Communicative adaptability scale: evaluating its use as an 'other-report' measure.(Report)

This study explored the validity and reliability of the Communicative Adaptability Scale (CAS) (Duran, 1983) as an "other-report" measure of competence. Dyads (N= 432) provided self-other reports of adaptability, self-reports for cognitive flexibility, and other-reports of conversational appropriateness. After confirmatory factor analysis on all four measures, the data were subjected to the Social Relations Model (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) and correlational analysis. Support for the CAS as an other-report measure was established. The final CFA resulted in appropriate fit indices, the CAS subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability, and concurrent validity was established for this sample.

Keywords: Adaptability; Competence; Measurement; Methodology

Communicative Adaptability Scale: Evaluating Its Use as an 'Other-Report' Measure

Interpersonal communication competence continues to be a concern for interpersonal scholars. Empirical measures of interpersonal communication competence exist (for a review, see Spitzberg, 2003), but most are self-report measures. Although a self-report measure of interpersonal communication competence, such as the Communicative Adaptability Scale (CAS) (Duran, 1983), might be appropriate to use in some cases, controversy over the validity of self-report measures exists.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the other-report validity and reliability of an already validated self-report interpersonal communication competence measure. Those interested in studying interpersonal communication competence require a measure that meets social scientific standards. Providing evidence of construct validity, concurrent validity, and acceptable reliabilities are three ways to begin addressing whether or not an other-report measure of interpersonal communication competence meets these standards. The next section explains why it is important to investigate a measure's use from a point of reference different from its originally designed purpose.

Self-reported communication competence has been the focus of methodological controversies in interpersonal communication literature. The traditional referent for measuring communication competence is the self. This method, however, has been criticized. For example, McCroskey (1984) stated people's awareness of their own competence is questionable. Pairing self-perceptions of communication with other's perceptions could provide some evidence that perhaps people do not see their own competence in the same way others do.

Normally, self-perceptions of competence do not match other-perceptions of competence (Carrell & Willmington, 1996; Cupach & Spitzberg, 1983; Duran & Zakahi, 1988; Rubin, 1985; Rubin, Graham, & Mignerey, 1990; Sypher & Sypher, 1984). Explanations usually attribute this lack of consistency to differences in perception processes (Rubin, 1990).