Communication Inventory: Selection and Validation with an Indian Population Sample

 

Prajna Pani¹*, Amir Prasad Behera²

¹Professor of English, Department of English, School of Management, Centurion University of Technology and Management, R. Sitapur, Paralakhemundi, Dist. Gajapati, Odisha (INDIA)

²Lecturer in English, Department of English, School of Management, Centurion University of Technology and Management, R. Sitapur, Paralakhemundi, Dist. Gajapati, Odisha (INDIA)

 

ABSTRACT:

Communication is central to the development of all professional organizations. The 21st century has seen an unprecedented preoccupation with communication process. Self-help-books, therapy and advice column rebound with the messages that ineffective communication is the root of all organization problems. Effective communication is the ultimate panacea of all problems. Hence in this paper, the researchers discuss the selection and validation phase of a communication measure adapted from HTC Consulting. The validated measure can be used by all higher educational organizations to raise the awareness among employees on how well they communicate. This will also help them to develop effective communication strategies, communication exchange, improve creativity, manage conflict, minimize miscommunication and create alternatives for solving problems when they are at the workplace. Indeed the questions asked in the assessment could be used over a lifetime in trying to understand the inner workings of organizations and improve communication.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Communication plays an important role in the management of professional organizations and their achievement of success. It encompasses the process individuals can share their information, thoughts and feelings through exchanging verbal and non-verbal messages with each other (Harigie and Dickson, 2004). There is a need to study the ways to improve communication skills of all participant actors of higher education learning institutions. So, the study examines the communication skills measurement instrument, a self-assessment inventory adapted from HTC Consulting.

 

The five-point Likert scale questionnaire includes verbal, non-verbal, intrapersonal and interpersonal communication factors. The paper aims to describe the selection and validation phase of a scale that measures communication skills of a random sample of 200 from a Multi-sector State Private University in India. It describes the methodology used in the study. The study comprises population and sample, measuring instruments and administration, validity and reliability, data collection and procedures, scoring and consolidation of data and conclusion.

 

POPULATION AND SAMPLE:

The data for the study has been derived from a representative sample of size 200 obtained from a Multi-Sector State Private University. The participants consisted of faculty (n=60), staff (n=40) and students (100). The sample size represented 134 (67%) males and 66 (33%) females. Their ages ranged from 20 to 58. Out of these, 58% of the participants were between the ages of 20 and 24 years old, 23% were between 25 and 29 years, and the remaining 18% were between 30 to 58 years. Table 1 shows the details of the samples.

 

Table1: Population and Sample

SL. NO	SAMPLE TYPE	SAMPLE SIZE
01.	Faculty	60
02.	Staff	40
03.	Students	100
	Total	200

 

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION:

Questionnaire:

The selection of suitable tool is of vital importance for successful research. Quantitative data was collected via self-assessment questionnaire comprising a number of scales that tested the constructs of interest. A questionnaire is a commonly used research methodology (Neuman, 2003). Self-assessment questionnaire was the primary method for gathering data in the study. The self-report method was considered appropriate for measuring the respondent’s communication skills. The paper also considered the context within which the data were being collected.

 

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS20 Version):

After the study was complete, all data were statistically analyzed and interpreted using SPSS 20 Version. SPSS 20 Version is one of the most popular statistical packages which can perform highly complex data manipulation and analysis with simple instructions. It is designed for both interactive and non-interactive (batch) uses. The reliability test of the selected questionnaire was performed using SPSS 20 version.The respondents took 30 minutes to respond to the given questionnaire. It took three months to get all of their responses. The sampling was stratified making sure that the University students and employees abilities (high, average and low performers) are appropriately represented. In the experimental design, the scores were compared within and between groups of participants. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics was used to find average, below average and above average scores of communication skills.

 

MEASURE:

Communication Inventory:

Communication inventory was used to measure the communication skills of all participants of the study. It is a self-report measure that contains 20 items adapted from HTC Consulting (N.D.).The score of the questionnaire has not been emphasized deliberately as the point is not how high the respondents scored – it’s about raising one’s awareness on how well one communicates. Responses are captured on a five-point Likert scale. The scale captured communication factors such as Intrapersonal Communication (‘I don’t think that my opinion is the most important in the room’), Verbal Communication (‘I am confident when I talk to people and speak clearly without mumbling’), Non-verbal Communication (‘I am good at making eye contact with people when I am talking to them’), Interpersonal Communication (‘I am open minded and am willing to change my viewpoint based on the valid opinion of others’).

 

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY:

To obtain the reliability of the self-assessment questionnaires in the present study, Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS20 Version) has been used. Validity is the extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. Validity is a subjective judgment made on the basis of experience and empirical indicators. It implies precise and exact results acquired from the data collected When psychological instruments are transported, particularly from Western to non-Western cultures, they are more likely to run into bias problems (Van de Vijver and Leung, 2001). Hence, a major limitation with this instrument is its Western focus. The present study sought to address this concern by conducting statistical testing of validity and reliability of the communication instrument to evaluate to which extent the predictions made on this instrument represent the latent construct aimed to be measured.

 

Content and face validity is an indication of how well the items are thought to cover the domain of each of the scales and how easily they are understood by the respondent (Creswell, 1994).One of the major objectives of the paper was to develop and validate the construct of communication inventory in the Indian context, that is, across randomly selected samples of the Multi-sector Private University. The Scale’s face validity was assessed. For this validation study, the focus group participants consisted of communication experts, Statistics and HR professionals, two final year students and members of senior management team. The researcher felt this panel had the range of experience and knowledge that would be useful when assessing the scale items. The discussion included the validation of items and scoring of the items.

 

Reliability of a test is defined as a degree of how precisely the instrument measures a construct.  Reliability is the extent to which a test is repeatable and yields consistent scores. Reliability examines the internal consistency of the instrument and its stability over time. In other words, an instrument is considered reliable if it measures the true score of the construct without any errors. However, in psychometric testing, the term reliability refers to several different meanings. The communication instrument ((see Table 2) evidenced good validity and reliability in the study. Cronbach’s alpha for the 20 items concerning communication skills (α = 0.78) showed that the scale has good internal consistency.

 

Table2: Cronbach’s alpha for the 20 communication items

Variable	Sample	ITEMS	Cronbach’s Alpha Score
Communication	200	20	.783

 

Summary Report from SPSS

		N		%
Cases	Valid	200		100.0
	Excludeda	0		.0
	Total	200		100.0
a. List wise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha			N of Items
.783			20

 

Thus, the paper applied Cronbach’s alpha test for measuring the reliability for the Communication tool through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) among 200 samples. This finding reveals that Cronbach’s alpha score for the Communication Assessment Inventory is .783 which has high reliability. The tool (Communication Assessment Inventory) used in the present study is standardized.

 

SCORING AND CONSOLIDATION OF DATA:

The response format for each of these items was a 5-point Likert scale. The lower end of the score was “Not true of me” and the upper end part was “Very often true of me”with three gradations between two extremes. The scale consisted of 20 items related to Communication. The responses were converted into numerical scores by equating the responses with corresponding scores.

 

Table 3: Scoring Pattern of Communication Inventory

Types of items	Scores for the responses
	Not true of me	Seldom true of me	Sometime true of me	often true of me	Very often true of me
POSITIVE	1	2	3	4	5
NEGATIVE	5	4	3	2	1

 

The total score of all the 20 items will yield the total communication score of a participant as per the responses given by the sample. The participants can summarise their strengths and areas for development with regard to their ability to communicate. The participants with higher scoring answers (76-100) seem to have good communication skills. There is a good foundation of communication skills with average scoring answers (51-75). But, the lower scoring answers (26-50) give some indication to hard work, and aspects of communication the participant needs to focus on. The study is about raising the awareness of the respondents on how well they communicate.

 

Figure 1: Communication Skills Assessment

 

All statements in the inventories are awarded and scored. The scores obtained in the inventory along with the personal data are consolidated and tabulated on consolidation sheet for the purpose of analysis. The data collected is quantified following the scoring scheme of the various tools administered and the scores of the individual respondents on various variables were arrived at. Face validity of the items was verified, subject matter experts eliminated unnecessary or repetitive items. After completing validity and reliability test questionnaire was used for communication assessment. The present study considers the 20 statements that follow, adapted from a validated self-assessment questionnaire to assess the communication skills of the respondents.

 

Communication Skills Inventory
1	I am open minded and am willing to change my viewpoint based on the valid opinion of others.
2	I prepare for all communication and think things through before I speak.
3	I always tailor my message to suit the person(s) to whom I am speaking.
4	I find it easy to listen to what other people have to say without interrupting.
5	I am good at making eye contact with people when I am speaking to them.
6	I am not intimidated by situations where I must communicate with difficult people.
7	I am confident when I talk to people and speak clearly without mumbling.
8	I am good at getting my point across in a clear, concise manner without rambling.
9	I find it easy to concentrate on what others are saying and don’t lose my focus.
10	I don’t start planning my response while the other person is talking.
11	I don’t think that my opinion is the most important in the room.
12	I only speak up if I have something valuable to contribute to the conversation and I avoid talking just for the sake of it.
13	I make a conscious effort to match my body language to the message I want to convey.
14	I am good at reading the body language of others.
15	I can keep my cool when talking to other people even if I feel angry about what they say.
16	When other people in the group are quiet, I encourage them to contribute.
17	I don’t shout and point at people when we have a heated conversation.
18	When group discussions get heated, I am good at keeping everyone calm and on the point.
19	I feel comfortable holding meetings.
20	I am good at summarizing the key points of conversations that I have with people.

Source: HTC Consulting (N.D.). Communication Skills Self-Assessment Inventory

 

LIMITATIONS:

As with most research, this study was designed with a recognized number of limitations inherent in the use of a self-reported survey. As a self-reported survey, the data gathered for this research is dependent on the honest in-depth reporting of thoughts, perceptions, and rating of importance and judgments of the university students and employees. The respondents took a number of days to give their responses. Some of the participants were reluctant to respond to the questionnaire. Most of the participants were very enthusiastic and happy to give their responses because the questionnaire gave them an opportunity to discover themselves.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS :

The paper reveals the selection phase and validation phase. It consisted of the research approach, population and sample, research instruments and administration, data collection and procedures, scoring and consolidation of data and limitations. In summary, the instrument found to have sufficient validity in measuring communications skills which can be used in research with a reasonable certainty of obtaining meaningful results.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Harigie O.H. and Dickson D. Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice. Routledge, NY, 2004.

2.     Newman, L.W. Social Research Method: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (5^th Edition ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon), 2003.

3.     HTC Consulting (N.D.). Communication Skills Self-Assessment Inventory.

4.     Van de Vijver, F., and Leung, K. Personality in cultural context: Methodological issues. Journal of Personality. 2001; 69(6), 1007–1031.

5.     Creswell, J.W. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, SAGE Publications, 1994.

6.     Gamliel, E., and Peer, E.  Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgment. Social Justice Research, 2006; 19(2).

7.     Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.

8.     Jorfi. H., et al. Emotional Intelligence: The Relationship between Self-Regard and Communication Effectiveness. The world academic science, 2010.

9.     Jorfi. H., et al. Human Resource Management – Emotional Intelligence: Communication Effectiveness mediates the Relationship between Stress Management and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT). 2011; 3.

10.  Jorfi .H, (2012) Management: A Study of Organizational Culture and the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Communication Effectiveness. Journal of Management Research, ISSN 1941-899X, 4 (1).

11.  Ioannidou F. and Konstantikaki V. Empathy and emotional intelligence: What is it really about? International Journal of Caring Sciences, 2008; 1 (3).

12.  McCowan, R.J and McCowa, S.C. Item Analysis for Criterion-Referenced Tests, 1999.

13.  Mouton, J. and Marais, H.C. Basic concepts in the methodology of the social sciences, Pretoria: HSRC, 1988.

14.  Pani, P and Behera. A, Review of Emotional Intelligence: Connecting EI to Communication, Asian Journal of Research In Business Economics and Management, 2250-1673(PRINT), Asian Research Consortium, Vol. IV Issue –II, Feb. 2014. (Co-author: Amir Behera), 52-59.

15.  S.P. Sukhia. Elements of Educational Research, Allied Publication, Bombay. 1966, 19.

 

 

 

 

Accepted on 22.05.2017          © A&V Publications all right reserved