Communication Research Measures II

A Sourcebook

Rebecca B. Rubin, Alan M Rubin, Elizabeth E. Graham, Elizabeth M. Perse, David Seibold

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781135231439
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Expanding and building on the measures included in the original 1994 volume, Communication Research Measures II: A Sourcebook provides new measures in mass, interpersonal, instructional, and group/organizational communication areas, and highlights work in newer subdisciplines in communication, including intercultural, family, and health. It also includes measures from outside the communication discipline that have been employed in communication research.

The measures profiled here are "the best of the best" from the early 1990s through today. They are models for future scale development as well as tools for the trade, and they constitute the main tools that researchers can use for self-administered measurement of people's attitudes, conceptions of themselves, and perceptions of others. The focus is on up-to-date measures and the most recent scales and indexes used to assess communication variables.

Providing suggestions for measurement of concepts of interest to researchers; inspiring students to consider research directions not considered previously; and supplying models for scale developers to follow in terms of the work necessary to produce a valid and reliable measurement instrument in the discipline, the authors of this key resource have developed a significant contribution toward improving measurement and providing measures for better science.

Part I
Measurement Trends and Issues

Measurement in Family Communication

Elizabeth E. Graham and Joseph P. Mazer

Family communication has been the subject of academic inquiry for several years, yet, by scholarly standards, family communication is a relative newcomer (Segrin, 2006). Initially organized as an interest group in the National Communication Association (NCA) in 1989 (Whitchurch, 1993) and later a division in 1995 (Whitchurch & Dickson, 1999), at present, NCA is the only communication association that includes a family division.

In Volume 1 of Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994), family communication measures were not specifically featured but rather were subsumed in the interpersonal section of the book. Since that time, research has blossomed and therefore an independent chapter is devoted to the study and measurement of family communication. The scope of this chapter is limited to a discussion of quantitative issues in the conduct of family communication research focusing specifically on measurement indices and scales.

Criteria Employed for Measure Selection and Subsequent Profiling

Decisions regarding selection of measures for inclusion in this current effort will mirror the criteria employed in the first volume, subject to a few notable changes. In addition to meeting the standards of sufficient reliability and validity, which often results in frequency of use, attention was afforded to measures that offer “promise.” It is important to note that instruments developed prior to the publication of the first volume in 1994, but not widely employed, were subject to consideration for inclusion in the second volume. It is quite possible that the time between when a measure was introduced to the discipline and its subsequent use in research is not

Note: Measures that are profiled in this volume (in Part II) are typed in capital letters when cited in the text.

amenable to the timeframe of the publication of Volumes 1 and 2. For example, The REVISED FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS INSTRUMENT developed in 1990 by Ritchie and Fitzpatrick was not profiled in the interpersonal section of Volume 1 (although it was featured in the Mass Communication section) because it had not enjoyed widespread use. However, since the publication of the first volume this measure has become a mainstay in family communication research and does warrant inclusion in Volume 2. In sum then, the focus in Volume 2 is on newer measures (post 1994) although instruments developed prior to this date were also considered for inclusion in this volume.

Many instruments have been employed in the conduct of family communication research, however only those measures with an explicitly stated family focus and function are highlighted in this chapter. As a consequence of this refined view, the family communication measures featured in this volume include: the CHILD—PARENT COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION SCALE (Lucchetti, Powers, & Love, 2002); INDIVIDUALS’ CRITERIA FOR TELLING FAMILY SECRETS (Vangelisti, Caughlin, & Timmerman, 2001); the REVISED FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS INSTRUMENT (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990), and the FAMILY COMMUNICATION STANDARDS INSTRUMENT (Caughlin, 2003). Detailed profiles of these instruments are available in Part II of this volume.

Methodological Trends in Family Communication Research

In an effort to contextualize family communication scholarship, researchers have canvassed the communication literature and concluded that the majority of research conducted between 1990 and 2001 is dominated by empirically oriented work, guided by systems theory, attachment theory, symbolic interaction, and social exchange theory (Duck & Crumm, 2004; Stamp, 2004). Our post 2001 analysis of the literature supports these findings and reveals additional topics of interest to family communication scholars.¹ Specifically, Family Communication Patterns, and its attendant measure, the REVISED FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS INSTRUMENT (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990), have been used extensively in family research.² Marital and family satisfaction, a mainstay in communication scholarship and a key barometer of relationship and communication quality, continue to be salient concerns in family studies.³ Furthermore, our review of recent literature reveals a “marriage” of sorts between family and health communication which reflects the extent to which issues of wellness have pervaded our collective consciousness.⁴

Method

Experiments continue to be rare in family communication research as most scholarship reflects quasi-experimental or correlational designs (Metts & Lamb, 2006; Noller & Feeney, 2004). Nonetheless, research in family communication is primarily influenced by a social science/logical empirical perspective (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006) and self-report methods (i.e., survey/questionnaires) are principally the means by which data are gathered (Noller & Feeney, 2004). The shortcomings of self-reports are widely articulated, however the benefits have been afforded much less attention. More important than their efficiency and ease of administration, self-reports permit access to retrospective and prospective affective states and cognitive dispositions not likely to be evidenced in laboratory and observation-oriented research designs (Metts & Lamb, 2006; Metts, Sprecher, & Cupach, 1991; Noller & Feeney, 2004). Furthermore, self-reports are effective in gaining access to private fields that characterize close personal relationships (Baxter, 1992). Family settings, characteristically personal, are private, often inaccessible, and not readily amenable to observational study. It is important to note that despite the methodology and design implemented, the introduction of any intrusive and obtrusive device, instrument, or person into the research mix will likely prompt a reactivity effect and consequently antisocial behaviors, if they do exist, will more than likely be temporarily quelled. Regardless of these shortcomings, self-reports remain foundational in communication research in general and family communication study in particular.

In addition to self-report measures, diaries are a useful method of data collection that permit access to private fields and also offer an in the moment entrée to emotional and cognitive dispositions (Turner & West, 2006). Furthermore, diaries are well suited to process-oriented research, so coveted and rather absent in communication studies. Although not their stated purpose, one means of alleviating the tendency of participants to neglect recording entries in their diary, Huston and his colleagues telephoned couples nine evenings over the course of a few weeks in an effort to assess their marital satisfaction (Huston, McHale, & Crouter, 1986). As Turner and West (2006) pointed out, diaries are well-suited to capture the everyday mundane aspect of family life not amenable to survey research methods.

Numerous coding/rating systems have been developed in family communication that we could not consider in this volume because of space constrictions. For example, Pecchioni and Nussbaum (2001) assessed behaviors for exhibited conflict and control strategies in mother-daughter dyads. Gottman, Levenson, and Woodin (2001) coded married couples’ facial expressions from videotape and Heatherington, Escudero, and Friedlander (2005) analyzed relational control behavior during problem discussions between engaged couples. In an interesting application of narrative theory, Kellas (2005) employed videotaped storytelling to explore family identity construction. Ideally, insider (self-report) and outsider (observational studies) are best used in conjunction and offer a degree of internal and external validity that independently each method cannot (Noller & Feeney, 2004).

Sample

The reliance on convenient samples remains prevalent in family communication research (see Basil, Brown, & Bocarnea, 2002 for a discussion of convenience samples). Historically, convenience samples produced equal representation of men and women. This parity is no longer possible as the percentage of male undergraduates dropped 24% from 1970 to 2000. Indeed, the gender balance at many state universities represents a 60–40 split (Ange Peterson, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 2006). Consequently, if we continue to tap students as participants in our research, we need to be aware of a female bias. Interestingly, access to non-student populations is often the result of sampling student populations. In other words, we enlist the assistance of college students in an effort to garner the participation of an adult population. This practice can generate a duplicative, though older, demographic segment of society.

Despite Fitzpatrick’s (2006) advice to draw representative samples that feature a diverse sample adequate in size to ferret out similarities and differences in families, we persist in privileging the voice of middle class, educated, white, Christian, heterosexual men and women in our research. However, a few scholars have integrated diverse samples in the study of family communication. Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Chew-Sanchez, Harris, Wilcox, and Stumpf (2003) explored face and facework in conflict with parents and siblings and their sample included individuals from Germany and Japan. In a similar vein, Weiner, Silk, and Parrott (2005) examined African Americans and European Americans’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with human genetics and the impact of family communication on such issues. In addition, researchers have explored conflict styles in Chinese parent-child relationships (Zhang, 2007) and communication patterns, advertising attitudes, and mediation behaviors among Indian mothers in urban India (Mukherji, 2005).

While a majority of family communication scholarship has favored heterosexual relationships within the traditional husband-wife dyad (Turner & West, 2003), there has been a subtle shift to “widen the circle of family communication” (Floyd & Morman, 2006, p. xv). For example, the study of understudied family forms has featured same-sex families (Haas & Stafford, 2005; Turner & West, 2003), postmarital families (Afifi & McManus, 2006; Graham, 2003), stepfamilies (Braithwaite, Schrodt, & Baxter, 2006), racially and ethnically diverse families (Sabourin, 2003), families formed through adoption (Galvin, 2006), and aging in families (Hummert, 2007). Investigating diverse family configurations is part of “expanding the social recipe” (Turner & West, 2006, p. 206) in family life and ongoing empirical efforts will illuminate the nuances of these growing yet historically neglected family forms and issues.

Reliability

When James McCroskey was named editor of Human Communication Research in 1977, he required authors to report reliability estimates for measures used in the research (McCroskey, 2006), and consequently most communication journals featuring social scientific scholarship today require reliability disclosures. Our review of family communication measures reveals that Cronbach’s (1951) alpha is the most frequently employed measure of internal consistency. Other measures of reliability such as split-half estimates are rarely used as Cronbach’s alpha is recognized as a superior measure of internal consistency. Test-retest methods of assessing reliability are also seldom employed (for exceptions see Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) in family communication research and perhaps this is because stability rather than change is a featured priority. Although problems with reliability are largely a problem of the past (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000), issues of validity have been less easily resolved.

Validity

Our analysis of the literature reveals that instrument developmen...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Authors and Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I MEASUREMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES
• Part II MEASURE PROFILES
• Part III IMPORTED MEASURES