A Scale to Measure Attitudes about Nonprodecural Touch

Abstract

The concept of touch has long been accepted as a basic and universal tenet of nursing practice. Many scholars have attempted to define touch within the context of its intention. Cashar and Dixson (1967) compartmentalized the use of touch into three broad but distinct categories: reality orienting, support and physical protection. Krieger (1975) further categorizes another aspect of the concept as therapeutic touch, or a laying on of hands - a method of energy transference from the healer to the patient to assist in the process of healing. Mitchell, Haberman-Little, Johnson, Van Inwegen-Scott, and Tyler (1985) and Watson (1975) limit the categories to include only instrumental and affective touch. Instrumental or procedural touch is defined as deliberate physical contact for performance of a skill. Affective or nonprocedural touch is seen as spontaneous and not required for the performance of a nursing intervention (Mitchell, et al., 1985; Watson, 1975). An in-depth search of the literature, on both procedural and nonprocedural touch, revealed extensive studies and research on the value of physical contact as a means of communicating, establishing rapport or developing verbal behaviour with clients. Pratt and Mason (1981, 1984) and Watson (1975) examined the touch concept from the perspective of its meaning and significance. Aguilera (1967), Burnside (1973) and Preston (1973) were able to demonstrate some measure of success in communicating through touch with regressed patients. McCorkle (1974) investigated the effects of touch as a form of nonverbal communication with seriously ill clients, and found that the use of touch is important for the client as it demonstrates the caring attitude of the nurse. Though nonprocedural touch is of major importance in the nurse-client relationship, little has been done that investigates the client's attitude to this form of touch.