Communication Research Measures III

A Sourcebook

Elizabeth E. Graham, Joseph P. Mazer, Elizabeth E. Graham, Joseph P. Mazer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351397131
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Building on the measures included in the original 1994 volume and subsequent 2009 volume, Communication Research Measures III: A Sourcebook extends its coverage of measurement issues and trends across the entire communication discipline.

Volume III features entirely new content and offers an assessment of new measures in mass, interpersonal, instructional, group, organizational, family, health, and intercultural communication and highlights work in emergent subdisciplines in communication, including social media and new communication technologies, sports communication, and public relations. The "best of the best" from 2009 through today, the profiled research measures in Volume III serve as models for future scale development and constitute the main tools that researchers can use for self-administered measurement of people's attitudes, conceptions of themselves, and perceptions of others.

This book is ideal for undergraduate and graduate courses that emphasize quantitative research methods, measurement, and/or survey design across communication studies disciplines.

Part I

Measurement Trends and Issues

Measurement in Interpersonal Communication

Carolyn K. Shue and Glen H. Stamp

It has been 25 years since Volume I of the sourcebook was published and 10 years since Volume II was published. As the authors of the chapter on measures of interpersonal communication in Volume III of the Communication Research Measures sourcebook, we had the advantage of two previous chapter reviews to serve as models and were faced with the challenge of offering new insights for researchers in the field to consider. This was no easy task considering the volume of previous work. Drawing from past research with the goal of extending the discussion, in Volume III we offer a review of our scale identification and inclusion process, reflect on changes to the discipline that impact the domain of interpersonal communication measurement, and highlight measurement considerations tied to current instruments while offering recommendations for future scale development and validation.

Identification and Inclusion Process

To identify potential scales for review and analysis, we searched the Communication and Mass Media Complete database from 1990 to 2017 using such terms as “scale,” “scale development,” “measure,” and “instrument”; we also searched the reference pages of promising articles. To be included on our initial list of measures, the scale needed to assess an interpersonal communication concept, be validated in a relational context, and be developed primarily in the communication discipline. We focused on scales published in journals versus scales from conference papers given journals’ in-depth review processes. Our initial data set consisted of 58 scales; we compared the list with the two previous sourcebooks’ table of contents to make sure duplicate scales were not selected for review. Seven of the scales identified in our data set had been previously reviewed in the first or second volumes of the sourcebook.

To determine which of the remaining 51 scales (which included substantially revised versions of previously reviewed scales) would be profiled or reviewed for this volume of the sourcebook, we evaluated each scale’s: (1) validity/reliability; (2a) frequent use in the field or (2b) promise as a new communication instrument; and (3) ability to fill a domain area of measurement not covered in previous sourcebooks. This process resulted in 20 total final scales reviewed for this chapter with 10 of those scales selected for profiling in the sourcebook. Table 1.1 provides a list of the 20 scales, their concept/focus, author(s), and location. Review of the scales to identify measurement trends also resulted in observations related to interpersonal communication’s position in the larger discipline.

Table 1.1 List of 20 interpersonal communication measures reviewed in this chapter; 10 of these measures are profiled in Part II of the present sourcebook volume

NAME OF SCALE	CONCEPT/FOCUS	AUTHOR(S)	JOURNAL
*Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS)	Active-empathic listening – self and other measure	Bodie, G. D.	Communication Quarterly, 59, 277–295
Arguing Goals Scale	General arguing goals during interactions	Cionea, I. A., Hoelscher, C. S., & Iles, I. A.	Communication Reports, 30, 51–65
*Blurting Scale	Spontaneous and unedited speech	Hample, D., Richards, A. S., & Skubisz, C.	Communication Monographs, 80, 503–532
*Communication Anxiety Regulation Scale (CARS)	Emotion regulation strategies to manage acute communication anxiety	White, K. H., Howard, M. C., Zhong, B., Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R., Lee, E. A., Dawson-Andoh, N. A., & Minnick, M. R.	Communication Quarterly, 63, 23–43
Communication Based Emotional Support Scale (CBESS)	Emotional support	Weber, K., Johnson, A., & Corrigan, M.	Communication Research Reports, 21, 316–323
*Communicative Responses to Jealousy (CRJ) scale – revised	Jealousy	Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A.	Communication Methods & Measures, 5, 223–249
Dogmatism Scale	Open- or closed-mindedness	Shearman, S. M., & Levine, T. R.	Communication Quarterly, 54, 275–291
First-Date Goals Index	Social and relational goals for first dates	Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, L. F.	Communication Monographs, 71, 121–147
Lie Acceptability	Attitudes about deceptive communication	Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R.	Communication Research Reports, 25, 282–288
Narrative Believability Scale (NBS-12)	Acceptance of narratives as true	Yale, R. N.	Journal of Communication, 63, 578–599
Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS)	Nonverbal immediacy – self and other measure	Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D.	Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–517
Provider Expressions of Verbal Person-Centeredness (PE-VPC) scale	Verbal person-centeredness, supportive messages	Harvey-Knowles, J. & Faw, M.	Communication Reports, 29, 35–49
*Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness (REP) scale	Viewing and treating romantic partners as property	Hannawa, A. F., & Spitzberg, B. H.	Communication Methods & Measures, 5, 1–27
*Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure (RMBM)	Relationship maintenance	Stafford, L.	Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303
*Relational Maintenance Communication Scale (RMCS)	Relationship maintenance	Ledbetter, A. M.	Southern Communication Journal, 78, 289–310
*Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS)	Relationship conflict	Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S.	Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1073–1096
State Empathy Scale	Empathy during message processing	Shen, L.	Western Journal of Communication, 74, 504–524
Verbal Rumination (VR) measure	Repetitive speech	Henson, D. F.	Communication Journal of New Zealand, 10, 1–25
*Weak-Tie/Strong-Tie Scale (W/STS)	Social support network preference	Wright, K. B., & Miller, C. H.	Communication Monographs, 77, 500–517
*Willingness to Self-Censor Scale (WTSCS)	Individual expression given public opinion	Hayes, A. F., Uldall, B. R., & Glynn, C. J.	Communication Methods & Measures, 4, 256–272

* Indicates that this measure is profiled in Part II of this book

Evolving Discipline and Interpersonal Communication Measurement

Since the first volume of the sourcebook (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994), the way the communication discipline is organized has changed. For example, in the 1994 sourcebook, there were four context domains and in the 2009 sourcebook (Rubin, Rubin, Graham, Perse, & Seibold, 2009), there were seven context domains. In Volume III of the sourcebook, there are now 11 context domains. This context expansion demonstrates a simultaneous broadening and specialization of research in the field. The interpersonal communication domain focuses on a context (i.e., relationships) and/or process (e.g., maintenance, support) and/or concept (e.g., satisfaction, jealousy, empathy). Yet, as individual contexts are established as independent domains, relationships that would have been studied within the interpersonal communication context, such as parent–child, patient–physician, and subordinate–supervisor, have been removed and broadened into their own contexts: family, health, and organizational communication. Consequently, the exploration of traditional interpersonal communication constructs in other contexts and the development of measures specific to those contexts make the discrete classification of an instrument into the interpersonal context difficult. For example, Myers and Weber’s (2004) measure of siblings’ relational maintenance behaviors would likely have been in the interpersonal domain for the first sourcebook but now would be classified within the family communication domain.

It makes sense that some relationships, which have been the foundation of interpersonal communication study, are now classified more specifically into different contextual domains given the unique influence of context. For example, different factors within parent–child and patient–physician relationships impact conflict processes in specific, often varied, ways. In addition, traditional interpersonal communication concepts occur in relationships regardless of context. For example, satisfaction is an important, often studied, construct in dating relationships and friendships. Satisfaction also plays a significant role in patient–physician relationships and often serves as a quality measure for medical practices. The specialization of the discipline is reflective of improved understanding of the influence of a particular context on interpersonal relationships and intrinsically ties interpersonal communication to other domains.

Along with a broadening of the discipline to include greater contextual specialization, there have also been methodological developments. While our discipline has always embraced rhetorical, qualitative, and quantitative methodologies, we have seen further development and adoption of a variety of methodological approaches along with increases in multimethod studies. For example, in several of the instruments we reviewed, researchers developed the items based on participants’ reports of their lived experience (e.g., Arguing Goals Scale: Cionea, Hoelscher, & Iles͉, 2017; Romantic Partner Conflict Scale: Zacchilli, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2009) and sought participants’ views regarding the soundness of the scale items (e.g., Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure [RMBM]: Stafford, 2010). There has also been an increase in the expectations for methodologically rigorous work and guidance through published methods articles. This expectation and guidance is exemplified in the establishment of the journal Communication Methods and Measures in 2007, which discusses and disseminates measurement tools and approaches while also offering suggestions for improving research design and analysis. Methods articles provide arguments for measurement design best practices along with accessible instruction for implementation of the suggestions.

For example, Carpenter (2018) demonstrated through a quantitative content analysis inconsistent scale development practices in the communication discipline. She delineated 10 best practice steps for researchers to follow with the goal of developing stronger instruments that add meaningfully to communication knowledge. Levine (2005) advocated for the use of confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) to determine scale dimensionality and validity to improve the quantitative measurement of communication constructs. A majority of the scales we reviewed did employ CFA during the scale development process, while those that did not (e.g., First-Date Goals Index: Mongeau, Serewicz, & Therrien, 2004) acknowledged the limitation and provided a rationale for the omission. Levine, Hullett, Turner, and Lapinski (2006) extended the case for using CFA, arguing that researchers should conduct this analysis when using existing and previously validated scales. According to Levine et al., a published scale does not always mean a good scale and CFA can provide evidence that the factor structure can be replicated across participants and studies, offering additional confidence in the scale. CFA can also provide an empirically grounded justification for altering a scale to achieve model fit, which increases confidence in the study findings. Wigley (2011) discussed the use, and at times misuse, of Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of reliability as well as Likert scale use in communication trait research (Wigley, 2013). Wigley (2011, 2013) framed his discussions in terms of myths providing arguments for both dispelling the myths and adopting analysis practices that strengthen empirical findings.

Measurement Considerations

It is in the footsteps of this work that we offer observations about scale development in the interpersonal communication domain, organized around the following questions: What are we intending to measure? How are we creating our measurement tools? And how do we ensure our measurement tools remain relevant and useful amid a changing relational landscape? To answer these questions, we examine three areas related to the scales we reviewed: conceptual definitions, theoretical issues, and operational definitions; scale development and validation; and relevancy and utility.

Conceptual Definitions, Theoretical Issues, and Operational Definitions

Our examination of the scales led us to the following conclusions related to conceptual definitions, theoretical issues, and operational definitions. First, the articles typically have a clear definition of constructs, with some having a connection to theory. Second, there is still a significant focus on individual predispositions/traits, though some do attempt to focus on relational issues. Third, careful attention was given to ensure items clearly represented the scope of attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors demonstrating the concept. Fourth, researchers use both high and low-inference measures.

The scales reviewed demonstrated a uniform adherence to defining the constructs pertaining to the research and, where appropriate, connecting the development of the scale to theory. Three of the articles developed scales pertaining to emotion: Communication Anxiety Regulation Scale (White et al., 2015), Communication Based Emotional Support Scale (Weber, Johnson, & Corrigan, 2004), and the State Empathy Scale (Shen, 2010). In each case, the construct is defined and grounded in research. For example, White et al. (2015) examined the research on anxiety, particularly from within the communication discipline, by providing a definition of communication apprehension, and comparing and contrasting anxiety and apprehension. The construct was also examined from a state and trait perspective, leading the researchers to delineate communication anxiety (a state-like experience) from communication apprehension (a trait-like experience).

Other research is firmly grounded in appropriate theory. In the development of the Blurting Scale (Hample, Richards, & Sku...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Editors and Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I: MEASUREMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES
• Part II: MEASURE PROFILES
• Author Index
• Subject Index