 1.0056014+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0056014.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0056014+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0056014+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0056014+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0056014.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP OF AGE, EMPATHY SKILL TRAINING AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT TO NURSING STUDENTS * EMPATHIC COMMUNICATION SKILLS By KATHERINE JANE DOYLE B.N., Mc G i l l University, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Counselling Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February 1989 C a t h e r i n e Jane Doyle, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date INWL Kt \<W\ DE-6(3/81) ABSTRACT The interactive s k i l l of empathy is essential to the practice of nursing. The British Columbia Institute of Technology General Nursing Diploma Program has implemented an interactive s k i l l s training program that includes the s k i l l of empathy in order to assist nursing students to acquire this s k i l l . The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between the interactive s k i l l of empathy and the developmental variables of level of cognitive development and age and the educational variables of empathy s k i l l training and number of years of post-secondary education in nursing students. Developmentally, the ab i l i t y most relevant to the cognitive component of empathy is perspective and role-taking which is facilitated by the development of formal operational thinking. The constraints on the development of formal operational thinking consequently are constraints on the development of the cognitive component of empathy. It is this cognitive empathic ab i l i t y , however, that is considered crucial to nursing. The question therefore arises: To what degree do the cognitive constraints evident in nursing students inhibit or impede their development of empathic interactive s k i l l s . Data were collected from two groups of nursing students, one that had experienced the empathy training and the other that had not. The variables of empathic interactive s k i l l and level of cognitive development were measured with Carkhuff's Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale and the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning respectively. Data on age and number of years of post-secondary education were collected with a Biographical Data Sheet. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to investigate the l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p of age, empathy s k i l l t r a i n i n g , and cognitive l e v e l to the subjects' empathic i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l . Two nonparametric tests of chi square were used to examine the degree of independence between empathic i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l and the variables of number of years of post-secondary education and the cognitive a b i l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference. The findings of this study indicate that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between empathic i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l and empathy s k i l l t r a i n i n g . Training accounted for the greatest proportion of variance i n empathy scores a f t e r age had been removed (53%), F_ (3, 50) = 30.64, p_<.00001. Chi square analysis found that empathic i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l was shown to be independent of number of years of post-secondary education and the cognitive a b i l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference. It i s recommended that the empathy s k i l l t r a i n i n g program be continued with the following suggestions. The contextual, process nature of i n t e r a c t i o n needs to be emphasized including the constraints and r e a l i t i e s of nursing practice that generally are not operating i n the counselling paradigm from which the s k i l l s program i s adopted. Subsequently, more emphasis i s required on the f a c i l i t a t i v e s k i l l s , including basic empathy rather than the challenging s k i l l s . It i s suggested that on-going seminars for f a c u l t y to c l a r i f y the value and practice of empathy plus a team teaching approach would improve the q u a l i t y of supervision students receive. Suggestions are made for further research. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i v i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The Background of the Problem Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions Limitations Hypotheses Description of the Following Chapters 1 .1 3 5 6 6 8 9 CHAPTER II CHAPTER III CHAPTER IV THE LITERATURE REVIEW Conceptual.Definitions of Empathy Operational Definitions of Empathy The Development of Empathy Nursing and Empathy Summary RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Overview Hypotheses Assumptions Subjects The Predictor and Criterion Variables Instrumentation Data Collection and Rating Procedures Data Analysis Summary FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Characteristics of the Sample Analyses of the Data in Relation to the Hypotheses Evaluation and Discussion of the Findings 10 10 12 19 28 35 38 38 38 39 39 42 44 47 51 52 54 54 55 59 iv TABLE OF COHTEMTS PAGE CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64 Summary and Conclusions 64 Discussion and Recommendations 65 Empathy t r a i n i n g i n nursing education 65 Recommendations for research 68 REFERENCES 71 APPENDICES: A. RECRUITMENT LETTER 78 B. EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES RATING SCALE 80 C. DIRECTIONS AND SCRIPT FOR VIDEOTAPE OF PATIENT STIMULUS EXPRESSIONS . 8 2 D. CONSENT FORM 86 E. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA SHEET 87 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 . Comparison of Reik's (1949), Keefe's (1976, 1979) and Ba r r e t t - Lennard's (1981) Conceptual D e f i n i t i o n s of Empathy 13 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y Reports of Cognitive and A f f e c t i v e Measures of Empathy 17 10 Comparison of Communicative Empathy Instruments 20 Recruitment, P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Deletion of Subjects 42 Comparison of Scores on Two Orders of Patient Stimulus Expressions 46 Data C o l l e c t i o n Schedule 47 Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y on 100 Subject Responses Before and After Discussion 49 Comparison of Rater's Rating of No Training Subject - Responses 50 Means, Standard Deviations, and One-way Analysis of Variance of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample 55 Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Intercorrelations of Dependent and Independent Variables (N =54) 56 1 1 . H i e r a r c h i c a l Multiple Regression Analysis on Empathy Scores of Nursing Students (N_ =54) 57 1 2 . Comparison of Mean Empathy Scores for Training and No Training Groups (N = 54) 57 1 3 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mean Empathy Scores for Training and No Training Groups (N_ = 54) 58 1 4 . Comparison of Cognitive Development Scores of No Training and Training Groups 61 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to the following people: Dr. P. Arlin, Dr. B. Long, and Dr. R. Young for their constructive criticism and support. The subjects for their participation in the study. The Associate Dean of Nursing and the Nursing faculty of B.C.I.T. for their cooperation, support, and encouragement. Linda Barratt and Barbara Greenlaw for their inspiration, motivation, and sustenance. v i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The purpose of th i s study i s to investigate the re l a t i o n s h i p of nursing students' cognitive development, t h e i r age, and an empathy s k i l l s program that they experience to the students' a b i l i t y to communicate empathically with patients. Empathy involves the a b i l i t y to take the role and perspective of another (Byrne, 1973; Selman & Byrne, 1974) and i t i s suggested that t h i s a b i l i t y increases as one achieves Inhelder and Piaget's (1958) cognitive developmental stage of formal operations. The finding that only 50 percent of adolescents and adults achieve formal operations (Neimark, 1975) raises a question about nursing students' cognitive prerequisites for the s k i l l of empathizing. Contradictory findings have been reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e about the e f f e c t s of age and tra i n i n g programs on subjects' a b i l i t y to communicate empathically (Mynatt, 1985). The Background of the Problem Nurses are expected to communicate e f f e c t i v e l y with patients. This includes communicating s e n s i t i v e l y and empathically. Nursing educators recognize t h i s expectation and include communication s k i l l s as an i n t e g r a l and important part of nursing c u r r i c u l a . Numerous communication s k i l l s t r a i n i n g methods have been developed (Bullmer, 1972; Egan, 1976; Goldstein, 1973, 1981; Ivey & Authier, 1971; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). These t r a i n i n g programs a l l emphasize the central importance that empathy 1 has in effective interpersonal communication. Some of these training methods have been adopted in diploma and baccalaureate nursing programs. The faculty who teach the diploma nursing program at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) have adopted the interactive s k i l l s training method of Egan (1976, 1982a, 1982b). It is a didactic- experiential training approach and was described by Goldstein and Michaels (1985) as follows: The essence of this approach is the simultaneous didactic instruction of trainees in a spectrum of interpersonal s k i l l s , while at the same time providing a group experience in which the newly learned s k i l l s may be experimented with — tried, provided with feedback, modified — in a semiprotective human context. The s k i l l s that are taught are derived from the Rogerian (1957) humanistic approach to the helping process and include empathy. Two levels of empathy are taught, the f i r s t is basic empathy, which is considered a basic response s k i l l . The second level, advanced empathy, is called a challenging s k i l l . In the BCIT diploma nursing program the didactic component of the s k i l l training program is achieved through the use of independent instructional modules. The modules provide the students with information, explanations, examples, readings and exercises from Egan's (1982b) workbook. A l l of the s k i l l s in Egan's model, including the two levels of empathy, are dealt with this way. The students have small group sessions where discussion occurs and exercises are reviewed. The experiential component occurs in small groups where practice exercises are done using videotaped, collegial and instructor feedback. The students are also 2 expected to use appropriate interactive s k i l l s with patients during their c l i n i c a l practica and to share these experiences with instructors and/or colleagues for feedback. The c l i n i c a l practica occur primarily in medical, surgical, gerontological, psychiatric, obstetrical and pediatric units of hospitals. The interactive s k i l l s are only one component of the many nursing s k i l l s that students are expected to apply in their work with the patients to whom they are assigned. This training program is an integral part of the curriculum in each term of the 5-term, 21-month nursing program. The majority of faculty in the nursing department undertook 36 hours of the same s k i l l s training with a faculty member from the Department of Counselling Psychology at the University of British Columbia. Although Durlak (1979) has made clear the relative unimportance of level of credentials for interpersonal s k i l l s and especially empathy trainers, i t is noteworthy that the BCIT nursing faculty are knowledgeable and at least minimally experienced in the Egan s k i l l s training method. The faculty training was done in order to enhance the effectiveness and consistency of the implementation of the s k i l l s training model in the program. Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study An improvement in students' interpersonal effectiveness has been observed informally by the nursing faculty since the implementation of the s k i l l s training program in 1985. It is recognized that a systematically- sequenced, comprehensive approach using various teaching/learning techniques is more effective than the less formal and less theoretically 3 based approach that preceded i t . However, a concern about the training has become apparent. It has' been noted by the investigator that some s k i l l s apparently are understood and mastered by students more consistently and more easily than other s k i l l s are. Empathy f a l l s into the latter category. In assessing individual students through discussions with them, from review of written exercises and videotaped interactive sessions and role-plays, and from transcribed interactions with patients, i t is apparent that some students achieve a satisfactory level of understanding and communication of the other s k i l l s , but not of empathy. The investigator has attempted to understand this problem through discussion with students and instructors and by analyzing transcribed and live interactions. It appears that students' unsuccessful attempts at empathic responses are similar to what Chandler and Greenspan (1972) called a process of projection and a process of stereotyped knowledge. Projection occurs when the student has an affective response to the patient's experience and attributes his or her own affect to the patient. In projection, the student f a i l s f i r s t to withdraw from subjective involvement and second, to use the methods of reason and scrutiny. A complicating factor in this process is that sometimes the student's affect and the patient's affect correspond and, through feedback from the patient, the student believes he or she has been empathic. In the case of stereotyped knowledge, the mistake that is made is that the student responds on the basis of his or her knowledge about people in general. Assuming that a woman is sad about the death of her mother because that is a commonly experienced emotion is an example of 4 stereotyped knowledge. Its occurrence implies a lack of individualized attention and objectivity toward the person with whom one is interacting. Borke (1972), in her response to Chandler and Greenspan, said that the processes of projection and stereotyped knowledge were a preliminary form of empathy. Although these three investigators were referring to children's responses, and nursing students' responses are certainly more complex than those of children, the processes of projection and stereotyped knowledge are apparent in the students' interactions with patients and discussions about patients. It is suggested here that a factor that may account for some students' use of projection and stereotyped knowledge instead of empathy, in spite of their having received empathy training, is a general lack of intellectual maturity as reflected in their age and more specifically in their level of cognitive development. The purpose of this study is to investigate the predictive relationship of the variables of age, empathy s k i l l training and cognitive developmental level to BCIT diploma nursing students' abi l i t y to communicate empathically with patients. D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s The terms to be used in this study are as follows: Empathy: Empathy is a' multidimensional process including perceptual/affective, cognitive and communicative components. The focus of this study is the cognitive component, which is the a b i l i t y to objectively take the role and perspective of another. Conceptual and operational definitions of empathy are reviewed in Chapter II. 5 Level of Cognitive Development: The theoretical framework of this study is Piaget's theory of cognitive development which describes four stages in intellectual growth, culminating in hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Each stage or level comprises specific cognitive operations that one uses to solve problems and understand the world. Interactive Skills Training: Comprehensive, theoretically-based, systematically-sequenced and usually time-limited training methods or programs designed to enhance the interactive effectiveness of professional helpers (counsellors, social workers, nurses, teachers) and lay people in general (parents, adolescents). Assumptions The following basic assumptions underlie this study. 1. Empathic communication is essential to effective nursing care and to the nurse-patient relationship. 2. Empathic communication can be learned through systematic training methods. L i m i t a t i o n s The limitations of this study relate to the small population and sample size, the instrumentation, and the methodology. The study group was restricted to BCIT diploma nursing students in order to maintain the homogeneity of the subjects with regard to the program curriculum in general and the empathy s k i l l s training program specifically. Other c r i t e r i a that were held constant by restricting the 6 study to BCIT were the applicant selection cr i t e r i a (admission prerequisites) and the subjects' exposure to different faculty. The subjects participated in the study on a voluntary basis, hence the sample was not truly representative of the population. Rosenthal and Rosnow (1975) have identified a number of characteristics of volunteers, some of which may be relevant to the dependent variable of this study, that i s , empathic communication. Volunteers are thought to be higher in need for social approval, more sociable, more unconventional and less authoritarian than non-volunteers. These characteristics reflect two of the four factors that emerged from a factor analysis of Hogan's 1969 Empathy Scale, namely Social Self-Confidence and Nonconformity (Johnson, Cheek, & Smither, 1983). The independent variables of this study, namely age and cognitive development are also reflected in the characteristics of volunteers. Female volunteers for laboratory research tend to be younger than non-volunteers. As well volunteers tend to be better educated and more intelligent, two characteristics that might have a positive effect on the variable of cognitive development. A l l these characteristics, except for the one related to age, are ones that Rosenthal and Rosnow (1975) categorized at the maximum and considerable confidence levels. Perhaps, then, those who volunteered in this study were more empathic, had higher cognitive development levels, and were younger than their counterpart non- volunteers. Generalizations therefore, are limited to the volunteers. The results of the study are limited by the sensitivity of the psychological measuring instruments to reflect actual differences in subjects' cognitive development and their a b i l i t y to communicate empathically. As well, i t is recognized that the empathy scores of the 7 subjects who have received empathy training may have been affected by the consistency of the content, delivery method and teacher competence during the training program. The methodology used in this study presented limitations. One such limitation was the fact that, due to the time frames of the curriculum and this study, i t was not possible to obtain a measure of the criterion variable, empathic communication, on the Training group prior to their experiencing the training. That i s , i n i t i a l differences on the criterion variable, between the Training and No Training groups were not known. Finally, the protracted length of the empathy s k i l l s training presented a limitation. It takes approximately one calendar year from the time students begin to learn about empathy until they have completed the section on advanced empathy. It is reasonable that variables other than the predictor variables of this study could have had an effect on the criterion variable, empathic communication, in the Training group subj ects. Hypotheses 1 . There w i l l be a significant linear relationship between the predictor variables of nursing students' level of cognitive development, their age, and training or no training.in interactive s k i l l s and the criterion variable of empathic interaction. 2. Subjects with more years of post-secondary education w i l l show greater empathic interaction a b i l i t y when compared to subjects with fewer years of post-secondary education. 8 3. Subjects with the cognitive a b i l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference w i l l show greater empathic interaction ability when compared to subjects without the cognitive a b i l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference. Description of the Following Chapters A review of selected, relevant literature is presented in Chapter II under the following headings: Conceptual Definitions of Empathy; Operational Definitions of Empathy; The Development of Empathy; Nursing and Empathy. The research methodology is described in Chapter III. It involves the measurement and analysis of the four variables under question. Chapter IV presents the findings and Chapter V is a discussion of the findings and the conclusions. The Appendix contains forms and information related to the measuring instruments. 9 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The relationship most central to the practice of nursing, as described in conceptual models of nursing, is the relationship between the nurse and the patient (Flaskerud & Halloran, 1980; Riehl & Roy, 1980). The importance of this relationship is evident in ethical codes and practice standards developed by professional nursing associations (Canadian Nurses Association, 1985; Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia, 1984). Nurse educators, striving to help students and new graduates to meet these standards, include interactive s k i l l s as a component of the nursing curriculum. The ab i l i t y to demonstrate empathy is one s k i l l that is part of that component. This review w i l l focus on the construct of empathy. Both the conceptual and operational definitions of empathy w i l l be reviewed. The section on the development of empathy w i l l emphasize the cognitive aspect of the construct in different age groups. The review w i l l then focus on nursing and how knowledge of the construct of empathy has been applied and investigated in the f i e l d of nursing. Conceptual Definitions of Empathy The construct of empathy is a subject of interest to various disciplines within the behavioural sciences and to professional groups such as nurses, social workers, teachers and counsellors. It is apparent from the literature that empathy - evidence for i t s existence, i t s determinants and it s effects - is not a precise or simple construct. 10 Several reviews of the construct of empathy have been undertaken (Buchheimer, 1963; Deutsch & Madle, 1975; Katz, 1963; Lichtenberg, Bornstein, & S i l v e r , 1984; Smither, 1977). Recently, Goldstein and Michaels (1985) reviewed h i s t o r i c a l and contemporary d e f i n i t i o n s of empathy from a conceptual as well as an operational point of view. Their review of diverse f i e l d s of inquiry - aesthetics, sociology and psychology - led them to a multidimensional, comprehensive, conceptual description of t h i s elusive construct. The perceptual and a f f e c t i v e components of empathy were f i r s t described by Lipps i n 1897. He coined the term "Einfuhlung" to mean " f e e l i n g oneself i n t o , " which was l a t e r translated by Tichener as empathy (Goldstein & Michaels, 1985). Lipps i n i t i a l l y used the term i n r e l a t i o n to the perception, contemplation and a f f e c t i v e appreciation of an object, but l a t e r extended the meaning to include people. "Empathy proceeded by means of projection and i m i t a t i o n [motor mimicry], could involve both objects or persons as targets, and consisted l a r g e l y of heightened understanding of the other through cue-produced shared f e e l i n g s " (Goldstein & Michaels, p. 4). The cognitive component of empathy was introduced i n the work of Mead (1934). He added, to the perceptual and a f f e c t i v e components, the a b i l i t y to understand the other through the process of role taking or perspective taking. This component of empathy i s the focus of t h i s study and w i l l be expanded upon i n the section on the development of empathy. The l a s t component of empathy, the a b i l i t y to accurately and s e n s i t i v e l y communicate one's perceptual, a f f e c t i v e and cognitive empathy to another, has received most attention from those involved i n 11 psychotherapy and other interpersonal helping professions, teaching, nursing, counselling and s o c i a l work (Carkhuff, 1969; Egan, 1976; Ivey & Authier, 1978; Rogers, 1975; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). This component provides interpersonal evidence of the other three. Reik (1949), Keefe (1976, 1979) and Barrett-Lennard (1981) have proposed various phase conceptions of empathy. They are presented in Table 1. A l l three d e f i n i t i o n s include perceptual, a f f e c t i v e and cognitive components and Keefe (1976, 1979) and Barrett-Lennard (1981) include the communicative component. Although s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences are apparent, the e s s e n t i a l point i s that empathy i s not a simple or precise construct, but rather a complex process. This multiple phase conception of empathy i s endorsed by Goldstein and Michaels (1985) as a comprehensive conceptual d e f i n i t i o n of empathy. A discussion and review of l i t e r a t u r e related to operational d e f i n i t i o n s of empathy follows. Operational Definitions of Empathy Reviews of operational d e f i n i t i o n s of empathy, evidenced i n measurement instruments, reveal that they are often something less than the comprehensive conceptual d e f i n i t i o n (Barrett-Lennard, 1981; Chlopan, McCain, Carbonnell, & Hagen, 1985; Davis, 1983; Deutsch & Madle, 1975; F e l d s t e i n & Gladstein, 1980; Gladstein, 1977; Kurtz & Grummon, 1972). Harman (1986) wrote: 12 TABLE 1 C o m p a r i s o n o f R e i k ' s ( 1 9 4 9 ) , K e e f e ' s ( 1 9 7 6 , 1 9 7 9 ) a n d B a r r e t t - L e o n a r d ' s ( 1 9 8 1 ) C o n c e p t u a l D e f i n i t i o n s o f E m p a t h y R e i k K e e f e B a r r e t t - L e n n a r d 1. Identification: Absorption in contemplating the other person and his experiences. Perception of the feeling state and thoughts of the other by means of the other's overt behavioural cues (both verbal and non- verbal). Empathic attentional set: Openness to the psychological l i f e of the other. 2. Incorporation: Taking the experience of the other person into oneself by introjection. Reverberation: The echoing of the other's experience upon some part of one's own experience. A direct feeling response, an "as-if" experiencing of the other's affective world. Empathic resonation: The other's directly or indirectly conveyed experience becomes experientially alive, vivid and known to one. 3. Detachment: Withdrawal from subjective involvement in order to gain social and psychic distance. Objective analysis through reason and scrutiny. Separating one's own feelings from those perceived and experienced "as-if" the other. 4. Communicating accurate Expressed empathy: feedback to the other. Communication of a quality of f e l t awareness of the other's experience to the other. Received empathy: The other's perception of the degree of one's understanding of him. 13 That researchers have found l i t t l e r e l a t i o n among d i f f e r e n t tests of empathy, as Gladstein (1985) recently observed, i s understandable i n view of Barrett-Lennard's (1981) assertion that the measures assess d i f f e r e n t stages of a process, and therefore would not be expected to be highly correlated, (p. 371) Not only i s there l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p amongst the d i f f e r e n t measures, but there i s also evidence which questions the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of i n d i v i d u a l instruments. Various c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of measurement instruments have been proposed. Deutsch and Madle (1975), as well as Goldstein and Michaels (1985), used the terms "p r e d i c t i v e " and " s i t u a t i o n a l " to c l a s s i f y them. Kurtz and Grummon (1972) described two addit i o n a l approaches, tape-judged ratings and perceived empathy ra t i n g s . These l a t t e r were c a l l e d , r e spectively, "objective" and "subjective" by Feldstein and Gladstein (1980) i n t h e i r comparison of measures of empathy. Another group of instruments are those that measure empathy as a personality process or t r a i t (Hogan, 1969; Davis, 1983; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). The measures w i l l be reviewed b r i e f l y according to the components of the conceptual d e f i n i t i o n , that i s , the cognitive, perceptual/affective and communicative processes. Cognitive measures. The cognitive component i s approached with predictive measures and with some personality t e s t s . Predictive measures are those i n which the subject's accuracy i n predicting the s e l f - r a t i n g or preferences of another i s taken as a measure of the subject's empathy (Deutsch & Madle, 1975). This approach has very l i m i t e d use i n current empathy research owing to methodological problems i d e n t i f i e d by Cronbach 14 (1955). Deutsch and Madle (1975) also have described problems with the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of such measures. The personality tests which measure empathy as a cognitive process are those focused on the subject's role taking a b i l i t y , such as the Hogan Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969). The r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the instrument have been demonstrated i n several studies and reviewed by Johnson, Cheek, and Smither (1983) and Chlopan et a l . (1985). Johnson et a l . (1983) factor-analyzed the scale and i d e n t i f i e d four factors — s o c i a l self-confidence, even-temperedness, s e n s i t i v i t y and nonconformity — that are related to the construct of empathy. Perceptual/affective measures. The a f f e c t i v e component of empathy i s approached with s i t u a t i o n a l measures and also with some personality t e s t s . S i t u a t i o n a l measures require that the subject's empathic response be to a person's a f f e c t , s i t u a t i o n , or both. The subject i s required to c o r r e c t l y l a b e l the contextual s t i m u l i and/or a f f e c t i v e response portrayed. Several test s t i m u l i have been used and are described by Goldstein and Michaels (1985), who state that these measures draw upon both the a f f e c t i v e component and also the cognitive analysis component of the conceptual d e f i n i t i o n of empathy. One such measure that i s used i n current empathy research i s Kagan's A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Test (Kagan & Krathwohl, 1967). Deutsch and Madle (1975) report that although i t s r e l i a b i l i t y i s acceptable, i t s convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y i s not. There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Test scores and communicative s k i l l . The a f f e c t i v e component of empathy i s also measured by personality tests such as the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE, Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). This measures the subject's a b i l i t y to v i c a r i o u s l y experience the feelings of another. Chlopan et a l . (1985) have discussed the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of this measure, found them to be s a t i s f a c t o r y , and have suggested that the QMEE combined with the Hogan Empathy Scale provides a basis for the measurement of empathy from a cognitive and perceptual/affective point of view. This combined point of view has been promoted by Davis (1983), who developed the Interpersonal R e a c t i v i t y Index (IRI). He suggested: Rather than t r e a t i n g empathy as a single unipolar construct ( i . e . , as either cognitive or emotional), the r a t i o n a l e underlying the IRI i s that empathy can best be considered as a set of constructs, related i n that they a l l concern responsivity to others but are also c l e a r l y discriminable from each other, (p. 113) The IRI consists of four subscales — Perspective-taking (PT), Fantasy ( F ) , Empathic Concern (EC) and Personal Distress (PD) — and Davis states that "as disparate as these four constructs may appear, they accurately r e f l e c t the v a r i e t y of reactions to others that have at some time been referred to as empathy" (p. 114). Davis reported v a l i d i t y tests of the IRI and concluded that the r e s u l t s support a multidimensional view of empathy. The foregoing instruments are outlined i n Table 2. 16 TABLE 2 R e l i a b i l i t y a n d V a l i d i t y R e p o r t s o f C o g n i t i v e a n d A f f e c t i v e M e a s u r e s o f E m p a t h y R e l i a b i l i t y V a l i d i t y R e f e r e n c e C o g n i t i v e - Predictive Scale for the measurement of empathic ab i l i t y (Dymond, 1949) No No Cronbach (1955) The Empathy Test (Kerr & Speroff, 1954) No No Deutsch & Madle (1975) Personality Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969) Yes Yes Johnson, Cheek, & Smither (1983); Chlopan, McCain, Carbonell, & Hagen (1985) A f f e c t i v e Situational Affective Sensitivity Test (Kagan, Krathwohl, & Associates, 1967) Yes No Deutsch & Madle (1975) Personality Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) Yes Yes Chlopan, McCain, Carbonell, & Hagen (1985) C o g n i t i v e / A f f e c t i v e Personality Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983) Yes Yes Davis (1983) 17 Communicative measures. Instruments that measure the communicative aspects of empathy, that i s , one's a b i l i t y to accurately and s e n s i t i v e l y communicate one's perceptual, a f f e c t i v e and cognitive empathy to another, are the l a s t to be reviewed here. These instruments are referred to as tape-judged (objective) and perceived (subjective) empathy ratings. Feldstein and Gladstein (1980) analyzed four such empathy measures, two objective and two subjective, according to s i x c r i t e r i a based on Rogers' (1975) t h e o r e t i c a l formulations, i n order to determine the construct v a l i d i t y of the measures. The objective instruments were the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale (AES, Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) and Carkhuff's Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Process Scale (EUS, Carkhuff, 1969). The subjective instruments were the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI, Barrett-Lennard, 1962) and the Truax Relationship Inventory (TRI, Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Feldstein and Gladstein (1980) showed that a l l four measures f a i l e d to meet the same two c r i t e r i a and thus had l i m i t e d construct v a l i d i t y . The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n not met by the instruments i s A f f e c t i v e Empathy, "the aesthetic state of unconscious emotional i m i t a t i o n and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of counsellors with c l i e n t s . It involves an i n t e r n a l and unobservable a c t i v a t i o n of the counsellor's feelings and f a n t a s i e s " (Feldstein & Gladstein, 1980, p. 50). The authors state that the instruments "only hint at the aesthetic experience of the helper" (p. 51). However, the more serious f a i l u r e of the instruments relates to t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to rate helpers on t h e i r communication of "not only t h e i r understanding of c l i e n t s ' words but also a l l the non-verbal aspects that accompany these 18 words" (p. 50). This c r i t i c i s m i s consistent with previous c r i t i q u e s by Chinsky and Rappaport (1970) and Rappaport and Chinsky (1972). Feldstein and Gladstein conclude that the instruments hold promise as measures of empathy i n response to c l i e n t s ' v e r b a l i z a t i o n s only. They are summarized i n Table 3. It i s suggested here that measurement of empathy i s far from precise and accurate and that Gladstein's recommendation to specify "which type of empathy i s being measured by which s p e c i f i c type of instrument" (1977, p. 77) be followed. Other recommendations (Feldstein & Gladstein, 1980) regarding instruments are that t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s be considered and that several instruments may be used to tap the empathic dimensions under study. Carkhuff's Empathic Understanding i n Interpersonal Process Scale was used i n t h i s study because the investigator considered i t to be the best of the measures of communicative empathy. To overcome the weakness i n Carkhuff's instrument of having helpers responding to only the c l i e n t s ' words and not t h e i r non-verbal communication, the investigator developed videotapes of c l i e n t stimulus expressions to which the subjects i n t h i s study responded. The instrument i s f u l l y described i n Chapter I I I . T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f E m p a t h y Goldstein and Michaels (1985) stated: Training i n empathy during adulthood probably must b u i l d on a set of n a t u r a l l y developing a b i l i t i e s that begin i n childhood and that continue to emerge across the l i f e - s p a n . (p. 61) 19 TABLE 3 C o m p a r i s o n off C o n u r u m i c a t i v e E m p a t h y I n s t r u m e n t s E m p a t h y C r i t e r i a ( R o g e r s , 1 9 7 5 ) O b j e c t i v e AES EUS S u b j e c t i v e B L R I T R I Cognitive empathy; empathic understanding; role taking s k i l l . Yes Yes Yes Yes Affective empathy; unconscious emotional imitation and identification with clients. No No No No The temporary suspension of one's belief system. Empathy as a process; moment to moment sensitivity to the other; continually evolving behaviour. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No The communication of an empathic experience; communication of an understanding of clients' words and the non-verbal aspects accompanying the words; f l e x i b i l i t y in altering and checking their statements. No No No No Additive empathy; the sensing of meanings of which the client is scarcely aware or has chosen not to express. Yes Yes No Yes AES: Accurate Empathy Scale, Truax & Carkhuff (1967). EUS: Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale, Carkhuff (1969). BLRI: Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory, Barrett-Lennard (1962). TRI: Truax Relationship Inventory, Truax & Carkhuff (1967). 20 This statement underscores the importance of a developmental process i n empathy. The two dimensions of empathy which have received the most attention i n the c h i l d development l i t e r a t u r e are the cognitive and a f f e c t i v e dimensions. Perception, communication and s o c i a l i z a t i o n have also been studied as important i n the development of empathy. This review w i l l focus on cognitive development, as i t i s the dimension most relevant to t h i s study. Both Martin Hoffman (1976, 1977, 1982) and Norma Feshbach (1975, 1978) have proposed multidimensional models of empathy development i n children which, though primarily a f f e c t i v e , have important cognitive elements. Hoffman has i d e n t i f i e d empathic d i s t r e s s as the major mediator of p r o s o c i a l and a l t r u i s t i c behaviour and has described s i x d i f f e r e n t modes through which the vi c a r i o u s a f f e c t i v e response i s aroused. These modes follow a developmental progression and are dependent, i n part, on cognitive processing, i n p a r t i c u l a r the ch i l d ' s a b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e s e l f from others (Goldstein & Michaels, 1985). Some of the cognitive accomplishments which Hoffman sees as s i g n i f i c a n t i n self-other d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n are person permanence i n the ph y s i c a l , cognitive and a f f e c t i v e realms, r o l e taking, language development, and an appreciation and comprehension of the concept of time and h i s t o r y . Feshbach's model i s concerned with the development of a much wider range of empathic experiences i n children than Hoffman's narrower focus on empathic d i s t r e s s only. The cognitive components which Feshbach describes as precursors to the c h i l d ' s emotional responsiveness to the experience of the other are, f i r s t , the a b i l i t y to discriminate the emotional state of another and, second, the a b i l i t y to assume the perspective and role of the 21 other. These two a b i l i t i e s are basic to the broader f i e l d of social cognition and have been described at length by theorists and investigators who propose a cognitive theory of empathy development. The cognitive developmental concepts central to empathy development are decentration, role and perspective taking in general, and role and perspective taking specifically in the affective realm. Egocentrism is a state of fusion or undifferentiation between the self and other people which is resolved or reversed progressively through specific cognitive developmental stages. This is decentration and i t is the decentration during Piaget's formal operational stage of adolescence and young adulthood that is of most significance to this study. A more detailed discussion of this w i l l follow shortly. Schantz (1983) has stated that non-egocentric reasoning is a prerequisite for role taking as opposed to being the same as role taking. After one is able to see that others may think and feel differently from oneself, the inferential process of role or perspective taking can be used to determine what those differences actually are. It is a sequential process. Flavell (Flavell, Botkin, Fry, Wright, & Jarvis, 1968) has proposed a five-step information processing model of role taking. Selman (1980), on the other hand, has proposed a model more in the Piagetian tradition. "It describes a series of five cognitive advances in the self's understanding and coordination of i t s own relationship to others" (Goldstein & Michaels, 1985). It is important to emphasize that the role-taking models referred to have been developed to address social cognition in several areas. In 22 order to understand the cognitive component of empathy, one must examine perspective taking i n the a f f e c t i v e realm s p e c i f i c a l l y . In the early 1970's Helen Borke (1971, 1972), Michael Chandler and Stephen Greenspan (1972) engaged i n a seminal debate regarding role and perspective taking i n the a f f e c t i v e realm. Borke's (1971) research showed that children as young as 3 years old were aware of others' f e e l i n g s , thus challenging Piaget's b e l i e f that egocentrism i n children younger than 7 years old precludes empathic awareness. Chandler and Greenspan (1972) argued against Borke's conclusion and said what Borke c a l l e d empathy i n her subjects was i n r e a l i t y a form of projection or stereotyped knowledge. Borke (1972), i n her r e b u t t a l , incorporated Chandler and Greenspan's c r i t i c i s m into her hypothesis and stated that young children may use projection and stereotyped knowledge i n order to understand others' feelings and that t h i s i s a preliminary form of empathy. This debate led other investigators into a microanalysis and description of the process of role and perspective taking. Gove and Keating (1979) conducted research on perspective taking with two age groups, 3 years 10 months and 5 years 2 months, using two types of s t o r i e s , one i n which the emotionally relevant clues were evident i n the s i t u a t i o n and the other i n which psychological inference about the subjects i s required to c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f y the emotions. Goldstein and Michaels (1985) summarized Gove and Keating's (1979) conclusions: i n terms of developmental progression, emotions are considered to be a part of the s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f , with r o l e taking consisting of simply reading o f f the a f f e c t i v e aspect of the event. Later on when children understand that f e e l i n g s are psychological events or 23 processes they become focused more on the i n t e r n a l state of the p a r t i c u l a r stimulus person, and r o l e taking becomes the t r a d i t i o n a l perspective taking described i n the developmental research, (p. 25) The development of formal operations further d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t h i s a b i l i t y and enables the adolescent and young adult to focus on increasing complexities and s u b t l e t i e s of the i n t e r n a l state of the stimulus person. Another microanalysis of the stage-like development of perspective taking was undertaken by Urburg and Docherty (1976). They d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the structure and content of p a r t i c u l a r role taking tasks. Structure they defined as the cognitive operations necessary to perform the tasks, such as the number of aspects of a problem to be considered and whether they can be considered sequentially or simultaneously. Content was defined as the p a r t i c u l a r content that the cognitive operations work on to produce a sol u t i o n . They, l i k e Gove and Keating (1979), designed a series of role taking tasks for 3, 4 and 5 year old c h i l d r e n . The tasks d i f f e r e d i n the complexity of the s t r u c t u r a l component, the primary focus of the study, while the a f f e c t i v e content was kept simple and consistent. Based on t h e i r r e s u l t s , Urburg and Docherty (1976) suggested: i t i s possible to define close to an i n f i n i t e number of developmental sequences of r o l e taking s k i l l s . . . R a t h e r than considering role taking as a g l o b a l , unidimensional a b i l i t y , the variables that are known or hypothesized to a f f e c t the role taking process should be examined to determine the developmental course of each as well as the in t e r a c t i o n s between them. (p. 203) This suggestion related to the complexity of cognitive development of children i n Piaget's preoperational stage i s applicable i n discussion 24 of formal operations and the eventual emergence of less egocentric thought in adolescence and young adulthood. Theoretically, the development of formal operations results in a marked decline in egocentrism and consequently an increase in perspective taking. This is oversimplistic, as a review of the formal operations literature shows. Inhelder and Piaget (1958) identified eight concepts associated with the stage of formal operations which are called the eight formal operational schemata. They are defined as "the concepts which the subject potentially can organize from the beginning of the formal level when faced with certain kinds of data, but which are not manifest outside these conditions" (p. 308). Inhelder and Piaget explain "how a tendency toward equilibrium or i t s results can lead the subject to organize a formal combinatorial system" (p. 281). They describe the process of transition, what occurs and in what order. According to Elkind (1967) i t is this tendency to equilibrium that leads the adolescent into a new form of egocentrism. The adolescent's "conquest of thought" (p. 438) allows him or her to construct a l l the possibilities in a system and construct contrary to fact propositions (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958 in Elkind, 1967), to conceptualize his or her own thought and to conceptualize the thought of other people. This latter i s , according to Elkind, the crux of adolescent egocentrism. The adolescent " f a i l s to differentiate between the objects toward which the thoughts of others are directed and those which are the focus of his own concern" (p. 438). This egocentrism and the consequent impairment of the abi l i t y to role take is most evident in early adolescence and is gradually overcome through the development of formal operations. 25 A r l i n (1981a, 1981b, 1984a) c l a r i f i e s the o v e r s i m p l i s t i c view that the development of formal operations r e s u l t s i n a decline i n egocentrism and consequently an increase i n role and perspective taking by d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between competence and performance with respect to the formal schemata. She described three variables that a f f e c t the integration of competence and performance. The f i r s t variable i s the phase-like manner i n the i n t e g r a t i o n of competence and performance. The second variable i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of a time lag of approximately f i v e to seven years with respect to the development of both competence and performance of the formal schemata. The t h i r d variable relates to "Piaget's (1953-54) insistence on the simultaneity of construction of the eight schemata" ( A r l i n , 1981b, p. 5). A r l i n states that no simultaneity has been i d e n t i f i e d and she concurs that performance may well require the coordination of actions with appropriate experience (Kuhn, Ho, & Adams, 1979). So, although the resolution of adolescent egocentrism leads to an enhanced a b i l i t y to take the role and perspective of another and this i s accomplished through the a c q u i s i t i o n of formal operations, i t i s evident that formal operations are not a unitary concept and the integration of performance and competence i s subject to numerous complex vari a b l e s . This complexity i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the complexity i d e n t i f i e d by Urburg and Docherty (1976) i n preoperational c h i l d r e n , referred to e a r l i e r i n t h i s review. Examination of the variables a f f e c t i n g the a c q u i s i t i o n of the formal schemata leads to an appreciation of the adolescent's a b i l i t y to role and perspective take and consequently his or her a b i l i t y to be empathic. The' schema that r e f l e c t s the concept of empathy most c l e a r l y i s the 26 coordination of two or more systems of reference. The empathizer in an interpersonal situation must be affectively identified with another's frame of reference while simultaneously being cognizant of his or her own frame of reference. Because of the ongoing, process nature of interaction these two frames of reference must be in the empathizer's awareness even as they may change moment to moment. This schema is one of the last to develop (Arlin, 1981b, 1984a; Neimark, 1975), appearing late in adolescence, and is thought to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for role taking (Byrne, 1973; Selman & Byrne, 1974). There is evidence for this in other areas as well. Studies that look at such cognitive characteristics as cognitive complexity (Holloway & Walleat, 1980), tolerance for ambiguity (Jones, 1974) and conceptual level (Goldberg, 1974; Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961) indicate that "more cognitively complex, open-minded trainees usually demonstrate greater s k i l l mastery than less cognitively complex, more dogmatic trainees" (Lutwak & Hennessy, 1981, p. 257). Given the late emergence of the eighth schema and the time lag between competence and performance, i t might be evident as early as 17 in a precocious adolescent and as late as 21 in a "late bloomer." This might be so, only given the assumption that the adolescent, in the words of Inhelder and Piaget (1958), " i s faced with certain kinds of data" (p. 308). Arlin views this formal schema as an advanced cognitive concept and suggests, "It may be the pivotal concept that marks the transition between adolescent and adult thought structures" (1981B, p. 7). She suggests that i t is what moves the adolescent from a hypothetico-deductive logical system into a r e l a t i v i s t i c logical system. 27 A r l i n ' s proposition regarding the eighth formal schema i s seminal i n adult cognitive research. It must, however, be juxtaposed with another observation and that i s that only approximately 50% of the adult population ever attains the Piagetian state of formal operational thinking (Neimark, 1975). As important as the coordination of two or more frames of reference i s for r o l e and perspective taking, and hence the cognitive component of empathy, that a b i l i t y i s not well developed i n many people. N u r s i n g and Empathy Nursing t h e o r i s t s have described nursing as a humanistic d i s c i p l i n e (King, 1981; Orem, 1971; Rogers, 1970; Roy, 1974; Travelbee, 1966). Central to humanism i s the construct of empathy. "Nursing i s consistently described as an empathic and compassionate interpersonal process that supports dependent needs of patients and promotes independence" (Fenton, 1986, p. 83). In spite of t h i s agreement, from a t h e o r e t i c a l point of view and i n spite of Forsythe's (1979, p. 53) suggestion that empathy, as i t r e l ates to nursing, "should be subjected to the systematic s c i e n t i f i c process of d e s c r i p t i o n , explanation, p r e d i c t i o n and c o n t r o l , " the nursing l i t e r a t u r e reveals a less than comprehensive research t r a d i t i o n . Nursing research regarding empathy has been derived from the humanistic t h e o r e t i c a l framework of Carl Rogers (1957, 1961). It has focused p r i m a r i l y on three aspects, the f i r s t being the d e s c r i p t i o n of empathic communication s k i l l s i n nurses. The second area of i n t e r e s t has been i n empathy s k i l l t r a i n i n g programs. The t h i r d area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n has looked at the r e l a t i o n s h i p of empathy to demographic v a r i a b l e s . 28 1. Mansfield (1973) conducted a study to identify verbal and non- verbal behaviours that facilitated empathic communication on i n i t i a l interactions between an experienced psychiatric nurse and a psychiatric patient. Seven behaviours that conveyed high levels of empathy to the patients were identified. The behaviour categories were: introduction to the patient, head and body positions, verbal behaviour, response to nonverbal cues, facial expressions, voice tones, and mirror images. The applicability of the study is minimal because i t was limited to one nurse interacting with six patients. Verbal and vocal communicative behaviours and their relationship to patient-perceived levels of empathy were studied by Stetler (1977). The results indicated that the verbal and vocal behaviours defined in the study were not the c r i t i c a l factors in the patients' perceptions of empathy. In fact, there was no difference between patient-perceived high empathizers and low empathizers on both positive and negative communicative behaviours. 2. Several studies have investigated the effects of empathy s k i l l training on empathy scores (Clay, 1984; Hrubetz, 1975; Kalisch, 1971; Karshmer & La Monica, 1976; Larabee, 1980; Law, 1978; Zimmerman, 1980). Two assumptions that underlie these studies are f i r s t that empathy can be learned and second that virtually any nurse can learn i t . No attention is given to the fact that there might be individual differences in s k i l l acquisition. A l l of the studies support the idea that empathy s k i l l training is positively related to increased scores on various standard empathy rating scales. However, the scales themselves, as discussed 29 earlier, have questionable r e l i a b i l i t y and validity and consequently so do the findings. Clay (1984), in developing an instrument to use to both teach and assess empathic interaction of nursing students, recognized and incorporated the complex and hierarchical nature of the construct. She described a hierarchical model of the behavioural components of an empathic nurse-patient interaction which reflects the perceptual, cognitive and communicative phases of empathy described by Keefe (1979), Reik (1949) and Barrett-Lennard (1981) and outlined earlier. Each category of Clay's model is accompanied by a behavioural l i s t of nursing actions that give evidence of the category. The schedule and guidelines were developed from videotaped and live nurse-patient interactions in a variety of c l i n i c a l practice settings. Their content and criterion- related validity were found to be satisfactory in videotaped and live nurse-patient interactions. Larabee (1980) also recognized the complex nature of empathy. In a pre-test, post-test research design he used three instruments to measure three different aspects of empathy — the emotional, the cognitive and the behavioural aspects. Results showed significant increases in the f i r s t two and no difference in the latter following the treatment. The treatment in this study was remarkably different from the treatments in the other studies. It was essentially a semi-structured verbal interaction group experience, in which the theme of empathy and the research purpose were disguised to prevent biased responses to the questionnaires. The treatment in the other studies was overtly empathy s k i l l training. 30 3. C o r r e l a t i o n a l studies of empathy and demographic variables comprise the t h i r d area to be reviewed. C o l l i n s (1972) found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between dogmatism and empathy as measured by the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory, i n 198 baccalaureate nursing students, however, she did report a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between empathy scores of sophomore and senior students which influenced further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Howard (1975) found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between empathy as measured by the Carkhuff Index of Communication (Carkhuff, 1969) i n sophomore, junior and senior students i n one nursing school. Turning to nurse p r a c t i t i o n e r s , that i s , s t a f f nurses and head nurses i n various medical s p e c i a l t y areas, Forsythe (1979) investigated the relationships between empathy scores as measured by the Hogan Empathy Test and various demographics. Increasingly higher education (diploma, associate degree or degree) correlated p o s i t i v e l y with empathy scores and also, had s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e properties, as did length of p r a c t i c e . The l a s t c o r r e l a t i o n a l study to be reviewed looked at empathic a b i l i t y and educational progress of nursing students. Rogers (1986, p. 338) reported that "Educational progression was not associated with s i g n i f i c a n t increases i n the ratings of sophomores, juniors and seniors on the ECRS [La Monica, 1981] se l f - r e p o r t and patient r a t i n g . " The results prompted her to r e i t e r a t e questions raised by La Monica (1981): Do baccalaureate programs f a i l to teach empathy e f f e c t i v e l y or do instruments f a i l to measure the construct? As described, a l l the c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies used d i f f e r e n t measures of empathy (Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory, Carkhuff Index of 31 Communication, Hogan Empathy Scale), hence i t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare the studies or to reconcile the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s . The two studies using tape-judged objective measures reported s i m i l a r r e s u l t s , that i s , no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between empathy scores and educational progress. The review of the l i t e r a t u r e on nursing and empathy reveals many conceptual and methodological problems and i t i s suggested that they are the r e s u l t of a lack of f i t or a r t i c u l a t i o n of psychological and communication theories to the theory and practice of nursing. Kasch (1984, p. 73) has stated that although nursing theories make i m p l i c i t assumptions about the nature of communication " l i t t l e attention [has been] directed toward exploring the interface between communication and the deliv e r y of nursing care." Kasch describes three conceptual frameworks that have influenced theory construction i n nursing. She points out how two of them have f a i l e d to develop and a r t i c u l a t e the re l a t i o n s h i p between communication and nursing and how the t h i r d might provide a r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e . 1. The developmental models of nursing have been influenced by the therapeutic perspective which "encourages a s t y l e of communication that i s not e a s i l y actualized i n many nurse-patient i n t e r a c t i o n s " (Kasch, 1984, p. 74). The therapeutic or counselling paradigm "tends to ignore the constraints on communication i n the health care context and the intense commitment to task a c t i v i t y that characterizes the deli v e r y of nursing care" (Kasch, 1984, p. 74). Gagan (1983) also made t h i s point when she ca l l e d for a "study to determine the precise nature and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the empathic process within the confines of the nurse-hospitalized patient r e l a t i o n s h i p " (p. 71). This point i s relevant to Mansfield's (1973) and - 32 Stetler's (1977) studies described earlier. In both, the health care context was not normative because of the nurse, the patients or the setting. In both studies there were no constraints on communication that are typical in nurse-patient interactions. Although acknowledging the importance of a helping nurse-patient relationship, Kasch (1984) states that the developmental and psychotherapeutic perspective places an excessive emphasis on the relational dimension — this includes empathy — of communication. In his literature reviews on empathy and counselling outcome, Gladstein (1970, 1977) made a distinction between psychotherapy and counselling, concluding that in educational/vocational counselling and other non-psychotherapy processes such as dealing with a developmental task, the need for a highly empathic approach is less. It is suggested here that nursing i s , for the most part, a non-psychotherapeutic process. Of the empathy s k i l l training studies reviewed, Clay's (1984) is the most applicable to nursing because i t was developed in the context of nursing practice. 2. Systems theory applications in nursing are seen by Kasch as not having "contributed much to understanding caregiver-patient interactions in the delivery of nursing care" (p. 75). Some criticisms are that a systems model tends to subordinate the individual to the demands of the system; systems concepts are not easily subjected to concrete, empirical investigation; and the systems perspective does riot provide a foundation for understanding individual differences in communicative functioning. 3. Kasch (1984) has identified an interpersonal competence perspective as a link between nursing and communication and.states that i t is consistent with the interactionist model of nursing in which "the 33 nursing process e s s e n t i a l l y involves i n t e r p r e t i n g the meaning of patient actions and i n d i c a t i n g or defining for the patient appropriate actions necessary to achieve an optimal l e v e l of wellness" (p. 73). Interpersonal competence i s comprised of s o c i a l , cognitive, behavioural, and c u l t u r a l resources of communication that enable the nurse to use the nursing process i n t h i s way. It i s broader than the psychotherapeutic model i n that i t focuses on more than the helper-helpee r e l a t i o n s h i p . It focuses on development of the above resources of communication i n order to f a c i l i t a t e the a b i l i t y to a n t i c i p a t e , control and f l e x i b l y adapt to the demands of the s o c i a l environment (Kasch, 1984). Social cognitive competence i s the component of Kasch's model that i s of i n t e r e s t to t h i s study. Kasch's (1984) description of s o c i a l cognitive competence i s consistent with the cognitive developmental view of perspective taking and decentration discussed e a r l i e r and as such i s related to the cognitive aspect of empathy. A nurse who possesses such a competence has an expanded "range of a l t e r n a t i v e s or options available for constructing s t r a t e g i c messages and adapting communication to the s p e c i f i c needs of a p a r t i c u l a r patient" (p. 79). Two questions for nursing a r i s e from t h i s i n t e r e s t i n s o c i a l cognitive competence and subsequent empathy. Who has i t and how can i t be developed? Instead of asking, as La Monica (1981) did, "do baccalaureate programs f a i l to teach empathy e f f e c t i v e l y ? " we can ask, "To what degree do the cognitive constraints evident i n adolescents and young adults i n h i b i t or impede the development of empathic i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s i n nursing students?" As was seen i n the review of studies of empathy t r a i n i n g programs, the assumptions that empathy can be learned and that 34 anyone, regardless of t h e i r s o c i a l cognitive development, can learn i t , are prevalent. Kasch (1984) does not agree with these assumptions and recommends research into i n d i v i d u a l differences i n people's capacity to i n t e r p r e t and understand the viewpoint of another. The inconsistent and c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s of those studies that sought to f i n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between empathy and various demographic variables might be more f r u i t f u l i f the independent variable was s o c i a l cognitive development. Goldstein and Michaels (1985, p. 31) support t h i s . "Understanding the development of higher forms of cognitive empathy may be important for the s e l e c t i o n of people for professional t r a i n i n g i n psycho-therapy education and other professions that c a l l for advanced interpersonal s e n s i t i v i t y . " SwjHQcUry It i s clear from the l i t e r a t u r e that empathy i s not a simple, one- dimensional construct, but rather a complex, multi-faceted process. It has perceptual/affective, cognitive and communicative components. The complexity of the construct has not always been given adequate recognition i n measurement instruments. Recent investigations of cognitive measures (Johnson et a l . , 1983) have shown that separate subscales or factors can b e . i d e n t i f i e d i n the cognitive component alone. Several investigators (Chlopan et a l . , 1985; Davis, 1983; F e l d s t e i n & Goldstein, 1980; Gladstein, 1977; Marks & Tolsma, 1985) have emphasized the complexity of the empathy process and have recommended that be given recognition and consideration i n future i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Developmental the o r i s t s have investigated the development of the various components of empathy. The development of the cognitive 35 component, especially in adolescence and young adulthood, is central to this study and can be elucidated by a Piagetian framework. The formal operational stage of cognitive development consists of eight formal operations schemata and i t is the eighth schema, the coordination of multiple frames of reference, that reflects the concept of empathy most clearly. It has been shown, however, that the development of the formal operations schema is subject to many variables and that they are not evident in a large percentage of the adolescent and adult population. This finding is significant to the study of empathy in nursing. Empathy is considered central to the practice of nursing and i t is consistent with and part of Kasch's (1984) communication model of interpersonal competence. Social cognitive competence, a communication resource in the model, is derived from decentration and perspective and role taking a b i l i t y . This finding highlights the important role that cognitive development has in nursing students' ability to communicate empathically. It is not a simple matter of providing them with empathy training. Nursing educators need to recognize the cognitive constraints that may exist in some students and may result in varying levels of performance of empathic interactive s k i l l s . The major purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship of the independent variables of nursing students' cognitive development, their age, and an empathy s k i l l s training program that they experience to the dependent variable of their a b i l i t y to communicate empathically with patients. Secondarily the study w i l l investigate the relationship of nursing students' empathic abi l i t y both to their number of years of post- 36 t secondary education and to their performance on the eighth formal operational schema, the coordination of two or more frames of reference. Chapter III describes the research methodology. It includes a description of the variables, the hypotheses, the sample, the instrumentation, the data collection and rating procedures, and the data analysis. 37 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Overview The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of nursing students' cognitive development status, their age and an empathy s k i l l s program that they experience to the nursing students' abi l i t y to communicate empathically with patients. A multiple regression research design was used to determine the extent to which empathic communication can be predicted from the three variables that are theoretically linked in this study to empathic communication. Hypotheses Null form 1. There w i l l be no significant linear relationship between the predictor variables of nursing students' level of cognitive development as measured by the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning, their age, and training or no training in interactive s k i l l s , and the criterion variable of empathic interaction as measured by Carkhuff's Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale. 2. Subjects with more years of post-secondary education w i l l show no significant difference in empathic interaction ab i l i t y as measured by Carkhuff's Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale when compared to subjects with fewer years of post-secondary education. 3. Subjects with the cognitive abi l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference as measured by subtest #8 of the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning w i l l show no significant difference in empathic interaction 38 ability as measured by Carkhuffs Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale when compared to subjects without the cognitive a b i l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference. Asstujupti-OIILS The hypotheses are based on the following assumptions. The findings of the study must be considered in the light of these assumptions because the degree of their accuracy both allows and limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the findings. 1 . That the instruments used, that is the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning and the Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale used to rate subjects' responses to the patient stimulus expressions are adequately sensitive to reflect actual differences in subjects' cognitive development and empathic communication. 2. That the implementation of the interactive s k i l l s component of the General Nursing program at BCIT is sufficiently consistent as to content, delivery method and teacher competence to ensure that subjects have had similar empathy s k i l l s training. S u b j e c t s The subjects in this study were students in the British Columbia Institute of Technology diploma nursing program (leading to R.N.). They were solicited by letter and were volunteers. Appendix A. The subjects were recruited on the basis of whether or not they had experienced the empathy s k i l l training component of the curriculum. It begins in the tenth week of Term 1 and is completed in the fourteenth week 39 of Term 3. (Each Term is seventeen weeks long.) Therefore the no- training subjects were recruited at the beginning of Term 1 and the training subjects were recruited as soon after the completion of the training as possible. The subjects were screened on two variables in order to reduce the confounding effects of i n i t i a l differences among subjects. Those variables were sex and previous training and work as a Registered Psychiatric Nurse. Men were excluded from the study because of the cognitive developmental focus of the study. There is evidence to suggest significant differences between men's and women's cognitive development (Gilligan, 1982). Some of these differences relate to role and perspective taking and interpersonal orientation. The under- representation of men in the volunteer sample warranted their exclusion. Volunteers with training and work as Registered Psychiatric Nurses were excluded because their additional training and experience could be expected to influence, either positively or negatively, their scores on the criterion variable, empathic communication. A l l of the Registered Psychiatric Nurses in the BCIT diploma nursing program have experienced a communication s k i l l s training program including empathy s k i l l s in their R.P.N, program and, as stated in the Literature Review, these programs are positively related to increased scores on various standard empathy rating scales. Conversely, Mynatt (1985) found a significantly low negative correlation between students' level of empathy and amount of work experience in nursing. For these reasons the Registered Psychiatric Nurses were excluded from the study. 40 Two participants, one in the Training group and one in the No Training group did not complete the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning. One dropped out of the nursing program between testing sessions and the other said she could not do the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning. A possible explanation for the low number of volunteers in the Training group recruited in April (column 5) is that they were recruited at the end of the term one week before their f i n a l examinations. This was done in order to test them as soon after the empathy training, as possible. However, the investigator believes the recruits' enthusiasm and energy for additional work was low and hence resulted in a low volunteer rate. The f i n a l sample consisted of 54 subjects. Data on recruitment, participation and deletion from the study are shown in Table 4. 41 TABLE 4 R e c r u i t m e n t , P a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d D e l e t i o n o f S u b j e c t s Ho T r a i n i n g T r a i n i n g G r a n d J a n . AUK. T o t a l J a n . A p r . T o t a l T o t a l Recruited 40 48 88 50 46 96 184 Volunteered 16 23 39 21 7 28 67 (percentage of r e c r u i t s ) (40) (47.9) (44.3) (42) (14.5) (29.1) (36.4) Deleted 3 3 6 2 3 5 11 (percentage of volunteers) (18.7) (13) (15.3) (9.5) (42.8) (17.8) (16.4) Did not complete 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 (percentage of volunteers) (6.2) (0) (2.5) (4.76) (0) (3.5) (2.9) Included i n study 12 20 32 18 4 22 54 (percentage of r e c r u i t s ) (33.3) (41.6) (36.3) (27.7) (8.6) (22.9) (29.3) The method of analysis for hypothesis 1 was multiple regression analysis. According to methods described by Cohen (1977) and Cohen and Cohen (1983), the sample size of 54 was s u f f i c i e n t l y large to achieve a .5 power l e v e l for detecting a minimum of .10 R 2 when the alpha l e v e l equals .05. T h e P r e d i c t o r a n d C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e s An argument was made i n the Li t e r a t u r e Review that role and perspective taking a b i l i t y i s required to be empathic and that that a b i l i t y i s dependent upon a certain- l e v e l of cognitive development. It was further argued that the s p e c i f i c cognitive concepts necessary for role 42 and perspective taking are not apparent i n a large percentage of adolescents and adults. Age, the second predictor v a r i a b l e , i s confounded with development. The pos i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p of age to the construct of empathy, e s p e c i a l l y the cognitive component of empathy, i s well-documented i n the c h i l d and adolescent developmental l i t e r a t u r e , as was reviewed i n Chapter I I . In the adult population, however, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not as cle a r . Although post-formal developmental researchers describe a cognitive developmental sequence i n adults (Basseches, 1980; Brabek, 1983; Kitchener & King, 1981), many adults appear to reach a peak l e v e l of cognitive development not beyond the Piagetian formal operations l e v e l , yet the passage of time and the a c q u i s i t i o n of l i f e experiences continue. It i s t h i s aspect of age, that i s , time and experience, on empathic communication that i s of in t e r e s t to th i s study. Empathy s k i l l s t r a i n i n g was the t h i r d predictor variable i n this study. The t r a i n i n g method used i n the diploma nursing program at BCIT was described i n d e t a i l i n Chapter I and as stated there, the investigator has observed that some students seem not to benefit from the t r a i n i n g . That i s , they do not achieve s a t i s f a c t o r y l e v e l s of understanding or communication of empathy. There i s a confounding variable related to the empathy s k i l l s t r a i n i n g . By the time the empathy s k i l l s t r a i n i n g has been completed, the student has also completed 12 months of the other components of the curriculum that could influence, either p o s i t i v e l y or negatively, the student's a b i l i t y to int e r a c t empathically with patients. This should not be confused with simple chronological age, because students begin the program at d i f f e r i n g ages. It i s the educational process i n general, including c l i n i c a l experience, that may be influencing 43 empathic communication. This w i l l be discussed in Chapter IV, the analysis and evaluation of the findings. The criterion variable of empathic communication was measured by the Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale (Carkhuff, 1969). It is described in detail later in this chapter. Empathic communication is described as the a b i l i t y to adopt a patient's frame of reference in order to understand his or her feelings, thoughts and/or behaviour and the abil i t y to convey that understanding to the patient in a way that she or he can understand. One's understanding can be based on the patient's verbal or non-verbal behaviour that is conveyed either directly or indirectly, that i s , implied. The fundamental question for this study was which of the above three predictor variables, either singly or in combination, is/are the best predictor(s) of empathic communication with patients. I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n Empathic Communication. The criterion variable, empathic communication, was measured with an adaptation of Carkhuff's Index of Discrimination (1969) and rated with Carkhuffs Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale (EUS). The scale ranges from one to.five with the midpoint, three, being the minimal level of f a c i l i t a t i v e empathy (Carkhuff, 1969, Vol. 1, p. 175). Appendix B. Ten patient stimulus expressions were used. They are adaptations of client expressions in Carkhuffs Index of Discrimination (1969, Vol. 1, pp. 115-123) and Egan's Exercises in Helping Skills (1982b). Appendix C. A l l of them are typical and r e a l i s t i c verbal expressions of patients 44 and/or family/friends in general acute medical/surgical nursing units to which nursing students would be expected to respond empathically. The following is a sample patient stimulus expression: A 55 year old woman to her nurse the night before having a breast biopsy: "I don't know what to expect after the operation. I've never had an operation before and this is even worse than an ordinary operation. The doctor explained a l l the alternatives to me but i t ' s just too much to think about" (adapted from Egan, 1982b, p. 42). The content and face validity of the patient stimulus expressions were ascertained by reference to the professional judgement of a group of six nurse educators and practitioners. They identified the primary affect evident in each patient stimulus expression and made a judgement about the relevance and realism of each one. Only those patient stimulus expressions in which the affect is clear and unambiguous and which are relevant and re a l i s t i c were used. The design of the patient stimulus expressions was modeled on the Carkhuff Index of Communication (1969, Vol. 1, p. 99, Table 7.1), wherein the stimulus expressions cross different expressions of feeling with different problem areas. The problem area in this study were consistent — health-illness related concerns — and the feelings were depression/distress, anger/hostility, and elation/excitement. Two videotapes of the ten patient stimulus expressions in two random orders of gender and affect were prepared. Thirty subjects, 18 with Training and 12 with No Training, saw videotape A and 24, 4 with Training and 20 with No Training, saw videotape B. This was done to control for 45 any effect that the order of the patient stimulus expressions might have had on subjects' responses. The mean scores of the groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance and are presented in Table 5. There was no significant differences between the means for responses to Tape A or Tape B for either group. TABLE 5 C o m p a r i s o n o f S c o r e s o n Two O r d e r s o f P a t i e n t S t i m u l u s E x p r e s s i o n s T a p e A T a p e B n • M SB n M SD F d f 4 2.8 1.3 <1 1, 20 20 1.4 .5 <1 1, 30 Cognitive Development. The independent variable of cognitive development was measured with the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning. It is a 32 item, multiple-choice paper and pencil test designed "to obtain a general assessment of students' levels (or stages) of cognitive development whether 'concrete' or 'abstract-formal'" (Arlin, 1984b, p. 1). It is based on Inhelder and Piaget's-(1958) theoretical framework which includes eight specific concepts or schemata associated with the stage of formal operations. The 32 items are organized into eight subtests, each representative of one of the eight formal schemata. A multi-trait, multi-method validity study of the ATFR was conducted (Arlin, 1982). The study indicated that the ATFR is a valid and reliable measure of formal operations. The r e l i a b i l i t y measures were as follows: 46 Training 18 2.8 .4 No Training 12 1.5 .5 Test-Retest Hoyt Cronbach Alpha .76 to .89 .71 to .89 .60 to .73 D a t a C o l l e c t i o n a n d R a t i n g P r o c e d u r e s Each subject participated in two data collection sessions. The Data Collection Schedule is described in Table 6. TABLE 6 D a t a C o l l e c t i o n S c h e d u l e No T r a i n i n g T r a i n i n g J a n / 8 8 A u g / 8 8 J a n / 8 8 A p r / 8 8 T e r m 1 T e r m 1 T e r m 4 T e r m 3 SESSION 1 Week 3 Week 1 Week 3 Week 15 Empathic Understanding SESSION 2 Week 5 Week 1 Week 3 Week 15 - Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning - Biographical Data Sheet Empathic Communication. The subjects were asked, at the f i r s t session, to read and sign the Consent Form (Appendix D) and were invited to ask questions about the study. Subjects were told that they would view a videotape of ten separate situations and that they were to respond empathically to each one, in writing, in the response booklet given to them. These instructions plus a description of what an empathic response 47 consists of, were repeated at the beginning of the videotape. Appendix C. There was a 3-minute pause between each patient stimulus expression and subjects were to l d that i f they needed more time the pause would be lengthened. There were no requests for more time i n any of the four showings of the videotapes. The subjects' responses were rated by two trained r a t e r s . The raters were f a c u l t y members i n the BCIT diploma nursing program who are responsible for the .interactive s k i l l s t r a i n i n g . They have also undertaken extensive i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s t r a i n i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , before doing any ratings they experienced f i v e hours of d i d a c t i c discrimination t r a i n i n g by the investigator, according to c r i t e r i a described by Carkhuff (1969, Vol. 1, pp. 169-173). It was agreed by the raters and the investigator that, although the rat i n g scale consists of f i v e l e v e l s , the raters could only accurately discriminate l e v e l s 1, 2, and 3. This was based on Carkhuff's description of the l e v e l s (1969, Vol. 1, p. 173-176) that indicates that i n order to accurately discriminate between le v e l s 4 and 5 "a minimum of a helpee- helper-helpee i n t e r a c t i o n " (p. 176) i s required. When the rat e r s , i n this study, thought a subject's response was better than a l e v e l 3 they rated i t simply as 3+. When the data were analyzed the investigator a r b i t r a r i l y gave a value of 4 to responses rated as 3+. In summary then, the raters had to discriminate amongst only four l e v e l s of performance. The r a t e r s ' i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was determined following the January and A p r i l , 1988 data c o l l e c t i o n s , on 10 subjects' responses to a l l 10 patient stimulus expressions. The 10 subjects' responses were randomly selected from among those of 44 subjects. Four were from the group with 48 no training and 6 were from the group with training. The subjects' responses were given to the raters in random order and the raters were not informed which group the subjects were in, for both the determination of interrater r e l i a b i l i t y and the rating of a l l remaining responses. Table 7 summarizes the interrater r e l i a b i l i t y ratings. The interrater r e l i a b i l i t y correlation was +.62 and the percentage of agreement was 50%. Through discussion and compromise the percentage of agreement rose to 93%. The investigator averaged the two ratings of the remaining 7% of the responses. The discussion to achieve agreement served as additional training for the raters and subsequent ratings were based on the training. TABLE 7 Interrater Reliability on 100 Subject Responses Before and After Discussion Interrater r e l i a b i l i t y correlation Interrater agreement Interrater disagreement r = .62 = 50% Before by >1 level by 1 level = 43% = 7% Interrater Agreement Interrater compromise Interrater disagreement = 50% = 43% After by 1 level by >1 level, = 7% = 0 * 2 of these responses were rated as 2 or 3 5 of these response were rated as 3 or 4 The investigator averaged them to 2.5 or 3.5 respectively 49 One of the raters was not able to rate subjects' responses from the f i n a l data c o l l e c t i o n i n August. Therefore, a l l the responses from the August data c o l l e c t i o n were rated by the same rater. This rater's ratings of No Training subjects' responses, rated i n May and August, are shown i n Table 8 and appear to be not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other. TABLE 8 C o m p a r i s o n o f R a t e r ' s R a t i n g s o f No T r a i n i n g S u b j e c t ' s R e s p o n s e s May r a t i n g A u g u s t r a t i n g n M SD n M SD 7 1.6 .4 20 1.4 .5 Cognitive Development. The ATFR was administered to the subjects i n this study under the recommended te s t i n g conditions at the second session. The rooms were comfortable, w e l l - l i g h t e d and w e l l - v e n t i l a t e d and d i s t r a c t i o n s were kept to a minimum. Scrap paper and pencils were provided. Subjects were read the i n s t r u c t i o n s and t o l d they could have as much time as they needed to complete the t e s t . The subjects' tests were scored by the investigator and nine scores for each subject were obtained, that i s , the o v e r a l l or t o t a l score and a set of eight subtest scores. The subjects' scores on the Frames of Reference subtest were of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t since i t was argued that i t i s the coordination of two or more frames of reference that i s conceptually linked most c l e a r l y to the construct of empathy. These data were used to test the hypothesis that subjects with high scores on the Frames of Reference subtest would score higher on the Empathic 50 Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale than subjects with low scores on the Frames of Reference subtest. Biographical Data. Finally, at the second session, data on subjects' sex, previous work and training, and data on the subjects' ages and their empathy s k i l l s training status were collected with a Biographical Data Sheet that were completed by each subject. Appendix E. Additionally, data were collected on the number of f u l l academic years (exclusive of the BCIT General Nursing program) that each subject had completed. These data were used to test the hypothesis that subjects with more years of post-secondary education would score higher on the Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale than subjects with fewer years of post-secondary education. D a t a A n a l y s i s Hypothesis 1 was tested by a hierarchical multiple regression analysis in order to determine the amount of variance in the subjects' empathy scores explained by cognitive level over and above that explained by the other independent variables. The hierarchical order for entry of the predictor variables into the analysis was age, training or no training, and cognitive level. This order was based on assumed causal priority, that i s , "no variable can be causally affected by one that appears after i t " (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 121). There is some evidence to suggest that cognitive development in adults may be positively affected by age and education (Kitchener & King, 1981), therefore age and education were entered before cognitive level. Training was a dichotomous variable 51 (Training and No Training) that was coded as a dummy variable and entered as 1 or 0. Hypothesis 2 was analyzed with the non-parametric test of chi square. The scores on the Empathic Understanding i n Interpersonal Processes Scale were categorized into two categories of "at the mean or greater" and "below the mean." Those two categories were then analyzed as frequencies comparing subjects with zero to one year of post-secondary education, and two or more years. A s i g n i f i c a n t chi square would imply that the scores on the EUS and the number of years of post-secondary education were not independent. Hypothesis 3 was also analyzed with the non-parametric test of chi square. The EUS scores were categorized as i n Hypothesis 2. They were then analyzed as frequencies comparing subjects with low scores of 0, 1 or 2 and subjects with high scores of 3 or 4 on the Frames of Reference subtest of the A r l i n Test of Formal Reasoning. A s i g n i f i c a n t chi square would imply that the two variables were not independent. Summary This study was designed to investigate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between three predictor var i a b l e s , that i s , nursing students' l e v e l s of cognitive development, t h e i r ages and an empathy s k i l l s program they experience, and the c r i t e r i o n variable of the nursing students' a b i l i t y to i n t e r a c t empathically with patients. A multiple regression analysis was used to determine the degree of variance i n empathic i n t e r a c t i o n accounted for by each of the predictor v a r i a b l e s . Secondarily, an attempt was made to i d e n t i f y i f relationships e x i s t between subjects' empathic communication 52 and two other variables, namely their number of years of post-secondary education and their scores on the Frames of Reference subtest on the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning. 53 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The results of the analyses of the data are presented in this chapter under the headings: Characteristics of the Sample; Analyses of the Data in Relation to the Three Hypotheses of the Study; and Evaluation and Discussion of the Findings. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the Sample The data on the characteristics of the sample were obtained through the Biographical Data Sheet that each participant completed prior to doing the modified Carkhuff Index of Communication and the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning. Data on age and number of years of post-secondary education were tabulated for both groups of subjects, those with empathy s k i l l s training and those with no empathy s k i l l s training. The data for the two groups were examined by one-way analysis of variance for differences between means. The analyses indicate that there was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference between the Training group and the No Training group with regard to number of years of post-secondary education but there was a significant difference between the two groups with regard to age, F_ (1, 52) =4.5, p_ <.05. This significant difference was attributed to the fact that two of the subjects in the Training group were outliers with regard to age. A second one-way analysis of variance computed with the outliers removed from the sample revealed no significant difference with regard to age, F_ (1, 50) = 1.9. These data are shown in Table 9. Within the training 54 group, moreover, age had only a low nonsignificant correlation with the dependent variable, empathy scores (r_ = .12). TABLE 9 M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s a n d One—Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e S a m p l e T r a i n i n g No T r a i n i n g V a r i a b l e n M SD n M SD F d f £ Age 22 356.5 91.3 32 306.9 77.8 1.7 1, 52 <.05 (in months) Age 20 336.5 67.7 32 306.9 77.8 1.9 1, 50 (outliers removed) Number of 22 1.0 1.3 32 1.0 1.2 <1 1, 52 years of post-secondary education A n a l y s e s o f t h e D a t a i n R e l a t i o n t o E a c h H y p o t h e s i s Hypothesis 1 states that there is no significant linear relationship between the predictor variables of nursing students' level of cognitive development as measured by the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning, their age, and training or no training in interactive s k i l l s , and the criterion variable of empathic interaction as measured by Carkhuff's Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale. Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations are given for a l l variables in Table 10. The correlation between age and empathy was significant, .34. Correlations with the variable of Training were not significant because i t was dichotomous and coded as a dummy variable. 55 Cognitive development showed low relations, less than .2, with the dependent variable and the other independent variables. TABLE 10 M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s a n d P e a r s o n I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f D e p e n d e n t a n d I n d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e s ( N = 5 4 ) V a r i a b l e V a r i a b l e M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Empathy 2.03 .84 2. Age 327.1 87.2 .343 3. Training* .4 .4 .793 .281 4. Cognitive ATFR Level 19.7 4.1 .136 .195 .175 * Training or No Training were coded 1 or 0. p_ < .05 = .27 df 50 p_ < .01 = .35 df 50 The multiple regression equation was significant'at F_ (3, 50) = 30.64, p_<.00001 and the predictor variables, in combination accounted for 64.7% of the variance (adjusted = .62^). The null hypothesis was rejected. Table 11 summarizes the findings. After the effect of age was removed, training accounted for the largest proportion of the variance (AR_2 = .52, adjusted = .63) and was positively related to empathy scores. Age accounted for the second largest proportion of variance (AR2 = .11, adjusted R_̂  = .10) and also was positively related to empathy scores. The third predictor variable, cognitive level accounted for. a negligible proportion of the variance (4R2 = .0005). 56 TABLE 11 H i e r a r c h i c a l M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s o n E m p a t h y S c o r e s o f N u r s i n g S t u d e n t s (N =54) V a r i a b l e R2 R2 a d j u s t e d i n c r e a s e F t o e n t e r B Age Training Cognitive Level . 117 .647 .647 .100 .117 .633 .529 .626 ,0004 6.93* 76.56** .06 .133 .761 -.022 F (3,50) =. 30.64 p_ < .00001 * p_ < .05 ** p_ < .01 One way analysis of variance indicated a significant difference in the means of the empathy scores for the Training and No Training groups as shown in Table 12. Students in the later terms of the BCIT General Nursing diploma program achieved higher empathy scores than did students at the beginning of the f i r s t term. TABLE 12 C o m p a r i s o n o f M e a n E m p a t h y S c o r e s f o r T r a i n i n g a n d No T r a i n i n g G r o u p s ( N = 54) T r a i n i n g No T r a i n i n g n M SD n M SD F d f p_ 22 2.8 .4 32 1.4 .5 87.6 1, 52 <.00001 57 The distribution of the scores, as shown in Table 13, indicates that 71.2% of the beginning students' responses could be classified as harmful or significantly detracting from the communication of the patient (see Appendix B for descriptions of the levels of the rating scale). In comparison, in the Training group, 63.6% of the responses are neutral and 36.2% are essentially interchangeable with those of the patient and are considered minimally f a c i l i t a t i v e . TABLE 13 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f M e a n E m p a t h y S c o r e s f o r T r a i n i n g a n d No T r a i n i n g G r o u p s (N = 5 4 ) T r a i n i n g No T r a i n i n g EUS n % n % Level 1 1.0 to 1.4 0 0 21 65 1.5 to 1.9 0 0 2 6.2 Level 2 2.0 to 2.4 5 22.7 7 21.8 2.5 to 2.9 9 40.9 2 6.2 Level 3 3.0 to 3.4 6 27.2 0 0 3.5 to 3.8 2 9 0 0 EUS: Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale, Carkhuff (1969). Hypothesis 2 states that subjects with more years of post-secondary education would show no significantly greater empathic interaction a b i l i t y as measured by the Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale (Carkhuff, 1969) when compared to subjects with fewer years of post- secondary education. 58 The hypothesis was analyzed by the non-parametric test of chi square. The empathic interaction scores were categorized as below the mean, and at or above the mean and then analyzed as frequencies comparing those subjects with zero to one year of post-secondary education to those with two or more years of post-secondary education. The chi square statistic was not s i g n i f i c a n t , X 2 (1, N_= 54) = <1, and indicated that the two variables are independent of one another. The null hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 3 states that subjects with the cognitive a b i l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference, as measured by subtest #8 of the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning, would show no significantly greater empathic interaction a b i l i t y , as measured by the Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale (Carkhuff, 1969), when compared to subjects without the abi l i t y to coordinate multiple frames of reference. The test of chi square was used to analyze the hypothesis. The empathic interaction scores were categorized as in Hypothesis 2 and then analyzed as frequencies comparing those subjects with scores of 3 or 4 on subtest #8 of the ATFR to those with scores of 0, 1, or 2. The chi square stat i s t i c was not s i g n i f i c a n t , X 2 (1, N_ = 54) = <1, indicating that the two variables are independent of one another. The null hypothesis was accepted. E v a l u a t i o n a n d D i s c u s s i o n o f t h e F i n d i n g s The independent variables in question in this study can be classified as developmental, i.e., age and cognitive development, or educational, i.e., empathy training and post-secondary education. Of 59 these, age and empathy training appear to have had a bearing on the dependent variable of empathic communication. This finding is positive and heartening because much time and effort was applied to the training by students and faculty. However, this finding must be considered in the context of the following discussion. Because there was no significant difference between the Training and No Training groups with regard to age and because, within the Training group, age and empathy scores had an insignificant correlation (+.12), the investigator concluded that, regardless of empathy training, the older subjects in this study, scored higher on the measure of empathy than the younger subjects. Additionally, the third independent variable, level of cognitive development, was not related to age. In summary then, i t appears that age had a significant effect on empathy scores and also that i t s effect was not compounded by or related to training or level of cognitive development. The consistency of the implementation of the training program was not measured in this study. The learning materials, that is,, text books, videotapes, self-directed learning modules, and workbooks remained consistent but neither the student/faculty ratio, the teaching strategies nor the faculty who taught the interactive s k i l l s component were monitored. The importance of certain trainer and training characteristics has been described by Carkhuff and Berenson (1967). A greater understanding of the efficacy of the training might be reached i f such variables were explored. Other factors that may have had an effect, either positive or negative, on students' abi l i t y to apply the empathy training relate to the 60 protracted length of the empathy training. Variables such as the nature and quality of the students' c l i n i c a l experiences, their personal experiences, and the supervision and role modelling that they experienced over the 12-month period were not measured. The lack of a pre-training empathy score for the Training group raises the question of whether there were significant i n i t i a l differences in the two groups on the criterion variable. The investigator does not believe this was the case in light of the group homogeneity that the BCIT General Nursing diploma program admission requirements fosters, however i t remains an unknown variable. An explanation for the lack of significance of the measure of cognitive development, specifically formal reasoning, as a predictor of empathic interaction relates to by the lack of variance in cognitive development in the sample. The majority of the subjects were formal reasoners as is shown in Table 14. TABLE 14 C o m p a r i s o n o f C o g n i t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t S c o r e s o f No T r a i n i n g a n d T r a i n i n g G r o u p s n M SD F o r m a l N o n - f o r m a l No Training 22 18.9 4.0 71.8% 28.2% Training • 32 21.0 4.6 81.8% 18.1% Total 54 19.7 4.1 75.9% 24.0% 61 As well as the lack of variance in cognitive development in the sample as a methodological limitation, the lack of relationship between measures of the various components of empathy as a conceptual limitation must be addressed. As was discussed in the Literature Review, when operationalized and measured, the components of the multidimensional construct of empathy stand alone and show l i t t l e relationship to each other. If a measure of the cognitive component of empathy specifically, shows l i t t l e relation to a measure of communicative empathy i t is not surprising that a general measure of cognitive development does not show a relationship to communicative empathy. The findings of this study reflect the idea that the components of empathy are distinctly different stages of a process and one cannot be predicted from another. A second explanation for the lack of significance of the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning (ATFR) as a predictor of empathic interaction relates to i t s appropriateness as a measure of cognitive development in terms of the construct of empathy. In the Literature Review, the investigator drew a theoretical parallel between the cognitive component of empathy, role and perspective taking, and the development of formal operations, specifically the coordination of multiple frames of reference. Perhaps the findings of this study indicate that the relationship is only theoretical or that achievement on the ATFR cannot reflect the relationship. Although Arlin (1984b, p. 2) has stated that the concepts associated with the stage of formal operations "represent[s] a form of thinking and not necessarily the content of that thinking" the investigator believes that the ATFR is more suited to the measurement of cognitive development as i t relates to science or mathematics. 62 The scores achieved by the subjects i n the Training group i n t h i s study are comparable to scores reported i n other studies. Lutwak and Hennessy (1981) reported empathy scores (M 2.8, SD .8) for 97 f i r s t year graduate students i n counsellor education or advanced undergraduates taking a graduate l e v e l interview s k i l l s course. Their responses were rated with Carkuff's Empathic Understanding i n Interpersonal Processes Scale (1969). La Monica (1979) reported scores for graduate nursing students and graduate psychology students that also were below the minimally f a c i l i t a t i v e l e v e l . She suggested the following explanations: "either the undergraduate and graduate c u r r i c u l a f a i l to provide necessary communication s k i l l s content or the instrument f a i l s to detect i t " (La Monica, 1979). This investigator believes both factors influenced subjects' scores i n t h i s study; the former w i l l be discussed i n the f i n a l chapter, the l a t t e r remains a l i m i t a t i o n of the study both i n terms of the instrument's v a l i d i t y per se and the i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y achieved i n t h i s study and reported e a r l i e r . 63 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary a n d C o n c l u s i o n s The a b i l i t y to communicate empathically with patients i s an es s e n t i a l s k i l l i n the practice of nursing. In order to provide nursing students with this s k i l l the nursing f a c u l t y of the BCIT General Nursing diploma program implemented, i n 1985, the systematic, d i d a c t i c - e x p e r i e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s t r a i n i n g method of Egan (1982a). The s k i l l of empathy i s fundamental i n the Egan model. An o v e r a l l improvement i n students' interpersonal effectiveness has been noted. The implementation of the t r a i n i n g program has provided f a c u l t y with comprehensive, structured framework i n which to teach, t r a i n , observe and give feedback to students about i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s . In spite of these benefits, the investigator has observed that the a b i l i t y to communicate empathically i s not well-developed i n some students and that sometimes the processes of projection and stereotyped knowledge are used instead of empathy. These processes are i n d i c a t i v e of a lack of the cognitive developmental task of perspective or role taking. This observation lead to the problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of th i s study. The purpose of th i s study was to investigate the predictive r e l a t i o n s h i p of the developmental variables of age and l e v e l of cognitive development and the educational variable of an empathy t r a i n i n g program to nursing students' a b i l i t y to communicate empathically with patients. Secondarily the degree of independence between empathic a b i l i t y and two 64 additional variables — number of years of post-secondary education and the a b i l i t y to co-ordinate multiple frames of reference — w a s examined. Empathy was described i n the L i t e r a t u r e Review as a multidimensional, interdependent construct. The focus of t h i s study was the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the cognitive and communicative components of empathy. I t was thought that the a b i l i t y to communicate one's understanding of another's thoughts, f e e l i n g s and experiences to the other would be dependent to some degree on the a b i l i t y to c o g n i t i v e l y take on the role of that other. The investigator believed that the value of t r a i n i n g and the expectations regarding performance, held by t r a i n e r s , are li m i t e d by and must be tempered by the cognitive developmental constraints existent i n the trainees. The hypotheses of the study were tested by measuring the subjects on the four variables i n question and s t a t i s t i c a l l y examining the relationships among and degree of independence of selected v a r i a b l e s . The findings do not support the idea that cognitive development or the related variables of age and number of years of post-secondary education are important influences on the subjects' a b i l i t y to i n t e r a c t empathically with patients. The empathy s k i l l s t r a i n i n g on the other hand, was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to greater empathy scores. D i s c u s s i o n and Recommendations Empathy t r a i n i n g i n n u r s i n g educa t i on . Empathy has been described, i n t h i s study, as a trained s k i l l that nurses are expected to demonstrate. The r e s u l t s indicate that with t r a i n i n g the nursing students achieved better empathy scores. The t r a i n i n g moved the students from making 65 harmful responses to making neutral or minimally f a c i l i t a t i v e responses. This questionable progress could be reflective of the empirical limitations of the rating scale. An alternative explanation is the lack of f i t between the interactive s k i l l s training program and the remainder of the nursing curriculum. As described earlier the elapsed time from the f i r s t seminar on basic empathy to the one on advanced empathy is approximately 12 months. During this time students are also expected to learn and implement complex psychomotor s k i l l s , nursing assessment and intervention, and related physical and social sciences. They attend c l i n i c a l practica and are assigned to patients with varying degrees of illness for whom they must provide safe competent nursing care. It is a reality that the focus on empathy as a desired nursing s k i l l is sometimes not as sharp as is required to become s k i l l f u l beyond the minimally f a c i l i t a t i v e level. This lack of f i t between the interactive s k i l l s program and the nursing curriculum is most evident in c l i n i c a l practice and this was described in the Literature Review. It is not reasonable given the constraints on communication and the task orientation in most nursing situations for nurses to interact in the manner prescribed by Egan's (1982a) model of helping. The model prescribes using s k i l l s in order to help the patient thoroughly explore his or her situation, set r e a l i s t i c goals and determine actions to achieve those goals. In other words, the s k i l l s are to be used within the context of a helping relationship. The best that can be achieved in many c l i n i c a l situations in which nursing students find themselves is the isolated use of a particular s k i l l or s k i l l s out of context of a patient-centred, goal directed relationship. Looked at in this light, the subjects' progress 66 from predominantly harmful responses to either neutral or minimally f a c i l i t a t i v e ones is positive. The decontextualization of empathic interaction and the competing demands of the curriculum and c l i n i c a l experience provide additional explanation for the lack of relationship in this study between cognitive development and empathic ab i l i t y . As suggested in the Literature Review there is a difference between competence and performance with regard to cognitive development. One of the factors that Arlin (1981, 1984) described as affecting the integration of competence and performance is the coordination of actions with appropriate experience. It is suggested that, although the majority of subjects in this study were formal reasoners and many of them achieved positive scores for the eighth schema — the coordination of multiple frames of reference — perhaps they have not had c l i n i c a l learning experiences that facilitated the integration of their competence and performance and that would have resulted in highly f a c i l i t a t i v e empathic responses. The minimally f a c i l i t a t i v e level is reflective of the basic empathy described by Egan (Goldstein & Michaels, 1985) and perhaps that is a more reasonable goal for diploma nursing students, given the constraints referred to above, than the advanced empathy level. It is possible that the introduction in the curriculum of the higher level of empathy, and the expectation that this be implemented by students, is confusing and discouraging for them and leads to feelings of inadequacy or incompetence. It is suggested that advanced empathy continue to be introduced but that factors inhibiting i t s application be explicitly discussed and that the focus c l i n i c a l l y remain on the basic empathy level. In situations where 67 i t might be possible and desirable for students to go beyond the basic level, i t would be incumbent upon the c l i n i c a l nursing instructor to help students move to the advanced level. An example of this would be in the psychiatric nursing experience where the focus for both the patients and students is on interpersonal relationships and communication and the students have more opportunity to develop a helping relationship with their patients. The c l i n i c a l instruction, supervision and role modelling that students receive is c r i t i c a l in helping them to recognize c l i n i c a l situations in which to use specific interactive s k i l l s . Although i t is not possible for nursing students or instructors to entirely overcome the communication restraints and task orientation of many c l i n i c a l situations, the investigator believes that a focus on c l i n i c a l supervision could help students to apply interactive s k i l l s more effectively. One such approach would be professional development seminars for faculty to renew and clarify the value of caring, interactive s k i l l s and specifically empathy to the practice of nursing, followed by refresher seminars in the practice of specific s k i l l s . Because most c l i n i c a l situations are complex and instructors have expertise in limited aspects of practice a team teaching approach in c l i n i c a l conferences would allow discussion of diverse facets, for example physical assessment and the interactive dynamics, to be facilitated by instructors with the required expertise. Recommendations for research. This study could be replicated with more controls for differences among subjects by testing the same group of 68 subjects before and a f t e r t r a i n i n g . In t h i s way i n i t i a l differences on the dependent variable and selected independent variables, for example, age could be measured. Another approach to look at the effectiveness of systematic, d i d a c t i c - e x p e r i e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s t r a i n i n g would be to compare i n t e r a c t i v e effectiveness of subjects from d i f f e r e n t diploma nursing programs, one with an i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s t r a i n i n g program as part of the curriculum and one without. A s p e c i f i c s k i l l such as empathy could be the focus or a more general measure of i n t e r a c t i v e effectiveness could be taken. Because the t r a i n i n g appears to have made a difference i n the empathy scores of the subjects i n t h i s study, further research could focus on both i d e n t i f y i n g and maximizing e f f e c t i v e t r a i n i n g implementation str a t e g i e s . An approach to t h i s would be to investigate and compare students' achievement and the teaching strategies used i n d i f f e r e n t nursing programs with s i m i l a r i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s t r a i n i n g programs. It i s recommended that further research be conducted on the variable of age and i t s e f f e c t on empathy scores. F i r s t , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and empathy scores indicated i n t h i s study could be validated. Second, and perhaps more importantly, more s p e c i f i c aspects of the variable of age, for example age-related experiences, and how they e f f e c t empathy could be elucidated. Examining s p e c i f i c variables related to students' c l i n i c a l experience i s another focus for research. Variables such as the amount of time spent with patients, and the kind of patients assigned to students could be investigated. The a p p l i c a t i o n of empathy s k i l l s i s effected by 69 such variables as the severity of illness patients experience, their language, and sociocultural background. Another significant factor related to c l i n i c a l experience is the nature and quality of the c l i n i c a l supervision and role modelling of instructors and nursing personnel that students experience. The relationship of cognitive development and empathic s k i l l could be pursued. Cognitive development beyond the formal operational level could be measured with an instrument such as the Reflective Judgement Index (Kitchener & King, 1981) to test the relationship between more re l a t i v i s t i c thinking and the s k i l l of empathy. 70 REFERENCES Arlin, P.K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A f i f t h stage? Developmental Psychology, 11, 602-606. Arlin, P.K. (1981a). Performance in time lags in the development of formal operations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. Arlin, P.K. (1981b). Adolescent and adult thought: A search for structures. Unpublished paper. University of British Columbia: Vancouver, B.C. Arlin, P.K. (1982). A multi-trait multi-method validity study of a test of formal reasoning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 1077-1088. Arlin, P.K. (1984a). Adolescent and adult thought: A structural interpretation. In M. Commons, F. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond Formal Operations (pp. 258-271). New York: Praeger. Arlin, P.K. (1984b). Manual for the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning. New York: Slosson Educational Publications. Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1-36. Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 91-100. Bart, W.M., & Frey, S. (1978). Hierarchies among formal reasoning tasks: Educational ramifications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia. Basseches, M. (1980). Dialectical schemata. A framework for the empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development, 23 (6), 400-420. Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy. Developmental Psychology, 5_, 263-269. Borke, H. (1972). Chandler and Greenspan's "ersatz egocentrism." Developmental Psychology, 7_, 107-109. Brabek, M.M. (1983). C r i t i c a l thinking s k i l l s and reflective judgement development: Redefining the aims of higher education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4_, 23-34. Buchheimer, A. (1963). The development of ideas about empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10, 61-70. 71 Byrne, D.F. (1973). Development of role-taking in adolescence. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, MA. Canadian Nurses Association (1985). Code of ethics for nursing. Ottawa, Ontario: Author. Carkhuff, R.R. (1969). Helping and human relations: A primer for lay and professional helpers (Vols. 1-2). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Carkhuff, R.R., & Berenson, B.G. (1967). Beyond counseling and therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Chandler, M., & Greenspan, S. (1972). Ersatz egocentrism: A reply to H. Borke. Developmental Psychology, ]_, 104-106. Chinsky, J.M., & Rappaport, J. (1970). Brief critique of the meaning of r e l i a b i l i t y of "accurate empathy" ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 379-382. Chlopan, B.E., McCain, M.L., Carbonell, J.L., & Hagan, R.L. (1985). Empathy: A review of available measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (3), 635-653. Clay, M. (1984). Development of an empathic.interaction s k i l l s schedule in a nursing context. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 9_, 343-350. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Collins, D. (1972). Empathic abi l i t y and dogmatism (Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 2609A. Cronbach, L.J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on "understanding others" and "assumed similarity". Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177— 193. Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126. Deutsch, F., & Madle, R.A. (1975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations, measurement, and a cognitive theoretical perspective. Human Development, 18, 267-287. Dymond, R.F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ab i l i t y . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 127-133. Egan, G. (1976). Interpersonal living: A skills-contract approach to human-relations training in groups. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. 72 Egan, G. (1982a). The skilled helper: Model, s k i l l s and methods for effective helping (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Egan, G. (1982b). Exercises in helping s k i l l s : A training manual to accompany The skilled helper (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38, 1025-1034. Feldstein, J.C., & Gladstein, G.A. (1980). A comparison of the construct validities of four measures of empathy. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 13 (1), 49-57. Fenton, M. (1987). Development of the scale of humanistic nursing behaviors. Nursing Research, 36 (2), 82-87. Feshbach, N.D. (1975). Empathy in children: Some theoretical and empirical considerations. Counseling Psychologist, 5, 25-30. Feshbach, N.D. (1978). Studies of empathic behaviour in children. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (1-47). New York: Academic Press. Flaskerud, J.H., & Halloran, E.J. (1980). Areas of agreement in nursing theory development. Advances in Nursing Science. Flavell, J.H., Botkin, P.T., Fry, C.L., Wright, J., & Jarvis, P. (1968). The development of role-taking and communication s k i l l s in children. New York: Wiley. Forsythe, G.L. (1979). Empathy in nurse-client interaction. Advances in Nursing Science, 1_, 53-62. Gagan, J.M. (1983). Methodological notes on empathy. Advances in Nursing Science. January, 65-72. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gladstein, G. (1970). Is empathy important in counseling? Personnel and Guidance Journal, 48, 823-827. Gladstein, G.A. (1977). Empathy and counseling outcomes: An empirical and conceptual review. Counseling Psychologist, 6_(4), 70-79. Gladstein, G.A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental and social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 467-482. 73 Goldberg, A. (1974). Conceptual system as a predisposition toward therapeutic communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 364- 368. Goldstein, A.P., & Michaels, G.Y. (1985). Empathy: Development training, and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gove, F.L., & Keating, D.P. (1979). Empathic role-taking precursors. Developmental Psychology, 15, 594-600. Harman, J.I. (1986). Relations among components of the empathic process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 371-376. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D., & Schroder, H. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley. Hoffman, M.L. (1976). Empathy role-taking, guilt and development of alt r u i s t i c motives. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behaviour: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 124-143). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hoffman, M.L. (1977). Empathy, i t s development and prosocial implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 25, 169-218. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Hoffman, M.L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The Development of prosocial behaviour (pp. 281-313). New York: Academic Press. Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307-316. Holloway, E., & Walleat, P. (1980). Relationship of counselor conceptual level to c l i n i c a l hypothesis formation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27_, 539-545. Howard, M. (1975). The effectiveness of an action training model in improving the f a c i l i t a t i v e interpersonal functioning (empathy, respect and genuineness) of nursing students. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36_, 3005B. Hrubetz, J. (1975). Measurement of changes in nursing students' levels of empathy, self-disclosure and confrontation. (Doctoral Dissertation, St. Louis University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 2725B. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence (A. Parsons & S. Seagrini, Trans.). New York: Basic Books. 74 Ivey, E., & Authier, J. (1978). Microcounseling innovations in interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, and psychoeducation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Johnson, J.A., Cheek, J.M., & Smither, R. (1983). The structure of empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (6), 1299— 1312. Jones, L. (1974). Toward more adequate selection c r i t e r i a : Correlates of empathy, genuineness and respect. Counselor Education and Supervision, 14, 13-21. Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D., & Associates. (1967). Studies in Human Interaction. East Lansing: Educational Publications Services, College of Education, Michigan State University. Kalisch, B.J. (1971). An experiment in the development of empathy in nursing students. Nursing Research, 20 (3), 202-211. Karshmer, J.F., & La Monica, E. (1976). Effectiveness of nursing curricula on behavioural empathy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kasch, CR. (1984). Interpersonal competence and communication in the delivery of nursing care. Advances in Nursing Science, January. Katz, R.L. (1963). Empathy: Its nature and uses. New York: Free Press. Keefe, T. (1976). Empathy: The c r i t i c a l s k i l l . Social Work, 21, 10-14. Keefe, T. (1979). The development of empathic s k i l l . Journal of Education for Social Work, 15, 30-37. Kerr, W.A., & Speroff, B.G. (1954). Validation and evaluation of the empathy test. Journal of General Psychology, 50, 369-376. King, I. (1981). A theory for' nursing: Systems, concepts and process. New York: Wiley. Kitchener, K.S., & King, P.M. (1981). Reflective judgement: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2_, 89-116. Kuhn, D., Ho, V., & Adams, C. (1979). Formal reasoning among pre- and late adolescents. Child Development, 50, 1128-1135. Kurtz, R.R., & Grummon, D.L. (1972). Different approaches to the measurement of therapist empathy and their relationship to therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 106- 115. 75 La Monica, E. (1981). Construct validity of an empathy instrument. Research in Nursing and Health, 4_, 389-400. La Monica, E. (1979). Validity of Carkhuff's index of communication. Group & Organization Studies, 4, 377-382. Larabee, D. (1980). Effects of a modified theme-centred interactional method on raising empathy in psychiatric nurses and patient care assistants (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2454A. Law, E. (1978). Toward the teaching and measurement of staff nurses (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 779A. Lichtenberg, J., Bornstein, M., & Silver, D. (1984). Empathy II. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Lutwak, N., & Hennessy, J.J. (1981). Conceptual systems functioning as a mediating factor in the development of counseling s k i l l s . Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 256-260. Mansfield, E. (1973). Empathy: Concept and identified psychiatric nursing behaviour. Nursing Research, 22 (6), 525-530. Marks, S.E., & Tolsma, R.J. (1985). Empathy research: Some methodological considerations. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N.A. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543. Mynatt, S. (1985). Empathy in faculty and students in different types of nursing preparation programs. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 7_ (3), 333-348. Neimark, E.D. (1975). Intellectual development during adolescence. In F.D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review of child development research (Vol. 4) (pp. ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Orem, D. (1970). An introduction to the theoretical basis for nursing. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis. Rappaport, J., & Chinsky, J.M. (1972). Accurate empathy: Confusion of a construct. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 400-404. Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia (1984). Standards for nursing practice in British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.: Author. 76 Reik, T. (1949). Listening with the third ear. New York: Farrar, Straus. Riehl, J.P., & Roy, C. (1980). Conceptual models for nursing practice (2nd Ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 95-103. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . Rogers, C. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5, 2-10. Rogers, I.A. (1986). The effects of undergraduate nursing education on empathy. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 8_(3), 329-342. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1975). The volunteer subject. New York: Wiley. Roy, C. (1974). The Roy adaptation model. In J.P. Riehl and C. Roy (Eds.), Conceptual models for nursing practice (pp. ). New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts. Selman, R. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press. Selman, R.L., & Byrne, D.F. (1974). A structural-developmental analysis of levels of role-taking in middle childhood. Child Development, 45, 803-806. Shantz, C. (1983). Social cognition. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology, 4th ed. (pp. 495-555). New York: Wiley. Smither, S. (1977). A reconsideration of the developmental study of empathy. Human Development, 20, 253-276. Stetler, C.B. (1977). Relationship of perceived empathy to nurses' communication. Nursing Research, 26 (6), 432-438. Travelbee, J. (1966). Interpersonal aspects of nursing. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis. Truax, C.B., & Carkhuff, R.R. (1967). Toward effective counseling and psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine. Urburg, K.A., & Docherty, E.M. (1976). Development of role-taking s k i l l s in young children. Developmental Psychology, 12, 198-203. Zimmerman, B. (1980) . Teaching empathy to baccalaureate nursing students (Doctorial dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 1314B. 77 Dear Student: APPENDIX A For my Master's thesis in the Department of Counselling Psychology at U.B.C, I am gathering data about how nursing students learn about the concept of empathy. I am focusing specifically on which developmental factors enhance and/or inhibit the a b i l i t y to understand and'to demonstrate empathy in interaction with patients. Empathy is considered to be an essential element in nurse-patient relationships, yet very l i t t l e has been written about what factors f a c i l i t a t e empathy in beginning nurses. Your participation in this project is important because your experiences can provide valuable insights about how nursing students learn about empathy and they can point to new teaching strategies that w i l l f a c i l i t a t e this learning. The Associate Dean of Nursing has given me permission to approach you regarding participation in this project. This w i l l involve completing: 1. A measure of empathic communication; 2. A Biographical Data Sheet; 3. The Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning (ATFR). In the f i r s t session you w i l l view a videotape of 10.different patient statements. Your task is to write an empathic response to each one of them. This w i l l take approximately 1 hour for you to complete. The ATFR w i l l be done in the second session. It is a 32 item, multiple- choice paper and pencil test that measures your reasoning and problem solving a b i l i t y . It w i l l take approximately 45 minutes for you to complete i t . Finally, you w i l l be asked to complete a Biographical Data Sheet which w i l l allow me to ensure that the subjects in the study are as similar to each other as possible. This w i l l take less than 5 minutes to complete. Your responses on a l l the variables w i l l be kept confidential. No information about your scores or responses w i l l be given to the faculty or staff of B.C.I.T. You have the right to refuse to participate or to withdraw from any part of the project at any time; such refusal or withdrawal w i l l not influence your class standing in any way. Dates, times and locations for the two sessions w i l l be announced shortly in your nursing class. If you are willing to participate i n the project, please attend the sessions. I realize that your schedule at B.C.I.T. is very busy and I appreciate your interest in this project. A summary of the results of the research w i l l be made available through the office of the Associate Dean of Nursing. 78 APPENDIX A (cont'd...) This study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Richard Young of the Department of Counselling Psychology, U.B.C. • Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Kathy Doyle 79 APPENDIX B Empathic Unders tand ing i n I n t e r p e r s o n a l Processes a Sca le f o r Measurement Level 1 The verbal and behavioral expressions of the helper either do not attend to or detract significantly from the verbal and behavioral expressions of the helpee(s) in that they communicate significantly less of the helpee's feelings and experiences than the helpee has communicated himself. Example: The helper communicates no awareness of even the most obvious, expressed surface feelings of the helpee. The helper may be bored or disinterested or simply operating from a preconceived frame of reference which totally excludes that of the helpee(s). In summary, the helper does everything but express that he is listening, understanding, or being sensitive to even the most obvious feelings of the helpee in such a way as to detract significantly from the communications of the helpee. Level 2 While the helper responds to the expressed feelings of the helpee(s), he does so in such a way that he subtracts noticeable affect from the communications of the helpee. Example: The helper may communicate some awareness of obvious, surface feelings of the helpee but his communications drain off a level of the affect and distort the level of meaning. The helper may communicate his own ideas of what may be going on, but these are not congruent with the expressions of the helpee. In summary, the helper tends to respond to other than what the helpee is expressing or indicating. Level 3 The expressions of the helper in response to the expressions of the helpee(s) are essentially interchangeable with those of the helpee in that they express essentially the same affect and meaning. Example: The helper responds with accurate understanding of the .surface feelings of the helpee but may not respond to or may misinterpret the deeper feelings. 80 APPENDIX B (cont'd...) In summary, the helper is responding so as to neither subtract from nor add to the expressions of the helpee. He does not respond accurately to how that person really feels beneath the surface feelings; but he indicates a willingness and openness to do so. Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of f a c i l i t a t i v e interpersonal functioning. Level 4 The responses of the helper add noticeably to the expressions of the helpee(s) in such a way as to express feelings a level deeper than the helpee was able to express himself. Example: The helper communicates his understanding of the expressions of the helpee at a level deeper than they were expressed and thus enables the helpee to experience and/or express feelings he was unable to express previously. In summary, the helper's responses add deeper feeling and meaning to the expressions of the helpee. Level 5 The helper's responses add significantly to the feeling and meaning of the expressions of the helpee(s) in such a way as to accurately express feelings levels below what the helpee himself was able to express or, in the event of on going, deep self-exploration on the helpee's part, to be full y with him in his deepest moments. Example: The helper responds with accuracy to a l l of the helpee's deeper as well as surface feelings. He is "tuned i n " on the helpee's wave length. The helper and helpee might proceed together to explore previously unexplored areas of human existence. In summary, the helper is responding with a f u l l awareness of who the other person is and with a comprehensive and accurate empathic understanding of that individual's deepest feelings. Carkhuff, 1969. 81 APPENDIX C D i r e c t i o n s and S c r i p t f o r V ideotape of P a t i e n t S t imu lus Exp ress ions The following vignettes or scenes portray statements or expressions by a patient, of feelings and content related to some aspect of her or hi hospitalization. You may conceive of the patient as a patient to whom you are assigned and to whom you want to be helpful, specifically empathic. An empathic response is one in which you convey to the patient, in way that she or he can understand, your understanding of her or his feelings, thoughts and behaviour. There are 10 vignettes or scenes in this exercise. Your task is to view each scene attentively and then to write an empathic response to the patient. Write your responses in the spaces provided in the response booklet. VIGNETTE 1 The person speaking is this scene is Mrs. Simpson the mother of a 6 year old boy who has been in the hospital for investigation of possible cystic fibrosis. It has been determined that he had pneumonia and he is being discharged today. Mrs. Simpson: "This is the best news I've had in two weeks. I've been so worried thinking the worst a l l the time. My husband and I tried to be calm about Jim being in hospital but we were getting pretty i r r i t a b l e with one another. It's just so wonderful he's okay and we can go home." VIGNETTE 2 In this scene the patient is Mrs. Brown, a woman who is dying from long-standing cardiac and respiratory problems. Mrs. Brown: "I can understand i t from my children but not from my husband. I know I'm dying. But he comes here with a brave smile every day, hiding what he feels. We never talk about my dying. I know he's trying to protect me but i t ' s so unreal. I don't t e l l him that his constant cheerfulness and his refusal to talk about my sickness are actually painful to me. I'm being careful of him." 82 APPENDIX C (cont'd...) VIGNETTE 3 Mr. Martin is the patient in this scene. He is a 28 year old man who has been in the hospital for 2 weeks for investigation and treatment of leukemia. You have just brought his lunch to him. Mr. Martin: "This place is driving me crazy. I can't stand i t . I feel like a guinea pig. First a bunch of doctors come in and look at me and talk about me. then they give me a student nurse, who looks like she's afraid of me. They a l l pretend they know so much but they don't know anything about me. They don't want to." VIGNETTE 4 The patient in this scene is Mrs. Jones. She is 42 years old and has been admitted to the hospital today for treatment of ulcerative c o l i t i s . You have just told her when visiting hours are. Mrs. Jones: "I hope they a l l stay away. I'm always in the middle. The kids complain about my husband and then he complains about them and blames me when he can't manage them. I could walk out on them right now. Who the hell do they think they are?" VIGNETTE 5 Mrs. Lee is the patient in this scene. She is a 55 year old woman who has been in hospital for 6 weeks because of a stroke. Mrs. Lee "I'm so excited to be going home. For awhile things weren't looking so good and I didn't know i f I'd ever get home. Being able to get a homemaker has made a l l the difference. I know things w i l l be different since I've been sick but i t ' s like a second lease on l i f e . " 83 APPENDIX C (cont'd...) VIGNETTE 6 The patient you w i l l see in this scene is Mr. Gold. He has arthritis and has been hospitalized for 1 month. He needs assistance with many activities including dressing and getting in and out of bed. You have just answered his c a l l b e l l . Mr. Gold: "Who do you think you are! You c a l l yourself a nurse? Here I am in pain most of the time having to wait around ' t i l you can find the time in your busy schedule to help me out. You don't think of me one minute. A l l you can think of is when you're getting off work. Well I'm sick of you and this place. Get out of here." VIGNETTE 7 Mr. Sawchuck is the patient in this scene. He has just learned that he has lung cancer. Mr. Sawchuck: "Why me? Why me? I'm not even that old. And I don't even smoke. Look at me. I thought I had some guts. I'm just a slobbering mess. What are these next months going to be li k e ! " VIGNETTE 8 The patient in this scene is Mr. Whelan. You have just said 'good morning' to him and told him you'll be his nurse today. Mr. Whelan: "I'm so happy you're my nurse today. I get the feeling you like your job. You're a good listener and you seem to understand me so well. I feel great when you're on duty." 84 APPENDIX C (cont'd...) VIGNETTE 9 The patient you w i l l see in this scene is Miss McLeod. She is a 55 year old woman who is having a breast biopsy the next morning. You have just brought her a sedative to help her sleep. Miss McLeod: I don't know what to expect after the operation. I've never had an operation before and this is even worse than an ordinary operation. The doctor explained a l l the alternatives to me but i t ' s just too much to think about." VIGNETTE 10 The person who is speaking in this scene is Mr. Bryant. He is the father of an 11 year old g i r l who was hit by a car. Mr. Bryant: "I should never have let her go to the movies alone. I don't know what my wife w i l l say when she gets here. She says I'm careless - but being careless with the kids - that's something else! I almost feel as i f I'd broken Karen's arm, not the guy in the car. 85 APPENDIX D CONSENT FORM P r e d i c t o r s o f B n p a t h i c I n t e r a c t i v e S k i l l s I n D i p l o m a N u r s i n g S t u d e n t s The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of level of cognitive development, age, and an interactive s k i l l s training program on nursing" students' a b i l i t y to interact empathically. The specific focus of the research is on cognitive developmental factors which enhance and/or inhibit the ab i l i t y to understand and to demonstrate empathy in interactions with patients. Participation in this research requires that subjects complete the following: 1. The Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning (45 minutes); 2. A measure of empathic communication (1 hour); 3. A biographical data sheet (5 minutes). The subjects' responses and scores w i l l be kept confidential. Subjects' responses and scores w i l l be rated and recorded by number and not name. No information about individual responses or scores w i l l be given to faculty or staff of B.C.I.T. In an effort to ensure that subjects fu l l y understand the purpose and procedures of the research, the investigator w i l l answer subjects' questions prior to participation and w i l l provide opportunity for individual or group discussion following participation. Subjects have the right to refuse to participate or to withdraw from any part of the research at any time; such refusal or withdrawal w i l l not influence subjects' class standing in any way. I consent to participate in the above research and I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this consent form. Investigator: Katherine Doyle M.A. Candidate Department of Counselling Psychology, U.B.C. Date Name Signature 86 A P P E N D I X E B i o g r a p h i c a l D a t a S h e e t Please answer the following questions on the answer sheet provided. Print your name and your birthdate in the space provided on the answer sheet. 1. In which term of the nursing program are you currently registered? a. 1 b. 3 c. 4 2. What sex are you? a. Female b. Male 3. How many f u l l academic years of post-secondary education (exclusive of the BCIT General Nursing program) have you completed? a. 0 c. 2 e. 4 g. 6 b. 1 d. 3 f. 5 h. 7 4. Have you repeated any nursing courses in the BCIT General Nursing program? a. yes b. no 5. Have you trained or worked as a nurse, a nurse aide or a practical nurse for one year or more? a. yes b. no 6. Are you an R.P.N.? a. yes b. no Thank you for participating in this research. 87

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 20 29
United States 17 28
Qatar 1 0
France 1 0
Germany 1 4
Hong Kong 1 0
Russia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 20 0
Unknown 8 31
Menlo Park 3 0
Port Isabel 2 1
Washington 2 0
Savannah 2 0
Houston 1 0
Cypress 1 0
Orlando 1 0
Central District 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items