Homework help

The Development and Validation of the Student Communication Satisfaction Scale Alan K. Goodboy, Matthew M. Martin & San Bolkan1

Four studies (N!639) were conducted to develop and validate a global measure of student communication satisfaction with an instructor. In study one, participants were 155 students who reported on an instructor from their smallest class during the semester. Participants completed the Student Communication Satisfaction Scale (SCSS), the Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory, and the Conversational Appro- priateness Scale. Results indicated that the SCSS is unidimensional, has initial concurrent validity, and is internally reliable. In study two, participants were 161 students who completed the SCSS, Attributional Confidence Scale, Revised Affective Learning Measure, and Student Motives for Communicating Scale in an attempt to establish additional concurrent validity. The SCSS was correlated positively with attributional confidence for the instructor, affect for the course and instructor, and the relational, functional, participatory, and sycophancy motives, while excuse-making was correlated negatively with communication satisfaction. Additionally, results of a confirmatory factor analysis yielded a single-factor solution. In study three, a confirmatory factor analysis of the scale using another sample (N!165) yielded a single-factor solution. In study four (N!158), discriminant validity was established as the SCSS loaded on a separate factor than the ICSI and was correlated positively with a host of instructional outcomes, student communication behavior, and perceived instructor communication.

Keywords: Communication Satisfaction; Instructor Communication; Student Communication; Affective Learning; Motivation

1 Alan K. Goodboy (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2007) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Bloomsburg University. Matthew M. Martin (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is a Professor and Chair in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. San Bolkan is an Assistant Professor at Bloomsburg University. Alan Goodboy can be contacted at [email protected]. The authors would like to thank the editor, Melanie Booth-Butterfield, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2009 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/03634520902755441

Communication Education Vol. 58, No. 3, July 2009, pp. 372"396

A fundamental characteristic of student"teacher relationships is that student affect fosters relational development in the classroom (Frymier & Houser, 2000). The

positive development of these relationships is frequently a function of direct

communication between the teacher and student. A plethora of teacher commu-

nication behaviors such as teacher immediacy (Andersen, 1979; Christophel, 1990;

Gorham, 1988; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Richmond, Gorham,

& McCroskey, 1987), teacher confirmation (Ellis, 2000, 2004; Goodboy & Myers,

2008; Schrodt, Turman, & Soliz, 2006), and teacher affinity-seeking (Richmond,

1990; Roach & Byrne, 2001) are behaviors teachers employ to create student affect.

Ultimately, teachers should be concerned with student attitudes and affect as they

relate to actual learning (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971; Krathwohl, Bloom, &

Masia, 1964). One affective variable that teachers should be concerned with involves

promoting a feeling of communication satisfaction. Communication satisfaction is an affective response to the accomplishment of

communication goals and expectations (Hecht, 1978a). Communication satisfaction

results when positive expectations are fulfilled and is largely contextual (Hecht,

1978b). Competent communicators report more satisfaction in communication

encounters (Spitzberg, 1991). Although research on communication satisfaction has been conducted in other

communication contexts (e.g., Chen, 2002; Myers, 1998), scholars have given little

attention to communication satisfaction in the instructional context (Goodboy &

Myers, 2007; Plax, Kearney, & Downs, 1986). Even though attitudes and affective

learning have received considerable attention in the instructional context (Allen,

Witt, & Wheeless, 2006), communication satisfaction remains a largely under-

studied outcome in the teacher"student relationship. Accordingly, the purpose of these studies was to develop a measure of student communication satisfaction

with an instructor and begin to validate this affective outcome through validity

testing.

Study One

Hecht (1978a) developed a widely used measure of communication satisfaction called

the Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (ICSI). Although Hecht’s

measure has been established as a valid operationalization of interpersonal

communication satisfaction, a different measure may be more appropriate to assess

student communication satisfaction with an instructor for several reasons. First,

Hecht’s measure assesses satisfaction in reference to a particular conversation.

Participants completing this measure reference an actual conversation they recently

encountered. A global measure of student communication satisfaction would allow

assessment in reference to communication with an instructor throughout the

semester. Moreover, some of the scale items in Hecht’s scale are difficult to adapt

globally and irrelevant when measuring global satisfaction (e.g., ‘‘I had something else

to do.’’).

Student Communication 373

Second, although the teacher"student relationship is argued to be an interpersonal one, there are two main characteristics that differentiate it from other relationships: (a) a lack of equality and (b) a time constraint associated with the relationship (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Consequently, communication is not as intimate or personal as in other interpersonal relationships. Much of student communication with an instructor is centered on gaining information about the course or content

(Martin, Mottet, & Myers, 2000; Martin, Myers, & Mottet, 1999, 2002). This sort of communication is largely instrumental and does not transpire in other interpersonal relationships (e.g., romantic relationships, friendships). Thus, fulfilling students’ expectations about communication and eliciting satisfied feelings in the classroom

may not be as personal as some of the items on Hecht’s scale (e.g., ‘‘I felt that we could laugh easily,’’ ‘‘The other person genuinely wanted to get to know me,’’ ‘‘I felt like I could talk about anything with the other person’’). Although items such as these certainly reflect interpersonal communication satisfaction, student communication

satisfaction may not be dependent on perceptions of laughter or the perception that anything could be talked about. Because research on communication satisfaction suggests differences in communication satisfaction when relationships are non- intimate versus intimate (Hecht, Sereno, & Spitzberg, 1984), scale items that reflect student communication satisfaction should be less interpersonal and, instead, reflect

more of the fulfillment of classroom expectations. Accordingly, the purpose of this research was twofold: to develop a student communication-satisfaction measure and to begin validating this measure. Therefore, the following research question and hypothesis were presented:

RQ1: What is the underlying factor structure for the developed scale and is it reliable?

H1: A strong correlation will exist between Hecht’s (1978a) interpersonal communication satisfaction measure and the student communication satisfaction scale.

Although communication satisfaction can be considered an outcome of commu-

nication competence, interpersonal communication competence is frequently considered a function of conversational effectiveness and appropriateness (Egland & Spitzberg, 1996; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Appropriateness refers to when a behavior does not violate expected norms or values in a given context (Egland &

Spitzberg, 1996). Canary and Spitzberg (1989) examined conflict strategies and appropriateness and discovered that appropriateness was related positively to integrative conflict tactics. Self and relational partner perceptions of competence are strong predictors of effectiveness and appropriateness (Spitzberg, 1991). Considering that communication satisfaction and conversational appropriateness

both rely on the fulfillment of expectations and are theoretically similar constructs, they should be correlated positively. In an attempt to establish concurrent validity, the following hypothesis was posited:

H2: A positive relationship will exist between student communication satisfaction and reported conversational appropriateness with an instructor.

374 A. K. Goodboy et al.

Measure Development

The initial step in this study was to develop a global measure of student

communication satisfaction. Twenty-six items were created that assessed general

and global student satisfaction when communicating with an instructor. The first

author created 20 items, which were then reviewed by the second author for face

validity. The second author offered revisions to these 20 items and created an

additional 6 items. These items were created to reflect Hecht’s (1978b) conceptua-

lization of communication satisfaction, this time from an instructional rather than an

interpersonal perspective. To avoid acquiescence response bias, 18 of the items were

positively worded and 8 were negatively worded. These 26 items were administered to

participants. The response format for these items utilized a 7-point Likert-type

format ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The 26 items from the preliminary pool were subjected to an exploratory factor

analysis (using principal axis factoring). Since a single-factor solution was anticipated,

an exploratory factor analysis was used without rotation of factors. The number of

factors obtained from factor analysis was determined by four criteria. Each factor must

(a) have a minimum Eigenvalue of 1.0, (b) account for at least 5% of the variance, (c)

have a loading of .60 on one factor but less than .40 on another factor, and (d) not cross

load on other factors (Hatcher, 1994; McCroskey & Young, 1979). Two items did not

pass the 60/40 test and were consequently deleted. The remaining 24 items (see Table 1)

produced a single factor with one Eigenvalue greater than 1.0.

Data Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis (without rotation) and internal reliability analysis were

used to test RQ1. Pearson product-moment correlations were used to test H1 and H2.

Results

Research question one inquired about the number of factors in the developed scale

and the reliability of the scale. The exploratory factor analysis (see Table 1) produced

one factor (Eigenvalue!15.81, 65.88% of the variance accounted for; M!5.49, SD!1.08, Median!5.67, Skewness!#.94) with a total of 24 items. The scale produced a high internal reliability estimate with an obtained Cronbach alpha of .98. Hypothesis one predicted a strong relationship between the developed SCSS and

the existing but adapted ICSI. This hypothesis was supported. A positive and strong

correlation was discovered between the two measures (r[154]!.90, pB.001) accounting for 81% of the variance.1

Hypothesis two examined concurrent validity support by predicting a positive

relationship between the Student Communication Satisfaction Scale and the adapted

Conversational Appropriateness Scale. This hypothesis was confirmed. Results of a

Pearson correlation indicate that this relationship was significant and positive

(r[154]!.56, pB.001) accounting for 31% of the variance.

376 A. K. Goodboy et al.

Study Two

The purpose of study two was to further validate the Student Communication

Satisfaction Scale (SCSS). Validity refers to whether or not a measure is actually

measuring what is proposed (Kerlinger, 1986). This study focused on establishing

concurrent validity by correlating the SCSS with other established measures with

which it should be theoretically related. Specifically, three variables were chosen to

establish concurrent validity: attributional confidence, affective learning, and student

motives for communicating.

Attributional Confidence/Uncertainty

Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT; Berger & Calabrese, 1975) proposes that when

strangers first meet, their primary concern is reducing uncertainty, which is

equivalent to increasing predictability. To increase predictability, individuals make

proactive attributions (Clatterbuck, 1979). Proactive attributions are predictions

about future behaviors that an individual may employ, and these predictions are

Table 1 SCSS Items and Factor Loadings

Scale Item (M, SD) Factor Loading

1. My communication with my teacher feels satisfying (5.61, 1.26) .83 2. I feel pleased after talking to my teacher (5.54, 1.18) .85 3. I usually feel positive about my conversations with my teacher (5.54, 1.27) .85 4. My teacher makes an effort to satisfy questions I have (5.87, 1.21) .84 5. I get a sense of well being when I communicate with my teacher (5.23, 1.33) .85 6. I feel comfortable talking with my teacher (5.67, 1.30) .73 7. I dislike talking with my teacher (5.83, 1.38) .76 8. I am not satisfied after talking to my teacher (5.72, 1.34) .78 9. My conversations with my teacher are valuable (5.26, 1.40) .76 10. When I talk to my teacher, I feel like it’s a waste of time (5.72, 1.59) .81 11. Talking with my teacher leaves me feeling like I accomplished something

(5.31, 1.29) .75

12. My teacher fulfills my expectations when I talk to him/her (5.39, 1.35) .86 13. My teacher makes an effort to answer questions I have (5.69, 1.30) .85 14. My conversations with my teacher are worthwhile (5.46, 1.32) .89 15. I wish my teacher was better at communicating with me (5.17, 1.54) .79 16. I feel content when I talk to my teacher (5.35, 1.26) .81 17. I wish my conversations with my teacher were more productive (5.00, 1.69) .78 18. When I talk to my teacher, the conversations are rewarding (5.32, 1.21) .86 19. My teacher makes an effort to satisfy the concerns I have (5.64, 1.27) .86 20. My teacher tends to dominate our conversations and not allow me to get my point across

(5.39, 1.40) .61

21. I can effectively communicate with my teacher (5.52, 1.30) .79 22. My teacher genuinely listens to me when I talk (5.61, 1.31) .88 23. My teacher can relate to me when I talk to him/her (5.25, 1.32) .73 24. My teacher makes time for me when I want to talk to him/her (5.60, 1.22) .73

Note. Items 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, and 20 are reverse coded. The abbreviated (and preferred) SCSS consists of items 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19.

Student Communication 377

analysis in an attempt to demonstrate the utility of the SCSS in an independent

sample. Furthermore, although studies one and two validated the SCSS in

small classes, study three also sought to validate the SCSS in both small and large

class environments. Therefore, study three assessed a wide array of classes in an

attempt to replicate the dimensionality and the internal reliability of the

abbreviated SCSS.

Method

Participants/Instrumentation

Participants were 165 undergraduate students enrolled in one of eight introductory

or upper-level communication courses at a mid-sized Eastern university. Participants

were 64 men and 101 women whose ages ranged from 18 to 30 years (M!19.95, SD!1.72). Thirty five (n!35) participants were freshmen, 79 participants were sophomores, 17 participants were juniors, and 34 participants were seniors.

Participants completed the 8-item SCSS in reference to their instructor from their

last class during the last week of class (Plax et al., 1986).

Results

Similar to the results in study two, an examination of the data suggested that each of

the variables measured in the scale of student satisfaction was negatively skewed. And,

also similar to study two, we adjusted the data for this pattern of results. Next, the

one-factor model (with error covariances between items seven and eight) was fitted to

the data with the ML method of LISREL 8.8. The model converged and an admissible

solution was obtained. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: x2 (19)!27.81, p!.09; NC!1.46; CFI!1.00; SRMR!.02; RMSEA!.05. The data from the analysis suggest that the model fits the data well. All loadings were significant

(pB.05). The obtained Cronbach alpha was .96 (M!4.98, SD!1.68, Median!5.38, Skewness!#.70).

Study Four

The purpose of study four was to further validate the SCSS. Specifically, this study

sought to establish discriminant validity of the measure by examining the SCSS in

congruence with Hecht’s ICSI, along with similar but distinct instructional outcomes

(i.e., student interest, state motivation, affective learning), student communication

behavior (i.e., out-of-class communication, functional and participatory motives for

communicating), and instructor communication behavior (i.e., teacher confirmation,

teacher clarity). Accordingly, this study sought to differentiate the SCSS from the

existing but adapted ICSI. Additionally, this study examined relationships between

the SCSS and similar constructs to distinguish our operationalization from similar,

yet conceptually different measures.

Student Communication 383

significant individuals (Ellis, 2000). Teacher confirmation involves three dimensions:

responding to student questions/comments, demonstrating interest in the student learning process, and using an interactive teaching style. Students tend to prefer

confirming teachers because they are perceived as understanding, caring, and credible (Ellis, 2000; Schrodt et al., 2006). Additionally, students report more motivation,

cognitive learning, affective learning, participation, and importantly, student satisfaction when teachers are confirming (Ellis, 2004; Goodboy & Myers, 2008).

Considering that students report more overall satisfaction with an instructor when he/she is perceived as confirming (Goodboy & Myers, 2008), it is likely that some of

this satisfaction is a result of rewarding communication encounters. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:

H12: A positive relationship will exist between student communication satisfac- tion with an instructor and the teacher confirmation dimensions of (a) responding to questions, (b) demonstrating interest, and (c) teaching style.

Participants

The participants in study four were 158 undergraduate students (53 men, 105

women) enrolled in lower- and upper-level Communication Studies courses at the same university in study three. Ages ranged from 19 to 46 years (M!21.11, SD!2.49). Eighteen (n!18) participants were freshmen, 36 participants were sophomores, 67 participants were juniors, 36 participants were seniors, and 1

participant was unreported. Participants received minimal extra credit.

Procedures and Measurement

Participants completed a survey two weeks before the end of the semester to assess

their communication satisfaction with an instructor along with instructional

outcomes (state motivation, affective learning, student interest), their own commu- nication behavior (out-of-class communication, functional communication, partici-

patory communication), and perceived instructor communication (teacher confirmation, teacher clarity). The survey included nine research measures: the 8-

item and 24-item SCSS, the adapted ICSI (Hecht, 1978a), the State Motivation Scale (Christophel, 1990), the Revised Affective Learning Measure (Mottet & Richmond,

1998), the 18-item Learner Empowerment Scale (LES; Weber et al., 2005) adapted from Frymier, Shulman, and Houser (1996), Out of Class Interaction Scale (Knapp &

Martin, 2002), two subscales of the Student Motives to Communicate (SMC) scale (Martin et al., 2000), the Teacher Confirmation Scale (Ellis, 2000), and the Teacher

Clarity Short Inventory (TCSI; Chesebro & McCroskey, 1998). As in study three, participants again completed the aforementioned measures in reference to their

instructor from their previous class (Plax et al., 1986). Scale information for the SCSS, ICSI, Revised Affective Learning Measure, and SMC

scale can be found in study two. Because the results of study two suggest the superiority

386 A. K. Goodboy et al.

of the 8-item SCSS, the SCSS short version was used for this study and produced a Cronbach alpha of .98 (M!5.04, SD!1.50, Median!5.38, Skewness!#.84). The ICSI was again modified to measure individual perceptions of global communication satisfaction with a specific teacher and a Cronbach alpha of .94 (M!4.59, SD!1.25, Median!4.84, Skewness!#.91) was obtained. The Revised Affective Learning Measure produced a Cronbach alpha of .97 for both course affect (M!4.76, SD! 1.37, Median!4.90, Skewness!#.62) and instructor affect (M!5.12, SD!1.84, Median!5.63, Skewness!#.84). The SMC Scale produced a Cronbach alpha of .73 for the functional subscale (M!3.11, SD!.74, Median!3.17, Skewness!#.35) and .86 for the participatory subscale (M!2.53, SD!.86, Median!2.50, Skewness!.30). The 18-item LES measures student interest across three dimensions: mean-

ingfulness, competence, and impact. Responses were solicited using a 7-point Likert- type scale, ranging from (1) completely disagree to (5) completely agree. Previous reliability coefficients for these subscales have ranged from .81 to .91 (Cayanus & Martin, 2008; Weber et al., 2005). In this study, obtained Cronbach alphas were .95 for meaningfulness (M!4.78, SD!1.66, Median!5.25, Skewness!#.75), .88 for competence (M!5.87, SD!1.04, Median!6.00, Skewness!#0.93), and .82 for impact (M!4.09, SD!1.29, Median!4.17, Skewness!#.21). The State Motivation Scale is 12 items and asks participants to report on their

levels of state motivation to learn. Responses were solicited using a 7-point bipolar adjective scale. Previous reliability coefficients have been .93 (Edwards, Bresnahan, & Edwards, 2008) and .95 (Myers, 2002) for the summed scale. In this study, the obtained Cronbach alpha was .91 (M!4.22, SD!1.39, Median!4.17, Skewness !#.08) for the summed scale.

The Out of Class Interaction Scale is 9 items and asks participants to report on how frequently they engage in out-of-class communication with an instructor. Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Previous reliability coefficients have been .80 (Myers et al., 2005) and .86 (Myers et al., 2007). In this study, the obtained Cronbach alpha was .84 (M!2.60, SD!0.82, Median!2.56, Skewness!.27) for the summed scale. The TCSI is 10 items and asks participants to report on the degree to which an

instructor is able to effectively stimulate the desired meaning of course content and processes. Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Previous reliability coefficients have been .86 (Cayanus & Martin, 2008) and .92 (Avtgis, 2001) for the summed scale. In this study, the obtained Cronbach alpha was .91 (M!3.76, SD!.86, Median!4.00, Skewness!#.89). The Teacher Confirmation Scale is 16 items and asks participants to report on the

frequency with which an instructor exhibits confirming behaviors in the classroom across three dimensions: responding to questions, demonstrating interest, and teaching style. Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Previous reliability coefficients for each subscale have ranged from .84 to .87 (Ellis, 2004; Turman & Schrodt, 2006). In this study, obtained Cronbach alphas were .86 for responding to questions (M!4.00,

Student Communication 387

References

Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. P. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational

factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication

Education, 55, 21"31. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In B. D. Ruben

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 3, pp. 534"559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Auster, C. J., & MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical

study of the effects of faculty members’ behavior on students’ participation. Teaching

Sociology, 22, 289"300. Avtgis, T. A. (2001). Affective learning, teacher clarity, and student motivation as a function of

attributional confidence. Communication Research Reports, 18, 345"353. Avtgis, T. A., & Kassing, J. W. (2001). Elucidating influences on superior"subordinate commu-

nication: Attributional confidence and organizational control expectancies. Communication

Research Reports, 18, 255"263. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward

a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research,

1, 99"122. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative

evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational

Leadership, 45, 40"48. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, D. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict

strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93"118. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, D. H. (1989). A model of perceived competence of conflict strategies.

Human Communication Research, 15, 630"649. Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2008). Teacher self-disclosure: Amount, relevance, and negativity.

Communication Quarterly, 56, 325"341. Cayanus, J. L., Martin, M. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). The relation between teacher self-

disclosure and student motives to communicate. Communication Research Reports, 26,

105"113. Chen, L. (2002). Perceptions of intercultural interaction and communication satisfaction: A study

on initial encounters. Communication Reports, 15, 133"147. Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning,

receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52, 135"147. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The development of the teacher clarity short inventory

(TCSI) to measure clear teaching in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15,

262"266. Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student

motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323"340. Clatterbuck, G. W. (1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. Human

Communication Research, 5, 147"157. Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student"faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants.

Higher Education, 51, 487"519. Dobransky, N. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher"student relationships through out

of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211"223. Dunleavy, K. D. (2006). The effect of instructor humor on perceived instructor credibility, student

state motivation, and student motives to communicate in the classroom. The Kentucky

Journal of Communication, 25, 39"56.

Student Communication 393