VALIDITY OF THE PRCA AS AN INDEX OF ORAL COMMUNICATION ... · construct of oral communication apprehension. It is concluded that the PRCA is a reliable and valid measure of that construct.

O~I

VALIDITY OF THE PRCA AS AN INDEX OFORAL COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION

jAMES C. iltCcCROSKEY

This paper reviews the research which has employed the PRCA to measure theconstruct of oral communication apprehension. It is concluded that the PRCAis a reliable and valid measure of that construct.

I~ 1970 I reported the development ofa self-report measure of oral com-

munication apprehension called the Per-sonal Report of Communication Appre-hension (PRCA).l Oral communicationapprehension is defined as "an individ-ual's level of fear or anxiety associatedwith either real or anticipated. (oral)communication with anothc- person orpersons.":! The original report includedevidence for the reliability of the PRCA,bUt little evidence for validity (otherthan face validity) was present. Sincethat time the PRCA has been employedin numerous stUdies with many, variedsamples.3 High reliability has been ob-served consistently; yet, the validity ofthe PRCA has not been demonstrated

systematically. The purpose of this pa-per, therefore, is to examine the claimfor validity of the PRCA in light of theresults of these studies.

It has been argued by many that thebest way to find out how someone feels-aboUt something is simply to ask theperson. The current wide use of self-report attitude scales and personality

Mr. McCroskey is professor and chairperson ofspeech comrnunciation at West Virginia Uni-vtf'sity.

1 James C. ~rcCroskey. ":.reasures of Com-munication.Bound Anxiety," Speech Mono-graphs, 37 (1970),269-277.

~James C. :McCroskey, "Oral CommunicationApprehension: A Summary of Recent Theoryand Research," Human Communication Re-search, 4 (1977),78-96.

:I For a summaI"'. of this research. see Mc-Croskey. "Oral Co~munication Apprehension:A Summary of Recent Theory and Research."

measures suggests the broad acceptanceof this view. However, there are two in-stances when this straightforward ap-proach will yield invalid. data. The firstis when the individual is not aware of

her or his own feelings. The second iswhen the individual is not motivated to

give an accurate report. In the presentcase, if the subject is cold that communi-cation apprehension is a bad thing, thesubject who is apprehensive may falsifyresponses to the measure to indicate lowapprehension. On the other hand, thereare instances where people who are notapprehensives will falsify high scores. Ihave observed two such instances.

At Pennsylvania State University spe-cial classes were instituted for highly ap-prehensive students. 'Word spread thatthese classes were much less demandingthan the regular required course. A sub-stantial number of phony redcents beganappearing in the classes. At Illinois StateUniversity an extensive program of sys-tematic desensitization was implementedto help students overcome communica-tion apprehension. The program washighly successful and very well receivedby the students.~ Although the mean andvariance of apprehension scores had re-mained stable for five semesters (almost

10.000 stUdents), the semester after large-

~ James C. McCroskey, "The Implementationof a Large Scale Program of Systematic Desensi-tization for Communication Apprehension:"Speech Teacher, 21 (1972). 255-264.

COM.>IL'.VICATIO.V .\CONOGRAPHS, Volume 45, August 19i8

VALIDITY OF PRCA

scale implementation of the treatmentprogram the proportion of supposedlyhighly apprehensive stUdents increasedfrom 20 percent to 68 percent.

The validity of a self-repon measuredepends on the context in which it isadministered, but it also depends on thevalue of the responses given when theyare not falsified or influenced by themeasurement context. Empirical validityestimates, therefore, may be reduced byeither of these factOrs. If lack of validityis observed empirically, the cause of thismust be determined subjectively. How-ever, if validity can be demonstrated em-pirically in a !sLven case (or better, sev-eral cases), such results indicate thatneither element leading to invaliditywas present in that case. More impor-tantly, the result indicates that the meas-ure should also provide valid results infuture applications if care is taken toavoid demand characteristics that could

lead to falsification of self-reports.

CONFIR:\IATION OF THEORETICAL

PREDICTIONS

Probably the best indicator of thevalidi ty of a measure is the degree towhich it can produce empirical resultsthat are consistent with predictions basedupon theory relating to the constructwhich the measure purports to tap.Theory related to oral communication

apprehension is not yet fully developed;however, five major theoretical proposi-tions concerning oral communication ap-prehension have been set forth5 and sub-

stantial research has been completed em-ploying the PRCA to test these theo-retical propositicns. I will consider eachof these propositions and the related re-search.

5 James C. :\fcCroskey, "The Effects of Com-munication Apprehension on Nonverbal Be.havior." Communication Quarterly, 24 (1976),39-44.

193

Proposition 1. People vary in the de-gree to which they are apprehensiveabout oral communication with other

peoPle. This proposition represents anunderlying assumption concerning thedistribution of oral communication ap-prehension in the population. As sug-gested in the proposition, oral communi-cation apprehension can vary from in-dividual to individual and be on a con.

tinuum from extremely high to extreme.ly low. This assumption has been sup-ported in every report of research whichhas employed the PRCA, as well as inmany unpublished stUdies. In the origi-nal report of the development of thePRCA, it was indicated that subjects'scores on the PRCA formed an approxi-mately normal distribution employingthe full potential range of scores.6 Inthat study, all of the subjects involvedwere college students. Subsequently,~Ioore has found a similar distribution

among senior citizens.1 In over twentystudies with college student subjects, Ihave observed similar distributions. In

addition, in one study involving 202 ele-mentary and secondary teachers, andanother study involving 384 elementaryand secondary teachers, similar distribu-tions were observed. In a recently con-cluded study involving 21 I Federal em-ployees in the Baltimore.Washingtonarea, a similar distribution was observed.It is clear from these studies, then, thatthe PRCA does produce scores for oralcommunication apprehension that arein line with what would be theoreticallyexpected.

In addition, it should be noted that in

all of the writings concerning communi-cation apprehension there is an impliedassumption that this construct repre-

6 James C. McCroskey. ":\Ieasures of Com-munication-Bound Anxiety."

1. David L. Moore, "The Effects of SystematicDesensitization on Communication Apprehensionin an Aged Population," M.S. thesis IllinoisS ta te 1972.

19.1 COMMUNICATION MO:-;OGRAPHS

sents a trait of an individual, as opposedto a state condition. That is, a personwho is a high oral communication appre-hensive on one day would be expected tobe a high oral communication appre-hensive the next day, and the next week,as well. The test-retest reliability ofthe PRCA reported in the original arti-cle concerning its development is sup-portive of this underlying assumption.This assumption is supported even morestrongly. beC:lUse of the longer time-intervals involved, by several studies in-vestigating treatment programs for peo-ple with high levels of communicationapprehension to be discussed later. Inthese studies specific treatment pro-cedures have resulted in lower PRCA

scores, but control group subjects' PRCAscores have not changed significantlyover substantial periods of time.

It should be stressed, however, thatpersonality-type traits, such as communi-cation apprehension, are not the sameas physical traits such as eye color. 'WhilemOst physical traits are permanent, or atleast require long periods of time fornatUral change to occur (such as haircolor), personality-type traits can changeover time as a result of environmental

impact. Thus, if a person's level of com-munication apprehension was measuredto be substantially higher (or lower) overa five-year period, this would not neces-sarily indicate a lack of validity for themeasure. However, such change (with-out treatment intervention) over a two-month period would indicate a lack ofvalidity. The key here is the idea thatcommunication apprehension is con-ceived of as a relatively permanent, per-sonality-type trait, The research to datesupports that conception and suggeStsthat the PRCA provides an appropriatemeasure of that relatively permanenttrait.

Proposition 2. People with high oralcommunication apprehension seek to

avoid oral communication. This is prob-ably the most central proposition in thetheory relating to oral communicationapprehension. It has long been knownthat people seek to avoid sitUationswhich cause them anxiety. Thus, itwould be expected that people who areapprehensive about oral communica-tion wouid try to avoid circumstanceswhich would require them to communi-cate orally. Research employing thePRe..-\. has consistently supported thisproposition. McCroskey and Leppardfound that high communication appre-hensives chose housing accommodations(whether they be dorm rooms, trailers, orhouses in a suburban area) that were inareas that had been identified throughprevious research as requiring less inter-action than other housing areas. An op-posite pattern was found for low com-munication apprehensives.8 In a study ofseating position in a small group setting,'Weiner found a similar pattern. Highcommunication apprehensives selectedseats that had been identified throughprevious research as requiring less inter-action than other seats while low com-

munication apprehensives selected in anopposite manner.9 Daly and McCroskeyfound that high communication appre-hensives indicated a clear preference foroccupations that had low oral communi-cation demands while low oral com-

munication apprehensives indicated astrong preference for occupations whichwould require high communication in-volvement.lO In all of these stUdies the

8 James C. McCroskey and Thomas Leppard,"The Effects of Communication Apprehensionon :S-onverbal Behavior," paper presented at theEastern Communication Association, New York,1975.

9 Allen N. Weiner, "Machiavellianism as aPredictOr of Group Interaction and Cohesion,"1\1.A. thesis West Virginia 1973.

10John A Daly and James C. McCroskey, "Oc.cupational Desirability and Choice as a Func-tion of Communication Apprehension," Journalof Counseling Psychology, 22 (1975). 309-313.

VALIDITY OF PRCA 195

hpotheses based on this general propo-sition were supported.

In research that was a follow-up of theDaly and McCroskey study, a hypothesiswas tested that provides an expansion ofthis proposition. It was hypothesized thatpeople in occupations requiring a greatdeal of oral communication would be

dif£eremially satisfied with their em-ployment based upon their level of oralcommunication apprehension. As hy-pothesized, it was found that high com-munication apprehensives among ele-mentary and secondary teachers andamong Federal civil service employeeswere less satisfied with their positionsthan were low oraJ communication ap-prehensi ves.11

A similar line of thought led McCros-key and Andersen to hypothesize thatstudents with high communication ap-prehension would prefer large lectureclasses over small classes which permit (orrequire) extensive participation on thepart of the student, while the preferencepattern for students with lower com-munication apprehension would be re-versed. Their results confirmed the hy-pothesis.1~ In another study of studentbehavior in the instructional environ-ment, Scott, Yates, and 'Wheeless foundthat in a modified personalized systemof instruction (PSI) the students withhigh communication apprehension weresignificamly less likely to seek' the as-sistance of available tutors than were stu-dents with lower levels of communica-

tion apprehension.13 In still another

11 Raymond L. Falcione, James C. McCroskey,and John A. Daly, "Job Satisfaction as a Func.tion of Employees' Communication Apprehen.sion. Self-Esteem. and Perceptions of Their 1m.mediate Supervisor," in Communication Year.book I, ed. Brent D. Ruben (New Brunswick,:-:i.J.:Transaction, Inc., 1977), pp. 363.374.

1~James C. McCroskey and Janis F. Ander.sen, "The Relationship Between CommunicationApprehension and Academic AchievementAmong College Students," Human Communica.tion Research, 3 (1976), 73.81.

13 Michael D. Scott. ~fichael P. Yates. and

study of student behavior, McCroskeyand Sheahan found that while students

with low levels of communication appre-hension chose seats in the front and cen-ter of a classroom with traditional,

straight-row seating for 25 students, thestudents with high communication ap-prehension avoided those seats and in-stead chose seats on the periphery of theroom, on the sides and in the back. Thefront and center area, of course, is themost accessible to the teacher and the

place where a person is more likely to becalled upon to participate.l-! An exten-sion of this research replicated the previ-ous findings concerning classroom seatingand also found that in semi-circular and

modular seating arrangements the stu-dents with high communication appre.hension avoided the seats in areas that

would be likely to induce high interac-tion requirements.15

McCroskey and Sheahan have also in-vestigated the social behavior of collegestudents with regard to their level ofcommunication apprehension. As hy-pothesized, they found that studentswith high communication apprehensionas compared to those with lower com-

munication apprehension were less likelyto accept a blind date, interacted lesswith peer strangers, and were more likelyto engage in exclusive (steady) dating.16The latter finding was predicted on thebasis that, for a person with high com-

Lawrence R. Wheeless, "An ExploratOry Investi.gation of the Effects of Communication Appre.hension in Alternate Systems of Instruction,"paper presented at the International Communi-cation Association, Chicago, 1975.

1-1James C. McCroskey and Michael E. Shea.han, "Seating Position and Participation: AnAlternative Theoretical Explanation," paper pre.sented at the International Communication As.sociation, Portland. Oregon. 1976.

15James C. McCroskey and Rod vV. :\-IcVetta."Classroom Seating Arrangements: InstructionalCommunication Theorv Versus Student Prefer.ences," Communication Education, 27 (1978),99-111.

16James C. ~IcCroskey and ~fichael E. Shea.han. "Communication Apprehension Social Pref.erence, and Social Behavior in a College En-vironment," Communication Quarterly, in press.

196 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

municarion apprehension, it would bedifficult to engage in the normal court-ship behaviors leading to dates with avariety of persons, and, consequently,steady dating would be an attractive al-ternative to the option of interactingwith a significant number of other peo-ple in order to secure dating partners.In an extension of this rese3.rch 2\lc-

Croskey and Kreuschmar found that col-lege grJ.du3.tes \\'ith high communicJ.tionapprehension are more likely to mJ.rryimmediately upon graduation than aregr:lduates with lower communicationapprehensionY This effect was hypoth-esized on the basis of the presumed diffi-culty for the person with high commu-nication apprehension to engage incourtshi p behaviors and the attractivealternative of marrying the person withwhom the person had been dating stead-ily in college.

It is clear from this series of studies

th:1t the PRe.-\. is able to predict com-munication avoidance behaviors that

would be expected on the basis of thetheory underlying the construct of com-munication apprehension. This providesa strong indication of predictive validityof the instrument.

Proposition 3. PeoPle with high oralcommunication apprehension engage inless oral communication than do less

orally apprehensive people. One methodof avoiding oral communication, as indi-cated above, is to withdraw from situa-

tions which require oral communicationby modifying one's life style. However,mo,t people are forced into situationswhere oral communication is expected,even though they may prefer otherwise.Under such circumstances the theory un-der!ying the construct of.oral communi-

17 ];tITICS C. :\IcCroskev and ;\[onik;t :\1. Kretz.SC~I:i1:!r, "CommunicJ.tion Apprehension and:',Iaritai Relationships of College Graduates: AnExploT;1wry rm"esti;:;ation," paper presented atthe L:stern Communication Association, );"ewYcrk, Ig77.

cation apprehension would predict thatthese people would engage in less verbalactivity. In short, the person can with-dr3.w while still being present by remain-ing silent as much as possible. Six studieshave specifically investigated this propo-sition. .-\11six have produced essentiallythe same results: High oral communica-tion apprehensives engage in less oralcommunication behavior than do low

oral communication apprehensives.1s Inaddition, Hamilton found that high oralcommunication apprehensives engage inless self-disclosure than do low oral com-

munication apprehensives, as would beexpected.19 Similar results subsequentlywere obtained in two studies.2O These

studies once again provide strong sup-port for the predictive validity of thePRCA in confirming the presence ofhypothesized behaviors of high and loworal communication apprehensives.

Proposition 4. Hlhen people with highoral communication apprehension docommunicate, their oral communication

18 Judith A. Wells and William B. Lashbrook."A Studv of the Effects of Svstematic Desensitiza-tion of the Communicative 'Anxietv of Individu.als in Small Groups," paper presented at theSpeech Communication Association, New Or.leans, 1970; Gail A. Sorensen and James C. Mc.Croskey, "The Prediction of Interaction Be.havior'in Small Groups: Zero HistOry Versus In-tact Groups," Cl'vI, 44 (1977), 73.80; Paul R.Hamilton, "The Effect of Risk Proneness onSmall Group Interaction, Communication Ap.prehension, anti Self. Disclosure," ;\1.S. thesis nii-nois State 197~; Weiner; Raymond J. FentOnand Tim S. Hopf, "Some Effects of Communica.tion Inhibition on Small Groups: Participation,:\[cmber Satisfaction, Perceived Effectiveness,Credibility, and Leadership," paper presented atthe Speech Communication Association, SanFrancisco, 1976; and Frederic D. Glogower,"A Component Analysis of Cognitive Restruc.tUring as Applied to the Reduction of Commu.nication Apprehension," diss. West Virginia1977.

19 Hamilton.~oJames C. McCroskey and Virginia P. Rich-

mond, "Communication Apprehension as a Pre.dictOr of Self.Disclosure," Communication QlLar.terlv, ~5 (1977), 40-43: and Lawrence R. Wheel.ess: Kathr.'n :\'esser, and James C. :\fcCroskey,"Relationships Among Self-Disclosure, Dis.closivcness, and Communication Apprehension,"paper prcesnted ,at the .Western Speech Com-munication .-\ssociation, SJ.n Francisco, 1976.

VALIDITY OF PRCA 197

behaviors differ from those of peoplewho are less apprehensive. 'While theranoe of differences that might occur asa result of differing levels of oral com-munication apprehension is extremelylarge, only a few such differences ha,'ebeen empirically examined. Vo/ells andLashbrook~1 and '\'einer~~ have obsen'ed

that the comments of high communica-tion :lpprehensives in a small group set-ting are much less relevant to the tOpiclIndtr discussion than are the commentsof individuals with lower oral communi-

cation apprehension. In addition, aswould be expected, Sorensen and j\fc-Croskey found that high oral communi-cation apprehensives exhibited more ten-sion in a small group interaction thandid people 'with less oral communicationapprehension.23 In recent stUdies Powersfound that high communication appre-hensives included more rhetorical inter-

rogatives (i.e., you know?, you see?,okay?) in their interaction with otherpeople than did low apprehensives,~4and ]ablin and Sussman found that highcommunication apprehensive membersof brainstorming groups were lower pro-ducers of original ideas than were theless apprehensive members of thegroupS.25 Although considerably moreresearch concerning this particular prop-osition is needed, the stUdies which have

investigated the proposition and em-ployed the PRCA have all been sup-porth'e. These results again provide sup-port for a claim of predictive validity forthe PRCA.

Proposition 5. As a result of their oralcommunication behavior, high oral com-

21 'Wells and Lashbrook.22 'Veiner.~3 Sorensen and ~IcCroskev.~4 'VUliam G. Powers, "The Rhetorical In-

terrog:Hi\'e: :\nxiet\. or Control?" Human Com.1/IunicatioT! Research, -! (197i). H--ti.

~:;Frederick ~L Jablin and Lvle Sussman. ".\nExploration of Communication and Productiv-itv in Real Brainstorming Groups." HumanC<Jml1l:wiciltio~ Research, in press.

mzwication apprehensives are perceivedless positively by others than are less ap-prehensive people. This proposition as-sumes that proposition 4 is correct, andthat the differences specified in proposi-tion 4 will be perceived negatively byother communicators in the same en-

vironment. Research applying the PRCAhas been supportive of this proposition.Quiggins found that high oral com-munication apprehensives were per-ceived as both less credible and less in-

terpersonall y attractive than were lowcommunication apprehensives, both by,other high apprehensives and other lowapprehensives.26 Similar results havebeen observed in subsequent studies byl\IcCroskey, Daly, Richmond, and COX;27McCroskey and Richmond;28 Fenton andHopf;:!9 vVissmilIer and Merker;3° andRichmond.31 \Venzlaff found that the

perceived leadership ability of high com-munication apprehensives in a smallgroup setting was substantially lowerthan that of individuals with lower com-

munication apprehension.32 In a stUdy

26 James G. Quiggins, "The Effects of Highand Low Communication Apprehension onSmall Group ~Iember Credibility, InterpersonalAttraction, and Interaction," paper presentedat the Speech Communication Association, Chi-cago, 19i2.

27 James C. McCroskey, John A. Daly, Vir-ginia P. Richmond, and Barbara G. Cox, "TheEffects of Communication Apprehension on In.terpersonal Attraction," Human Communica-tioT! Research, 2 (19;5), 51.65.

:!s James C. ~JcCroskey, and Virginia P. Rich-mond, "The Effects of Communication Appre-hension on the Perception of Peers," WesternSpeech CommuT!ication, 40 (19i6), 14-21.

29 Fenton and Hopf.30 Andrew P. 'Vissmiller and George E.

Merker, "Communication Apprehension, SocialDistance, and Interpersonal Judgments in SmaIlGroups," paper presented at the Speech Com-munication Association, San Francisco, 19i6.

31 Virginia P- Richmond, "An Investig:ltion ofthe Relationship Between Trait and State Com-munication Apprehension and InterpersonalPerceptions During Initial and Later Acquaint-ance Stages of Dyadic Linkages," diss. :\'ebraska19ii.

3:JVelma J. Wenzlaff, "The Prediction ofLeadership: A Consideration of Sdected Com-munication Variables," ~I.S. thesis Illinois State19i1.

198 COM:\IUNlcATION MOi'\OGRAPHS

employing seventh grade students, Hurtand Joseph found that high communica-tion apprehensives were less likely to beturned to as opinion leaders or to be se-lected as friends than were low com-

munication apprehensives.33 Similar re-sults have been observed for senior highschool students3-1 and college stUdents.35Communication apprehension has alsobeen found to generate negative percep-tions about a person's probable successin the academic world36 and the businessworld.37

In summary, the theoretical proposi-tions underlying the construct of oralcommunication apprehension have beenconsistently supported in research em-ploying the PRe.-\. to predict specific be-haviors. These results taken together pro-vide a strong indication of the predictivevalidity of this instrument.

CORREU.TES OF THE PRCA

The extensive case histOry research ofPhillips which led to the formulation of

33 H. Thomas Hurt and Kathryn Joseph, "TheImpact of Communication Apprehension in theProcess of Social Change," paper presented atthe Eastern Communication Association, ~ewYork, 1975.

3-1H. Thomas Hurt, Ravmond Preiss, andBren Davis, "The EffectS of Communication Ap-prehension of :\Iiddle-school children on Socio.metric Choice, Affective and Cognitive Learn-ing;' paper presented at the lntemational Com-munication Association, Portland, Oregon, 1976.

35 :\IcCroskev and Richmond, "The Effects ofCommunicatio'n Apprehension on the Percep-tion of Peers," and Hal R. 'Witteman, "The Re.:ationship of Co=unication Apprehension toOpinion Leadership and Innovativeness," M.A.thesis West Virginia 1976.

36 James C. :\IcCroskey and John A. Daly,"Teachers' Expectations of the CommunicationApprehensive Child in the Elementary School,"Human Communication Research, 3 (1976), 67--"I-.

37 Virginia P. Richmond, "CommunicationApprehension and Success in the Job ApplicantScreening Process," paper presented at the In.ternational Communication Association, Berlin,'\"est German~-. 1977; and John A, Daly andSteven Leth, "Communication Apprehensionand the Personnel Selection Decision," paperpresented at the International Communication.\ssociation, Portland, Oregon, 1976.

the communication apprehension con-struct suggests a substantial range of per-sonality variables that should be associ-ated with oral communication apprehen-sion. A number of studies have been re-

ported which have investigated the rela-tionshi p between the PRCA and meas-ures of these other variables. The the-

oretical construct of communication ap-prehension would suggest a moderateassociation between oral communication

apprehension and other personality char-acteristics. To the extent that the PRCA

is found to be moderately correlated withthese other variables, therefore, there isan indication of construct validity forthe measure. 1£ a theoretically relatedvariable is found to be uncorrelated, orif another variable is found to be ex-

tremely highly correlated with thePRCA, there would be reason to suspectthe validity of the instrument. \Ve willexamine several constructs that should

be related to oral communication ap-prehension below.

Introversion. 'While there have beennumerous distinctions made between

people who are extroverted and thosewho are introverted in the psychologicalliterature, one of the distinctions thatis commonly made is that the extroverttends to seek social contact with other

people while the introvert tends to with-draw from such contact. Since such con-

tacts involve communication, specificallyoral communication, a moderate degreeof association between communication

apprehension and introversion should beexpected. However, a high associationshould not be expected since many ofthe characteristics of introverts are not

theoretically characteristics of high oralcommunication apprehensives. Huntleyadministered the PRCA and the Eysenckmeasure of extroversion to 96 college stU-dents. He observed a significant -.36correlation between extroversion and

VALIDITY OF PRCA 199

communication apprehension,3s in therange that should be expected.

Self-esteem and self-acceptance. In thecase studies of Phillips it was frequentlyobserved that high communication ap-prehensive individuals also evidenced alack of self-esteem and self-acceptance."While this was not universally true, itwas a very common pattern. Thus afairly substantial correlation should beexpected between communication ap-prehension" and self-esteem or self-acceptance. In a study of 39 college stu-dents, Lustig found a -.48 correlationbem'een the PRe.-\. and self-esteem and a-.52 correlation between the PRCA and

sel£-acceptance.3!J In each of these casesthe measure of self-esteem or self-

acceptance was treated as unidimension-al. Employing a multidimensional meas-ure of self-esteem, the observed corre-lations have been somewhat higher. \Vithtwo samples of elementary and secon-dary teachers (N = 202 and N = 384)the multiple correlations were -.54 and-.58, with two samples of college stu-dents (N = 192 and N = 272) the mul-tiple correlations were -.59 and -.63,and with 211 Federal employees the cor-relation was -.72.40 As a group these re-sults indicate a moderately high associa-tion between the PRCA as an index of

oral communication apprehension andself-esteem or self-acceptance.

Verbal reticence. According to Lustig,

38 Jackson R. Huntley, "An Investigation ofthe Relationships Between Personality andTypes of Instructor Criticism in the BeginningSpeech Communication Course," diss. ;..IichiganState 1969.

39 ~Iyron W. Lustig, "Verbal Reticence: A Re-conceptUalization and Preliminary Scale Devel-opment," paper presented at the Speech Com-munication Association, Chicago, 1974.

40 James C. ~IcCroskey and Virginia P. Rich-mond, "Self-Credibility as an Index of Self-Esteem," p::'::Jer presented at the Speech Com-munication Association, Houston, 19i5. JamesC. ~IcCroskev, John A. Daly, Virginia P. Rich-mond, and Ravmond L Falcione, "StUdies ofthe Relationshi"p Between Communication Ap-prehension and Self-Esteem," Human Commu-nication Research, 3 (19i7), 269.277.

an individual who is a verbal reticent is

"a person whose average verbal outputis characteristically low and who re-gards this behavior as problematic."41This definition of verbal reticence is

clearly similar to" the definition of theconstruct of oral communication appre-hension. In fact, if independent measuresare developed according to "these twodefinitions, we would expect them to besubstantially correlated and possiblyeven interchangeable. Lustig developeda verbal reticence scale and tested its re-

lationship with the PRCA. He foundthe two were correlated .74.42 These re-

sults suggested concurrent validity forthe twO measures of the two highly simi-lar constructs.

General personality. Oral communica-tion has been linked theoretically to awide variety of personality characteris-tics. In an attempt to determine the rela-tionship between communication appre-hension and general personality, McCros-key, Daly, and Sorensen administered thePRCA and Cattell's l6PF personalitymeasure to 99 college subjects. Direc-tional hypotheses were made for the re-lationship between communication ap-prehension and twelve of the sixteen per-sonalitv factors. Nine of these twelve hv-, ,po theses received statistical confirmation,and the other three were in the hypothe-sized direction but not statistically sig-nificant. The observed multiple correla-tion between the sixteen dimensions of

the personality measure and the PRCAwas .72.43The magnitude of this multiplecorrelation is in the range which shouldbe expected, indicating that while thereis a substantial relationship between gen-eral personality and the PRCA, there

41 Lustig.-1,2Lustig.43 James C. McCroskey, John A. Daly, and

Gail A. Sorensen, "Personality Correlates ofCommunication Apprehension," Human Cvm-mllnication Research, 2 (1976), 376-380.

200 COMMUNIGATION MONOGRAPHS

remains substantial variance which thetwo do not share.

Taken as a group, the observed cor-relations between the PRC.-\. and other

personality indices suggest validity forthe PRC.-\.. .Where moderate relation-

ships should be expected, these havebeen observed. .Where a high relation-ship should be expected, this also hasbeen observed.

MEASt:RE~[E:-;T OF CHA;:-;GE

An underlying assumption concerningoral communication apprehension isthat it is a characteristic trait of an in-

dividual that is relatively enduring andnot subject to major fluctuation fromone time to another. Consequently, avalid measure of the construct should

show little fluctuation from one periodof time to another unless there has been

some major intervening variable pres-ent which would be expected to alter thelevel of communication apprehension.The test-retest reliability of the PRCAreported in the initial report of the de-velopment of the scale indicates that thePRCA does indeed obtain similar scoresat different times. In the case noted in

the original article, there was no inter-vention between the first and the second

testing period which would be expectedto alter the individual's score. In subse-

quent research, such interventions havebeen attempted, and should be expectedto produce differences in scores on thePRC.-\.. We will look at the two types ofintervention that have been attempted.

Clinical treatment. Since the inceptionof the construct of communication ap-prehension it has been considered to bea negative element for the individualhaving it. Consequently, there has beenan attempt to develop techniques to helppeople lower oral communication appre-hension. The method most commonlyemployed in the research has been sys-

tematic desensitization. In four majorlaboratory tests of systematic densensiti-zation as a method of overcoming oralcommunication apprehension, the PRCAhas been used on a pretest-posttest basis.In each instance, significant changes inthe apprehension level were observed forsubjects who had received systematic de-sensitization in the period between pre-testing and posttesting while no substan-tial change was observed for subjects ina control condition.H Similar results

were found in the major field investiga-tion of the systematic desensitizationtreatment.4~ Those who received thetreatment showed marked shifts in theirPRC.-\. scores while those in a controlcondition did not. Recent studies em-

ploying other clinical methods have pro- .duced similar results, both for skills

training-l6 and cognitive restructuring.47Classroom methods. Because oral com-

munication apprehension can have amajor effect on students who are takingcourses in communication, particularlypublic speaking courses, there has beenconcern evidenced for developing teach-ing methods which would have the mostpositive impact on the highly apprehen-sive student. Dymacek conducted a studyin which he attempted to determinewhether the number of speeches a stu-dent was required to give would have aneffect on the student's level of oral com-

H Charles D. Ertle, "A Studv of the Effect ofHomogenous Grouping on Systematic Desensiti-zation for the Reduction of Interpersonal Com-municative Apprehension," diss. Michigan State1969; Jack G. Nichols, "An Investigation of theEffects of Varied Rates of Training on Sys-tematic Desensitization for Interpersonal Com-munication Apprehension," diss. Michigan State1969; Blaine Goss, Millie Thompson, and Stu-art Olds, "Behavioral Support for SystematicDesensitization," Human Communication Re-search, 4 (1978), 158-163; and Moore.

45 ~IcCroskev. "The Implementation of aLarge Scale Program of Systematic Desensitiza-tion for Communication Apprehension."

46 William J. Fremouw and Robert E. Zitter,"A Comparison of Skills Training and CognitiveRestructuring- Relaxation for the Treatment ofSpeech Amciety," Behavior Therapy, in press.

47 Glogower.

VALIDITY OF PRCA

munication apprehension. He varied thenumber of speeches from none to seven,and found significant differences amongsome of the conditions.48 Similarly,Huntley controlled the type of criticismthe instructor provided to students in apublic speaking class, either directing thecriticism directly to the student or di-recting it to the class as a whole whilecontrolling the level of the stUdent's ex-troversion. He found significant changesover a semester's time in the students'

communication apprehension level basedupon an interaction of level of extrover-sion and type of criticism.49

All of these studies taken together sug-gest that the PRCA indexes a relativelystable construct of oral conununication

apprehension, but at the same time canmeasure change in the level of an indi-vidual's oral communication apprehen-sion if a major intervention strategy isimposed between measurement periods.This argues strongly in support of thevalidity of the PRCA as an index of oralcommunication apprehension.

PRCA-LONG AND SHORT FOR..."\fS

One criticism of the face validity of theoriginal PRCA is that it contains an ap-parently large proportion of items di-rected toward the public performancesetting, eight of twenty items. In 1972, anattempt was made to determine whetherthere was more than one dimension

of oral communication apprehension.New items, all of which were directed

tOward dyadic or group conununicationsettings (n = 30) were administered, inconjunction with the original instru-ment, to 1,042 college students at theoutset of basic courses in communica-

48 David A. Dvmacek. "EffectS of Number ofClassroom Speeches on Anxiety Reduction andPerformance Improvement," paper presented atthe Speech Communication Association, SanFrancisco, 1971.

49 Huntley.

201

tion. FactOr analysis of the 50-item in-strument indicated the presence of a sin-gle factor. A forced two-factor solutionyielded one factOr composed of posi-tively worded items and one composedof negatively worded items. The twO fac-tors were obliquely related, r = .71.

In order to increase face validity ofthe PRCA, the five new items with thehighest factor loadings on the unrotatedsolution were added to the original in-strument to produce a 25-item ins::ru-ment. That instrument is reported inFigure 1.

The new instrument has been em-

ployed in about half of the studies citedin this paper. Over 12,000 college stu-dents and 4,000 other adults have com-pleted the instrument. In all administra-tions the distribution of scores has failed

to deviate from the expected normal dis-tribution. The sample means have con-sistently ranged between 73 and 75 (pos-sible score range, 25-125; hypotheticalmid-point =75). The standard deviationhas ranged between 13 and 15. Based onprevious interviews with subjects scoringat the various levels, it has become cus-

tomary to consider subjects scoring above88 (one standard deviation above thetypical mean) to be "high" in communi-cation apprehension and those scoringbelow 58 to be "low." 'While these cut-off

points are not perfect (there will be someerror particularly with subjects scoringvery near the cut-offs), they have beenfound to be optimal in numerous studies.

Internal reliability estimates for thescale have ranged from .92 to .96. Test-retest reliability (N = 762) over a seven-week period was .82. Consequently, thisform of the PRCA is suggested for usewith college students, adults, and older(lIth, 12th grade) high school stuclentsas the best form presently available.Note, however, for any non-student sam-ple the words "in class" should bedropped from item 22.

202 COMMU~IC{\ TION MONOGRAPHS

FIGURE I

PRCA - LO:XGFOR~[

DIRECTIOXS: This instrument is composed of 25 statements concerning your communicationwith other people. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by markingwhether you (I) Su'ongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Are Undecided, (4) Disagree, or (5) StronglyDisagree with each statement. There are no right or wrong answers. 'Vork quickly. just recordyour first impression.

I. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance I feel very nervous.2. I have no fear of facing an audience.3. I talk less because I'm shv.4. I look fonvard to expressing my opinions at meetings.5. I am afraid to express myself in a srroup.6. I look forward to an opportunity to speak in public.i. I find the prospect of speaking mildly pleasant.8. \Vhen communicating, my posture feels strained and unnatUral.9. I am tense and nervous whiic participating in group discussions.

10. Although I talk fluently with friends. I am at a loss for words on the platform.II. I have no fear about expressing myself in a group.12. ~[y hands tremble when I try to handle objects on the platform.13. I always avoid speaking in public if possible.14. I feel that I am more fluent when talking to people than most other people are.15. I am fearful and tense all the while I am speaking before a group of people.16. :\£y thoughts become confused and jumbled when I speak before an audience.Ii. I like to get involved in group discussions.18. Although I am nervous just before getting up. I soon forget my fears and enjoy the e.'{.

perience.19. Conversing with people who hold positions of authority causes me to be fearful and tense.20. I dislike to use my body and voice expressively.21. I feel relaxed and comfortable while speaking.22. I feel self.conscious when I am called upon to answer a question or give an opinion in class.23. I face the prospect of making a speech with complete confidence.24. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations.25. I would enjoy presenting a speech on a local television show.

To compute the PRCA score, follow these 3 steps:I. Add the scores for items 1,3,5, 8,9. 10. 12, 13, 15, 16, 19,20,22. and 24.2. Add the scores for items 2, 4, 6, 7, II, 14, 17, 18,21,23, and 25.3. Complete the following formula:

PRCA= 84- (total from step I) + (total from step 2.)

Researchers, particularly those in-volved in field investigations, often de.sire short, but reasonably accurate meas-ures of constructs because of time con-

straints. Figure 2 reports a short, 10-itemform of the PRCA. This instrument was

generated by selecting the items fromthe long form with the best item-totalsco~e correlations in a sample of 1,183collegestudents. .

Correlations between the short and

long form have ranged between .88 and.92. Internal reliability estimates haveranged between .87 and .90 for st~dentsamples above 10th grade level. Test-retest reliability was estimated at .74 fora sample of 243 college students over afive-week period. This instrument hasbeen administered to over 5.000 public

school students and 4,500 college stu-dents. The obtained distributions have

not deviated from normality. The in-strument appears to be a satisfactorymeasure for students above the tenth-

grade level. For students in grades seventhrough ten, the internal reliability esti-mates drop to approximately .80, andfor younger students fall substantiallybelow .80.

Scores on the short form can range be-tween 10 and 50 with a hypothetical mid-point of 30. Means from samples studiedhave ranged between 27 and 28 with aconsistent standard deviation of approx-imately seven. Scores above 34 should beconsidered "high" and those below 21should be considered "low" since these

VALIDITY OF PRCA 203

FIGURE 2

PRCA - SHORT FOR:'[

DIRECTIONS: This instrument is composed of 10 statements concerning your communicationwith other people. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by markingwhether you (1) Strongly Agree. (2) Agree. (3) Are Undecided. (4) Disagree, or (5) StronglyDisagree with each statemem. There are no right or wrong answers. Work quickly, just recordyour first impression. .

1. I look forward to expressing myself at meetings.2. I am afraid to express myself in a group.3. I look forward to an opportunity to speak in public.4. Although I talk fluemly with friends; I am at a loss for words on the platform.5. I always avoid speaking in public if possible.6. I fee! that I am more fluent when talking to people than most other people are.7. I like to get involved in group discussion.8. I dislike to use my body and voice expressively.9. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations.

10. I would enjoy presenting a speech on a local television show.

To compute the PRC.-\. score, follow these 3 steps:1. Add the scores for items 2, 4,5,8,9.2. Add the scores for items 1,3,6,7, 10.3. Complete the following formula:

PRCA = 36 - (total from step I) + (total from step 2).

scores are analogous to the cut-off pointsfor the long fonn.

This short form of the PRCA appearsto be a useful instrument when time con-

straints do not permit employing thelonger fonn. However, since reliabilityand precision are reduced by the use ofthe short fonn, the long fonn should al-ways receive preference.

Smr:yrARY

In the original report of the develop-ment of the Personal Report. of Com-munication Apprehension, a strong casewas built for the reliability of the in-strument, a case that has been sup-ported consistently in later research. Lit-

tle support was provided in the originalreport for the validity of the instrument.Subsequent to the publication of thePRCA, a substantial number of studieshave been completed utilizing the instru-ment. The results of these studies sug-gest that the PRCA: (1) is capable ofpredicting behavior that is theoreticallyconsistent with the construct of oral com-

munication apprehension, (2) is corre-lated with other personality variables ata level theoretically consistent with thecommunication apprehension construct,and (3) provides a measure of a stablecharacteristic of an individual that can

be altered through substantial interven-tion.