(Download PDF) Communication Research Measures Iii A Sourcelizabeth E Graham Full Chapter PDF

Communication Research Measures III:
A Sourcebook Elizabeth E. Graham

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/communication-research-measures-iii-a-sourcebook-
elizabeth-e-graham/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Research Co-Production in Healthcare Ian D. Graham
https://ebookmass.com/product/research-co-production-in-
healthcare-ian-d-graham/
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology - E-Book Elizabeth

A. Layden
https://ebookmass.com/product/clinical-obstetrics-and-
gynaecology-e-book-elizabeth-a-layden/
Sourcebook for research in music Crabtree
https://ebookmass.com/product/sourcebook-for-research-in-music-
crabtree/
The Art of the Occult: A Visual Sourcebook for the

Modern Mystic S. Elizabeth
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-art-of-the-occult-a-visual-
sourcebook-for-the-modern-mystic-s-elizabeth/
The sourcebook for clinical research : a practical
guide for study conduct Martien
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-sourcebook-for-clinical-
research-a-practical-guide-for-study-conduct-martien/
Abnormal Psychology: Leading Research Perspectives 4th

Edition Elizabeth Rieger
https://ebookmass.com/product/abnormal-psychology-leading-
research-perspectives-4th-edition-elizabeth-rieger/
The Science of Religion, Spirituality, and

Existentialism Kenneth E. Vail Iii
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-science-of-religion-
spirituality-and-existentialism-kenneth-e-vail-iii/
Interpersonal Relationships: Professional Communication

Skills for Nurses 7th Edition Elizabeth Arnold
https://ebookmass.com/product/interpersonal-relationships-
professional-communication-skills-for-nurses-7th-edition-
elizabeth-arnold/
Interpersonal Relationships_ Professional Communication

Skills for Canadian Nurses Elizabeth C. Arnold
https://ebookmass.com/product/interpersonal-relationships_-
professional-communication-skills-for-canadian-nurses-elizabeth-
c-arnold/
Communication Research
Measures III
Building on the measures included in the original 1994 volume and subse-
quent 2009 volume, Communication Research Measures III: A Sourcebook
extends its coverage of measurement issues and trends across the entire com-
munication 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 meas-
ures in Volume III serve as models for future scale development and consti-
tute the main tools that researchers can use for self-administered
measurement of people’s attitudes, conceptions of themselves, and percep-
tions 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.
Elizabeth E. Graham (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is Professor and

Director of the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.
Beth’s research interests include three foci: (1) family communication pat-
terns, particularly relationships in families experiencing transition and redef-
inition; (2) student learning and engagement; and (3) measurement and data
analytic issues and trends in communication research. Her work has
appeared in Communication Monographs, Communication Education,
Communication Quarterly, Western Journal of Communication, Journal of
Family Communication, Communication Reports, Communication
Research Reports, and other communication-related journals. She has
authored/co-authored several books and book chapters and co-edited Com-
munication Research Measures I and II: A Sourcebook.
Joseph P. Mazer (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2010) is Professor and Chair
of the Department of Communication at Clemson University. Joe’s
research interests include communication in teaching and learning con-
texts, social media and new technologies, and measurement issues and
trends in communication research. He has authored or co-authored
over 80 research articles, book chapters, and books and has been
ranked in the top 1% of prolific scholars in the communication discip-
line for the past 10 years. A recent study named him among the top five
influential scholars in instructional communication. He recently com-
pleted terms as editor of the Basic Communication Course Annual and
consulting editor for forums for Communication Education.
Routledge Communication Series
Jennings Bryant/Dolf Zillmann Series Editors
Selected titles include:

Public Relations and Social Theory
Key Figures, Concepts and Developments, 2nd Edition
Edited by Øyvind Ihlen and Magnus Fredriksson
Family Communication, 3rd Edition

Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora
Advertising Theory, 2nd Edition
Shelley Rodgers and Esther Thorson
An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research,
3rd Edition
Edited by Don W. Stacks, Michael B. Salwen, and Kristen C. Eichhorn
Analyzing Media Messages, 4th Edition

Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research
Daniel Riffe, Stephen Lacy, Brendan R. Watson, and Frederick Fico
The Media Handbook

A Complete Guide to Advertising Media Selection, Planning, Research, and
Buying
Helen Katz
Media Effects, 4th Edition
Advances in Theory and Research
Edited by Mary Beth Oliver, Arthur A. Raney, and Jennings Bryant
Communication Research Measures III
A Sourcebook
Edited by Elizabeth E. Graham and Joseph P. Mazer
For a full list of titles please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-
Communication-Series/book-series/RCS.
Communication Research
Measures III
A Sourcebook
Edited by Elizabeth E. Graham

and Joseph P. Mazer
First edition published 2020
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
The right of Elizabeth E. Graham and Joseph P. Mazer to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the
authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-138-30440-6 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-30441-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-73018-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK
We dedicate Communication Research Measures III: A Sourcebook to
all measurement scholars whose work aided our quest for know-
ledge about measurement and communication. We especially want
to acknowledge Rebecca B. Rubin whose vision of a compendium
of communication measures put this series in motion. She set the
standard, we just followed her lead.
Contents
Editors and Contributors xiii

Preface xix
Acknowledgments xx
Introduction xxi
Part I
MEASUREMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES
Measurement in Interpersonal Communication 3

Carolyn K. Shue and Glen H. Stamp
Measurement in Family Communication 20
Jeffrey T. Child and Shawn C. Starcher
Measurement in Health Communication 36
Nichole Egbert and Catherine E. Goodall
Measurement in Instructional Communication 54
Joseph P. Mazer and Elizabeth E. Graham
Measurement in Intergroup Communication 70
Angela M. Hosek and Valerie Rubinsky
Measurement in Organizational Communication 82
Heather L. Walter and Andrea L. Meluch
Measurement in Sport Communication 94
Bryan E. Denham
Measurement in Public Relations 108
Kathleen Stansberry
Measurement in Computer-Mediated Communication 120
Nicholas David Bowman and Cathlin V. Clark-Gordon
x Contents
Measurement in Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication 141

Stephen M. Croucher and Stephanie Kelly
Measurement in Mass Communication 160
Tang Tang and L. Meghan Mahoney
Part II
MEASURE PROFILES
Active-Empathic Listening Scale 175

Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment 182
Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale 187
Blurting Scale 190
Classroom Emotions Scale 195
Coach Confirmation Instrument 202
Cognitive Learning Measure 207
Communication Anxiety Regulation Scale 212
Communicative Responses to Jealousy Scale 217
Crisis Responsibility Scale 225
Digital Games Motivation Scale 231
Electronic Propinquity Scale 237
Expected Interactivity Scale 240
Face Concerns Scale 245
Facebook Intensity Measure 251
Facebook Relational Maintenance Measure 255
Family Privacy Orientations 259
Fear of Missing Out Scale 265
Instructional Dissent Scale 268
Instructor Misbehaviors Scale 273
Instructor–Student Rapport Scale 279
Intergroup Anxiety Scale 284
Leader–Member Conversational Quality Scale 290
Contents xi
Measure of Online Communication Attitude 295

Motivation Scale for Fantasy Football Participation 299
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure Revised 304
Narrative Engagement Scale 309
Organizational Assimilation Index 315
Organization–Public Dialogic Communication Scale 321
Overparenting Measure 329
Parental Academic Support Scale 335
Parental Challenge Questionnaire 340
Perceived Parental Media Mediation Scale 346
Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale 353
Perception of Narrative Performance Scale 359
Personal–Enacted Identity Gap Scale 364
Personal–Relational Identity Gap Scale 370
Policy Communication Index 376
Positive and Negative Social Exchanges Scale 381
Public Relations Value Assessment Scale 388
Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness Scale 394
Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure Scale 400
Relational Maintenance Communication Scale 406
Romantic Partner Conflict Scale 413
Second Screening Scale 419
Shared Family Identity Scale 423
Social Capital Affinity Scale 427
Social Media Dependency Scale 432
Sport Media Enjoyment Scale 437
Sport Spectator Identification Scale 441
Sport Twitter Consumption Scale 448
Structurational Divergence Scale 455
xii Contents
Student Academic Support Scale 460

Student Communication Satisfaction Scale 466
Student Engagement Scale 470
Student Interest Scale 474
Student Perceptions of Instructor Understanding Scale 479
Targeted Parent–Child Communication about Alcohol Scale 486
Teacher Technology Policies Instrument 490
Upward Dissent Scale 498
Weak-Tie/Strong-Tie Support Network Preference Scale 503
Willingness to Self-Censor Scale 510
Workplace Communication Behavior Inventory 515
Author Index 521

Subject Index 524
Editors and Contributors
Editors
Elizabeth E. Graham (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is Professor and Dir-
ector of the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.
Beth’s research interests include three foci: (1) family communication pat-
terns; (2) student learning and engagement; and (3) measurement and data
analytic issues and trends in communication research. Her work has
appeared in Communication Monographs, Communication Education,
Communication Quarterly, Western Journal of Communication, Journal of
Family Communication, Communication Reports, Communication Research
Reports and other communication-related journals. She has authored/co-
authored several books and book chapters and co-edited Communication
Research Measures I and II: A Sourcebook.
Joseph P. Mazer (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2010) is Professor and Chair of
the Department of Communication at Clemson University. Joe’s research
interests include communication in teaching and learning contexts, social
media and new technologies, and measurement issues and trends in com-
munication research. He has authored or co-authored over 80 research
articles, book chapters, and books and has been ranked in the top 1%
of prolific scholars in the communication discipline for the past 10 years.
A recent study named him among the top five influential scholars in
instructional communication. He recently completed terms as editor of
the Basic Communication Course Annual and consulting editor for
forums for Communication Education.
Contributors
Nicholas David Bowman (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2010) is an
Associate Professor in the College of Media and Communication at
Texas Tech University. His work examines the cognitive, emotional,
physical, and social demands of interactive media such as social media
and video games. He has published more than 80 journal articles and
xiv Editors and Contributors
presented more than 160 conference papers for regional, national, and
international associations. He is an editor for the Journal of Media
Psychology and Communication Research Reports and is a regular con-
tributor to a number of news media outlets.
Jeffrey T. Child (Ph.D., North Dakota State University, 2007) is a Professor
in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. His
primary research explores privacy regulation, communication technol-
ogy, and interaction. Most recently, his work has focused on how people
manage their privacy and respond to breakdowns in privacy manage-
ment when interacting on social media and the influence of family com-
munication on privacy regulation practices. His research has been
published in journals such as the Journal of Family Communication,
Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Communication Quarterly, and
Communication Studies, among others.
Stephen M. Croucher (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, 2006) is Professor
and Head of the School of Communication, Journalism, and Marketing
at Massey University. He is also the Wellington Regional Director of the
Massey Business School. He researches immigrant cultural adaptation,
religion and communication, statistics, and conflict. He has also explored
how religion influences communication behaviors. He has authored more
than 100 journal articles and book chapters, authored/co-edited 10
books, and given keynote addresses in more than 20 nations. He serves
on the editorial boards of more than 10 journals, and served as the
editor of the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
(2010–2019) and Speaker & Gavel (2010–2015). He is active in the
National Communication Association, International Communication
Association, the World Communication Association, and holds profes-
sorships at the University of Jyväskylä, Universidade Aberta, and the
Universidade de Coimbra.
Bryan E. Denham (Ph.D., University of Tennessee, 1996) has held the
Campbell Endowed Professorship in Sports Communication at Clemson
University since 1999. He is the author of Categorical Statistics for Com-
munication Research (Wiley, 2017) and has published in disciplinary
outlets such as Communication Theory and the Journal of Communica-
tion. He is a Research Fellow in the North American Society for the
Sociology of Sport and serves on the editorial boards of Communication
and Sport, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, and Mass
Communication & Society.
Nichole Egbert (Ph.D., University of Georgia, 2000) is Professor in the
School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. Her research
centers predominantly on social support in health contexts with
Editors and Contributors xv
a specific focus on family caregiving. Other research interests include

health literacy, as well as spirituality/religiosity in health-related con-
texts. She actively collaborates with a wide range of researchers, includ-
ing those in the fields of nursing, public health, medicine, and family
studies.
T. Kody Frey (M.A., Illinois State University, 2015) is a doctoral candidate
in Communication and faculty lecturer in the School of Information Science
at the University of Kentucky. He is interested in instructional communica-
tion and communication education, with a specific focus on the basic com-
munication course. His research investigates the use of technology,
pedagogical innovation, assessment, and training as potential mechanisms for
enhancing the general education experience for both students and instructors.
Catherine E. Goodall (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 2009) is Associate Pro-
fessor in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.
Her research interests include processing and effects of health messages
in the media with particular interest in the role of emotions.
Cathlin V. Clark-Gordon (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2019) is the Dir-
ector of Strategic Communication and Research at WRC Senior Services,
a nonprofit organization in Western Pennsylvania specializing in senior
living and care. Her research examines the social affordances of medi-
ated environments, studying their implications in instructional and
health contexts. Her work in these areas has been published in journals
such as Computers & Education, Communication Education, and Social
Media + Society.
Angela M. Hosek (Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2011) is Associ-
ate Professor and Basic Course Director in the School of Communication
Studies at Ohio University. Her published research focuses on student–
teacher relationships, social identity, privacy and discourse, social media,
and student success in the instructional context.
Stephanie Kelly (Ph.D., University of Tennessee, 2012) is an Associate Pro-
fessor of Business Communication at North Carolina A&T State Univer-
sity. Stephanie’s research interests include presence constructs across the
instructional, organizational, and interpersonal contexts as well as meas-
urement development. She has authored and co-authored over 60
research articles and book chapters.
L. Meghan Mahoney (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2011) is Associate Professor in
the Department of Communication and Media at West Chester University
of Pennsylvania. She regularly publishes research on issues related to new
media audiences, social media, and marketing messages for behavior and
social change, most recently in the Journal of Media Education, Journal of
Intercultural Communication, Journal of Medical Internet Research,
xvi Editors and Contributors
Journal of Development Communication, and Journal of Media and Com-

munication Studies. She also co-authored Strategic Social Media: From
Marketing to Social Change, and co-edited Handbook of Media Manage-
ment and Business. Meghan served as Chair of the Management, Marketing
& Programming Division of the Broadcast Education Association, and
Social Media Coordinator for the Eastern Communication Association
Convention. She is a Faculty Fellow of the National Association of Televi-
sion Program Executives.
Andrea L. Meluch (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2016) is an Assistant Pro-
fessor of Communication Studies at Indiana University South Bend. Her
research focuses on the intersections of organizational, health, and
instructional communication. Specifically, she is interested in organiza-
tional culture, mental health, and social support. She has published in
Communication Education, Southern Communication Journal, Qualita-
tive Research in Medicine & Healthcare, Journal of Communication in
Healthcare, and the Journal of Communication Pedagogy. She has also
authored more than a dozen book chapters and encyclopedia entries.
Valerie Rubinsky (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2019) is an Assistant Professor
at University of Maine at Augusta. Valerie is primarily interested in
intergroup communication processes in conversations with important
others about sex, health, identity, and relationships. Her work has inves-
tigated the communicative processes of personal and group identity man-
agement in the context of close relationships, and how those processes
affect relational quality and well-being. She is especially interested in the
relational and health experiences of individuals in non-(hetero/mono)nor-
mative relationships and families. Her work has appeared in Health
Communication, Women’s Studies in Communication, Sexuality & Cul-
ture, Women & Language, Southern Communication Journal, and the
International Journal of Health and Media Research, among others.
Carolyn K. Shue (Ph.D., Ohio University, 1997) is a Professor of Communi-
cation Studies at Ball State University. Her research focuses on the meas-
urement of interpersonal communication processes, the evaluation of
communication processes in the healthcare setting, and understanding
the connection between communication processes and health outcomes.
She has professional experience in the area of medical education and
assessment. Her work has been published in journals such as Health
Communication, Communication Education, Communication Research
Reports, Academic Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, and
Patient Education and Counseling.
Glen H. Stamp (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 1991) is Professor of
Communication and Department Chair in Communication Studies at
Ball State University. His interests include interpersonal and family
Editors and Contributors xvii
communication. His research on transition to parenthood, defensive

communication, and conflict has been published in such journals as
Communication Monographs, Communication Studies, and Communica-
tion Quarterly.
Kathleen Stansberry (Ph.D., University of Oregon, 2012) is Assistant Profes-
sor of Media Analytics at Elon University. Her research focuses on digi-
tal analytics and data analysis, online community development, and the
use of new media in integrated strategic communication campaigns.
Kathleen’s professional experience includes nearly a decade of work in
corporate, agency and nonprofit public relations, most recently as the
online community manager for the International Society for Technology
in Education.
Shawn C. Starcher (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2019) is an assistant Pro-
fessor at Muskingum University. Shawn’s research interests reside at the
intersection of interpersonal, family, and health communication. More
specifically, he examines how parents and children discuss and manage
private information regarding mental health issues. His research has
been published in Communication Quarterly and Computers in Human
Behavior. He has also written multiple chapters regarding family com-
munication for various textbooks.
Tang Tang (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2008) is Professor in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication at Kent State University. Her
research interests include uses and effects of emerging media technologies
and sports communication. She has published articles in the Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Mass Communication & Society,
Computers in Human Behavior, International Journal on Media Man-
agement, Communication and Sport, International Journal of Sport
Communication, Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, etc.
She also co-authored Strategic Social Media: From Marketing to Social
Change, and co-edited Handbook of Media Management and Business.
Tang is a Faculty Fellow of the Television Academy, National Associ-
ation of Television Program Executives, and International Radio and
Television Society, and has held leadership positions in the Broadcast
Education Association and the International Communication Associ-
ation. She also serves on the editorial broad for Communication and
Sport, International Journal of Sport Communication, Chinese Journal
of Communication, and Ohio Journal of Communication.
Nicholas T. Tatum (M.A., Abilene Christian University, 2015) is a doctoral
candidate in Communication at the University of Kentucky. His research
interests include communication technology in the classroom, instructor–
student relationships, and educational psychology. His recent work
appears in Communication Monographs, Communication Education,
xviii Editors and Contributors
Communication Studies, Communication Reports, and Communication

Research Reports.
Heather L. Walter (Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo, 1999)
is Associate Professor and Director of the School of Communication at
the University of Akron. Heather teaches undergraduate and graduate
classes in organizational communication and mixed research methodolo-
gies. Heather’s research focuses on organizational culture and conflict in
health organizations. She is currently focused on the impact of making
medical research available to chronic disease patients and their families.
Heather is a faculty fellow in the University of Akron’s Center for Con-
flict Management and serves on the editorial board for CF Research
News and Ohio Communication Journal.
Preface
Prior to the early 1990s, no sourcebook of communication research

measures existed and, as a result, many researchers were forced to con-
duct exhausting searches of library databases, directly contact scholars
via phone or postal mail for assistance, or at times completely reinvent
the wheel to examine a communication construct. Following the 1994
publication of the first volume of Communication Research Measures:
A Sourcebook, considerable enthusiasm emerged for the use and appli-
cation of this resource material.
The first volume offered assessments of measurement in instructional
communication, interpersonal communication, mass communication,
and organizational communication. In 2009, the second volume of this
sourcebook assessed the latest measurement trends and issues in these
areas, in addition to evaluations of measurement in subdisciplines such as
intercultural communication, family communication, and health commu-
nication. The current volume continues the tradition of assessing meas-
urement practices in these legacy context areas, while also introducing
assessments of measurement in subdisciplines that have experienced sig-
nificant growth and development since the second volume’s publication.
As such, in the present volume, readers will find assessments of measure-
ment in timely areas such as sports communication, public relations,
intergroup communication, and computer-mediated communication.
The goal for this volume is the same as Volumes I and II: improve
measurement and provide measures for better science. We used the
same criteria as those employed in the first two volumes for selecting
scales to profile. After working with the many contributors featured in
this volume, we conclude that the state of measurement in the commu-
nication discipline is theoretically sound and methodically refined. After
reading this volume, we are certain you will agree.
Elizabeth E. Graham
Joseph P. Mazer
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the contributors to this volume, all of whom

are passionately committed to the study of measurement in the commu-
nication discipline. In addition, we thank Bin Xing, Ph.D. in the School
of Communication Studies at Kent State University. Her error-free
work, attention to detail, boundless energy, coupled with her enthusias-
tic presence was central to the completion of Volume III.
Introduction
Consistent with the first and second volumes of Communication

Research Measures: A Sourcebook, Part I of this volume features
a series of chapters that examine measurement trends and issues in vari-
ous areas of the communication discipline. Each author examined cur-
rent literature, searched relevant databases, and identified several
reliable and valid measures in each area. The chapters included in Part
I offer an overview of measurement practices observed over the past
decade or more.
Similar to the first and second volumes of this text, Part II features
profiles of the selected measures. The format for each profile is consist-
ent across featured measures. Each profile begins with an overview of
the construct and chronicles the development of the original scale.
Available reliability and validity data are summarized for each measure.
The comments section of each profile highlights any issues surrounding
the instrument and draws attention to any concerns that researchers
should be aware of when using the measure. Each profile concludes by
offering the location of each measure and the scale itself.
We noted in prior volumes of Communication Research Measures:
A Sourcebook that we rely on standard definitions of reliability and val-
idity. The definitions and conceptualization of reliability and validity
referenced are informed by the Standards for Educational and Psycho-
logical Testing (2014), prepared by the American Educational Research
Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA) and
the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME).
Reliability is the dependability, predictability, stability, or precision of
a measure. Intercoder reliability is calculated for nominal-data judg-
ments to test the stability of a coding system; two or more coders
assign communication behaviors to categories to see if they agree. Inter-
rater reliability does the same for interval or ratio data judgments;
evaluations are made about the communication on a scale or index.
Test-retest reliability tests the stability of a measure by correlating
scores from two administrations of the scale to the same group of
xxii Introduction
people; if scores change and nothing else has intervened between the
two administrations, the measure is unreliable. Internal consistency tests
a scale’s items to see if they are homogeneous in nature; this is typically
measured via Cronbach’s alpha. With split-half reliability half of
a measure’s items are randomly chosen and correlated with the remain-
ing items; if the reliability coefficient is low, the items are not measuring
the same construct consistently.
Validity occurs when a measure is actually measuring what it is sup-
posed to measure. Three types of validity are identified and include:
content, criterion, and construct validity. Content validity is concerned
with representativeness. Scale items are generated to represent the con-
tent domain of the construct of interest. Face validity, a subset of con-
tent validity, is a starting point for scale development. Face validity
relies on common agreement that on its “face” the measure appears to
be a good translation of the construct. Criterion-related validity
addresses prediction and outcomes and involves assessing a measure
with some external criterion. There are two common forms of criterion-
related validity, predictive and concurrent validity. Predictive validity
involves the future prediction of an outcome (i.e., criterion). Relatedly,
concurrent validity is indicated when the criterion measure is obtained
at the same time, i.e., concurrently, as the initial measurement of inter-
est. Construct validity, the most important and recent addition to meas-
urement practice, links theory to measurement (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).
Variables are deduced from theory and are tested for expected relation-
ships. If the measures perform in theoretically hypothesized ways, then
this constitutes a degree of construct validity and reflects on the theory,
the measures constructed, and the method employed (Allen & Yen,
1979/2002). Four different forms of construct validity include: conver-
gent validity, discriminant validity, multitrait-multimethod validity, and
factorial validity. Convergent validity addresses the degree to which the-
oretically related measures should be statistically related to each other.
Discriminant validity (sometimes referred to as divergent validity)
examines the degree to which theoretically unrelated measures should
be statistically unrelated. Multitrait-multimethod validity features the
examination of unrelated and different traits measured by different
methods. The resulting correlation matrix reveals relationships between
the variables measured in different ways. Hypothetically, the same trait
should produce high correlations, even though it is measured via differ-
ent methods (i.e., convergent validity). Conversely, correlations between
different and unrelated traits, measured via the same methods, should
be low (i.e., discriminant validity). Measurement bias is suggested if cor-
relations for different traits are higher when the same method is used
than when different methods are employed to measure the same trait
(Allen & Yen, 2002). Factorial validity is a data reduction technique
Introduction xxiii
that employs factor analysis to reveal interrelationships between and

among scale items to produce meaningful and related factors.
We encourage readers to examine additional measurement resources,
including disciplinary journals such as Communication Methods and
Measures and Communication Research Reports, as well as resources in
related fields (e.g., Applied Psychological Measurement, Journal of Edu-
cational Measurement, and Psychological Reports). These resources and
the current volume can best equip researchers seeking to measure traits,
attitudes, behaviors, and other items of empirical interest.
References
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press. (Original work published 1979)
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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 advan-
tage 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 dis-
cussion, 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 Com-
munication and Mass Media Complete database from 1990 to 2017 using
such terms as “scale,” “scale development,” “measure,” and “instru-
ment”; we also searched the reference pages of promising articles. To be
included on our initial list of measures, the scale needed to assess an inter-
personal 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 sub-
stantially revised versions of previously reviewed scales) would be pro-
filed or reviewed for this volume of the sourcebook, we evaluated each
4 Carolyn K. Shue and Glen H. Stamp
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 pos-
ition in the larger discipline.
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 source-
book, there are now 11 context domains. This context expansion demon-
strates 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 organiza-
tional communication. Consequently, the exploration of traditional
interpersonal communication constructs in other contexts and the devel-
opment of measures specific to those contexts make the discrete classifica-
tion of an instrument into the interpersonal context difficult. For
example, Myers and Weber’s (2004) measure of siblings’ relational main-
tenance behaviors would likely have been in the interpersonal domain for
the first sourcebook but now would be classified within the family com-
munication domain.
It makes sense that some relationships, which have been the founda-
tion of interpersonal communication study, are now classified more
specifically into different contextual domains given the unique influ-
ence 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 con-
cepts occur in relationships regardless of context. For example, satisfac-
tion is an important, often studied, construct in dating relationships and
friendships. Satisfaction also plays a significant role in patient–physician
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 Active-empathic Bodie, G. D. Communication

Listening Scale listening – self and Quarterly, 59,
(AELS) other measure 277–295
Arguing Goals General arguing goals Cionea, I. A., Hoelscher, Communication
Scale during interactions C. S., & Iles, I. A. Reports, 30,
51–65
*Blurting Scale Spontaneous and Hample, D., Richards, Communication
unedited speech A. S., & Skubisz, C. Monographs, 80,
503–532
*Communication Emotion regulation White, K. H., Communication

Anxiety Regula- strategies to manage Howard, M. C., Zhong, Quarterly, 63,
tion Scale acute communication B., Soto, J. A., Perez, 23–43
(CARS) anxiety C. R., Lee, E. A.,
Dawson-Andoh, N. A., &
Minnick, M. R.
Communication Emotional support Weber, K., Johnson, A., Communication

Based Emotional & Corrigan, M. Research Reports,
Support Scale 21, 316–323
(CBESS)
*Communicative Jealousy Guerrero, L. K., Han- Communication
Responses to nawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. Methods & Meas-
Jealousy (CRJ) ures, 5, 223–249
scale – revised
Dogmatism Scale Open- or closed- Shearman, S. M., & Communication

mindedness Levine, T. R. Quarterly, 54,
275–291
First-Date Goals Social and relational Mongeau, P. A., Communication
Index goals for first dates Serewicz, M. C. M., & Monographs, 71,
Therrien, L. F. 121–147
Lie Acceptability Attitudes about Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, Communication
deceptive T. R. Research Reports,
communication 25, 282–288
Narrative Acceptance of narra- Yale, R. N. Journal of
Believability Scale tives as true Communication,
(NBS-12) 63, 578–599
(Continued )
Table 1.1 (Cont).
NAME OF SCALE CONCEPT/FOCUS AUTHOR(S) JOURNAL
Nonverbal Nonverbal immedi- Richmond, V. P., McCros- Communication

Immediacy Scale acy – self and other key, J. C., & Johnson, Quarterly, 51,
(NIS) measure A. D. 504–517
Provider Verbal person- Harvey-Knowles, J. & Communication

Expressions of centeredness, Faw, M. Reports, 29,
Verbal Person- supportive messages 35–49
Centeredness
(PE-VPC) scale
*Relational Viewing and treating Hannawa, A. F., & Communication

Entitlement and romantic partners as Spitzberg, B. H. Methods & Meas-
Proprietariness property ures, 5, 1–27
(REP) scale
*Relational Relationship Stafford, L. Journal of Social
Maintenance maintenance and Personal Rela-
Behavior Meas- tionships, 28,
ure (RMBM) 278–303
*Relational Relationship Ledbetter, A. M. Southern

Maintenance maintenance Communication
Communication Journal, 78,
Scale (RMCS) 289–310
*Romantic Part- Relationship conflict Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, Journal of Social
ner Conflict Scale C., & Hendrick, S. S. and Personal Rela-
(RPCS) tionships, 26,
1073–1096
State Empathy Empathy during mes- Shen, L. Western Journal

Scale sage processing of Communica-
tion, 74, 504–524
Verbal Rumin- Repetitive speech Henson, D. F. Communication

ation (VR) Journal of New
measure Zealand, 10,
1–25
*Weak-Tie Social support net- Wright, K. B., & Miller, Communication
/Strong-Tie Scale work preference C. H. Monographs, 77,
(W/STS) 500–517
*Willingness to Individual expression Hayes, A. F., Uldall, B. R., Communication
Self-Censor Scale given public opinion & Glynn, C. J. Methods & Meas-
(WTSCS) ures, 4, 256–272
* Indicates that this measure is profiled in Part II of this book

relationships and often serves as a quality measure for medical practices.

The specialization of the discipline is reflective of improved under-
standing of the influence of a particular context on interpersonal rela-
tionships and intrinsically ties interpersonal communication to other
domains.
Along with a broadening of the discipline to include greater context-
ual 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 instru-
ments we reviewed, researchers developed the items based on partici-
pants’ reports of their lived experience (e.g., Arguing Goals Scale:
Cionea, Hoelscher, & Iles͉ , 2017; Romantic Partner Conflict Scale: Zac-
chilli, 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 Communica-
tion 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 argu-
ments 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 commu-
nication 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 ana-
lysis 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 rela-
tional 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 rela-
tional issues. Third, careful attention was given to ensure items clearly rep-
resented 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, con-
necting the development of the scale to theory. Three of the articles
developed scales pertaining to emotion: Communication Anxiety Regu-
lation Scale (White et al., 2015), Communication Based Emotional Sup-
port 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 pro-
viding 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 devel-

opment of the Blurting Scale (Hample, Richards, & Skubisz, 2013), the
construct of blurting is deemed to not fit with the dominant goals-plans
-action model of message production; rather, the authors examined
blurting through Meyer’s (1997) theory of message editing as well as
the first author’s work on argument frames (Hample, 2003). The devel-
opment of the Blurting Scale is, therefore, theoretically derived from
both message editing and argumentation theory.
An interesting comparison pertaining to theory is the work of Staf-
ford (2010: Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure) and Ledbetter
(2013: Relational Maintenance Communication Scale) in their devel-
opment of relational maintenance measures. Stafford works within
the established literature on relationship maintenance (Canary &
Stafford, 1992) to remedy some of the item construction issues and
conceptual concerns with the Relational Maintenance Strategies
Measure (RMSM); she is building firmly on previous maintenance
work in her development, and test, of a reliable and valid seven-
factor relational maintenance measure. In contrast, Ledbetter (2013)
discarded what he felt to be the dominant theoretical perspectives on
relationship maintenance (i.e., social exchange theory, equity theory);
instead, he developed and tested a maintenance measure guided by
self-expansion theory. This novel theory purports that, among other
things, people are motivated to maintain relationships in order to
expand the self by including the other in the self. His three-factor
model of resources, perspectives, and characteristics is derived from
self-expansion theory and demonstrates both high internal reliability
and construct validity.
The measurement scales we reviewed are firmly entrenched in what
Craig (1999) would identify as the sociopsychological tradition of com-
munication theory. As such, it is not surprising that individual charac-
teristics are the focus of the scales since the sociopsychological tradition
theorizes communication as “expression, interaction and influence [that]
reflects personality, beliefs and feelings” (Craig, 1999, p. 133). The
focus in the sociopsychological tradition is on specified behaviors, traits,
effects, cognitions, attitudes, and/or perceptions. The constructs meas-
ured in the interpersonal communication scales reviewed provide clear
examples of individual verbal behaviors (blurting, verbal rumination,
verbal person-centeredness); individual personality traits or states (dog-
matism, state empathy); and individual cognitions (argument goals,
first-date goals, attitudes about lie acceptability). Of course, what is par-
ticularly interesting about these constructs, from a communication per-
spective, is the way in which behaviors, traits, and cognitions are
communicated; the response of others to those behaviors, traits, and
cognitions; and the impact they have on our interpersonal relationships.
To extend the utility of scales to represent the views of both rela-

tional partners, some of the researchers developed both self-report and
other-report measures (Bodie, 2011; Richmond, McCroskey, & John-
son, 2003). To achieve this goal, Bodie (2011) conducted two tests of
the Active-Empathic Listening Scale: the first to examine the active-
empathic listening of self and the second to examine the active-
empathic listening of an interactional partner. Richmond et al. (2003),
in their initial study of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale, gave half the
sample the self-perceived nonverbal immediacy scale and the other half
the other-perceived nonverbal immediacy scale. These researchers dem-
onstrated the utility of the scale as both a self- and other-report meas-
ure enabling the measurement of the senders’ perceptions and/or the
receivers’ perceptions.
Some of the constructs clearly focus on relationship level issues, such
as maintenance, conflict, and jealousy. The challenge is to provide
a self-report scale that can extend to the level of the relationship. Staf-
ford (2010) achieved this goal by utilizing a sample of married couples,
having both spouses fill out the scale, and wording the items from the
perspective of how the self perceives the maintenance behaviors of the
other (e.g., “My wife attempts to make our interactions enjoyable”;
“My husband stresses his commitment to me”). Given that the findings
from the validation studies indicate that the scale is valid and reliable
for both husbands and wives, the measure begins to tap into the overall
relational maintenance within the couple’s relationship.
In developing the scales, the researchers were thorough in ensuring
the items comprising the scale clearly represented the scope of beliefs,
attitudes, or behaviors demonstrating the concept. This is often no easy
task. As Rubin and Graham (1994) state in the chapter “Measures of
Interpersonal Communication” in Volume I of the Communication
Research Measures sourcebook, “although researchers can never be sure
that they have assembled a set of items that reflect the content of
a theoretical concept, they must do all that is possible to achieve con-
tent validity” (p. 28).
Hannawa and Spitzberg’s (2011) Relational Entitlement and Pro-
prietariness (REP) scale provides an excellent example of a robust
item pool to represent all possible beliefs about a concept. They begin
with an operational definition of relational proprietariness (“the belief
that a romantic partner is analogous to property” [p. 2]) and rela-
tional entitlement (“the belief that, as property, a partner may be
treated as such” [p. 2]). Their goal is to provide “evidence that the
REP measure is a factorial stable and reliable instrument to assess
male and female relational entitlement and proprietariness behaviors”
(p. 1). To accomplish this goal, the researchers reviewed the litera-
ture, conducted focus groups, and examined extant scales to create
a 191-item pool that was ultimately reduced to a six-factor scale con-

sisting of 38 items (Hannawa, Spitzberg, Wiering, & Teranishi,
2006). This scale was found to be reliable and valid in the initial
2006 study, and revalidated in the 2011 study. The six factors of
linking, behavior control, rights assertion, defensiveness, social con-
trol, and interaction control comprise an initial belief structure of
relationship proprietariness and entitlement. Items such as “I believe
it is appropriate to demand sex if two people have been dating long
enough or if they are married” and “If my partner threatened to
leave the relationship, I would have the right to tell them they can’t”
clearly align with a “partner as property” belief.
Working from within a long history of research on lying and decep-
tion, Oliveira and Levine (2008) introduce the construct of lie acceptabil-
ity and the Lie Acceptability Scale. Oliveira and Levine define lie
acceptability as “the generalized evaluation of the practice of deception …
[and] because lie acceptability is conceptualized as an evaluative dimen-
sion, it fits within the definition of an attitude” (p. 283). And, as a single
attitude, the authors assert that the scale will need to be unidimensional,
reflecting the simple evaluation of lying as “good–bad, positive–negative,
desirable–undesirable, or acceptable–unacceptable” (p. 283). The creation
of the 11-item scale was accomplished through the adaption of the
authors’ previous work on lying and deception. Through a series of tests,
three items were removed, resulting in a parsimonious and valid eight-
item scale that measured one’s attitude toward the acceptability of lying.
Sample items included “lying is immoral” and “lying is no big deal.”
Providing emotional support within relationships is an important
element of interpersonal life. Emotional support is specifically defined as
“communicative behavior enacted by one party with the intent of help-
ing another cope effectively with emotional distress” (Burleson, 2010,
p. 159). To further examine emotional support behaviors in relation-
ships, Harvey-Knowles and Faw (2016) created and tested the Provider
Expressions of Verbal Person-Centeredness (PE-VPC) scale. The initial
40 items were created using research on social support and comforting
messages. Through a series of four studies, Harvey-Knowles and Faw
confirmed a three-factor solution. The three factors contained items
reflecting low person-centered (e.g., “I tell my friends to stop overacting
if they are upset about something minor”), moderate person-centered
(e.g., “When a friend gets distressed I point out the fact that nothing
could have been done to prevent the situation”), and high person-
centered behavioral messages (e.g., “I ask my friends to elaborate on
how they are feeling when they have a problem”).
In the interpersonal communication measures chapter in Volume II of
the Communication Research Measures sourcebook, Graham and Tits-
worth (2009) observe that:
Interpersonal communication research relies on both high-inference

and low-inference assessments. Low inference refers to easily
observable behaviors that require less subjective judgment on the
part of the respondents. High inference variables … are more likely
global, affective judgements about people, behaviors, and/or con-
cepts. (p. 80)
As Graham and Titsworth further point out, the preference in social sci-
ence research is typically to use low-inference measures, but self-report
data often limits the researcher to more subjective considerations. While
the topic of inference was not overtly discussed by the majority of the
research reviewed here, an examination of the scales indicated both
low-inference and high-inference items.
The use of different levels of inference may be due, in some cases, to the
type of construct being measured. For example, the unidimensional con-
struct of blurting, measured with the Blurting Scale (Hample et al., 2013)
is defined as “speech that is spontaneous, unedited, and negative in its con-
sequences” (p. 503). Since blurting, by its very nature, entails a vast array
of possible verbalizations, the items on the scale (e.g., “When I interact
with another person, I just say what’s on my mind”), specifically reflect the
descriptors in the definition and are low inference as a result.
Scales with multiple factors may also impact the inference of the
items. For example, in the Active-Empathic Listening Scale (Bodie,
2011), the three factors are sensing, processing, and responding. The
items for sensing (e.g., “I understand how others feel”) and processing
(e.g., “I assure others that I will remember what they say”) are high-
inference due to sensing and processing being more abstract internal
processes. In contrast, responding (“I show others that I am listening by
my body language” [e.g., head nods]) has more concrete behavioral
indicators, resulting in low-inference items.
Two of the articles specifically discuss issues related to inference.
Richmond et al. (2003) review previous immediacy scales regarding
their high-inference nature being problematic in terms of lack of valid-
ity. As a result, the items of their Nonverbal Immediacy Scale are specif-
ically low-inference (e.g., “I touch others on the shoulder or arm while
talking to them”). Similarly, one of Ledbetter’s (2013) specific goals in
developing the Relational Maintenance Communication Scale was to
improve on previous maintenance scales that are “high inference in
nature, requiring significant interpretation to determine whether
a particular communication behavior indicates openness, positivity, sup-
portiveness, and so forth” (p. 290). As a result, the scale contains low-
inference items such as “We go out on dates” and “We say ‘I love you’
to each other.”
Scale Development and Validation

Numerous articles (e.g., Carpenter, 2018) and books (e.g., DeVellis,
2017) outline the mechanics of scale development. Unfortunately, the
ideal research process is often constrained by the messy reality of
research in practice. In addition, articulating how a scale is developed
in the confines of article word limits necessitates that researchers make
choices about what steps they report. While there was variability in the
scale development and validation processes reported in the 20 scales
reviewed, themes emerged regarding common practices.
To begin, generally, researchers approached scale development as
a methodical, step-by-step process. The vast majority of scales were cre-
ated and validated in two to four different studies (published within the
same article) using new samples for each study. The majority (18 out of
the 20 scales) of the researchers did recruit undergraduate student parti-
cipants for the studies. The merits and problems associated with college
student samples have been well articulated in study rationales and/or
limitations sections of research articles. For example, in their test of the
Communicative Responses to Jealousy (CRJ) scale, Guerrero, Hannawa,
and Babin (2011) acknowledge that in researching jealousy, their col-
lege student sample is somewhat “ideal” since “research suggests that
jealousy is most common in relationships that are serious, but not fully
committed” (p. 243), such as college students. They also note that
a limitation of their study is the use of this single population, and
future research should utilize married couples and other sample popula-
tions in examining jealousy with their scale. We confidently acknow-
ledge that, despite the criticism of student samples, the practice of using
students in scale development research will continue.
We offer two examples of different ways to use students that can
benefit scale developers. First, students can connect researchers to more
relevant participant populations. For example, Stafford (2010) had
undergraduate students recruit married individuals for the Relational
Maintenance Behavior Measure validation studies. Second, the results
from undergraduate student samples can be compared to the results
from other populations such as the general public (State Empathy Scale:
Shen, 2010) or those managing health concerns (Weak-Tie/Strong-Tie
Scale: Wright & Miller, 2010). By testing the research hypotheses with
both a college student sample (Study 1) and general public sample
(Study 2), Shen (2010) was able to demonstrate ways in which the
factor model was replicated across two different samples providing sup-
port for external validity of the findings. The use of a college student
sample and general public sample did, however, indicate somewhat
problematic model fit indices for the second-order single-factor model
in the general public sample prompting the need for additional research
using the scale. Wright and Miller (2010) used college students as parti-
cipants managing stressors of general living and compared them to par-
ticipants in online health support groups managing health concerns.
These two different samples were then used to determine discriminant
validity of the Weak-Tie/Strong-Tie Scale. Wright and Miller predicted,
and partially supported the hypotheses that individuals managing differ-
ent types of stressors prefer support from different types of relation-
ships – weak-tie versus strong-tie.
To develop the scales, typically, researchers generated items from the
literature (e.g., Verbal Rumination [VR] measure: Henson, 2009), used
items from previous scales (e.g., Dogmatism Scale: Shearman & Levine,
2006), adapted scales used in other contexts for use in interpersonal
research (e.g., Active-Empathic Listening Scale: Bodie, 2011), and cre-
ated items based on participants’ experiences (e.g., Blurting Scale:
Hample et al., 2013). Some utilized experts or participants to establish
face validity as a preliminary component of the validation study (e.g.,
Narrative Believability Scale: Yale, 2013). Some researchers did use
exploratory factor analysis to reduce the number of items and identify
factors as a first step in the scale development process (e.g., Communi-
cation Anxiety Regulation Scale: White et al., 2015); however, in subse-
quent studies, data from new samples was subjected to confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to demonstrate factor stability. This process
reflects the standards advocated for by Levine (2005).
The majority of researchers designed studies to establish construct
validity, offering claims about the relationships between the construct
measured in the new scale (e.g., self-censorship – Hayes, Uldall, and
Glynn [2010]: Willingness to Self-Censor Scale) and other constructs
(e.g., dispositional shyness). While not as prevalent, researchers have
focused on criterion-related validity as well. For example, Stafford
(2010) demonstrated that the Relational Maintenance Behavior Meas-
ure predicted relationship satisfaction, commitment, liking, and love for
both husbands and wives.
When demonstrating the validity of scales, it is important for
researchers to clearly state the type of validity the study intends to
establish and articulate how the study results align with the validity
type. For example, confusion occurs when researchers state predictive
validity which involves scores to predict future behavior when in actual-
ity the researchers are testing theoretically derived relationships among
the measure and other constructs or construct validity. Readers must
pay attention to the study design and findings when evaluating validity
type and claims.
While cross-sectional survey design studies, often using online survey
tools, still dominate the interpersonal communication scale development lit-
erature, some researchers employ hypothetical cases and full-experiments
(Hayes, Glynn, & Shanahan, 2005; Hayes et al., 2010) to evaluate the util-
ity of their measure. Hayes et al. (2005) used hypothetical scenarios to
manipulate the opinion climate environment when testing their Willingness
to Self-Censor Scale. In the 2010 validation study of the scale, Hayes et al.
experimentally manipulated the opinion climate of a conversation using
two research confederates. The findings revealed that those low in will-
ingness to self-censor were not affected by the opinion climate, while
high self-censors were affected by the opinion climate. Use of quasi- and
full-experiment designs can increase researchers’ confidence in the meas-
ure while also answering important empirical questions. Continually
revisiting the issue of scale validity, as demonstrated in Hayes and col-
leagues’ 2005 hypothetical scenario study and the 2010 full-experiment
study, illustrates that validity should not be a “one study and done” elem-
ent of scale design. To maintain a scale’s relevance and utility, evaluation,
testing, and reflection should be an ongoing endeavor.
Relevancy and Utility

In addition to creating new scales, researchers are revising and strength-
ening previously established measures making them more relevant
for today’s studies. For example, Guerrero et al. (2011) revised their
70-item measure of Communicative Responses to Jealousy to obtain
a valid 52-item, 11-factor with 4 superordinate factors scale. This revi-
sion was in response to inconsistent use of shorter, individual
researcher-generated versions of the original scale. The revised measure
provides researchers with a more parsimonious scale with even shorter
superordinate factors of the scale to promote consistent use of the meas-
ure in empirical research. Consistent scale use allows for confidence in
research findings as well as establishing the continued validity and reli-
ability of a scale.
Even though Canary and Stafford’s (1992) Relational Maintenance
Strategies Measure has been widely used in interpersonal research, Staf-
ford (2010) critically reviewed the measure in light of advancements in
measurement standards for scale construction. She identified problems
such as double- or triple-barreled items (e.g., “Try to be romantic, fun,
and interesting with him/her”), the use of quantifiers or modifiers (e.g.,
“very”), and a focus on attitudes when the scale was designed to meas-
ure behaviors (e.g., “Like to spend time with our same friends”). Staf-
ford argued that attitudes and behaviors should not be mixed as they
likely reflect different maintenance domains. She developed and tested
the Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure to remedy the shortcom-
ings of the Relational Maintenance Strategies Measure.
We encourage scale developers to critically reflect on their measures and
revise instruments to maintain their relevancy and utility. For example, in
the original Romantic Jealousy Scale, the item “look through my partner’s
belongings for evidence of a rival relationship” has been updated to be
“look through my partner’s belongings/computer for evidence” in the
revised Communication Responses to Remantic Jealousy Scale. This revi-
sion reflects the evolving ways we engage in relationship surveillance in the
technological age. Another item “repeatedly called my partner” is quickly
losing relevancy among a generation that prefers texting and often fears
calling on the phone. This item is likely to be revised in future versions of
the scale or when individual researchers take it upon themselves to modify
items. Careful reflection on, and revision of, outdated items or awkward
word choices is necessary to maintain the validity of a measure.
Finally, successful instruments are ones that are used in multiple stud-
ies with different samples at different points in time. The consistent
results of multiple studies demonstrate stability in the scale structure as
well as reliability. Many of the published scales we found when generat-
ing our initial list of scales to review were only used once in the initial
validation study. This trend does not even account for scales developed
and presented in conference papers that do not result in a published art-
icle. Researchers are expending considerable effort to conceptualize,
operationalize, construct, and test measures that ultimately do not make
sustained contributions to a line of research. Successful instruments are
championed by the developer(s) (e.g., Bodie, 2011; Hayes and col-
leagues, 2005; Stafford, 2010). Those contemplating designing a scale
should conceptualize scale development as the beginning of a line of
research rather than the end product of a single research project.
Concluding Observations: Connections to Previous

Sourcebooks
Looking across the research trends since the first sourcebook, there are
stable characteristics of interpersonal communication measurement.
Scholars focus on personal qualities and social relationships, are continu-
ally engaged in conceptual expansion, attend to both the “light” and
“dark” side of relationships, and strive for measurement precision as
a means of strengthening research claims. The sophistication of the meas-
urement process has advanced along with our expectations for high-
quality work. We encourage researchers to consider ways to include
diverse sample populations in validation studies, establish multiple types of
validity (e.g., construct and criterion-related) in their multi-study projects,
and think of scale development as a line of research. Specifically, we
encourage scale developers to use their scales in subsequent investigations
of the construct/context, to understand populations other than college stu-
dents, and to further our understanding of theory. Interpersonal communi-
cation is essential to the human experience, relevant in all contexts,
continually evolving, and multifaceted. Understanding the intricacies of

interpersonal relationship factors requires careful attention to conceptual
definitions, operational definitions, and measurement standards. This need
applies to our current instruments as well as the ones that will be profiled
in future volumes of the sourcebook.
References
Bodie, G. D. (2011). The active-empathic listening scale (AELS): Conceptualiza-
tion and evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication
Quarterly, 59, 277–295. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583495
Burleson, B. R. (2010). Explaining recipient responses to supportive messages:
Development and tests of a dual-process theory. In S. W. Smith &
S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research
(pp. 159–179). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and
equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267. doi:10.1080/
03637759209376268
Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for
researchers. Communication Methods & Measures, 12, 25–44. doi:10.1080/
19312458.2017.1396583
Cionea, I. A., Hoelscher, C. S., & Iles, I. A. (2017). Arguing goals: An initial
assessment of a new measurement ͉instrument. Communication Reports, 30,
51–65. doi:10.1080/08934215.2016.1184695
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9,
119–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Graham, E. E., & Titsworth, S. (2009). Measurement in interpersonal communi-
cation. In E. B. Rubin, A. M. Rubin, E. E. Graham, E. M. Perse, &
D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Communication research measures II: A sourcebook (pp.
76–93). New York, NY: Routledge.
Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). The communicative
responses to jealousy scale: Revision, empirical validation, and associations with
relational satisfaction. Communication Methods & Measures, 5, 223–249.
doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.596993
Hample, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Hand-
book of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439–478). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hample, D., Richards, A. S., & Skubisz, C. (2013). Blurting. Communication
Monographs, 80, 503–532. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.830316
Hannawa, A. F., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2011). A cross-validation of the relational
entitlement and proprietariness scale. Communication Methods & Measures,
5, 1–27. doi:10.1080/19312458.2010.527871
Hannawa, A. F., Spitzberg, B. H., Wiering, L., & Teranishi, C. (2006). “If I can’t
have you, no one can”: Development of a Relational Entitlement and Proprie-
tariness Scale (REPS). Violence and Victims, 21, 539–560.
Harvey-Knowles, J., & Faw, M. (2016). The provider expressions of verbal

person-centeredness (PE-VPC) scale: Development and initial validation. Com-
munication Reports, 29, 35–49. doi:10.1080/08934215.2015.1111918
Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to self-censor:
A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 298–323. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh073
Hayes, A. F., Uldall, B. R., & Glynn, C. J. (2010). Validating the willingness to
self-censor scale II: Inhibition of opinion expression in a conversational
setting. Communication Methods & Measures, 4, 256–272. doi:10.1080/
19312458.2010.505503
Henson, D. F. (2009). Verbal rumination in close relationships. Communication
Journal of New Zealand, 10, 1–25.
Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Relational maintenance and inclusion of the other in the
self: Measure development and dyadic test of a self-expansion theory
approach. Southern Communication Journal, 78, 289–310. doi:10.1080/
1041794X.2013.815265
Levine, T., Hullett, C. R., Turner, M. M., & Lapinski, M. K. (2006). The desir-
ability of using confirmatory factor analysis on published scales. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 23, 309–314. doi:10.1080/08824090600962698
Levine, T. R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis and scale validation in com-
munication research. Communication Research Reports, 22, 335–338.
doi:10.1080/00036810500317730
Meyer, J. R. (1997). Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction
goals. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication
theory (pp. 71–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex
first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual
factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121–147. doi:10.1080/
0363775042331302514
Myers, S. A., & Weber, K. D. (2004). Preliminary development of a measure of
sibling relational maintenance behaviors: Scale development and initial findings.
Communication Quarterly, 52, 334–346. doi:10.1080/01463370409370204
Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie acceptability: A construct and
measure. Communication Research Reports, 25, 282–288. doi:10.1080/
08824090802440170
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of
the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived
nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–517. doi:10.1080/
01463370309370170
Rubin, R. B., & Graham, E. E. (1994). Measures of interpersonal communica-
tion. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication
research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 21–36). New York, NY: Guilford.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994). Communication research
measures I: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford.
Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., Graham, E. E., Perse, E. M., & Seibold, D. R.
(2009). Communication research measures II: A sourcebook. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Shearman, S. M., & Levine, T. R. (2006). Dogmatism updated: A scale revision

and validation. Communication Quarterly, 54, 275–291. doi:10.1080/
01463370600877950
Shen, L. (2010). On a scale of state empathy during message processing. Western
Journal of Communication, 74, 504–524. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.512278
Stafford, L. (2010). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique
and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303. doi:10.1177/
0265407510378125
Weber, K., Johnson, A., & Corrigan, M. (2004). Communication emotional sup-
port and its relationship to feelings of being understood, trust, and
self-disclosure. Communication Research Reports, 21, 316–323. doi:10.1080/
08824090409359994
White, K. H., Howard, M. C., Zhong, B., Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R.,
Lee, E. A., … Minnick, M. R. (2015). The communication anxiety regula-
tion scale: Development and initial validation. Communication Quarterly,
63, 23–43. doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.965836
Wigley, III., C. J. (2011). Cronbach’s alpha versus components of variance
approach (COVA): Dispelling three myths about alpha and suggesting an
alternative reliability statistic for communication trait research. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 28, 281–286. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.591220
Wigley, III., C. J. (2013). Dispelling three myths about Likert scales in commu-
nication trait research. Communication Research Reports, 30, 366–372.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2013.836937
Wright, K. B., & Miller, C. H. (2010). A measure of weak-tie/strong-tie support
network preference. Communication Monographs, 77, 500–517. doi:10.1080/
03637751.2010.502538
Yale, R. N. (2013). Measuring narrative believability: Development and valid-
ation of the narrative believability scale (NBS-12). Journal of Communication,
63, 578–599. doi:10.1111/jcom.12035
Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2009). The romantic partner
conflict scale: A new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 26, 1073–1096. doi:10.1177/0265407509347936
Measurement in Family
Communication
Jeffrey T. Child and Shawn C. Starcher
Family communication scholarship has continued to expand and grow in

the communication discipline since its emergence in the 1970s (Galvin &
Braithwaite, 2014). In 2001, the area of family communication initiated
its first (and only) journal devoted entirely to the advancement of family
communication scholarship, Journal of Family Communication (Socha,
2001). Braithwaite, Suter, and Floyd (2018) recently conducted an ana-
lysis of all family communication scholarship published from 2004
through 2015 and advanced two conclusions relevant to the focus of this
chapter. First, the authors find that an average of 40.5 studies related to
family communication are published yearly across 21 different regional,
national, and international communication-based journals. Second, the
bulk of published research articles in the area of family communication
(or 59.8%) are post-positivist in orientation. Thus, a substantial amount
of work in the family communication area includes the conceptualization,
measurement, and operationalization of family communication-based
constructs and variables.
In the second volume of the Communication Research Measures source-
book (Rubin, Rubin, Graham, Perse, & Seibold, 2009), the area of family
communication was featured for the first time. Volume II provided in-
depth information about four prominent measures in family communi-
cation scholarship from 2001 through 2007: (1) the revised family
communication patterns instrument (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002; Ritchie
& Fitzpatrick, 1990); (2) the child–parent communication apprehension
scale (Lucchetti, Powers, & Love, 2002); (3) individuals’ criteria for telling
family secrets (Vangelisti, Caughlin, & Timmerman, 2001); and (4) the
family communication standards instrument (Caughlin, 2003). The current
volume adds to this base of measures. In the next section, we elaborate fur-
ther on our criteria for selection of measures and profile the new measures
included in this volume in the area of family communication. We then
highlight a few current methodological trends and issues in the area of
family communication scholarship. In the final section, we end with a dis-
cussion of promising new measures on the horizon.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“Before I leave thee, hast thou no word to say to me?”
“I ask nothing of thee, but I give thee a piece of advice. As long as
thou livest, give not occasion to be ashamed of thy name, which
signifies The Blameless. Beware also never to give the ring from thy
finger, without saying first, ‘In the name of the God of all mercy.’”
Solomon exclaimed, “Lord! Thy kingdom exceeds and excels mine!”
and he bade farewell to the queen of the ants.[667]
After Solomon had visited Damascus, he returned another way, so
as not to disturb the ants in their pious contemplation. As he
returned, he heard a cry on the wind, “O God of Abraham, release
me from life!” Solomon hastened in the direction of the voice, and
found a very aged man, who said he was more than three hundred
years old, and that he had asked God to suffer him to live, till there
arose a mighty prophet in the land.
“I am that prophet,” said Solomon. Then the Angel of Death caught
away the old man’s soul.
Solomon exclaimed, “Thou must have been beside me, to have
acted with such speed, thou Angel of Death.”
But the angel answered, “Great is thy mistake. Know that I stand on
the shoulders of an angel, whose head reaches ten thousand years’
journey above the seventh heaven, and whose feet are five hundred
years’ journey beneath the earth. He it is who tells me when I am to
fetch a soul. His eyes are ever fixed on the tree Sidrat Almuntaha,
which bears as many leaves as there are living men in the world;
when a man is born, a new leaf buds out; when a man is about to
die, the leaf fades, and, at his death, falls off; and, when the leaf
withers, I fly to fetch the soul, the name of which is inscribed upon
the leaf.”
“And what doest thou then?”
“Gabriel accompanies me, as often as one of the believers dies; his
soul is wrapped in a green silk cloth, and is breathed into a green
bird, which feeds in Paradise till the end of time. But the soul of the
sinner is carried by me in a tarred cloth to the gates of hell, where it
wanders in misery till the last day.”
Then Solomon washed the body of the dead man, buried him, and
prayed for his soul, that it might be eased of the pains it would have
to undergo during its purgation by the angels Ankir and Munkir.[668]
This journey had so exhausted Solomon, that on his return to
Jerusalem he ordered the Jinns to weave him stout silk carpets on
which he and all his servants, his throne, tables, and kitchen could
be accommodated. When he wanted to go a journey, he ordered the
winds to blow, and raise the carpet with all that was on it, and waft it
whither he desired to travel.
One night, Abraham appeared to the king in a dream, and said to
him: “God has given thee wisdom and power above every other child
of man; He has given thee dominion over the earth and over the
winds; He has suffered thee to build a house to His honour; thou
hast power to speed on the backs of Jinns or on the wings of the
winds where thou listest; now employ the gift of God, and visit the
city of Jathrib (Medina), which will one day give shelter to the
greatest of prophets; also the city Mecca, in which he will be born,
and the temple which I and my son Ishmael—peace be with him!—
rebuilt after the flood.”
Next morning Solomon announced his intention to make a
pilgrimage to Mecca, and bade every Israelite join in the expedition.
The number of pilgrims was so great, that Solomon was obliged to
have a new carpet woven by the Jinns of such vast size that it could
serve the whole caravan, with the camels and oxen and sheep they
destined for sacrifice. When ready to start, Solomon bade the Jinns
and demons fly before the carpet; his confidence in their integrity
was so small, that he would not trust them out of his sight: for this
reason also he drank invariably out of crystal goblets, that even
when drinking he might keep his eyes upon them. The birds he
ordered to fly in ranks above the carpet, to give shadow to the
pilgrims with their wings.
When all was in readiness, and men, Jinns, beasts, and birds were
assembled together, Solomon ordered the winds to descend and
bear the carpet, with all upon it, into the air, and waft it to Medina.
When they approached this town, Solomon made a sign, and the
birds depressed their wings, and the winds abated, and the carpet
sank lightly to the earth. But he suffered no man to step off the
carpet, as Medina was then in the hands of idolaters. He alone went
to the spot where afterwards Mohammed was to erect the first
mosque—it was then a cemetery—and there he offered up his noon-
day prayer. Then he returned to the carpet; at a sign the birds spread
their wings, the winds gathered force and lifted the carpet, and the
whole caravan sailed through the air to Mecca, which was then
under the power of the Djorhamides, who were worshippers of the
One God, and preserved the Kaaba from desecration by idols.
Solomon, with all his company, entered the city, went in procession
round the temple, performed the requisite ceremonies, and offered
the sacrifices brought for the purpose from Jerusalem. Then he
preached a long sermon in the Kaaba, in which he prophesied the
birth of Mohammed and the future glory of Mecca.
After three days, Solomon desired to return to Jerusalem, and he
remounted his throne on the carpet, and all the pilgrims resumed
their places. When the birds spread their wings, and the carpet was
again in motion, the king perceived one ray of sun which pierced the
canopy of birds, and this proved to him that one of the birds had
deserted its place.
He called to the eagle, and bade it go through the roll-call of the
birds, and ascertain which was absent.
The eagle obeyed, and found that the peewit was missing. Solomon
was inflamed with anger, especially as he needed the peewit during
his journey over the desert, to discover for him the hidden wells and
fountains.
“Soar aloft!” exclaimed Solomon to the eagle, “and seek me this
runaway, that I may strip him of his feathers and send him naked
forth into the sun, to become the prey of the insects.”
The eagle mounted aloft, till the earth was beneath him like a
revolving bowl, and he looked in all directions, and at length he spied
the peewit coming from the south. The eagle would have grasped
him in his talons, but the little bird implored him, by Solomon, to
spare him till he had related his history to the king.
“Trust not in the protection of Solomon,” said the eagle; “thy mother
shall bewail thee.” Then the eagle brought the culprit before the king,
whose countenance was inflamed with anger, and who, with a frown,
signed the runagate to be brought before his throne.[669]
The peewit trembled in every limb, and, in token of submission, let
wings and tail droop to the ground. As Solomon’s face still expressed
great anger, the bird exclaimed, “O king and prophet of God!
remember that thou also shalt stand before the judgment-throne of
God!”
“How canst thou excuse thine absence without my consent?” asked
the king.
“Sire, I bring thee news of a land and a queen of which thou hast not
even heard the name—the land of Sheba, and the queen, Balkis.”
“These names are indeed strange to me. Who told thee of them?”
“A lapwing of that country whom I met in my course, to whom I spoke
of thy majesty, and the greatness of thy dominion, and wisdom, and
power. Then he was astonished, and he related to me that thy name
was unknown in his native land; and he spake to me of his home and
the wonders that are there, and he persuaded me to accompany him
thither. And on the way he related to me the history of the Queen of
Sheba, who commands an army generalled by twelve thousand
officers.”
Solomon bade the eagle release the peewit, and bade him relate
what he had heard of Sheba and its queen.
5. THE HISTORY OF THE QUEEN OF SHEBA.
“Sheba,” said the peewit, “is the name of the king who founded the
kingdom; it is also the name of the capital. Sheba was a worshipper
of the sun, Eblis having drawn him from the true God, who sends
rain from heaven, and covers the earth with plenty, and who reads
the thoughts of men’s hearts.
“A succession of kings followed Sheba: the last of the dynasty was
Scharabel, a tyrant of such dissolute habits that every husband and
father feared him. He had a vizir of such singular beauty that the
daughters of the Jinns took pleasure in contemplating him, and
frequently transformed themselves into gazelles that they might trot
alongside of him as he walked, and gaze with admiration on his
exquisite beauty. One of these Jinn damsels, Umeira by name,
conceived for the vizir a violent passion, and forgetting the great
distance which separates the race of the Jinns from that of mortals,
she appeared to him one day as he was hunting, and offered him her
hand, on condition that he should fly with her into her own land, and
that he should never ask her origin. The vizir, dazzled by the
marvellous beauty of Umeira, gladly yielded, and she transported
him to an island in the midst of the ocean, where she married him. At
the end of nine months she gave birth to a daughter, whom she
named Balkis. The vizir, all this while, was ignorant of the nature of
his bride, and one day forgot himself so far as to ask her to what
race she belonged. No sooner had he asked the fatal question, than,
with a wail of sorrow, she vanished for ever from his sight.
“The vizir now left the island, and, regaining his native country,
retired with his babe to a valley far from the capital, and there lived in
seclusion.
“As Balkis grew up, her beauty became more striking, and was of
such a superhuman nature, that her father became uneasy lest the
fame of it should reach the dissolute monster then seated on the
throne of Sheba, and lest his daughter should be ravished from his
arms. He therefore redoubled his precautions to guard Balkis,
keeping her much at home, and only allowing her to appear veiled in
public. But these precautions were vain. Scharabel was in the habit
of travelling about his empire in disguise, and making himself, by this
means, personally acquainted with the condition of his estates.
“On one of these expeditions he appeared, dressed in rags, as a
mendicant, at the door of the ex-vizir, and obtained a glimpse of
Balkis, then thirteen years old, lovely as a houri; she stepped out to
give the beggar alms. At the same moment, the father hurried out
towards his daughter. The eyes of the two men met; a mutual
recognition ensued. The vizir fell at the feet of his king, and
entreated pardon, telling him all that had happened; and Scharabel,
who had fallen in love at first glance with Balkis, readily pardoned
him, restored him to his place as grand vizir, and lodged him in a
magnificent palace near Sheba.
“Installed there, the vizir was full of disquiet. His daughter observing
this, inquired the cause, and received from her father the answer that
he dreaded lest the tyrant should carry her off to his harem; ‘and,’
said the unhappy man, ‘I had rather see thee dead, Balkis, than in
the power of this licentious monster.’
“‘Do not fear for me, my father,’ replied Balkis; ‘what thou dreadest
shall not take place. Appear cheerful before the king. If he wishes to
marry me, then ask him to give me a splendid wedding.’
“A few days after, Scharabel sent to ask the hand of Balkis. The
virgin replied that it should be his if he would solemnize the marriage
with great pomp. To this the king agreed, and a magnificent banquet
was prepared.
“After dinner, the vizir and all the company retired, leaving Balkis
alone with the king. There were, however, four female slaves
present, one singing, another harping, a third dancing, and a fourth
pouring out wine for the king. Balkis took the goblet, and plied her
royal bridegroom well, till he fell drunk upon the floor, and then, with
a dagger, she stabbed him to the heart.
“She at once communicated with her father, and bade him send
orders throughout the town that all the citizens were to bring their
daughters before the king, that he might add the comely ones to his
already extensive list of wives and concubines. He obeyed her, and
the commotion in the town was prodigious. Parents gathered their
friends, those who were officers in the army agitated amongst their
soldiers, and the whole town rose up in revolt, and rushed furiously
to the palace, determined on the death of the tyrant.
“Then Balkis cut off the head of the king, and showed it to the
excited multitude from a window. A cry of joy rang through Sheba.
The palace gates were thrown open, and Balkis was unanimously
elected queen in the room of the murdered tyrant.
“From that hour she has governed Sheba with prudence, and has
made the country prosperous. She sits to hear suits, and gives
judgment on a throne of gold, robed in splendour. All prospers under
her wise administration: but, alas! like her predecessors, she too is a
worshipper of the sun.”
When Solomon heard the story of the peewit, he wrote a letter and
sealed it with his ring, gave it to the bird, and bade him carry it
immediately to the Queen of Sheba.
The peewit flew like an arrow, and on the morrow appeared before
Balkis, and gave her the missive. The queen broke the seal and
read: “Solomon, son of David, and servant of the Most High God, to
Balkis, queen of Sheba, sendeth greeting. In the name of the
merciful and gracious God, peace be to those who walk in His ways.
Do what I bid thee: submit immediately to my sceptre.”[670]
The queen, startled at the abrupt and peremptory command, read
the letter to her council, and asked their advice.
They urged her to follow her own devices, and promised to agree to
whatever she thought fit. She then said: “You know what disasters
follow on war. The letter of Solomon is threatening; I will send him a
messenger, and propitiate him with gifts. If he accepts them, he is
not above other kings; if he rejects them, he is a prophet, and we
must yield to his sway.”
She then dressed five hundred boys as girls, and five hundred girls
she equipped in boys’ clothes. She collected, for presents, a
thousand carpets of gold and silver tissue, a crown adorned with
pearls and diamonds, and a great quantity of perfumes.
She also placed a pearl, a diamond cut through in zigzags, and a
crystal goblet, in a box, and gave it to her chief ambassador.
Finally, she wrote a letter to Solomon, telling him that, if he was a
prophet, he would be able to distinguish boys from girls in the train of
the ambassadors, that he would be able to guess the contents of the
box, pierce the pearl, thread the diamond, and fill the goblet with
water which came neither from earth nor heaven. The chief nobles of
Sheba were sent to bear the letter. Before they left, she said to them:
“If Solomon receives you with arrogance, fear nothing; pride is a sure
token of weakness. If he receives you graciously, be careful—he is a
prophet.” The peewit, who had watched all these proceedings, and
listened to the message and advice, now flew to Solomon and told
him all.
The great king immediately ordered his Jinns to spread his carpet
seven leagues long, leading from his throne towards Sheba. He then
surrounded himself with gold and gems, and gathered all his
courtiers and officers together, and prepared for the audience.
When the ambassadors of Sheba set their feet on the carpet—the
end of which was beyond the range of vision—they were full of
astonishment. This astonishment increased, and became terror,
when they passed between ranks of demons, and Jinns, and nobles,
and princes, and soldiers, extending for many miles.
When the leaders of the embassy reached the foot of the throne,
Solomon received them with a gracious smile. Then they presented
the letter of the queen. Solomon, without opening it, told them its
contents, for it had been read by the peewit. They offered the box,
and he said that in it were a pearl, a diamond, and a goblet. He next
ordered his servants to bring silver ewers before the train of the
ambassadors, that they might wash their hands after their journey.
Solomon watched intently, and he picked out the boys from the girls
at once; for the boys dipped their hands only in the water, whilst the
girls tucked up their sleeves to their shoulders and washed arms as
well as hands.
Then the box was opened and the pearl produced. Solomon
unclasped his pouch and drew forth Schamir, applied it to the pearl,
and a hole was drilled through it immediately. Next he took the
diamond. The hole pierced in it wound about, and a thread inserted
in one end would not pass through to the other end. Solomon took a
piece of silk, called to him a worm, put one end of the thread in its
mouth and inserted it in the diamond. The worm crawled down the
winding passage, and appeared at the other opening with the silk. In
gratitude to the little creature, Solomon gave it for its food for ever
the mulberry-tree. Then he took the crystal goblet. He summoned to
him a huge negro slave, bade him mount a wild horse and gallop it
about the plain till it streamed with sweat. Then, with ease, the
monarch filled the chalice with water that came neither from earth
nor heaven.
Solomon, having accomplished these tasks, said to the
ambassadors: “Take back your presents, I do not want them. Tell the
queen what you have seen, and bid her submit to my rule.”
When Balkis had heard the report of her servants, she saw that it
was in vain for her to resist.
“Solomon,” said she, “is a great prophet, and I must myself do him
homage.”
She accordingly hasted to prepare for her journey, and marched to
King Solomon at the head of her twelve thousand generals, and all
the armies they commanded. When she was a league from
Solomon, the king hit upon a scheme. He called to him a demon,
and bade him transport immediately from Sheba the throne of the
queen and set it beside his own. The Jinn replied that he would bring
it before noon, but the king could not wait, for the queen would soon
be there; then Asaph, his vizir, said, “Raise thine eyes, sire, to
heaven, and before thou canst lower them the throne of Balkis will
be here.”
Asaph knew the ineffable name of God, and therefore was able to do
what he said.
Solomon looked up, and before he looked down Asaph had brought
the throne.
As soon as Balkis appeared, Solomon asked her if she recognized
the seat. She replied, “It is mine, if it is that which it was.” A reply
which, we are told, charmed Solomon.
Now the Jinns were envious of Balkis, and they sought to turn away
the heart of Solomon from her; so they told him that she had hairy
legs.[671]
Solomon, accordingly, was particularly curious to inspect her legs.
He therefore directed the Jinns to lay down in front of the throne a
pavement of crystal one hundred cubits square. Upon this pavement
he ordered them to pour water, so that it might appear to be water.
In order to approach Solomon, Queen Balkis raised her petticoats,
lest they should be wet in passing through what she supposed to be
water of considerable depth. The first step, however, convinced her
that the bottom was nearer the surface than she anticipated, and so
she dropped her petticoats, but not before the great king had seen
that the Jinns had maligned her, and that the only blemish to her legs
was three goat’s hairs; and these he was enabled to remove by a
composition of arsenic and lime, which was the first depilatory
preparation ever employed. This was one of the five arts introduced
by Solomon into the world. The others were, the art of taking warm
baths, the art of piercing pearls, the art of diving, and the art of
melting copper.
The queen stepped gracefully towards the king, and bowing, offered
him two wreaths of flowers, whereof one was natural, the other
artificial, asking him which he preferred. The sagacious Solomon
seemed perplexed; he who had written treatises on the herbs, “from
the cedar to the hyssop,” was nearly outwitted. A swarm of bees was
fluttering outside a window. Solomon ordered the window to be
opened, and the insects flew in, and settled immediately on the
wreath of natural flowers, not one approaching the artificial wreath.
“I will have the wreath the bees have chosen,” said the king,
triumphantly.
Solomon took Balkis to be his wife, and she worshipped the true
God. She gave him all her realm, but he returned it to her; and when
she went into her own land, she bore with her the fruit of her union
with Solomon, and in the course of time bore a son, who is the
ancestor of the kings of Abyssinia.[672]
6. SOLOMON’S ADVENTURE WITH THE APES.
On one of his journeys, Solomon passed through a valley which was

inhabited by apes which dressed themselves like men, and lived in
houses, and ate their food in a way wholly superior to other apes.
Solomon descended from his carpet and marched at the head of his
soldiers into the valley. The apes assembled to resist him, but one of
their elders stepped into the midst of them and said, “Let us rather
submit and lay down our arms, for he who comes against us is a
holy prophet.”
Then three apes were chosen ambassadors, and were sent to
Solomon with overtures of peace.
Solomon asked them to what race they belonged.
The envoys replied, “We are of human origin, and of the race of
Israel, and we are descended from those who, in spite of all
warnings, have violated the Sabbath, and who have therefore, in
punishment, been transformed by God into monkeys.”
Solomon had compassion on the apes, and he gave them a letter on
parchment, assuring to them undisturbed possession of their valley
against all assault by men.
And in after days, in the time of the Calif Omar, some of his troops
invaded this valley, and, with great amazement, beheld the apes
stone a female which had been taken in adultery. And when they
would conquer the valley, an aged ape came before them bearing a
parchment letter. This they were unable to read; so they sent it to the
Calif Omar, who was also unable to decipher the writing; but a Jew
at his court read it, and it was an assurance given to the apes
against invasion by King Solomon.
Therefore Omar sent orders that they were to be left unmolested,
and returned to them their parchment.[673]
7. SOLOMON MARRIES THE DAUGHTER OF
PHARAOH.
The throne of Solomon had four feet. It was of red ruby, and of the
ruby were made four lions. None but Solomon could sit upon the
throne. When Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and sought to
ascend the throne, the lions rose and struck at him, and broke his
legs. He was given remedies, and his legs were reset. No one after
that ventured to sit on the throne.[674]
Djarada was the daughter of King Nubara, of an island in the Indian
Sea, according to the Arabs; of King Pharaoh of Egypt, say the
Jews.
Solomon marched against the king, on his carpet, with as many
soldiers as it would accommodate; defeated him, and slew him with
his own hand. In the palace of King Nubara Solomon found the
Princess Djarada, who was more beautiful than all the ladies in
Solomon’s harem, surpassing even the beautiful Balkis.
Solomon made her mount the carpet, and he forced her, by threats
of death, to share his faith and his couch. But Djarada saw in
Solomon only the murderer of her father, and she recoiled from his
embrace with loathing, and spent her nights and days in tears and
sighs. Solomon hoped that time would heal these wounds and
reconcile her to her fate; but as, after the expiration of a year, her
sorrow showed no signs of abating, he asked her what he could do
which might give her comfort. She replied that at home was a statue
of her father, and that she desired greatly to have it in her chamber
as a reminder of him whom she had lost. Solomon, moved with
compassion, sent a Jinn for the statue, and it was set up in the
apartment of Djarada. Djarada immediately prostrated herself before
it, and offered incense and worship to the image; and this continued
for forty days.
Then Asaph heard of it, and he ascended the pulpit in the temple
and preached before the king and all the people. He declared how
holy and pure had been the ancient prophets from Adam to David,
how they had been preserved clean from all idolatry. Then he turned
to Solomon, and praised his wisdom and piety during the first years
of his reign; but he regretted that his latter conduct had not been as
full of integrity as at first.
When Solomon heard this, he called Asaph to him, and asked him
wherefore he had rebuked him thus before all the people. Asaph
answered, “Thou hast suffered thy passions to blind thee, so that
idolatry is practised in thy palace.”
Solomon hastened to the room of Djarada, and found her in prayer
before the image of her departed father. Then he cried out, “We are
the servants of God, and to Him shall we return.” Then he broke the
image and punished Djarada.
After that he put on him garments which had been woven and sewn
by virgins, strewed ashes on his head, and went into the wilderness
to bewail his sin. God forgave him, after that he had fasted and wept
for forty days.[675]
Another sin that Solomon committed was this. He was very fond of
horses. One day, when the hour of prayer approached, the horses of
Saul were brought before him; and when nine hundred had passed,
Solomon looked up and saw that the hour of prayer was passed, and
he had forgotten to give glory to God. Then said Solomon, “I have
cared for the things of this world, instead of thinking of my Lord;” and
he said, “Bring back the horses;” and when they were brought back,
he cut their throats.[676]
Some commentators on the Koran object that this was an act of
injustice, for Solomon had sinned, not the horses; and they explain
away the passage by saying that he dedicated the horses to God,
and that he did not kill them.[677]
8. HOW SOLOMON LOST AND RECOVERED HIS
RING.
One day that Solomon retired to perform the necessary functions of

nature, he placed his ring in the hand of Djarada; for on such
occasions he was wont to remove the ring from his finger. For the
first time he forgot the advice of the queen of the ants, and gave no
praise to God as he committed the signet to other hands.
Sachr, the mighty Jinn,[678] took advantage of this act of
forgetfulness, and, assuming the form of Solomon, came to the
Egyptian princess and asked her for the ring. She, nothing doubting,
restored it to him; and Sachr went to the hall of audience, and
ascended the throne.
When Solomon returned, he asked Djarada for the signet.
“I have already given it thee,” said she; and then, contemplating him
with attention, she exclaimed, “This is not the king! Solomon is in the
judgment-hall; thou art an impostor, an evil spirit who has assumed
his shape for evil purposes.”
Then Solomon was driven, at her cry, from the palace, and every
one treated him as a fool or rogue. He begged from door to door,
saying, “I, Solomon, was king in Jerusalem!” but the people mocked
him. For three years he was an outcast, because he had
transgressed three precepts of the Law—“The king set over thee ...
shall not multiply horses to himself ... neither shall he multiply wives
to himself; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and
gold.”[679] And this is what befell him in that time. He went into the
land of the Ammonites, and there he fell into great want; but the
master cook of the king’s house took him to serve as scullion in the
kitchen. After he had served for some time, he one day cooked some
meats for the king; and when the king tasted the meats Solomon had
baked, he was well pleased, and sent for Solomon and asked him if
he would be his head cook.
Then Solomon consented, and the king of the Ammonites dismissed
the master cook, and placed Solomon in his room, and Solomon
excelled greatly in cooking, and pleased the king more and more
with the variety and excellence of his dishes every day.
Now it fell out that Naama, daughter of the king, saw Solomon from
day to day, and she conceived an ardent passion for him, and she
went to her mother and said, “I shall die of love, unless I am given
the head cook to husband.”
The queen was astonished and ashamed, and said, “There are kings
and princes and nobles in Ammon; take to you which you will.” But
Naama answered, “I will have none save the head cook.”
Then the queen went and told the king, and he was exceeding wrath,
and would have slain both Solomon and Naama; but when the first
fury of his anger was cooled down, he bade one of his servants take
them, both Solomon and Naama, and conduct them into the desert,
and there leave them to perish.[680] The command of the king was
executed, and Solomon and Naama were left in the wilderness
without food. Then they wandered on till they came to the borders of
the sea, and Solomon found some fishers, and he laboured for them,
and every day they gave him, in payment for his services, two fish.
Thus passed the time, till one day Solomon’s wife, Naama, on
cleaning one of the fishes, found in its belly a ring, and she brought it
to her husband; and, behold! it was his signet which he had put in
the hands of Djarada, and which had been taken from her by
subtlety by the evil spirit. And this was how he recovered it: on the
ring was engraved the Incommunicable Name, and this the Jinn
could not endure; therefore he could not wear the signet, and he had
cast it into the sea, where the fish had swallowed it.
Now when Solomon recovered his ring, he was filled with joy, and
the light returned to his eyes; he went back to Jerusalem with great
haste, and all the people recognized him, and bowed before him;
and when the Evil Spirit saw Solomon, and that he had the signet
upon his hand, he uttered a loud cry and fled. Solomon refused to
see again Djarada, the author of his misfortune; but he visited Queen
Balkis every month, till the day of her death.[681]
When Balkis died, he had her body conveyed to Tadmor in the
desert, the city she had built; but her grave was known to none till
the reign of the Calif Walid, when, in consequence of a heavy rain,
the walls of Tadmor fell. Then was found an iron sarcophagus which
was sixty ells long and forty ells wide, which bore this inscription:
—“Here lies the pious Balkis, queen of Sheba, wife of the prophet
Solomon, son of David. She was converted to the true faith in the
thirteenth year of the reign of Solomon; she married him in the
fourteenth, and died in the three-and-twentieth year of his reign.”
The son of the Calif raised the lid of the coffin, and beheld a woman,
as fresh as if she had only been lately buried.
He announced the fact to his father, and asked what should be done
with the sarcophagus. Walid ordered him to leave it where it had
been found, and to pile blocks of marble over it, so that it might not
again be disturbed by the hand of man.[682]
Solomon, when he was again on the throne, placed a crown on the
head of Naama, and seated her beside him, and sent for the king of
Ammon. And when the king came, he was filled with astonishment,
and wondered how his daughter had escaped from the desert and
had found favour with the greatest of monarchs. Then said Solomon,
“See! I was thy head-cook, and this is thy daughter; bid her come to
thee and kiss thee.” Then the king of Ammon kissed his daughter,
and returned, glad of heart, to his own land.[683]
9. THE DEATH OF SOLOMON.
When Solomon had recovered his throne, he reigned twenty years.

His whole reign was forty years, and he lived in all fifty-five years.[684]
He spent these years in prosecuting the building of the temple.
Towards the end of his life he often visited the temple, and remained
there one or two months plunged in prayer, without leaving it. He
took his nourishment in the temple. He even remained a year thus;
and when he was standing, with bowed head, in a humble attitude
before God, no one ventured to approach him, man or Jinn; if a Jinn
drew near, fire fell from heaven and consumed him.
In the garden of Solomon grew every day an unknown tree. Solomon
asked it, “What is thy name, and what are thy virtues?” And the tree
answered him, “I am called such and such, and I serve such a
purpose, either by my fruits, or by my shadow, or by my fragrance.”
Then Solomon transplanted it elsewhere; and if it were a tree with
medicinal properties, he wrote in books the kinds of remedies for
which it served. One day Solomon saw in his garden a new tree, and
he asked it, “What is thy name, and what purpose dost thou serve?”
The tree replied, “I serve for the destruction of the temple. Make of
me a staff, whereon to lean.”
Solomon said, “None can destroy the temple as long as I am alive.”
Then he understood that the tree warned him that he must shortly
die. He pulled up the tree, and of it he made a staff, and, when he
prayed, he leaned on this staff to keep himself upright.
Solomon knew that the temple was not completed, and that if he
died, and the Jinns knew of it, they would leave off building;
therefore he prayed, “O Lord! grant that the event of my death may
be hidden from the Jinns, that they may finish this temple.”
God heard his prayer, that the temple might be completed, and that
the Jinns might be humbled. Solomon died in the temple, standing,
leaning on his staff, with his head bowed in adoration. And his soul
was taken so gently from him by the Angel of Death, that the body
remained standing; and so it remained for a whole year, and those
who saw him thought he was absorbed in prayer, and they ventured
not to approach.
The Jinns worked night and day till the temple was finished. Now,
God had ordered, the same day that the soul left Solomon, a little
white ant, which devours wood, to come up out of the earth under
the staff, and to gnaw the inside of the staff. She ate a little every
day; and as the staff was very strong and stout, she had not finished
it till the end of the year. Then, when the temple was finished, at the
same time the staff was eaten up, and it crumbled under the weight
of Solomon, and the body fell. Thus the Jinns knew that Solomon
was dead. Now, wherever the white ant eats wood, the void is filled
up with clay and water by the Jinns; and this they will continue to do
till the day of the Resurrection, in gratitude to the little ant which
announced to them the death of him who held them in bondage. If
the clay and the water are not inserted by the Jinns, whence can
they come?
The sages assembled and enclosed an ant in a box, with a piece of
wood, for a night and a day; then they compared the amount
devoured in that time with the length of the staff, and thus they
ascertained how long a time Solomon had been dead.[685]
XXXIX.
ELIJAH.
When the prophet Elijah appeared, idolatry was general. God sent
him to Balbek (Heliopolis), to persuade the inhabitants to renounce
the worship of Baal, from whom the city took its name. Some say
that Baal was the name of a woman, beautiful of countenance. The
Israelites also adored Baal; Elijah preached against idolatry; and
Ahab at first believed in him, and rejected Baal, but after a while
relapsed. Then Elijah prayed, and God sent a famine on the land for
three years, and many men died. None had bread save Elijah, and
when any smelt the odour of bread, they said, “Elijah hath passed
this way!”
One day Elijah came to the house of an old woman who had a son
named Elisha. Both complained of hunger. Elijah gave them bread. It
is said, likewise, that Elisha was paralytic, and that at the prayer of
Elijah he was healed.
When the famine had lasted three years, Elijah went, accompanied
by Elisha, before King Ahab, and he said:—“For three years you
have been without bread; let your god Baal, if he can, satisfy your
hunger. If he cannot, I will pray to Jehovah, and He will deliver you
out of your distress, if you will consent to worship Him.”
Ahab consented. Then Elijah ordered the idol of Baal to be taken out
of the city, and the worshippers of Baal invoked the god, but their
prayers remained unanswered. Then Elijah prayed, and immediately
rain fell, and the earth brought forth green herb and corn.
Nevertheless, shortly after, the people returned to idolatry, and Elijah
was weary of his life; he consecrated Elisha to succeed him, and he

(Download PDF) Communication Research Measures Iii A Sourcelizabeth E Graham Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download PDF) Communication Research Measures Iii A Sourcelizabeth E Graham Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communication Research Measures III:

A Sourcebook Elizabeth E. Graham

Research Co-Production in Healthcare Ian D. Graham

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology - E-Book Elizabeth

Sourcebook for research in music Crabtree

The Art of the Occult: A Visual Sourcebook for the

Abnormal Psychology: Leading Research Perspectives 4th

The Science of Religion, Spirituality, and

Interpersonal Relationships: Professional Communication

Interpersonal Relationships_ Professional Communication

Elizabeth E. Graham (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is Professor and

Selected titles include:

Family Communication, 3rd Edition

Analyzing Media Messages, 4th Edition

The Media Handbook

Edited by Elizabeth E. Graham

ISBN: 978-1-138-30440-6 (hbk)

Editors and Contributors xiii

Measurement in Interpersonal Communication 3

Measurement in Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication 141

Active-Empathic Listening Scale 175

Measure of Online Communication Attitude 295

Student Academic Support Scale 460

Author Index 521

a speciﬁc focus on family caregiving. Other research interests include

Journal of Development Communication, and Journal of Media and Com-

communication. His research on transition to parenthood, defensive

Communication Studies, Communication Reports, and Communication

Prior to the early 1990s, no sourcebook of communication research

We would like to thank the contributors to this volume, all of whom

Consistent with the ﬁrst and second volumes of Communication

that employs factor analysis to reveal interrelationships between and

Measurement Trends and

It has been 25 years since Volume I of the sourcebook was published

Identiﬁcation and Inclusion Process

scale’s: (1) validity/reliability; (2a) frequent use in the ﬁeld or (2b)

Evolving Discipline and Interpersonal Communication

Table 1.1 List of 20 interpersonal communication measures reviewed in this chapter;

NAME OF SCALE CONCEPT/FOCUS AUTHOR(S) JOURNAL

*Active-Empathic Active-empathic Bodie, G. D. Communication

*Communication Emotion regulation White, K. H., Communication

Communication Emotional support Weber, K., Johnson, A., Communication

Dogmatism Scale Open- or closed- Shearman, S. M., & Communication

Table 1.1 (Cont).

NAME OF SCALE CONCEPT/FOCUS AUTHOR(S) JOURNAL

Nonverbal Nonverbal immedi- Richmond, V. P., McCros- Communication

Provider Verbal person- Harvey-Knowles, J. & Communication

*Relational Viewing and treating Hannawa, A. F., & Communication

*Relational Relationship Ledbetter, A. M. Southern

State Empathy Empathy during mes- Shen, L. Western Journal

Verbal Rumin- Repetitive speech Henson, D. F. Communication

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

relationships and often serves as a quality measure for medical practices.

Conceptual Deﬁnitions, Theoretical Issues, and Operational

Other research is ﬁrmly grounded in appropriate theory. In the devel-

To extend the utility of scales to represent the views of both rela-

a 191-item pool that was ultimately reduced to a six-factor scale con-

Interpersonal communication research relies on both high-inference

Scale Development and Validation

Relevancy and Utility

Concluding Observations: Connections to Previous

continually evolving, and multifaceted. Understanding the intricacies of

Harvey-Knowles, J., & Faw, M. (2016). The provider expressions of verbal