SPEECH.MONOGRAPHS

.

Published by THE SPEECH COMMUNICATION AsSOCIATION

VOLUME XXXVII NOVEMBER, 1970 No.4

The Rhetoric of theReport from h-on J\1.ountain RAY LYNN ANDERSON.

Republican Keynoters

The Elements of Thomas De Quinccy'sRhetoric

PAUL A. BAREFIELD

WELDON B. DURHAM

An Analysis of Interaction Structure in theDiscussion of a Ranking Task ERNEST L. STECH

Patterns of Communicative Interaction inSmall Groups

The Effects of Response Set and Raceon Message Interpretation

ROBERT N. BOSTROM

MICHAEL BURGOON

SPECIAL REPORTS''C- -

. Measures of Communication-BoundAnxiety JAMES C. MCCROSKEY

The Relationship Between Affect and Importancein Attitude Measurement STUARTJ. KAPLAN

Indices of Opinionated and Orienting Statementsin Problem-Solving Discussions JOHN KLINE -

Effect of Sex on Comprehension ROBERTJ. KIBLER,and Retention LARRYL. BARKER,and DONALDJ. CEGALA

Index to Volume XXXVII

SPECIAL REPORTS - -

MEASURES OF COMMUNICATION-BOUND ANXIETY

JAMES C. McCROSKEY

The Ad Hoc Committee on Evalua-

tion in speech communication wasformed by the Speech Association ofAmerica and charged with the responsi-bility to examine the needs of the fieldin evaluation and meas~rement. Amongthe recommendations of this committee

was the following:

Since many problems in speech communicationpedagogy may result from students' inhibitionsrather than their inability, we recommend thedevelopment of instruments to measure at vari-ous ages the extent of communication-boundanxiety.1

The purpose of this paper is to reportthe development of several measures ofcommunication apprehension. Thesemeasures were developed as a part of acontinuing research program investi-gating the effects of systematic desensiti-zation on communication apprehension.

TyPES OF CoMMUNICATION-BoUND

A..'lXIETY

."c. - The first concern in the developmentof measures of communication-bound

anxiety is to determine what to measure.An examination of the literature con~

cerning "stage fright" indicates that thisterm is usually used to refer to anxietyin a public speaking situation. An in-

Mr. McCroskey is A.ssociate Professor and Di-rector of Graduate Studies in S1?eechCommuni-cation at lllinois State Universdy. Early phasesof this research were supported by an A.llUniversity Research Grant from Michigan StateUniversity. .

1 "Research Notes," Spectra, V (December,1969), 3-4.

strument designed by Gilkinson tomeasure this type of anxiety has beenavailable for years)! More recently, ashorter form of this early instrument hasbeen reported by Paul. 3

. Friedrich, however, on the basis offactor analytic research, has suggestedthat these instruments are not unidimen-sional.4 His analysis produced threefactors for males which he labeled

"speech anxiety," "exhibitionism," and"reticence." The analysis for femalesubjects produced four factors, the samethree as for males plus one labeled"physical manifestations." Whether thesefactors are "real" dimensions of com-munication-bound anxiety remains to bedetermined. A careful examination ofthe results of Friedrich's analysis sug-

gests that they may not be. The first tWofactors for both males and females ac-counted for most of the explained vari-ance. Although these two factors wereassigned labels that suggest independentdimensions of communication-bound

anxiety, an examination of the items in-cluded in the tWo factors indicates thatthe most significant difference betweenthe tWo groups of items is that the ma-jority of the items in the "speech anxi-ety" factor are negatively worded (allbut three of the 23 items for the male

2 Howard Gilkinson. "Social Fears as Re-ported by Students in College Speech Classes,"Speech Monographs, IX (1942), 141-160. -

3 Gordon L. Paul, InsIght Versus Desensiti- -%I1tion in Psychotherapy (Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press, 1966).

4 GustaV W. Friedrich, "An Empirical Expli-cation of a Concept of Self-Reported SpeechAnxiety," Speech Monographs, XXXVII (1970),67-72.

2iO SPEECH MONOGRAPHS

-"---

group and all but seven of 22 for thefemale group), while almost all of theitems in the "exhibitionism" factor are

positively worded (all 26 of the items forthe male group and all but one of the

29 items for the fema~e group).One of the major problems with the

factor analytic technique is that it willalmost always indicate multidimension-ality, whether such multidimensionalityis actually present or not. Analyses Ihave performed, which included manyof the same items tested by Friedrich,produced conflicting results. When fac-tor analyzed in conjunction with scalesknown to measure another variable(test anxiety), the items on factors oneand two. in the Friedrich analysis weremaintained in a single, stable factor.However, when factor analyzed withoutthe unrelated items, the previously sta-ble factor separated into two factorscomparable to those obtained by Fried-rich. Although there is an obvious needfor more research to determine the di-mensionality of the Gilkinson and Paulinstruments, both Friedrich's and myfindings suggest that multidimension-ality must be a major. concern in thedevelopment of any new instruments.

Even if we are to grant the unidimen-sionality of the Gilkinson and Paul in-struments, there is need for the develop-ment of additional instruments. Theirinstruments focus on communication-

bound anxiety in only one context-public speaking. There are good reasonsto believe that this is not the only con-text in which anxiety can interfere withcommunication, and possibly it is noteven the most important context. Theextended case study research of Phillipsprovides us with an excellent picture ofthe individual with communication-

bound anxiety./I Phillips uses the term

/I Gerald M. Phillips. "Reticence: Pathologyof the Normal Speaker," Speech Monographs,XXXV (1968). 39.49.

"reticent" and avoids talking about"stage fright" in the usual sense. He de-fines the reticent individual as "a personfor whom anxiety about participation inoral communication outweighs his pro-jection of gain from the situation."6Such people not only evidence the nor-mal "stage fright" behaviors related topublic speaking, they also experienceproblems in communicating in smallgroups and in interpersonal transactions.They tend to avoid communicating asmuch as possible. .

The work of Phillips suggests. abroadly based anxiety related to oralcommunication rather than a variety of"types" of communication-bound anxi-ety. I have labeled this phenomenon"communication apprehension." The de-velopment of instruments to measurecommunication apprehension has beenbased on the assumption that the phe-nomenon being measured is unidimen-sional. However, factor analysis has beenemployed consistently as a test of multi-dimensionality. The results of such testsare discussed below.

CHOICE OF MEASUREMENT ApPROACH

Researchers have used three types ofinstruments to measure communication-

bound anxiety: observer ratings, devicesfor indexing physiological changes, andself-report scales.1 As Clevenger hasnoted, these measures do not appear tomeasure the same thing; the correla-tions between the various types of mea-sures are typically very low.8 My choiceof measurement approach was made bya process of elimination. Observer rat- -jngs were excluded first because of the -notorious difficulty in obtaining reliableratings and, most importantly, because

6 Phillips. p. 40.1 Theodore Clevenger. Jr., "A Synthesis of

Experimental Research in Stage Fright," Quar-terly journal of Speech, XLV (1959). 134-145.

8 Clevenger. p. 138.

SPECIA.L REPORTS 271

''''--

such ratings must necessarily be basedon observable behaviors. Many behav-iors presumed to be related to communi-

cation apprehension are either impossi-ble or, at best, extremely difficult toobserve. These behaviors relate to the

withdrawal tendency associated withcommunication apprehension. The se-verely anxious person is likely not tocommunicate at all in a given instance;thus no rating comparable to one foractual communication could be assigned.Even if this problem could be overcome,there would be a need to observe an in-dividual in a number of communicationcontexts if an index of communicationapprehension across contexts were to beobtained. Because of all of these diffi-

culties, the observer rating approach wasconsidered inappropriate.

Because the primary need for instru-mentation for communication appre-hension is a measure that can be admin-

istered easily to large numbers of indi-viduals at low cost, physiological indexeswere also ruled out. Mechanical devices

for indexing physiological changes arerelatively expensive and not available onmany college campuses or in most ele-mentary and secondary schools. Equallyimportant, mechanical devices havesome of the same difficulties as observer

ratings. It is very difficult, if not impossi-ble, to obtain physiological indexes dur-ing some communication transactions.

And to obtain a reliable physiologicalindicant of communication apprehen-sion would necessitate obtaining indexesfrom a variety of types of communica-tion transactions. In addition, physio-logical indexes are inherently incapableof. measuring withdrawal responses in anactual communication environment.

Because of the aforementioned prob-lems with the other approaches tomeasurement of communication-bound

anxiety, I selected the self-report scalesapproach, specifically the Likert-type

scale. This approach has three majoradvantages. First, such scales are easyand inexpensive to administer. Second,they can tap anxiety responses across avariety of communication contexts atone time. Third, Likert-type self-reportscales, when properly developed, nor-mally are highly reliable. Validity ofsuch scales is often questioned, however.This problem will be considered below.

THE SCALES AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT

Four scales have been developed.Three of the scales, each for a differentage level, are intended to measure thebroadly-based anxiety referred to aboveas communication apprehension. Thefourth scale was designed to measureanxiety only in the public speaking con.text. The four scales are: the Personal

Report of Communication Apprehen-sion for College Students (PRCA-Col-lege), the Personal Report of Communi-cation Apprehension for Tenth Graders(PRCA-Ten), the Personal Report ofCommunication Apprehension for Sev-enth Graders (PRCA-Seven), and thePersonal Report of Public Speaking Ap-prehension (PRPSA). These instrumentsare shown in Tables 1-4. The proceduresemployed in their development andother pertinent information are dis-cussed below. -

PRCA-College. The PRCA-College in-strument has received primary attentionbecause of the need for this instrument

in a continuing research program. Aninitial pool of 76 Likert-type items wasgenerated. Thirty of these were takenintact from the Paul version of Gilkin- .;.

son's PRCS instrument. The remainingitems were written by graduate studentsin speech and me. These items focusedon interpersonal communication (e.g.,conversing with an acquaintance), smallgroup communication (e.g., participa-tion in a group discussion), and a few

SPEECH MONOGIU.PHS -

proximately 250 college students.. Theresponses were subjected to principalcomponents factor analysis and varimaxrotation. The result of this analysis in-dicated three factors, The first factor ac-

counted for 57 per cent of the totalvariance of scores and the remainingfactors accounted for approximately 6per cent each. Most of the variance iso-lated in the second and third factors was

contributed by secondary loadings. ofitems with their primary loadings on thefirst factor. No item loaded higher than.50 on either the second or third factor.

It was impossible to distinguish anycharacteristics of these factors which

clearly disinguished them from the pri-mary factor. Thus the items with theirhighest loadings or moderate secondaryloadings (.40 or above) on these factorswere discarded. The 20 items with the

highest factor loadings on the primaryfactor (all above .50) were selected tocompose the initial instrument.

Over a period of a year the instrumentwas administered to 1,434 college stu-dents at Michigan State University. In-ternal consistency reliability estimates(odd-even) ral).ged from .92 to .94. Test-retest reliability over a ten day period(N = 769) was .83.

The Test Anxiety Inventory9 was ad-ministered to 542 Michigan State stu-dents along with the PRCA-College. Al-though the scores on the two instrumentswere significantly correlated (.32), factoranalysis with varimax rotation indicatedthat the items on the two measures load-

ed on separate factors. The analysis pro-duced two factors, each of which ac-

counted for about 35 per cent of the -combined variance. All of the items of

the PRCA-College instrument loaded onone factor, all of the items on the Test

272

TABLE IPRCA-CoLLECE

-"- -

This instrument is composed of 20 statementsconcerning feelings about communicating withother people. .

Indicate the degree to which the statementsapply to you by marking whether you (1)strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are undecided, (4)disagree, or (5) strongly disagree with eachstatement. Work quickly, just record your firstimpression.1. While participating in a conversation with

a new acquaintance I feel very nervous.2. I have no fear of facing an audience.3. I look forward to expressing my opinion at

meetings.4. I look forward to an opportunity to speak

in public. "5. I find the prospect of speaking mildly

pleasant. .

6. When communicating, my posture feelsstrained and unnatUral.

7. I am tense and nervous while participatingin group discussions.

8. Although I talk fluently with friends I amat a loss for words on the platform.

9. My hands tremble when I try to handleobjects on the platform.

10. I. always avoid speaking in public if pos-sIble.II. I feel that I am more fluent when talking

to people than most other people are.12. I am fearful and tense all the while I am

speaking before a group of people.13. My thoughts become confused and jumbled

when I speak before an audience.14. Although I am nervous just before getting

up, I soon forget my fears and enjoy theexperience.

15. Conversin~ with people who hold positionsof authonty causes me to be fearful andtense. .

16. I dislike to use my body and voice ex-pressively.

Ii. I feel relaxed and comfortable while speak-ing.

18. I feel self-conscious when I am called uponto answer a question or give an opinion inclass.

19. I face the prospect of making a speech withcomplete confidence.

20. I would enjoy presenting a speech on alocal television show.

extreme public speaking situations (e.g.,giving a speech on television). The re-sultant pool of items represented a crosssection of communication contexts.There were also some items that did not

relate exclusively to anyone context(e.g., "I dislike to use my body and voiceexpressively").

These items were administered in a

typical five-choice response format to ap-

9 J. R. Emery and J. D. Krumboltz, "Stan-dard Versus Individualized Hierarchies in De-sensitization to Reduce Test Anxietv," Journalof Counseling Psychology, XIV (1967), 204-209.

273SPECIAL REPORTS

Anxiety Inventory loaded on the otherfactor. In a separate analysis of thesedata, not including the scores from theTest Anxiety Inventory, two factorswere observed on the PRCA-College in-strument. All of the items with their

highest loading on the first factor werepositively worded, all but one of theitems on the second factor were nega-tively worded. On the basis of these re-sults, I believe it is more defensible to

conclude that the PRCA-College is uni-dimensional than that it is multidimen-sional.

The instrument subsequently was ad-ministered to 2,479 college students atIllinois State University. In the firstadministration at Illinois State (N =1,12i) ten additional items were addedto the instrument to determine whether

they would affect the results obtained.An analysis of the resulting data indi-cated that all but one of the original20 items had a sufficiently high item-total correlation to be retained in the in-

strument. This item had a relatively lowitem-total correlation (.28), and al-

" -

"01360I~gl:330

IJ20J10JOO2902S0270260250240230220

f2108200"'190 I'alSO»l70 '8160~150~JJ.O'::130

120

f~I

I<0807060co40;020100 J,;30 40 !6 $0

though this correlation was significant atthe .01 level it did not meet the preset.001 criterion. The item also was found

(on the basis of a t-test between the 27per cent of the students with the highestscores and the 27 per cent with the low-est scores) to be nondiscriminating. Theobserved difference was significant at the.05 level but not at the preset criterionof the .001 level. Although the itemcould have been retained without seri-

ously harming the total instrument, itwas discarded in favor of one of the newitems which had an item-total cor.rela-tion of .72 and met the criterion for dis-

crimination. Figure I shows a frequencydistribution of scores for the 2,479

Illinois State University students whohave completed the instrument. The1,434 Michigan State students are notincluded because they completed the in-strument with the item that was subse-

quently discarded. The frequency dis-tribution for the Michigan State stu-dents, however, is almost exactly thesame as the one in Figure 1. The distri-bution is approximately normal. The

~

5S 7S 8S 908060 6S 70

P!!CAScore. Groupe4 in Intor'l'W oC S Unita

FIGUREI. Frequenc)' Distribution of PRCA-College Scores for 2479 Illinois State University Students

274 SPEECH MONOGRAPHS . -

.

mean for the 2,479 ISU students is60.45, the standard deviation is 11.58.The internal consistency (odd-even) re-liability estimate is .93.

Factor analysis and varimax rotation.of the data from the total Illinois State

group again produced a two-factor solu-tion. As was the case with the data from

the Michigan State students, one factorwas composed of positively worded itemsand the other was composed of nega-tive!y worded items. These two factorsare comparable to the first two obtainedby Friedrich in his analysis of the Gil-kinson instrument.tO I do not believe,

however, that these results properly canbe interpreted as an indication of multi-dimensionality. Rather, I interpretthese results (as well as those reportedby Friedrich) to be indicative of tworesponse patterns relating to item word-ing rather than item content.

Scoring this instrument in the usual1-5 manner (1 indicating least appre-hension, 5 indicating most) yields a po-tential range of scores from 20 to 100..The hypothetical neutral position in theinstrument is 60.0. Determining whatan individual score means is speculativeat best. Any score higher than 60 sug-gests the presence of more than averageapprehension. Exactly how much ap-prehension a person must have before hecan be considered to have "abnormal"

apprehension is another matter. Subjec-tive observation of students who have

been involved in our research programsuggests that individuals with scoreshigher than 70 (approximately onestandard deviation above the mean) arealmost always highly anxious. Subjectsscoring over 80 (approximately twostandard deviations above the mean) canbe described as severely apprehensive.

Determining the validity of any self-report measure is difficult, and the

to Friedrich, pp. 69.71.

PRCA-ColIege is no exception. An exam-ination of the items. included iil the in-

strument and the procedures employedin the development of the instrumentare suggestive, of course, of face validity.Determining validity on the basis of cor-relations of the PRCA-College withother measures was discounted becauseof the absence of other measures of highenough quality to serve as criterion vari-ables. For example, observer ratingswere discounted as a criterion variablebecause of both their unreliability and

the impossibility of observing some of thebehavioral syndromes which would. beanticipated as a result of high communi-cation apprehension, e.g. withdrawal.Similarly, physiological indicants wererejected because of the difficulty, if notimpossibility, of creating comparablesituations for measurement between the

self-report and the physiological indi-cant. A crude, but suggestive, indicantof validity was provided by one instruc-tor at Illinois State University. In thisinstructor's classes students were assigned

to participate in group discussions ingroups of six. The students then rankedthemselves a.nd the other members oftheir group in terms of their quality ofparticipation. All of the highly-anxiousstudents, according to the PRCA-Collegeinstrument, were ranked by the othermembers of their group either fifth orsixth, as would be expected.

In summary, the PRCA-College in-strument is reliable and has some indi-

cation of validity. Because it employsthe Likert approach to measurement,the data which it yields normally wouldbe considered interval. It appears that';'this instrument is of sufficient quality tobe employed in research on communica-tion apprehension among college stu-dents.

PRCA-Ten. The PRCA-Ten was de.

veloped subsequent to the developmentof the college instrument. The college

SpECIAL REPORTS

instrument was taken as the base forPRCA-Ten. Some of the items were re-

worded to be more appropriate for in-dividuals at this age level and ten itemswere added that appeared to be relevantto communication experiences of tenthgraders. This instrument was adminis-tered to 123 tenth graders in the Uni-versity High School in Normal, Illinois.The items selected for PRCA-Ten (see

Table 2) included several that were not

TABLE 2PRCA.TE:-I

-

This instrument is composed of 20 statememsregarding feelings about comumnicating withother people:

Indicate the degree to which the statementsapply to you by marking whether you. (1)strongly agree, (2) agree. (3) are undecided.(4) disagree. or (5) strongly disagree with eachstatement. 'Work quickly, just record your firstimpression.

1. While participating in a conversation witha new acquaimance I feel very nervous.

2. I seek out the opportunity to converse withother people.

3. When I talk with a member of the opposite. sex who is near my own age. I feel quite

nervous.4. I have no fear of facing an audience.5. I look forward to expressing my opinion

at meetings.6. I look forward to an opportunity to speak

in public. .7. I enjoy meeting and talking with new

people.8. I am tense and nervous while participating

in group discussions.9. Although I talk fluently with friends I am

at a loss for words on the platform.10. My hands tremble when I try to handle

objects on the platform.11. I prefer not to talk with people unless I

know them well. .12. I always avoid speaking in public if pos.

sible.13. I feel that I am more fluent when talking to

people than most other people are.14. I am fearful and tense all the while I am

speaking before a group of people.15. My thoughts become confused and jumbled

when I speak before an audience.16. Although I am nervous just before getting

up. I soon forget my fears and enjoy theexperience.

17. Conversing with people who hold positionsof authority causes me to be fearful andtense.

18. I feel relaxed and comfortable while speak.ing.

19. I face the prospect of making a speech withcomplete confidence.

20. I would enjoy presenting a speech on alocal television show.

275

on the original college instrument. Thebasis for selection was item total cor-relations and t-tests of discrimination.The items selected all had item-totalcorrelations of .50 or higher and discrim-inated beyond the .001 level. The in-ternal reliability estimate (N = 123) forthe 20 items selected for the measurewas .88. No test-retest reliability estimatehas yet been obtained.

PRCA-Seven. The development of thePRCA-Seven instrument folowed the

same procedure used for PRCA-Ten.The 30 items were administered to. 72

seventh graders in Metcalf Junior HighSchool, Normal, Illinois. Items selectedfor PRCA-Seven (see Table 3) were se-lected on the same basis as above. Theinternal reliability estimate (N =72)for the 20 items selected for this measurewas .87. No test-retest reliability estimateis as yet available.

TABLE 3PRCA.SEVE:-I

This instrument is composed of 20 statementsconcerning feelings about communicating withother people.

Indicate the degree to which the statementsapply to you. by marking whether you (1)strongly agree, "(2) agree, (3) are undecided. (4)disagree, or (5) strongly disagree with eachstatement. Work quickly, just record your firstimpression. .

1. While participating in a conversation witha new acquaintance I feel very nervous.

2. Talking with people is one of my favoritepastimes.

3. I have no fear of facing an audience.4. I look forward to expressing my opinion at

meetings. .5. I look forward to an opportunity to speak

in public.6. I find the prospect of speaking mildly

pleasant.7. When communicating, my posture feels

strained and unnatural. .8. I enjoy meeting and talking with new peo--

pIe.9. I am tense and nervous while participating

in group discussions.10. Although I talk fluently with friends I

am at a loss for words on the platform.11. My hands tremble when I try to handle

objects on the platform.12. I prefer not to talk with people unless I

know them well.13. I always avoid speaking in public if possi-

ble.

276 SPEECH MONOGRA.PHS . .

14. I am fearful and tense all the while I amspeaking before a group of people.

15. My thoughts become confused and jumbledwhen I speak before an audience.

16. Conversin~ with people who hold positionsof authonty causes me to be fearful andtense.

17. I feel relaxed and comfortable while speak-ing.

18. I enjoy preparing a talk.19. I face the prospect of making a speech

with complete confidence.20. I would enjoy presenting a speech on a

local television show.

.'c. .

PRPSA. The PRPSA was developed

by substituting public speaking situa-tions for test situations in an instrument

used by Emery and Krumboltz to mea-sure test anxiety.!l The test anxiety in-strument has been used in a number ofstudies and found to be reliable. It is a

Likert-type scale which, when scored inthe usual 1-5 manner, yields scores witha potential range of 34 to 170. The hypo-thetical neutral position is 102. Thisinstrument was selected as the base for

the PRPSA because it provided an ex-cellent variety of anxiety stimuli whichcould be revised to relate to public

speaking. The original intent was toproduce a shorter form of about 20items selected from the original 34. How-ever, item analysis and factor analysis(N =769) indicated that all of the itemswere discriminating and all loaded on asingle factor. Thus, the entire group of34 items was retained in the instrument.

The PRPSA was administered to 945

students in a public speaking course atMichigan State University, and em-ployed as a secondary measure in three

TABLE 4PRPSA

This instrument is composed of 34 statementsconcerning feelings about communicating withother people.

Indicate the degree to which the statementsapply to you by marking whether you (I)strongly agree. (2) agree, (3) are undecided,(4) disagree, or (5) strongly dISagree with each

11 Emery and Krumboltz.

statement. Work quickly. just record your firstimpression. .

1. While preparing for giving a speech I feeltense and nervous.

2. I feel tense when I see the words "speech"and "public speech" on a course outlinewhen studying.

3. My thoughts become confused and jumbledwhen I am giving a speech.

4. Right after giving a speech I feel that Ihave had a pleasant experience.

5. I get anxious when I think about a speechcoming up. .

6. I have no fear of giving a speech.7. Although I am nervous just before starting

a speech. I soon settle down after startingand feel calm and comfortable.

8. I look forward to giving a speech.9. When the instructor announces a speaking

assignment in class I can feel myself get-ting tense.

10. My hands tremble when I am giving aspeech.

11. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.12. I enjoy preparing for a speech.13. I am in constant fear of forgetting what 1

prepared to say.14. I get anxious if someone asks me something

about my topic that I do not know.15. I face the prospect of giving a speech with

confidence.16. I feel that I am in complete possession of

myself while giving a speech.17. My mind is clear when giving a speech.18. I do not dread giving a speech.19. I perspire just before starting a speech.20. My heart beats very fast just as I start a

speech. .21. I experience considerable anxiety while sit-

ting in the room just before my speechstarts.

22. Certain j uts of my body feel very tenseand rigi while giving a speech.

23. Realizing that only a little time remainsin a speech makes me very tense andanxious.

24. While giving a speech I know I can controlmy feelings of tension and stress.

25. I breathe faster just before starting aspeech.

26. I feel comfortable and relaxed in the houror so just before giving a speech.

27. I do poorer on speeches because I amanxious.

28. I feel anxious when the teacher announcesthe date of a speaking assignment.

29. When I make a mistake while giving aspeech. I find it hard to concentrate on theparts that follow.

30. During an important speech I experience.';'a feeling of helplessness building up insideme.

31. I have trouble falling asleep the nightbefore a speech.

32. My heart beats very fast while I present aspeech.

33. I feel anxious while waiting to give myspeech.

34. While giving a speech I get so nervous 1forget facts 1 really know.

" \ ~

SPECIAL REPORTS 277

-

studies.!2 Three separate internal relia-bility estimates for the measure were .94.A test-retest reliability estimate (N =769) was .84 over a ten-day period. Themean score for the 945 subjects whohave completed this instrument is 114.62.The standard deviation is 17.21. The

shape of the frequency distribution ofscores for these students is comparableto that for the PRCA-College (see Fig-ure 1). However, the point of inflectionof the frequency curve is substantiallyabove the hypothetical neutral point.This may be taken to indicate either abias in the instrument which producesscores indicating higher anxiety thanwould be expected, or that public speak-ing produces more anxiety than othercommunication transactions. The latter

seems to be the more probable explana-tion.

The PRPSA was administered to 542

Michigan State University students alongwith the PRCA-College and the originai

. Emory and Krumboltz Test Anxiety In-ventory. The PRPSA and the PRCA-College measures were found to be sig-nificantly correlated (.41). The PRPSAand the Test Anxiety Inventory werealso significantly correlated (.36) as werethe PRCA-College and the Test AnxietyInventory (.32). These significant corre-lations cannot be taken as indicants of

concurrent validity because the mea-

12 Jack G. Nichols, "An Investigation of theEffects of Varied Rates of Training on Syste-matic Desensitization for Interpersonal Com-munication Apprehension" (unpubl. PhD. diss.,Michigan State University, 1969); Charles D.Ertle, "A Study of the Effect of HomogeneousGrouping on Systematic Desensitization for theReduction of Interpersonal Communicative Ap-prehension" (unpbl. PhD. diss., Michigan StateUniversity, 1969); and James C. McCroskey,David C. Ralph, and James E. Barrick, "TheEffect of Systematic Desensitization on SpeechAnxiety," Speech Teacher, XIX (1970), 32-36.The PRCA-College was used as the primarymeasure in the first two studies above.

sures are supposed to index differentanxieties. Nor should they be interpretedas indicants of invalidity. Less than 20per cent of the variance on one measurecan be predicted from the score on an-other measure. This small amount of

variance may represent a general anxietylevel of an individual present in manysituations, such as test. taking, publicspeaking, communicating in smallgroups, walking alone in the woods, con-templating the likelihood of beingdrafted, and so forth.

SUMMARY

The instruments reported above weredesigned to index communication appre-hension reliability, quickly, and inex-pensively. The PRCA-College andPRPSA have been used to screen stu-dents for research on the reduction of

communication apprehension.13 ThePRCA-College has also been used as ameasure of communication apprehen-sion in two studies of teaching methodsin the basIC course in speech.!4 In everycase results obtained for the instrumentshave been consistent with theoretical ex-

pectations. While these instrumentshave been satisfactory for the purposesfor which they were designed, futureusers of the instruments (particularlyPRCA-Ten and PRCA-Seven) shouldcarefully evaluate the re~ults they obtainto determine whether reliability andunidimensionality are maintained.

13 Nichols; Ertle.14 Jackson R. Huntley, "An Investigation of

the Relationships Between Personality andTypes of Instructor Criticism in the Beginning -Speech-Communication Course" (unpuhl. Ph.D. -diss., Michigan State University, 1969); DavidA. Dymacek, "The Relationship of Number ofPerformances to Anxiety Reduction and Per-formance Improvement in a Basic SpeechCourse" (unpubl. M.S. thesis, Illinois State Uni-versity, 1970).