Communication Research Measures Iii A Sourcelizabeth E Graham Full Chapter

Communication Research Measures III:
A Sourcebook Elizabeth E. Graham

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/communication-research-measures-iii-a-sourcebook-
elizabeth-e-graham/
Communication Research
Measures III
Building on the measures included in the original 1994 volume and subse-
quent 2009 volume, Communication Research Measures III: A Sourcebook
extends its coverage of measurement issues and trends across the entire com-
munication discipline.
Volume III features entirely new content and offers an assessment of new
measures in mass, interpersonal, instructional, group, organizational,
family, health, and intercultural communication and highlights work in
emergent subdisciplines in communication, including social media and new
communication technologies, sports communication, and public relations.
The “best of the best” from 2009 through today, the profiled research meas-
ures in Volume III serve as models for future scale development and consti-
tute the main tools that researchers can use for self-administered
measurement of people’s attitudes, conceptions of themselves, and percep-
tions of others.
This book is ideal for undergraduate and graduate courses that
emphasize quantitative research methods, measurement, and/or survey
design across communication studies disciplines.
Elizabeth E. Graham (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is Professor and

Director of the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.
Beth’s research interests include three foci: (1) family communication pat-
terns, particularly relationships in families experiencing transition and redef-
inition; (2) student learning and engagement; and (3) measurement and data
analytic issues and trends in communication research. Her work has
appeared in Communication Monographs, Communication Education,
Communication Quarterly, Western Journal of Communication, Journal of
Family Communication, Communication Reports, Communication
Research Reports, and other communication-related journals. She has
authored/co-authored several books and book chapters and co-edited Com-
munication Research Measures I and II: A Sourcebook.
Joseph P. Mazer (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2010) is Professor and Chair
of the Department of Communication at Clemson University. Joe’s
research interests include communication in teaching and learning con-
texts, social media and new technologies, and measurement issues and
trends in communication research. He has authored or co-authored
over 80 research articles, book chapters, and books and has been
ranked in the top 1% of prolific scholars in the communication discip-
line for the past 10 years. A recent study named him among the top five
influential scholars in instructional communication. He recently com-
pleted terms as editor of the Basic Communication Course Annual and
consulting editor for forums for Communication Education.
Routledge Communication Series
Jennings Bryant/Dolf Zillmann Series Editors
Selected titles include:

Public Relations and Social Theory
Key Figures, Concepts and Developments, 2nd Edition
Edited by Øyvind Ihlen and Magnus Fredriksson
Family Communication, 3rd Edition

Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora
Advertising Theory, 2nd Edition
Shelley Rodgers and Esther Thorson
An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research,
3rd Edition
Edited by Don W. Stacks, Michael B. Salwen, and Kristen C. Eichhorn
Analyzing Media Messages, 4th Edition

Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research
Daniel Riffe, Stephen Lacy, Brendan R. Watson, and Frederick Fico
The Media Handbook

A Complete Guide to Advertising Media Selection, Planning, Research, and
Buying
Helen Katz
Media Effects, 4th Edition
Advances in Theory and Research
Edited by Mary Beth Oliver, Arthur A. Raney, and Jennings Bryant
Communication Research Measures III
A Sourcebook
Edited by Elizabeth E. Graham and Joseph P. Mazer
For a full list of titles please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-
Communication-Series/book-series/RCS.
Communication Research
Measures III
A Sourcebook
Edited by Elizabeth E. Graham

and Joseph P. Mazer
First edition published 2020
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
The right of Elizabeth E. Graham and Joseph P. Mazer to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the
authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-138-30440-6 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-30441-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-73018-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK
We dedicate Communication Research Measures III: A Sourcebook to
all measurement scholars whose work aided our quest for know-
ledge about measurement and communication. We especially want
to acknowledge Rebecca B. Rubin whose vision of a compendium
of communication measures put this series in motion. She set the
standard, we just followed her lead.
Contents
Editors and Contributors xiii

Preface xix
Acknowledgments xx
Introduction xxi
Part I
MEASUREMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES
Measurement in Interpersonal Communication 3

Carolyn K. Shue and Glen H. Stamp
Measurement in Family Communication 20
Jeffrey T. Child and Shawn C. Starcher
Measurement in Health Communication 36
Nichole Egbert and Catherine E. Goodall
Measurement in Instructional Communication 54
Joseph P. Mazer and Elizabeth E. Graham
Measurement in Intergroup Communication 70
Angela M. Hosek and Valerie Rubinsky
Measurement in Organizational Communication 82
Heather L. Walter and Andrea L. Meluch
Measurement in Sport Communication 94
Bryan E. Denham
Measurement in Public Relations 108
Kathleen Stansberry
Measurement in Computer-Mediated Communication 120
Nicholas David Bowman and Cathlin V. Clark-Gordon
x Contents
Measurement in Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication 141

Stephen M. Croucher and Stephanie Kelly
Measurement in Mass Communication 160
Tang Tang and L. Meghan Mahoney
Part II
MEASURE PROFILES
Active-Empathic Listening Scale 175

Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment 182
Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale 187
Blurting Scale 190
Classroom Emotions Scale 195
Coach Confirmation Instrument 202
Cognitive Learning Measure 207
Communication Anxiety Regulation Scale 212
Communicative Responses to Jealousy Scale 217
Crisis Responsibility Scale 225
Digital Games Motivation Scale 231
Electronic Propinquity Scale 237
Expected Interactivity Scale 240
Face Concerns Scale 245
Facebook Intensity Measure 251
Facebook Relational Maintenance Measure 255
Family Privacy Orientations 259
Fear of Missing Out Scale 265
Instructional Dissent Scale 268
Instructor Misbehaviors Scale 273
Instructor–Student Rapport Scale 279
Intergroup Anxiety Scale 284
Leader–Member Conversational Quality Scale 290
Contents xi
Measure of Online Communication Attitude 295

Motivation Scale for Fantasy Football Participation 299
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure Revised 304
Narrative Engagement Scale 309
Organizational Assimilation Index 315
Organization–Public Dialogic Communication Scale 321
Overparenting Measure 329
Parental Academic Support Scale 335
Parental Challenge Questionnaire 340
Perceived Parental Media Mediation Scale 346
Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale 353
Perception of Narrative Performance Scale 359
Personal–Enacted Identity Gap Scale 364
Personal–Relational Identity Gap Scale 370
Policy Communication Index 376
Positive and Negative Social Exchanges Scale 381
Public Relations Value Assessment Scale 388
Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness Scale 394
Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure Scale 400
Relational Maintenance Communication Scale 406
Romantic Partner Conflict Scale 413
Second Screening Scale 419
Shared Family Identity Scale 423
Social Capital Affinity Scale 427
Social Media Dependency Scale 432
Sport Media Enjoyment Scale 437
Sport Spectator Identification Scale 441
Sport Twitter Consumption Scale 448
Structurational Divergence Scale 455
xii Contents
Student Academic Support Scale 460

Student Communication Satisfaction Scale 466
Student Engagement Scale 470
Student Interest Scale 474
Student Perceptions of Instructor Understanding Scale 479
Targeted Parent–Child Communication about Alcohol Scale 486
Teacher Technology Policies Instrument 490
Upward Dissent Scale 498
Weak-Tie/Strong-Tie Support Network Preference Scale 503
Willingness to Self-Censor Scale 510
Workplace Communication Behavior Inventory 515
Author Index 521

Subject Index 524
Editors and Contributors
Editors
Elizabeth E. Graham (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is Professor and Dir-
ector of the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.
Beth’s research interests include three foci: (1) family communication pat-
terns; (2) student learning and engagement; and (3) measurement and data
analytic issues and trends in communication research. Her work has
appeared in Communication Monographs, Communication Education,
Communication Quarterly, Western Journal of Communication, Journal of
Family Communication, Communication Reports, Communication Research
Reports and other communication-related journals. She has authored/co-
authored several books and book chapters and co-edited Communication
Research Measures I and II: A Sourcebook.
Joseph P. Mazer (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2010) is Professor and Chair of
the Department of Communication at Clemson University. Joe’s research
interests include communication in teaching and learning contexts, social
media and new technologies, and measurement issues and trends in com-
munication research. He has authored or co-authored over 80 research
articles, book chapters, and books and has been ranked in the top 1%
of prolific scholars in the communication discipline for the past 10 years.
A recent study named him among the top five influential scholars in
instructional communication. He recently completed terms as editor of
the Basic Communication Course Annual and consulting editor for
forums for Communication Education.
Contributors
Nicholas David Bowman (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2010) is an
Associate Professor in the College of Media and Communication at
Texas Tech University. His work examines the cognitive, emotional,
physical, and social demands of interactive media such as social media
and video games. He has published more than 80 journal articles and
xiv Editors and Contributors
presented more than 160 conference papers for regional, national, and
international associations. He is an editor for the Journal of Media
Psychology and Communication Research Reports and is a regular con-
tributor to a number of news media outlets.
Jeffrey T. Child (Ph.D., North Dakota State University, 2007) is a Professor
in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. His
primary research explores privacy regulation, communication technol-
ogy, and interaction. Most recently, his work has focused on how people
manage their privacy and respond to breakdowns in privacy manage-
ment when interacting on social media and the influence of family com-
munication on privacy regulation practices. His research has been
published in journals such as the Journal of Family Communication,
Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Communication Quarterly, and
Communication Studies, among others.
Stephen M. Croucher (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, 2006) is Professor
and Head of the School of Communication, Journalism, and Marketing
at Massey University. He is also the Wellington Regional Director of the
Massey Business School. He researches immigrant cultural adaptation,
religion and communication, statistics, and conflict. He has also explored
how religion influences communication behaviors. He has authored more
than 100 journal articles and book chapters, authored/co-edited 10
books, and given keynote addresses in more than 20 nations. He serves
on the editorial boards of more than 10 journals, and served as the
editor of the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
(2010–2019) and Speaker & Gavel (2010–2015). He is active in the
National Communication Association, International Communication
Association, the World Communication Association, and holds profes-
sorships at the University of Jyväskylä, Universidade Aberta, and the
Universidade de Coimbra.
Bryan E. Denham (Ph.D., University of Tennessee, 1996) has held the
Campbell Endowed Professorship in Sports Communication at Clemson
University since 1999. He is the author of Categorical Statistics for Com-
munication Research (Wiley, 2017) and has published in disciplinary
outlets such as Communication Theory and the Journal of Communica-
tion. He is a Research Fellow in the North American Society for the
Sociology of Sport and serves on the editorial boards of Communication
and Sport, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, and Mass
Communication & Society.
Nichole Egbert (Ph.D., University of Georgia, 2000) is Professor in the
School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. Her research
centers predominantly on social support in health contexts with
Editors and Contributors xv
a specific focus on family caregiving. Other research interests include

health literacy, as well as spirituality/religiosity in health-related con-
texts. She actively collaborates with a wide range of researchers, includ-
ing those in the fields of nursing, public health, medicine, and family
studies.
T. Kody Frey (M.A., Illinois State University, 2015) is a doctoral candidate
in Communication and faculty lecturer in the School of Information Science
at the University of Kentucky. He is interested in instructional communica-
tion and communication education, with a specific focus on the basic com-
munication course. His research investigates the use of technology,
pedagogical innovation, assessment, and training as potential mechanisms for
enhancing the general education experience for both students and instructors.
Catherine E. Goodall (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 2009) is Associate Pro-
fessor in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.
Her research interests include processing and effects of health messages
in the media with particular interest in the role of emotions.
Cathlin V. Clark-Gordon (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2019) is the Dir-
ector of Strategic Communication and Research at WRC Senior Services,
a nonprofit organization in Western Pennsylvania specializing in senior
living and care. Her research examines the social affordances of medi-
ated environments, studying their implications in instructional and
health contexts. Her work in these areas has been published in journals
such as Computers & Education, Communication Education, and Social
Media + Society.
Angela M. Hosek (Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2011) is Associ-
ate Professor and Basic Course Director in the School of Communication
Studies at Ohio University. Her published research focuses on student–
teacher relationships, social identity, privacy and discourse, social media,
and student success in the instructional context.
Stephanie Kelly (Ph.D., University of Tennessee, 2012) is an Associate Pro-
fessor of Business Communication at North Carolina A&T State Univer-
sity. Stephanie’s research interests include presence constructs across the
instructional, organizational, and interpersonal contexts as well as meas-
urement development. She has authored and co-authored over 60
research articles and book chapters.
L. Meghan Mahoney (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2011) is Associate Professor in
the Department of Communication and Media at West Chester University
of Pennsylvania. She regularly publishes research on issues related to new
media audiences, social media, and marketing messages for behavior and
social change, most recently in the Journal of Media Education, Journal of
Intercultural Communication, Journal of Medical Internet Research,
xvi Editors and Contributors
Journal of Development Communication, and Journal of Media and Com-

munication Studies. She also co-authored Strategic Social Media: From
Marketing to Social Change, and co-edited Handbook of Media Manage-
ment and Business. Meghan served as Chair of the Management, Marketing
& Programming Division of the Broadcast Education Association, and
Social Media Coordinator for the Eastern Communication Association
Convention. She is a Faculty Fellow of the National Association of Televi-
sion Program Executives.
Andrea L. Meluch (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2016) is an Assistant Pro-
fessor of Communication Studies at Indiana University South Bend. Her
research focuses on the intersections of organizational, health, and
instructional communication. Specifically, she is interested in organiza-
tional culture, mental health, and social support. She has published in
Communication Education, Southern Communication Journal, Qualita-
tive Research in Medicine & Healthcare, Journal of Communication in
Healthcare, and the Journal of Communication Pedagogy. She has also
authored more than a dozen book chapters and encyclopedia entries.
Valerie Rubinsky (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2019) is an Assistant Professor
at University of Maine at Augusta. Valerie is primarily interested in
intergroup communication processes in conversations with important
others about sex, health, identity, and relationships. Her work has inves-
tigated the communicative processes of personal and group identity man-
agement in the context of close relationships, and how those processes
affect relational quality and well-being. She is especially interested in the
relational and health experiences of individuals in non-(hetero/mono)nor-
mative relationships and families. Her work has appeared in Health
Communication, Women’s Studies in Communication, Sexuality & Cul-
ture, Women & Language, Southern Communication Journal, and the
International Journal of Health and Media Research, among others.
Carolyn K. Shue (Ph.D., Ohio University, 1997) is a Professor of Communi-
cation Studies at Ball State University. Her research focuses on the meas-
urement of interpersonal communication processes, the evaluation of
communication processes in the healthcare setting, and understanding
the connection between communication processes and health outcomes.
She has professional experience in the area of medical education and
assessment. Her work has been published in journals such as Health
Communication, Communication Education, Communication Research
Reports, Academic Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, and
Patient Education and Counseling.
Glen H. Stamp (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 1991) is Professor of
Communication and Department Chair in Communication Studies at
Ball State University. His interests include interpersonal and family
Editors and Contributors xvii
communication. His research on transition to parenthood, defensive

communication, and conflict has been published in such journals as
Communication Monographs, Communication Studies, and Communica-
tion Quarterly.
Kathleen Stansberry (Ph.D., University of Oregon, 2012) is Assistant Profes-
sor of Media Analytics at Elon University. Her research focuses on digi-
tal analytics and data analysis, online community development, and the
use of new media in integrated strategic communication campaigns.
Kathleen’s professional experience includes nearly a decade of work in
corporate, agency and nonprofit public relations, most recently as the
online community manager for the International Society for Technology
in Education.
Shawn C. Starcher (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2019) is an assistant Pro-
fessor at Muskingum University. Shawn’s research interests reside at the
intersection of interpersonal, family, and health communication. More
specifically, he examines how parents and children discuss and manage
private information regarding mental health issues. His research has
been published in Communication Quarterly and Computers in Human
Behavior. He has also written multiple chapters regarding family com-
munication for various textbooks.
Tang Tang (Ph.D., Ohio University, 2008) is Professor in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication at Kent State University. Her
research interests include uses and effects of emerging media technologies
and sports communication. She has published articles in the Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Mass Communication & Society,
Computers in Human Behavior, International Journal on Media Man-
agement, Communication and Sport, International Journal of Sport
Communication, Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, etc.
She also co-authored Strategic Social Media: From Marketing to Social
Change, and co-edited Handbook of Media Management and Business.
Tang is a Faculty Fellow of the Television Academy, National Associ-
ation of Television Program Executives, and International Radio and
Television Society, and has held leadership positions in the Broadcast
Education Association and the International Communication Associ-
ation. She also serves on the editorial broad for Communication and
Sport, International Journal of Sport Communication, Chinese Journal
of Communication, and Ohio Journal of Communication.
Nicholas T. Tatum (M.A., Abilene Christian University, 2015) is a doctoral
candidate in Communication at the University of Kentucky. His research
interests include communication technology in the classroom, instructor–
student relationships, and educational psychology. His recent work
appears in Communication Monographs, Communication Education,
xviii Editors and Contributors
Communication Studies, Communication Reports, and Communication

Research Reports.
Heather L. Walter (Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo, 1999)
is Associate Professor and Director of the School of Communication at
the University of Akron. Heather teaches undergraduate and graduate
classes in organizational communication and mixed research methodolo-
gies. Heather’s research focuses on organizational culture and conflict in
health organizations. She is currently focused on the impact of making
medical research available to chronic disease patients and their families.
Heather is a faculty fellow in the University of Akron’s Center for Con-
flict Management and serves on the editorial board for CF Research
News and Ohio Communication Journal.
Preface
Prior to the early 1990s, no sourcebook of communication research

measures existed and, as a result, many researchers were forced to con-
duct exhausting searches of library databases, directly contact scholars
via phone or postal mail for assistance, or at times completely reinvent
the wheel to examine a communication construct. Following the 1994
publication of the first volume of Communication Research Measures:
A Sourcebook, considerable enthusiasm emerged for the use and appli-
cation of this resource material.
The first volume offered assessments of measurement in instructional
communication, interpersonal communication, mass communication,
and organizational communication. In 2009, the second volume of this
sourcebook assessed the latest measurement trends and issues in these
areas, in addition to evaluations of measurement in subdisciplines such as
intercultural communication, family communication, and health commu-
nication. The current volume continues the tradition of assessing meas-
urement practices in these legacy context areas, while also introducing
assessments of measurement in subdisciplines that have experienced sig-
nificant growth and development since the second volume’s publication.
As such, in the present volume, readers will find assessments of measure-
ment in timely areas such as sports communication, public relations,
intergroup communication, and computer-mediated communication.
The goal for this volume is the same as Volumes I and II: improve
measurement and provide measures for better science. We used the
same criteria as those employed in the first two volumes for selecting
scales to profile. After working with the many contributors featured in
this volume, we conclude that the state of measurement in the commu-
nication discipline is theoretically sound and methodically refined. After
reading this volume, we are certain you will agree.
Elizabeth E. Graham
Joseph P. Mazer
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the contributors to this volume, all of whom

are passionately committed to the study of measurement in the commu-
nication discipline. In addition, we thank Bin Xing, Ph.D. in the School
of Communication Studies at Kent State University. Her error-free
work, attention to detail, boundless energy, coupled with her enthusias-
tic presence was central to the completion of Volume III.
Introduction
Consistent with the first and second volumes of Communication

Research Measures: A Sourcebook, Part I of this volume features
a series of chapters that examine measurement trends and issues in vari-
ous areas of the communication discipline. Each author examined cur-
rent literature, searched relevant databases, and identified several
reliable and valid measures in each area. The chapters included in Part
I offer an overview of measurement practices observed over the past
decade or more.
Similar to the first and second volumes of this text, Part II features
profiles of the selected measures. The format for each profile is consist-
ent across featured measures. Each profile begins with an overview of
the construct and chronicles the development of the original scale.
Available reliability and validity data are summarized for each measure.
The comments section of each profile highlights any issues surrounding
the instrument and draws attention to any concerns that researchers
should be aware of when using the measure. Each profile concludes by
offering the location of each measure and the scale itself.
We noted in prior volumes of Communication Research Measures:
A Sourcebook that we rely on standard definitions of reliability and val-
idity. The definitions and conceptualization of reliability and validity
referenced are informed by the Standards for Educational and Psycho-
logical Testing (2014), prepared by the American Educational Research
Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA) and
the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME).
Reliability is the dependability, predictability, stability, or precision of
a measure. Intercoder reliability is calculated for nominal-data judg-
ments to test the stability of a coding system; two or more coders
assign communication behaviors to categories to see if they agree. Inter-
rater reliability does the same for interval or ratio data judgments;
evaluations are made about the communication on a scale or index.
Test-retest reliability tests the stability of a measure by correlating
scores from two administrations of the scale to the same group of
xxii Introduction
people; if scores change and nothing else has intervened between the
two administrations, the measure is unreliable. Internal consistency tests
a scale’s items to see if they are homogeneous in nature; this is typically
measured via Cronbach’s alpha. With split-half reliability half of
a measure’s items are randomly chosen and correlated with the remain-
ing items; if the reliability coefficient is low, the items are not measuring
the same construct consistently.
Validity occurs when a measure is actually measuring what it is sup-
posed to measure. Three types of validity are identified and include:
content, criterion, and construct validity. Content validity is concerned
with representativeness. Scale items are generated to represent the con-
tent domain of the construct of interest. Face validity, a subset of con-
tent validity, is a starting point for scale development. Face validity
relies on common agreement that on its “face” the measure appears to
be a good translation of the construct. Criterion-related validity
addresses prediction and outcomes and involves assessing a measure
with some external criterion. There are two common forms of criterion-
related validity, predictive and concurrent validity. Predictive validity
involves the future prediction of an outcome (i.e., criterion). Relatedly,
concurrent validity is indicated when the criterion measure is obtained
at the same time, i.e., concurrently, as the initial measurement of inter-
est. Construct validity, the most important and recent addition to meas-
urement practice, links theory to measurement (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).
Variables are deduced from theory and are tested for expected relation-
ships. If the measures perform in theoretically hypothesized ways, then
this constitutes a degree of construct validity and reflects on the theory,
the measures constructed, and the method employed (Allen & Yen,
1979/2002). Four different forms of construct validity include: conver-
gent validity, discriminant validity, multitrait-multimethod validity, and
factorial validity. Convergent validity addresses the degree to which the-
oretically related measures should be statistically related to each other.
Discriminant validity (sometimes referred to as divergent validity)
examines the degree to which theoretically unrelated measures should
be statistically unrelated. Multitrait-multimethod validity features the
examination of unrelated and different traits measured by different
methods. The resulting correlation matrix reveals relationships between
the variables measured in different ways. Hypothetically, the same trait
should produce high correlations, even though it is measured via differ-
ent methods (i.e., convergent validity). Conversely, correlations between
different and unrelated traits, measured via the same methods, should
be low (i.e., discriminant validity). Measurement bias is suggested if cor-
relations for different traits are higher when the same method is used
than when different methods are employed to measure the same trait
(Allen & Yen, 2002). Factorial validity is a data reduction technique
Introduction xxiii
that employs factor analysis to reveal interrelationships between and

among scale items to produce meaningful and related factors.
We encourage readers to examine additional measurement resources,
including disciplinary journals such as Communication Methods and
Measures and Communication Research Reports, as well as resources in
related fields (e.g., Applied Psychological Measurement, Journal of Edu-
cational Measurement, and Psychological Reports). These resources and
the current volume can best equip researchers seeking to measure traits,
attitudes, behaviors, and other items of empirical interest.
References
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press. (Original work published 1979)
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Part I
Measurement Trends and

Issues
Measurement in Interpersonal
Communication
Carolyn K. Shue and Glen H. Stamp
It has been 25 years since Volume I of the sourcebook was published

and 10 years since Volume II was published. As the authors of the
chapter on measures of interpersonal communication in Volume III of
the Communication Research Measures sourcebook, we had the advan-
tage of two previous chapter reviews to serve as models and were faced
with the challenge of offering new insights for researchers in the field to
consider. This was no easy task considering the volume of previous
work. Drawing from past research with the goal of extending the dis-
cussion, in Volume III we offer a review of our scale identification and
inclusion process, reflect on changes to the discipline that impact the
domain of interpersonal communication measurement, and highlight
measurement considerations tied to current instruments while offering
recommendations for future scale development and validation.
Identification and Inclusion Process

To identify potential scales for review and analysis, we searched the Com-
munication and Mass Media Complete database from 1990 to 2017 using
such terms as “scale,” “scale development,” “measure,” and “instru-
ment”; we also searched the reference pages of promising articles. To be
included on our initial list of measures, the scale needed to assess an inter-
personal communication concept, be validated in a relational context, and
be developed primarily in the communication discipline. We focused on
scales published in journals versus scales from conference papers given
journals’ in-depth review processes. Our initial data set consisted of 58
scales; we compared the list with the two previous sourcebooks’ table of
contents to make sure duplicate scales were not selected for review. Seven
of the scales identified in our data set had been previously reviewed in the
first or second volumes of the sourcebook.
To determine which of the remaining 51 scales (which included sub-
stantially revised versions of previously reviewed scales) would be pro-
filed or reviewed for this volume of the sourcebook, we evaluated each
4 Carolyn K. Shue and Glen H. Stamp
scale’s: (1) validity/reliability; (2a) frequent use in the field or (2b)

promise as a new communication instrument; and (3) ability to fill
a domain area of measurement not covered in previous sourcebooks.
This process resulted in 20 total final scales reviewed for this chapter
with 10 of those scales selected for profiling in the sourcebook. Table
1.1 provides a list of the 20 scales, their concept/focus, author(s), and
location. Review of the scales to identify measurement trends also
resulted in observations related to interpersonal communication’s pos-
ition in the larger discipline.
Evolving Discipline and Interpersonal Communication

Measurement
Since the first volume of the sourcebook (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher,
1994), the way the communication discipline is organized has changed.
For example, in the 1994 sourcebook, there were four context domains
and in the 2009 sourcebook (Rubin, Rubin, Graham, Perse, & Seibold,
2009), there were seven context domains. In Volume III of the source-
book, there are now 11 context domains. This context expansion demon-
strates a simultaneous broadening and specialization of research in the
field. The interpersonal communication domain focuses on a context (i.e.,
relationships) and/or process (e.g., maintenance, support) and/or concept
(e.g., satisfaction, jealousy, empathy). Yet, as individual contexts are
established as independent domains, relationships that would have been
studied within the interpersonal communication context, such as parent–
child, patient–physician, and subordinate–supervisor, have been removed
and broadened into their own contexts: family, health, and organiza-
tional communication. Consequently, the exploration of traditional
interpersonal communication constructs in other contexts and the devel-
opment of measures specific to those contexts make the discrete classifica-
tion of an instrument into the interpersonal context difficult. For
example, Myers and Weber’s (2004) measure of siblings’ relational main-
tenance behaviors would likely have been in the interpersonal domain for
the first sourcebook but now would be classified within the family com-
munication domain.
It makes sense that some relationships, which have been the founda-
tion of interpersonal communication study, are now classified more
specifically into different contextual domains given the unique influ-
ence of context. For example, different factors within parent–child and
patient–physician relationships impact conflict processes in specific, often
varied, ways. In addition, traditional interpersonal communication con-
cepts occur in relationships regardless of context. For example, satisfac-
tion is an important, often studied, construct in dating relationships and
friendships. Satisfaction also plays a significant role in patient–physician
Table 1.1 List of 20 interpersonal communication measures reviewed in this chapter;

10 of these measures are profiled in Part II of the present sourcebook volume
NAME OF SCALE CONCEPT/FOCUS AUTHOR(S) JOURNAL
*Active-Empathic Active-empathic Bodie, G. D. Communication

Listening Scale listening – self and Quarterly, 59,
(AELS) other measure 277–295
Arguing Goals General arguing goals Cionea, I. A., Hoelscher, Communication
Scale during interactions C. S., & Iles, I. A. Reports, 30,
51–65
*Blurting Scale Spontaneous and Hample, D., Richards, Communication
unedited speech A. S., & Skubisz, C. Monographs, 80,
503–532
*Communication Emotion regulation White, K. H., Communication

Anxiety Regula- strategies to manage Howard, M. C., Zhong, Quarterly, 63,
tion Scale acute communication B., Soto, J. A., Perez, 23–43
(CARS) anxiety C. R., Lee, E. A.,
Dawson-Andoh, N. A., &
Minnick, M. R.
Communication Emotional support Weber, K., Johnson, A., Communication

Based Emotional & Corrigan, M. Research Reports,
Support Scale 21, 316–323
(CBESS)
*Communicative Jealousy Guerrero, L. K., Han- Communication
Responses to nawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. Methods & Meas-
Jealousy (CRJ) ures, 5, 223–249
scale – revised
Dogmatism Scale Open- or closed- Shearman, S. M., & Communication

mindedness Levine, T. R. Quarterly, 54,
275–291
First-Date Goals Social and relational Mongeau, P. A., Communication
Index goals for first dates Serewicz, M. C. M., & Monographs, 71,
Therrien, L. F. 121–147
Lie Acceptability Attitudes about Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, Communication
deceptive T. R. Research Reports,
communication 25, 282–288
Narrative Acceptance of narra- Yale, R. N. Journal of
Believability Scale tives as true Communication,
(NBS-12) 63, 578–599
(Continued )
Table 1.1 (Cont).
NAME OF SCALE CONCEPT/FOCUS AUTHOR(S) JOURNAL
Nonverbal Nonverbal immedi- Richmond, V. P., McCros- Communication

Immediacy Scale acy – self and other key, J. C., & Johnson, Quarterly, 51,
(NIS) measure A. D. 504–517
Provider Verbal person- Harvey-Knowles, J. & Communication

Expressions of centeredness, Faw, M. Reports, 29,
Verbal Person- supportive messages 35–49
Centeredness
(PE-VPC) scale
*Relational Viewing and treating Hannawa, A. F., & Communication

Entitlement and romantic partners as Spitzberg, B. H. Methods & Meas-
Proprietariness property ures, 5, 1–27
(REP) scale
*Relational Relationship Stafford, L. Journal of Social
Maintenance maintenance and Personal Rela-
Behavior Meas- tionships, 28,
ure (RMBM) 278–303
*Relational Relationship Ledbetter, A. M. Southern

Maintenance maintenance Communication
Communication Journal, 78,
Scale (RMCS) 289–310
*Romantic Part- Relationship conflict Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, Journal of Social
ner Conflict Scale C., & Hendrick, S. S. and Personal Rela-
(RPCS) tionships, 26,
1073–1096
State Empathy Empathy during mes- Shen, L. Western Journal

Scale sage processing of Communica-
tion, 74, 504–524
Verbal Rumin- Repetitive speech Henson, D. F. Communication

ation (VR) Journal of New
measure Zealand, 10,
1–25
*Weak-Tie Social support net- Wright, K. B., & Miller, Communication
/Strong-Tie Scale work preference C. H. Monographs, 77,
(W/STS) 500–517
*Willingness to Individual expression Hayes, A. F., Uldall, B. R., Communication
Self-Censor Scale given public opinion & Glynn, C. J. Methods & Meas-
(WTSCS) ures, 4, 256–272
* Indicates that this measure is profiled in Part II of this book

relationships and often serves as a quality measure for medical practices.

The specialization of the discipline is reflective of improved under-
standing of the influence of a particular context on interpersonal rela-
tionships and intrinsically ties interpersonal communication to other
domains.
Along with a broadening of the discipline to include greater context-
ual specialization, there have also been methodological developments.
While our discipline has always embraced rhetorical, qualitative, and
quantitative methodologies, we have seen further development and
adoption of a variety of methodological approaches along with
increases in multimethod studies. For example, in several of the instru-
ments we reviewed, researchers developed the items based on partici-
pants’ reports of their lived experience (e.g., Arguing Goals Scale:
Cionea, Hoelscher, & Iles͉ , 2017; Romantic Partner Conflict Scale: Zac-
chilli, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2009) and sought participants’ views
regarding the soundness of the scale items (e.g., Relational Maintenance
Behavior Measure [RMBM]: Stafford, 2010). There has also been an
increase in the expectations for methodologically rigorous work and
guidance through published methods articles. This expectation and
guidance is exemplified in the establishment of the journal Communica-
tion Methods and Measures in 2007, which discusses and disseminates
measurement tools and approaches while also offering suggestions for
improving research design and analysis. Methods articles provide argu-
ments for measurement design best practices along with accessible
instruction for implementation of the suggestions.
For example, Carpenter (2018) demonstrated through a quantitative
content analysis inconsistent scale development practices in the commu-
nication discipline. She delineated 10 best practice steps for researchers
to follow with the goal of developing stronger instruments that add
meaningfully to communication knowledge. Levine (2005) advocated
for the use of confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) to determine scale
dimensionality and validity to improve the quantitative measurement of
communication constructs. A majority of the scales we reviewed did
employ CFA during the scale development process, while those that did
not (e.g., First-Date Goals Index: Mongeau, Serewicz, & Therrien,
2004) acknowledged the limitation and provided a rationale for the
omission. Levine, Hullett, Turner, and Lapinski (2006) extended the
case for using CFA, arguing that researchers should conduct this ana-
lysis when using existing and previously validated scales. According to
Levine et al., a published scale does not always mean a good scale and
CFA can provide evidence that the factor structure can be replicated
across participants and studies, offering additional confidence in the
scale. CFA can also provide an empirically grounded justification for
altering a scale to achieve model fit, which increases confidence in the
study findings. Wigley (2011) discussed the use, and at times misuse, of
Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of reliability as well as Likert scale use
in communication trait research (Wigley, 2013). Wigley (2011, 2013)
framed his discussions in terms of myths providing arguments for both
dispelling the myths and adopting analysis practices that strengthen
empirical findings.
Measurement Considerations
It is in the footsteps of this work that we offer observations about scale
development in the interpersonal communication domain, organized
around the following questions: What are we intending to measure?
How are we creating our measurement tools? And how do we ensure
our measurement tools remain relevant and useful amid a changing rela-
tional landscape? To answer these questions, we examine three areas
related to the scales we reviewed: conceptual definitions, theoretical
issues, and operational definitions; scale development and validation;
and relevancy and utility.
Conceptual Definitions, Theoretical Issues, and Operational

Definitions
Our examination of the scales led us to the following conclusions related
to conceptual definitions, theoretical issues, and operational definitions.
First, the articles typically have a clear definition of constructs, with some
having a connection to theory. Second, there is still a significant focus on
individual predispositions/traits, though some do attempt to focus on rela-
tional issues. Third, careful attention was given to ensure items clearly rep-
resented the scope of attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors demonstrating the
concept. Fourth, researchers use both high and low-inference measures.
The scales reviewed demonstrated a uniform adherence to defining
the constructs pertaining to the research and, where appropriate, con-
necting the development of the scale to theory. Three of the articles
developed scales pertaining to emotion: Communication Anxiety Regu-
lation Scale (White et al., 2015), Communication Based Emotional Sup-
port Scale (Weber, Johnson, & Corrigan, 2004), and the State Empathy
Scale (Shen, 2010). In each case, the construct is defined and grounded
in research. For example, White et al. (2015) examined the research on
anxiety, particularly from within the communication discipline, by pro-
viding a definition of communication apprehension, and comparing and
contrasting anxiety and apprehension. The construct was also examined
from a state and trait perspective, leading the researchers to delineate
communication anxiety (a state-like experience) from communication
apprehension (a trait-like experience).
Other research is firmly grounded in appropriate theory. In the devel-

opment of the Blurting Scale (Hample, Richards, & Skubisz, 2013), the
construct of blurting is deemed to not fit with the dominant goals-plans
-action model of message production; rather, the authors examined
blurting through Meyer’s (1997) theory of message editing as well as
the first author’s work on argument frames (Hample, 2003). The devel-
opment of the Blurting Scale is, therefore, theoretically derived from
both message editing and argumentation theory.
An interesting comparison pertaining to theory is the work of Staf-
ford (2010: Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure) and Ledbetter
(2013: Relational Maintenance Communication Scale) in their devel-
opment of relational maintenance measures. Stafford works within
the established literature on relationship maintenance (Canary &
Stafford, 1992) to remedy some of the item construction issues and
conceptual concerns with the Relational Maintenance Strategies
Measure (RMSM); she is building firmly on previous maintenance
work in her development, and test, of a reliable and valid seven-
factor relational maintenance measure. In contrast, Ledbetter (2013)
discarded what he felt to be the dominant theoretical perspectives on
relationship maintenance (i.e., social exchange theory, equity theory);
instead, he developed and tested a maintenance measure guided by
self-expansion theory. This novel theory purports that, among other
things, people are motivated to maintain relationships in order to
expand the self by including the other in the self. His three-factor
model of resources, perspectives, and characteristics is derived from
self-expansion theory and demonstrates both high internal reliability
and construct validity.
The measurement scales we reviewed are firmly entrenched in what
Craig (1999) would identify as the sociopsychological tradition of com-
munication theory. As such, it is not surprising that individual charac-
teristics are the focus of the scales since the sociopsychological tradition
theorizes communication as “expression, interaction and influence [that]
reflects personality, beliefs and feelings” (Craig, 1999, p. 133). The
focus in the sociopsychological tradition is on specified behaviors, traits,
effects, cognitions, attitudes, and/or perceptions. The constructs meas-
ured in the interpersonal communication scales reviewed provide clear
examples of individual verbal behaviors (blurting, verbal rumination,
verbal person-centeredness); individual personality traits or states (dog-
matism, state empathy); and individual cognitions (argument goals,
first-date goals, attitudes about lie acceptability). Of course, what is par-
ticularly interesting about these constructs, from a communication per-
spective, is the way in which behaviors, traits, and cognitions are
communicated; the response of others to those behaviors, traits, and
cognitions; and the impact they have on our interpersonal relationships.
To extend the utility of scales to represent the views of both rela-

tional partners, some of the researchers developed both self-report and
other-report measures (Bodie, 2011; Richmond, McCroskey, & John-
son, 2003). To achieve this goal, Bodie (2011) conducted two tests of
the Active-Empathic Listening Scale: the first to examine the active-
empathic listening of self and the second to examine the active-
empathic listening of an interactional partner. Richmond et al. (2003),
in their initial study of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale, gave half the
sample the self-perceived nonverbal immediacy scale and the other half
the other-perceived nonverbal immediacy scale. These researchers dem-
onstrated the utility of the scale as both a self- and other-report meas-
ure enabling the measurement of the senders’ perceptions and/or the
receivers’ perceptions.
Some of the constructs clearly focus on relationship level issues, such
as maintenance, conflict, and jealousy. The challenge is to provide
a self-report scale that can extend to the level of the relationship. Staf-
ford (2010) achieved this goal by utilizing a sample of married couples,
having both spouses fill out the scale, and wording the items from the
perspective of how the self perceives the maintenance behaviors of the
other (e.g., “My wife attempts to make our interactions enjoyable”;
“My husband stresses his commitment to me”). Given that the findings
from the validation studies indicate that the scale is valid and reliable
for both husbands and wives, the measure begins to tap into the overall
relational maintenance within the couple’s relationship.
In developing the scales, the researchers were thorough in ensuring
the items comprising the scale clearly represented the scope of beliefs,
attitudes, or behaviors demonstrating the concept. This is often no easy
task. As Rubin and Graham (1994) state in the chapter “Measures of
Interpersonal Communication” in Volume I of the Communication
Research Measures sourcebook, “although researchers can never be sure
that they have assembled a set of items that reflect the content of
a theoretical concept, they must do all that is possible to achieve con-
tent validity” (p. 28).
Hannawa and Spitzberg’s (2011) Relational Entitlement and Pro-
prietariness (REP) scale provides an excellent example of a robust
item pool to represent all possible beliefs about a concept. They begin
with an operational definition of relational proprietariness (“the belief
that a romantic partner is analogous to property” [p. 2]) and rela-
tional entitlement (“the belief that, as property, a partner may be
treated as such” [p. 2]). Their goal is to provide “evidence that the
REP measure is a factorial stable and reliable instrument to assess
male and female relational entitlement and proprietariness behaviors”
(p. 1). To accomplish this goal, the researchers reviewed the litera-
ture, conducted focus groups, and examined extant scales to create
a 191-item pool that was ultimately reduced to a six-factor scale con-

sisting of 38 items (Hannawa, Spitzberg, Wiering, & Teranishi,
2006). This scale was found to be reliable and valid in the initial
2006 study, and revalidated in the 2011 study. The six factors of
linking, behavior control, rights assertion, defensiveness, social con-
trol, and interaction control comprise an initial belief structure of
relationship proprietariness and entitlement. Items such as “I believe
it is appropriate to demand sex if two people have been dating long
enough or if they are married” and “If my partner threatened to
leave the relationship, I would have the right to tell them they can’t”
clearly align with a “partner as property” belief.
Working from within a long history of research on lying and decep-
tion, Oliveira and Levine (2008) introduce the construct of lie acceptabil-
ity and the Lie Acceptability Scale. Oliveira and Levine define lie
acceptability as “the generalized evaluation of the practice of deception …
[and] because lie acceptability is conceptualized as an evaluative dimen-
sion, it fits within the definition of an attitude” (p. 283). And, as a single
attitude, the authors assert that the scale will need to be unidimensional,
reflecting the simple evaluation of lying as “good–bad, positive–negative,
desirable–undesirable, or acceptable–unacceptable” (p. 283). The creation
of the 11-item scale was accomplished through the adaption of the
authors’ previous work on lying and deception. Through a series of tests,
three items were removed, resulting in a parsimonious and valid eight-
item scale that measured one’s attitude toward the acceptability of lying.
Sample items included “lying is immoral” and “lying is no big deal.”
Providing emotional support within relationships is an important
element of interpersonal life. Emotional support is specifically defined as
“communicative behavior enacted by one party with the intent of help-
ing another cope effectively with emotional distress” (Burleson, 2010,
p. 159). To further examine emotional support behaviors in relation-
ships, Harvey-Knowles and Faw (2016) created and tested the Provider
Expressions of Verbal Person-Centeredness (PE-VPC) scale. The initial
40 items were created using research on social support and comforting
messages. Through a series of four studies, Harvey-Knowles and Faw
confirmed a three-factor solution. The three factors contained items
reflecting low person-centered (e.g., “I tell my friends to stop overacting
if they are upset about something minor”), moderate person-centered
(e.g., “When a friend gets distressed I point out the fact that nothing
could have been done to prevent the situation”), and high person-
centered behavioral messages (e.g., “I ask my friends to elaborate on
how they are feeling when they have a problem”).
In the interpersonal communication measures chapter in Volume II of
the Communication Research Measures sourcebook, Graham and Tits-
worth (2009) observe that:
Interpersonal communication research relies on both high-inference

and low-inference assessments. Low inference refers to easily
observable behaviors that require less subjective judgment on the
part of the respondents. High inference variables … are more likely
global, affective judgements about people, behaviors, and/or con-
cepts. (p. 80)
As Graham and Titsworth further point out, the preference in social sci-
ence research is typically to use low-inference measures, but self-report
data often limits the researcher to more subjective considerations. While
the topic of inference was not overtly discussed by the majority of the
research reviewed here, an examination of the scales indicated both
low-inference and high-inference items.
The use of different levels of inference may be due, in some cases, to the
type of construct being measured. For example, the unidimensional con-
struct of blurting, measured with the Blurting Scale (Hample et al., 2013)
is defined as “speech that is spontaneous, unedited, and negative in its con-
sequences” (p. 503). Since blurting, by its very nature, entails a vast array
of possible verbalizations, the items on the scale (e.g., “When I interact
with another person, I just say what’s on my mind”), specifically reflect the
descriptors in the definition and are low inference as a result.
Scales with multiple factors may also impact the inference of the
items. For example, in the Active-Empathic Listening Scale (Bodie,
2011), the three factors are sensing, processing, and responding. The
items for sensing (e.g., “I understand how others feel”) and processing
(e.g., “I assure others that I will remember what they say”) are high-
inference due to sensing and processing being more abstract internal
processes. In contrast, responding (“I show others that I am listening by
my body language” [e.g., head nods]) has more concrete behavioral
indicators, resulting in low-inference items.
Two of the articles specifically discuss issues related to inference.
Richmond et al. (2003) review previous immediacy scales regarding
their high-inference nature being problematic in terms of lack of valid-
ity. As a result, the items of their Nonverbal Immediacy Scale are specif-
ically low-inference (e.g., “I touch others on the shoulder or arm while
talking to them”). Similarly, one of Ledbetter’s (2013) specific goals in
developing the Relational Maintenance Communication Scale was to
improve on previous maintenance scales that are “high inference in
nature, requiring significant interpretation to determine whether
a particular communication behavior indicates openness, positivity, sup-
portiveness, and so forth” (p. 290). As a result, the scale contains low-
inference items such as “We go out on dates” and “We say ‘I love you’
to each other.”
Scale Development and Validation

Numerous articles (e.g., Carpenter, 2018) and books (e.g., DeVellis,
2017) outline the mechanics of scale development. Unfortunately, the
ideal research process is often constrained by the messy reality of
research in practice. In addition, articulating how a scale is developed
in the confines of article word limits necessitates that researchers make
choices about what steps they report. While there was variability in the
scale development and validation processes reported in the 20 scales
reviewed, themes emerged regarding common practices.
To begin, generally, researchers approached scale development as
a methodical, step-by-step process. The vast majority of scales were cre-
ated and validated in two to four different studies (published within the
same article) using new samples for each study. The majority (18 out of
the 20 scales) of the researchers did recruit undergraduate student parti-
cipants for the studies. The merits and problems associated with college
student samples have been well articulated in study rationales and/or
limitations sections of research articles. For example, in their test of the
Communicative Responses to Jealousy (CRJ) scale, Guerrero, Hannawa,
and Babin (2011) acknowledge that in researching jealousy, their col-
lege student sample is somewhat “ideal” since “research suggests that
jealousy is most common in relationships that are serious, but not fully
committed” (p. 243), such as college students. They also note that
a limitation of their study is the use of this single population, and
future research should utilize married couples and other sample popula-
tions in examining jealousy with their scale. We confidently acknow-
ledge that, despite the criticism of student samples, the practice of using
students in scale development research will continue.
We offer two examples of different ways to use students that can
benefit scale developers. First, students can connect researchers to more
relevant participant populations. For example, Stafford (2010) had
undergraduate students recruit married individuals for the Relational
Maintenance Behavior Measure validation studies. Second, the results
from undergraduate student samples can be compared to the results
from other populations such as the general public (State Empathy Scale:
Shen, 2010) or those managing health concerns (Weak-Tie/Strong-Tie
Scale: Wright & Miller, 2010). By testing the research hypotheses with
both a college student sample (Study 1) and general public sample
(Study 2), Shen (2010) was able to demonstrate ways in which the
factor model was replicated across two different samples providing sup-
port for external validity of the findings. The use of a college student
sample and general public sample did, however, indicate somewhat
problematic model fit indices for the second-order single-factor model
in the general public sample prompting the need for additional research
using the scale. Wright and Miller (2010) used college students as parti-
cipants managing stressors of general living and compared them to par-
ticipants in online health support groups managing health concerns.
These two different samples were then used to determine discriminant
validity of the Weak-Tie/Strong-Tie Scale. Wright and Miller predicted,
and partially supported the hypotheses that individuals managing differ-
ent types of stressors prefer support from different types of relation-
ships – weak-tie versus strong-tie.
To develop the scales, typically, researchers generated items from the
literature (e.g., Verbal Rumination [VR] measure: Henson, 2009), used
items from previous scales (e.g., Dogmatism Scale: Shearman & Levine,
2006), adapted scales used in other contexts for use in interpersonal
research (e.g., Active-Empathic Listening Scale: Bodie, 2011), and cre-
ated items based on participants’ experiences (e.g., Blurting Scale:
Hample et al., 2013). Some utilized experts or participants to establish
face validity as a preliminary component of the validation study (e.g.,
Narrative Believability Scale: Yale, 2013). Some researchers did use
exploratory factor analysis to reduce the number of items and identify
factors as a first step in the scale development process (e.g., Communi-
cation Anxiety Regulation Scale: White et al., 2015); however, in subse-
quent studies, data from new samples was subjected to confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to demonstrate factor stability. This process
reflects the standards advocated for by Levine (2005).
The majority of researchers designed studies to establish construct
validity, offering claims about the relationships between the construct
measured in the new scale (e.g., self-censorship – Hayes, Uldall, and
Glynn [2010]: Willingness to Self-Censor Scale) and other constructs
(e.g., dispositional shyness). While not as prevalent, researchers have
focused on criterion-related validity as well. For example, Stafford
(2010) demonstrated that the Relational Maintenance Behavior Meas-
ure predicted relationship satisfaction, commitment, liking, and love for
both husbands and wives.
When demonstrating the validity of scales, it is important for
researchers to clearly state the type of validity the study intends to
establish and articulate how the study results align with the validity
type. For example, confusion occurs when researchers state predictive
validity which involves scores to predict future behavior when in actual-
ity the researchers are testing theoretically derived relationships among
the measure and other constructs or construct validity. Readers must
pay attention to the study design and findings when evaluating validity
type and claims.
While cross-sectional survey design studies, often using online survey
tools, still dominate the interpersonal communication scale development lit-
erature, some researchers employ hypothetical cases and full-experiments
(Hayes, Glynn, & Shanahan, 2005; Hayes et al., 2010) to evaluate the util-
ity of their measure. Hayes et al. (2005) used hypothetical scenarios to
manipulate the opinion climate environment when testing their Willingness
to Self-Censor Scale. In the 2010 validation study of the scale, Hayes et al.
experimentally manipulated the opinion climate of a conversation using
two research confederates. The findings revealed that those low in will-
ingness to self-censor were not affected by the opinion climate, while
high self-censors were affected by the opinion climate. Use of quasi- and
full-experiment designs can increase researchers’ confidence in the meas-
ure while also answering important empirical questions. Continually
revisiting the issue of scale validity, as demonstrated in Hayes and col-
leagues’ 2005 hypothetical scenario study and the 2010 full-experiment
study, illustrates that validity should not be a “one study and done” elem-
ent of scale design. To maintain a scale’s relevance and utility, evaluation,
testing, and reflection should be an ongoing endeavor.
Relevancy and Utility

In addition to creating new scales, researchers are revising and strength-
ening previously established measures making them more relevant
for today’s studies. For example, Guerrero et al. (2011) revised their
70-item measure of Communicative Responses to Jealousy to obtain
a valid 52-item, 11-factor with 4 superordinate factors scale. This revi-
sion was in response to inconsistent use of shorter, individual
researcher-generated versions of the original scale. The revised measure
provides researchers with a more parsimonious scale with even shorter
superordinate factors of the scale to promote consistent use of the meas-
ure in empirical research. Consistent scale use allows for confidence in
research findings as well as establishing the continued validity and reli-
ability of a scale.
Even though Canary and Stafford’s (1992) Relational Maintenance
Strategies Measure has been widely used in interpersonal research, Staf-
ford (2010) critically reviewed the measure in light of advancements in
measurement standards for scale construction. She identified problems
such as double- or triple-barreled items (e.g., “Try to be romantic, fun,
and interesting with him/her”), the use of quantifiers or modifiers (e.g.,
“very”), and a focus on attitudes when the scale was designed to meas-
ure behaviors (e.g., “Like to spend time with our same friends”). Staf-
ford argued that attitudes and behaviors should not be mixed as they
likely reflect different maintenance domains. She developed and tested
the Relational Maintenance Behavior Measure to remedy the shortcom-
ings of the Relational Maintenance Strategies Measure.
We encourage scale developers to critically reflect on their measures and
revise instruments to maintain their relevancy and utility. For example, in
the original Romantic Jealousy Scale, the item “look through my partner’s
belongings for evidence of a rival relationship” has been updated to be
“look through my partner’s belongings/computer for evidence” in the
revised Communication Responses to Remantic Jealousy Scale. This revi-
sion reflects the evolving ways we engage in relationship surveillance in the
technological age. Another item “repeatedly called my partner” is quickly
losing relevancy among a generation that prefers texting and often fears
calling on the phone. This item is likely to be revised in future versions of
the scale or when individual researchers take it upon themselves to modify
items. Careful reflection on, and revision of, outdated items or awkward
word choices is necessary to maintain the validity of a measure.
Finally, successful instruments are ones that are used in multiple stud-
ies with different samples at different points in time. The consistent
results of multiple studies demonstrate stability in the scale structure as
well as reliability. Many of the published scales we found when generat-
ing our initial list of scales to review were only used once in the initial
validation study. This trend does not even account for scales developed
and presented in conference papers that do not result in a published art-
icle. Researchers are expending considerable effort to conceptualize,
operationalize, construct, and test measures that ultimately do not make
sustained contributions to a line of research. Successful instruments are
championed by the developer(s) (e.g., Bodie, 2011; Hayes and col-
leagues, 2005; Stafford, 2010). Those contemplating designing a scale
should conceptualize scale development as the beginning of a line of
research rather than the end product of a single research project.
Concluding Observations: Connections to Previous

Sourcebooks
Looking across the research trends since the first sourcebook, there are
stable characteristics of interpersonal communication measurement.
Scholars focus on personal qualities and social relationships, are continu-
ally engaged in conceptual expansion, attend to both the “light” and
“dark” side of relationships, and strive for measurement precision as
a means of strengthening research claims. The sophistication of the meas-
urement process has advanced along with our expectations for high-
quality work. We encourage researchers to consider ways to include
diverse sample populations in validation studies, establish multiple types of
validity (e.g., construct and criterion-related) in their multi-study projects,
and think of scale development as a line of research. Specifically, we
encourage scale developers to use their scales in subsequent investigations
of the construct/context, to understand populations other than college stu-
dents, and to further our understanding of theory. Interpersonal communi-
cation is essential to the human experience, relevant in all contexts,
continually evolving, and multifaceted. Understanding the intricacies of

interpersonal relationship factors requires careful attention to conceptual
definitions, operational definitions, and measurement standards. This need
applies to our current instruments as well as the ones that will be profiled
in future volumes of the sourcebook.
References
Bodie, G. D. (2011). The active-empathic listening scale (AELS): Conceptualiza-
tion and evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication
Quarterly, 59, 277–295. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583495
Burleson, B. R. (2010). Explaining recipient responses to supportive messages:
Development and tests of a dual-process theory. In S. W. Smith &
S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research
(pp. 159–179). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and
equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267. doi:10.1080/
03637759209376268
Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for
researchers. Communication Methods & Measures, 12, 25–44. doi:10.1080/
19312458.2017.1396583
Cionea, I. A., Hoelscher, C. S., & Iles, I. A. (2017). Arguing goals: An initial
assessment of a new measurement ͉instrument. Communication Reports, 30,
51–65. doi:10.1080/08934215.2016.1184695
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9,
119–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Graham, E. E., & Titsworth, S. (2009). Measurement in interpersonal communi-
cation. In E. B. Rubin, A. M. Rubin, E. E. Graham, E. M. Perse, &
D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Communication research measures II: A sourcebook (pp.
76–93). New York, NY: Routledge.
Guerrero, L. K., Hannawa, A. F., & Babin, E. A. (2011). The communicative
responses to jealousy scale: Revision, empirical validation, and associations with
relational satisfaction. Communication Methods & Measures, 5, 223–249.
doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.596993
Hample, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Hand-
book of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439–478). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hample, D., Richards, A. S., & Skubisz, C. (2013). Blurting. Communication
Monographs, 80, 503–532. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.830316
Hannawa, A. F., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2011). A cross-validation of the relational
entitlement and proprietariness scale. Communication Methods & Measures,
5, 1–27. doi:10.1080/19312458.2010.527871
Hannawa, A. F., Spitzberg, B. H., Wiering, L., & Teranishi, C. (2006). “If I can’t
have you, no one can”: Development of a Relational Entitlement and Proprie-
tariness Scale (REPS). Violence and Victims, 21, 539–560.
Harvey-Knowles, J., & Faw, M. (2016). The provider expressions of verbal

person-centeredness (PE-VPC) scale: Development and initial validation. Com-
munication Reports, 29, 35–49. doi:10.1080/08934215.2015.1111918
Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to self-censor:
A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 298–323. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh073
Hayes, A. F., Uldall, B. R., & Glynn, C. J. (2010). Validating the willingness to
self-censor scale II: Inhibition of opinion expression in a conversational
setting. Communication Methods & Measures, 4, 256–272. doi:10.1080/
19312458.2010.505503
Henson, D. F. (2009). Verbal rumination in close relationships. Communication
Journal of New Zealand, 10, 1–25.
Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Relational maintenance and inclusion of the other in the
self: Measure development and dyadic test of a self-expansion theory
approach. Southern Communication Journal, 78, 289–310. doi:10.1080/
1041794X.2013.815265
Levine, T., Hullett, C. R., Turner, M. M., & Lapinski, M. K. (2006). The desir-
ability of using confirmatory factor analysis on published scales. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 23, 309–314. doi:10.1080/08824090600962698
Levine, T. R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis and scale validation in com-
munication research. Communication Research Reports, 22, 335–338.
doi:10.1080/00036810500317730
Meyer, J. R. (1997). Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction
goals. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication
theory (pp. 71–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex
first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual
factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121–147. doi:10.1080/
0363775042331302514
Myers, S. A., & Weber, K. D. (2004). Preliminary development of a measure of
sibling relational maintenance behaviors: Scale development and initial findings.
Communication Quarterly, 52, 334–346. doi:10.1080/01463370409370204
Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie acceptability: A construct and
measure. Communication Research Reports, 25, 282–288. doi:10.1080/
08824090802440170
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of
the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived
nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–517. doi:10.1080/
01463370309370170
Rubin, R. B., & Graham, E. E. (1994). Measures of interpersonal communica-
tion. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication
research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 21–36). New York, NY: Guilford.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994). Communication research
measures I: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford.
Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., Graham, E. E., Perse, E. M., & Seibold, D. R.
(2009). Communication research measures II: A sourcebook. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Shearman, S. M., & Levine, T. R. (2006). Dogmatism updated: A scale revision

and validation. Communication Quarterly, 54, 275–291. doi:10.1080/
01463370600877950
Shen, L. (2010). On a scale of state empathy during message processing. Western
Journal of Communication, 74, 504–524. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.512278
Stafford, L. (2010). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique
and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303. doi:10.1177/
0265407510378125
Weber, K., Johnson, A., & Corrigan, M. (2004). Communication emotional sup-
port and its relationship to feelings of being understood, trust, and
self-disclosure. Communication Research Reports, 21, 316–323. doi:10.1080/
08824090409359994
White, K. H., Howard, M. C., Zhong, B., Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R.,
Lee, E. A., … Minnick, M. R. (2015). The communication anxiety regula-
tion scale: Development and initial validation. Communication Quarterly,
63, 23–43. doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.965836
Wigley, III., C. J. (2011). Cronbach’s alpha versus components of variance
approach (COVA): Dispelling three myths about alpha and suggesting an
alternative reliability statistic for communication trait research. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 28, 281–286. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.591220
Wigley, III., C. J. (2013). Dispelling three myths about Likert scales in commu-
nication trait research. Communication Research Reports, 30, 366–372.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2013.836937
Wright, K. B., & Miller, C. H. (2010). A measure of weak-tie/strong-tie support
network preference. Communication Monographs, 77, 500–517. doi:10.1080/
03637751.2010.502538
Yale, R. N. (2013). Measuring narrative believability: Development and valid-
ation of the narrative believability scale (NBS-12). Journal of Communication,
63, 578–599. doi:10.1111/jcom.12035
Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2009). The romantic partner
conflict scale: A new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 26, 1073–1096. doi:10.1177/0265407509347936
Measurement in Family
Communication
Jeffrey T. Child and Shawn C. Starcher
Family communication scholarship has continued to expand and grow in

the communication discipline since its emergence in the 1970s (Galvin &
Braithwaite, 2014). In 2001, the area of family communication initiated
its first (and only) journal devoted entirely to the advancement of family
communication scholarship, Journal of Family Communication (Socha,
2001). Braithwaite, Suter, and Floyd (2018) recently conducted an ana-
lysis of all family communication scholarship published from 2004
through 2015 and advanced two conclusions relevant to the focus of this
chapter. First, the authors find that an average of 40.5 studies related to
family communication are published yearly across 21 different regional,
national, and international communication-based journals. Second, the
bulk of published research articles in the area of family communication
(or 59.8%) are post-positivist in orientation. Thus, a substantial amount
of work in the family communication area includes the conceptualization,
measurement, and operationalization of family communication-based
constructs and variables.
In the second volume of the Communication Research Measures source-
book (Rubin, Rubin, Graham, Perse, & Seibold, 2009), the area of family
communication was featured for the first time. Volume II provided in-
depth information about four prominent measures in family communi-
cation scholarship from 2001 through 2007: (1) the revised family
communication patterns instrument (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002; Ritchie
& Fitzpatrick, 1990); (2) the child–parent communication apprehension
scale (Lucchetti, Powers, & Love, 2002); (3) individuals’ criteria for telling
family secrets (Vangelisti, Caughlin, & Timmerman, 2001); and (4) the
family communication standards instrument (Caughlin, 2003). The current
volume adds to this base of measures. In the next section, we elaborate fur-
ther on our criteria for selection of measures and profile the new measures
included in this volume in the area of family communication. We then
highlight a few current methodological trends and issues in the area of
family communication scholarship. In the final section, we end with a dis-
cussion of promising new measures on the horizon.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
had married a seafaring youth, and borne him one fair child. Her
husband was returning from a distant voyage; had entered the sea of
Solway; his native hills—his own home—rose to his view, and he saw
the light streaming from the little chamber window, where his wife
and his sweet child sat awaiting his return. But it was not written
that they were to meet again in life. She heard the sweep of a
whirlwind, and she heard a shriek, and going to her chamber-door,
she saw the ship sinking, and her husband struggling in the agitated
water. It is needless to lengthen a sorrowful story: she now threw
herself weeping over his grave, and poured out the following wail:—
“He was the fairest among men, yet the sea swept him away: he
was the kindest hearted, yet he was not to remain. What were all
other men compared to him,—his long curling hair, and his sweet
hazel eyes, and his kind and gladsome tongue? He loved me long,
and he won me from many rivals; for who could see his face, and not
love him? who could listen to his speech, and refuse him aught?
When he danced, maids stood round, and thought his feet made
richer music than the instruments. When he sang, the maids and
matrons blessed him; and high-born dames loved the song of my
frank and gentle sailor. But there is no mercy in the ocean for the
sons of men; and there is nought but sorrow for their daughters. Men
go gray-headed to the grave, who, had they trusted the unstable
deeps, would have perished in their prime, and left fatherless babes,
and sorrowing widows. Alas, alas! in lonely night, on this eerie spot,
on thy low and early grave, I pour forth my heart! Who now shall
speak peace to my mind, and open the latch of my little lonely home
with thy kind and anxious hand? Who now shall dandle my sweet
babe on his knee, or love to go with me to kirk and to preaching,—to
talk over our old tales of love and courtship,—of the secret tryst and
the bridal joy!”
And, concluding her melancholy chant, she looked sorrowfully and
steadfastly at the grave, and recommenced anew her wailing and her
tears.
The widow’s grief endured so long that the moon began to make
her approach manifest by shooting up a long and a broad stream of
thin, lucid, and trembling light over the eastern ridge of the
Cumberland hills. She rose from her knees, shed back her moist and
disordered locks, showing a face pale but lovely, while the watery
light of two large dark eyes, of liquid and roving blue, was cast
mournfully on the way homewards, down which she now turned her
steps to be gone. Of what passed in the pastor’s mind at this
moment, tradition, which sometimes mocks, and at other times
deifies, the feelings of men, gives a very unsatisfactory account. He
saw the hour of appointment with his shadowy messenger from the
other world arrive and pass without his appearance; and he was
perhaps persuaded that the pure, and pious, and overflowing grief of
the fair young widow had prevented the intrusion of a form so
ungracious and unholy. As she advanced from the burial-ground, the
pastor of her parish stood mute and sorrowful before her. She passed
him as one not wishing to be noticed, and glided along the path with
a slow step and a downcast eye.
She had reached the side of a little lonely stream, which glided half
seen, half hid, underneath its banks of broom and honeysuckle,
sprinkled at that hour with wild daisies, and spotted with primroses
—when the voice of Ezra reached her ears. She made a full stop, like
one who hears something astounding, and turned round on the
servant of the altar a face radiant with tears, to which her tale of woe,
and the wild and lonely place, added an interest and a beauty.
“Young woman,” he began, “it is unseemly in thee to bewail thy
loss at this lonely hour, and in this dreary spot: the youth was given
to thee, and ye became vain. I remarked the pride of thy looks, and
the gaudiness of thine apparel, even in the house of holiness; he is
taken from thee, perhaps, to punish thy pride. There is less meekness
in thy sorrow than there was reason in thy joy; but be ye not
discomforted.”
Here the weeping lady turned the sidelong glance of her swimming
eyes on Ezra, shed back the locks which usurped a white brow and
snowy temples, and folding her hands over a bosom, the throbbings
of which made the cambric that concealed it undulate like water,
stood still, and drank in his words of comfort and condolence.
Tradition always conducts Ezra and the mariner’s widow to this
seldom frequented place. A hundred and a hundred times have I
mused over the scene in sunlight and moonlight; a hundred and a
hundred times have I hearkened to the wild and variable accounts of
the peasantry, and sought to make bank, and bush, and stream, and
tree assist in unravelling the mystery which must still hang over the
singular and tragic catastrophe. Standing in this romantic place, a
pious man, not over-stricken in years, conversing with a rosy young
widow, a vain and a fair creature, a bank of blossomed flowers beside
them, and the new risen moon scattering her slant and ineffectual
beams on the thick budded branches above them,—such is the
picture which tradition invariably draws, while imagination
endeavours to take up the tender thread of the story, and
imagination must have this licence still. Truth contents herself with
the summary of a few and unsatisfactory particulars. The dawn of
morning came, says Truth, and Ezra had not returned to his manse.
Something evil hath happened, said Imagination, scattering as she
spoke a thousand tales of a thousand hues, many of which still find
credence among the pious people of Galloway.
Josiah, the old and faithful servant of Ezra, arrived in search of his
master at the lonely burial-ground, about the dawn of the morning.
He had become alarmed at his long absence, and his alarm was not
abated by the unholy voices which at midnight sailed round the
manse and kirk, singing, as he imagined, a wild and infernal hymn of
joy and thanksgiving. He traced his steps down the footpath by the
rivulet side till he came to the little primrose bank, and found it
trodden upon and pressed as if two persons had been seated among
the flowers. Here all further traces ceased, and Josiah stood
pondering on the power of evil spirits, and the danger of holding
tryst with Beelzebub or any of the lesser spirits of darkness.
He was soon joined by an old shepherd, who told a tale which
pious men refuse to believe, though they always listen to it. The
bright moonlight had made him imagine it was morning, and he
arose and walked forth to look at his lambs on the distant hill—the
moon had been up for nearly an hour. His way lay near the little
lonely primrose bank, and as he walked along he heard the
whispering of tongues: he deemed it some idle piece of lovemaking,
and he approached to see who they might be. He saw what ought not
to be seen, even the reverend Ezra seated on the bank, and
conversing with a buxom young dame and a strange one. They were
talking wondrous kindly. He observed them for a little space; the
young dame was in widow’s weeds; the mariner’s widow wore the
only weeds, praise be blest, in the parish, but she was a raven to a
swan compared to the quean who conversed with the minister. She
was indeed passing fair, and the longer he looked on her she became
the lovelier—ower lovely for mere flesh and blood. His dog shrunk
back and whimpered, and an owl that chased a bird in the grove
uttered a scream of terror as it beheld her, and forsook its prey. At
length she turned the light of her eyes on himself; Will-o’-the-wisp
was but a proverb to them; they had a glance he should never get the
better of, and he hardly thought his legs carried him home, he flew
with such supernatural speed.
“But, indeed,” added the cautious peasant, “I have some doubts
that the whole was a fiction of the auld enemy, to make me think ill
of the douce man and the godly; and if he be spared to come home,
so I shall tell him. But if Ezra, pious man, is heard of nae mair, I shall
be free to believe that what I heard I heard, and what I saw I saw.
And Josiah, man, I may as weel give you the benefit of my own
opinion. I’ll amaist aver on my Bible, that the minister, a daring man
and a courageous,—ower courageous, I doubt,—has been dared out
to the lonely place by some he, or, maybe, she-fiend—the latter maist
likely; and there he has been overcome by might or temptation, and
now Satan may come atween the stilts of the gospel plough, for the
right hand of Ezra will hold it no longer; or I shouldna wonder,”
added the shepherd, “but that the old dour persecutor Bonshaw has
carried him away on his fiend-steed Geordie Johnstone; conscience!
nought mair likely; and I’ll warrant even now they are ducking him
in the dub of perdition, or picking his banes ahint the hallan o’ hell.”
The whole of this rustic prediction was not fulfilled. In a little deep
wild dell, at the distance of a gunshot, they found Ezra Peden lying
on the ground, uttering words which will be pardoned, since they
were the words of a delirious tongue. He was carried home amid the
sympathy and sorrow of his parishioners; he answered no question,
nor seemed to observe a single face, though the face of many a friend
stood round him. He only raved out words of tenderness and
affection, addressed to some imaginary person at his side; and
concluded by starting up, and raising such an outcry of horror and
amazement, as if the object of his regard had become a demon: seven
strong men could hardly hold him. He died on the third day, after
making a brief disclosure, which may be readily divined from this
hasty and imperfect narrative.
YOUNG RONALD OF MORAR:
A TRADITIONARY TALE OF THE WESTERN
HIGHLANDS.
Angus Macdonald, a son of Clanranald, having quarrelled with his

neighbour and namesake, the Laird of Morar, he made an irruption
into that district, at the head of a select portion of his followers. One
of his men was celebrated for his dexterity as a marksman; and on
their march he gave a proof of this, by striking the head off the
canna, or moss cotton, with an arrow. This plant is common on
mossy ground in the Highlands; it is as white as the driven snow, and
not half the size of the lily.
Having got possession of the cattle, Angus was driving away the
spreith to his own country; but Dugald of Morar pursued him with a
few servants who happened to be at hand; and, being esteemed a
man of great bravery, Angus had no wish to encounter him. He
ordered the marksman to shoot him with an arrow; but the poor
fellow, being unwilling to injure Dugald, aimed high, and overshot
him. Angus observed this, and expressed his surprise that a man who
could hit the canna yesterday, could not hit Dugald’s broad forehead
that day; and drawing his sword, swore that he would cleave the
marksman’s head should he miss him again. John then reluctantly
drew his bow, and Dugald fell to rise no more.
Angus got into his hands the only son of the dreaded Morar, then
very young; and the treatment which the unfortunate boy received
was calculated to injure his health and shorten his life. A poor girl,
who attended the calves, had pity on him, and at last contrived to
carry him away, wrapped up in a large fleece of wool. Having escaped
from her pursuers, she made her way to the house of Cameron of
Lochiel. Here she and the boy were most hospitably received; and,
according to the custom of the country in those days, they passed a
year and a day without being asked any question. At the end of that
period, Lochiel made inquiry regarding the boy, and the girl candidly
told him her story. He thus discovered that the boy was the son of his
own wife’s sister; but he concealed the whole from his lady, of whose
secrecy he was not very confident. But he treated young Ronald with
great kindness. Lochiel had a son much of the same age; the two boys
frequently quarrelled, and the lady was angry to see her own son
worsted. She at last swore that “the girl and her vagabond must quit
the house next morning.” The generous Lochiel set out with the boy
to Inverness, where he boarded him under a false name, and placed
the woman in the service of a friend in the neighbourhood, that she
might have an eye to his condition.
Ronald received such education as befitted his birth; and when he
grew up to manhood, he paid a visit to Lochiel, his kind benefactor,
in Lochaber, who was so much satisfied with him, that he
determined on giving him his powerful assistance in recovering his
paternal estate, which was then in the possession of Angus.
Lochiel ordered a hundred men to attend himself and Ronald on
this occasion; and they arrived in Morar on a Sunday, when the
usurper and all his people were in church at mass. He congratulated
the young man on the opportunity he now had of avenging his
father’s blood, and destroying all his enemies at once, by burning
them in the church. Ronald humanely objected, that though many of
those persons then in the church were guilty of his father’s death, yet
there were others innocent of that crime; and he declared that if his
estate could not be recovered otherwise, he would rather want it, and
trust to Providence and his own valour. Lochiel did not at all relish
such sentiments, and left Ronald to his fate.
Ronald took refuge in a cavern, and the daughter of Angus, his
only child, frequently passed that way, in looking after her father’s
fold. He sometimes got into conversation with her; and, though but a
child, she became attached to him. He prevailed upon her to get his
shirts washed for him. Her father having accidentally discovered the
linen bleaching, observed the initial letters of Ronald’s name; and
making inquiry into the circumstances, soon suspected that he was at
hand. He attempted to persuade his daughter to decoy Ronald into
his power; but she told the young man all that her father proposed to
her; and he, finding that Angus was still thirsting for his blood,
immediately left the country, and took the girl along with him. With
much difficulty he conveyed her in safety to Inverness, from whence
he procured a passage to France, where he placed her in a convent.
He entered the French army, and was much distinguished for his
bravery; he was thus enabled to support himself, and to defray the
expense of her education. When the young woman was of age, they
were married, and returned to Scotland. Ronald having obtained
strong recommendations to the king, he found means of being
reconciled to Angus, who was then old, and had become very
penitent. He made great professions of friendship and attachment to
Ronald; but his daughter was always doubtful of his sincerity, and it
would appear that she had justly appreciated his disposition. One
night, Ronald having feigned intoxication and retired to rest, the old
barbarian calculated that he would sleep very soundly, and slunk into
his apartment, armed with a dirk, to stab his son-in-law; but the
young man watched the treacherous hypocrite, and put him to death.
Ronald obtained possession of his paternal estate, and, after a long
and prosperous life, became the founder of a very respectable family.
—Lit. Gazette.
THE BROKEN RING.
By one of the Authors of the “Odd Volume.”
“Hout, lassie,” said the wily Dame Seton to her daughter, “dinna
blear your een wi’ greeting. What would honest Maister Binks say, if
he were to come in the now, and see you looking baith dull and dour?
Dight your een, my bairn, and snood back your hair—I’se warrant
you’ll mak a bonnier bride than ony o’ your sisters.”
“I carena whether I look bonny or no, since Willie winna see me,”
said Mary, while her eyes filled with tears. “Oh, mother, ye have been
ower hasty in this matter; I canna help thinking he will come hame
yet, and make me his wife. It’s borne in on my mind that Willie is no
dead.”
“Put awa such thoughts out o’ your head, lassie,” answered her
mother; “naebody doubts but yoursel that the ship that he sailed in
was whumelled ower in the saut sea—what gars you threep he’s
leeving that gate?”
“Ye ken, mother,” answered Mary, “that when Willie gaed awa on
that wearifu’ voyage, ‘to mak the crown a pound,’ as the auld sang
says, he left a kist o’ his best claes for me to tak care o’; for he said he
would keep a’ his braws for a day that’s no like to come, and that’s
our bridal. Now, ye ken it’s said, that as lang as the moths keep aff
folk’s claes, the owner o’ them is no dead,—so I e’en took a look o’ his
bit things the day, and there’s no a broken thread among them.”
“Ye had little to do to be howking among a dead man’s claes,” said
her mother; “it was a bonny like job for a bride.”
“But I’m no a bride,” answered Mary, sobbing. “How can ye hae
the heart to speak o’t, mother, and the year no out since I broke a
ring wi’ my ain Willie!—Weel hae I keepit my half o’t; and if Willie is
in this world, he’ll hae the other as surely.”
“I trust poor Willie is in a better place,” said the mother, trying to
sigh; “and since it has been ordered sae, ye maun just settle your
mind to take honest Maister Binks; he’s rich, Mary, my dear bairn,
and he’ll let ye want for naething.”
“Riches canna buy true love,” said Mary.
“But they can buy things that will last a hantle longer,” responded
the wily mother; “so, Mary, ye maun tak him, if you would hae me
die in peace. Ye ken I can leave ye but little. The house and bit garden
maun gang to your brother, and his wife will mak him keep a close
hand;—she’ll soon let you see the cauld shouther. Poor relations are
unco little thought o’; so, lassie, as ye would deserve my benison,
dinna keep simmering it and wintering it any longer, but take a gude
offer when it’s made ye.”
“I’ll no hae him till the year is out,” cried Mary. “Wha kens but the
ship may cast up yet?”
“I fancy we’ll hae to gie you your ain gate in this matter,” replied
the dame, “mair especially as it wants but three weeks to the year,
and we’ll need that to hae ye cried in the kirk, and to get a’ your
braws ready.”
“Oh, mother, mother, I wish ye would let me die!” was Mary’s
answer, as she flung herself down on her little bed.
Delighted at having extorted Mary’s consent to the marriage,
Dame Seton quickly conveyed the happy intelligence to her son-in-
law elect, a wealthy burgess of Dunbar; and having invited Annot
Cameron, Mary’s cousin, to visit them, and assist her in cheering the
sorrowful bride, the preparations for the marriage proceeded in due
form.
On the day before that appointed for the wedding, as the cousins
sat together, arranging the simple ornaments of the bridal dress,
poor Mary’s feelings could no longer be restrained, and her tears fell
fast.
“Dear sake, Mary, gie ower greeting,” said Annot; “the bonny white
satin ribbon is wringing wet.”
“Sing her a canty sang to keep up her heart,” said Dame Seton.
“I canna bide a canty sang the day, for there’s ane rinnin’ in my
head that my poor Willie made ae night as we sat beneath the rowan-
tree outby there, and when we thought we were to gang hand in hand
through this wearifu’ world,” and Mary began to sing in a low voice.
At this moment the door of the dwelling opened, and a tall, dark-
complexioned woman entered, and saying, “My benison on a’ here,”
she seated herself close to the fire, and lighting her pipe, began to
smoke, to the great annoyance of Dame Seton.
“Gudewife,” said she gruffly, “ye’re spoiling the lassie’s gown, and
raising such a reek, so here’s an awmous to ye, and you’ll just gang
your ways, we’re unco thrang the day.”
“Nae doubt,” rejoined the spaewife, “a bridal time is a thrang time,
but it should be a heartsome ane too.”
“And hae ye the ill-manners to say it’s otherwise?” retorted Dame
Seton. “Gang awa wi’ ye, without anither bidding; ye’re making the
lassie’s braws as black as coom.”
“Will ye hae yer fortune spaed, my bonny May?” said the woman,
as she seized Mary’s hand.
“Na, na,” answered Mary, “I ken it but ower weel already.”
“You’ll be married soon, my bonny lassie,” said the sibyl.
“Hech, sirs, that’s piper’s news, I trow,” retorted the dame, with
great contempt; “can ye no tell us something better worth the
hearing?”
“Maybe I can,” answered the spaewife. “What would you think if I
were to tell you that your daughter keeps the half o’ the gold ring she
broke wi’ the winsome sailor lad near her heart by night and by day?”
“Get out o’ my house, ye tinkler!” cried Dame Seton, in wrath; “we
want to hear nae such clavers.”
“Ye wanted news,” retorted the fortune-teller; “and I trow I’ll gie ye
mair than you’ll like to hear. Hark ye, my bonnie lassie, ye’ll be
married soon, but no to Jamie Binks,—here’s an anchor in the palm
of your hand, as plain as a pikestaff.”
“Awa wi’ ye, ye leein’ Egyptian that ye are,” cried Dame Seton, “or
I’ll set the dog on you, and I’ll promise ye he’ll no leave ae dud on
your back to mend another.”
“I wadna rede ye to middle wi’ me, Dame Seton,” said the fortune-
teller. “And now, having said my say, and wishing ye a blithe bridal,
I’ll just be stepping awa;” and ere another word was spoken, the
gipsy had crossed the threshold.
“I’ll no marry Jamie Binks,” cried Mary, wringing her hands; “send
to him, mother, and tell him sae.”
“The sorrow take the lassie,” said Dame Seton; “would you make
yoursel and your friends a warld wonder, and a’ for the clavers o’ a
leein’ Egyptian,—black be her fa’, that I should ban.”
“Oh, mother, mother!” cried Mary, “how can I gie ae man my
hand, when another has my heart?”
“Troth, lassie,” replied her mother, “a living joe is better than a
dead ane ony day. But whether Willie be dead or living, ye shall be
Jamie Binks’ wife the morn. Sae tak nae thought o’ that ill-deedy
body’s words, but gang ben the house and dry your een, and Annot
will put the last steek in your bonny white gown.”
With a heavy heart Mary saw the day arrive which was to seal her
fate; and while Dame Seton is bustling about, getting everything in
order for the ceremony, which was to be performed in the house, we
shall take the liberty of directing the attention of our readers to the
outside passengers of a stagecoach, advancing from the south, and
rapidly approaching Dunbar. Close behind the coachman was seated
a middle-aged, substantial-looking farmer, with a round, fat, good-
humoured face, and at his side was placed a handsome young sailor,
whose frank and jovial manner, and stirring tale of shipwreck and
captivity, had pleasantly beguiled the way.
“And what’s taking you to Dunbar the day, Mr Johnstone?” asked
the coachman.
“Just a wedding, John,” answered the farmer. “My cousin, Jamie
Binks, is to be married the night.”
“He has been a wee ower lang about it,” said the coachman.
“I’m thinking,” replied the farmer, “it’s no the puir lassie’s fault
that the wedding hasna been put off langer; they say that bonny
Mary has little gude will to her new joe.”
“What Mary is that you are speaking about?” asked the sailor.
“Oh, just bonny Mary Seton that’s to be married the night,”
answered the farmer.
“Whew!” cried the sailor, giving a long whistle.
“I doubt,” said the farmer, “she’ll be but a waefu’ bride, for the
sough gangs that she hasna forgotten an auld joe; but ye see he was
away, and no likely to come back, and Jamie Binks is weel to pass in
the world, and the mother, they say, just made her life bitter till the
puir lassie was driven to say she would take him. It is no right in the
mother, but folks say she is a dour wife, and had aye an ee to the
siller.”
“Right!” exclaimed the young sailor, “she deserves the cat-o’-nine
tails!”
“Whisht, whisht, laddie,” said the farmer. “Preserve us! where is he
gaun?” he continued, as the youth sprung from the coach and struck
across the fields.
“He’ll be taking the short cut to the town,” answered the
coachman, giving his horses the whip.
The coach whirled rapidly on, and the farmer was soon set down at
Dame Seton’s dwelling, where the whole of the bridal party was
assembled, waiting the arrival of the minister.
“I wish the minister would come,” said Dame Seton.
“We must open the window,” answered Annot, “for Mary is like to
swarf awa.”
This was accordingly done, and as Mary sat close by the window,
and gasping for breath, an unseen hand threw a small package into
her lap.
“Dear sirs, Mary,” said Dame Seton, “open up the bit parcel, bairn;
it will be a present frae your Uncle Sandie; it’s a queer way o’ gieing
it, but he ne’er does things like ony ither body.” The bridal guests
gathered round Mary as she slowly undid fold after fold. “Hech!”
observed Dame Seton, “it maun be something very precious to be in
such sma’ bouk.” The words were scarcely uttered when the half of a
gold ring lay in Mary’s hand.
“Where has this come frae?” exclaimed Mary, wringing her hands.
“Has the dead risen to upbraid me?”
“No, Mary, but the living has come to claim you,” cried the young
sailor, as he vaulted through the open window, and caught her in his
arms.
“Oh, Willie, Willie, where hae ye been a’ this weary time?”
exclaimed Mary, while the tears fell on her pale cheek.
“That’s a tale for another day,” answered the sailor; “I can think of
nothing but joy while I haud you to my breast, which you will never
leave mair.”
“There will be twa words to that bargain, my joe,” retorted Dame
Seton. “Let go my bairn, and gang awa wi’ ye; she’s trysted to be this
honest man’s wife, and his wife she shall be.”
“Na, na, mistress,” said the bridegroom, “I hae nae broo o’
wedding another man’s joe: since Willie Fleming has her heart, he
may e’en tak her hand for me.”
“Gude save us,” cried the farmer, shaking the young sailor by the
hand, “little did I ken wha I was speaking to on the top of the coach. I
say, guidwife,” he continued, “ye maun just let Willie tak her; nae
gude e’er yet come o’ crossing true love.”
“’Deed, that’s a truth,” was answered by several bonny
bridesmaids. Dame Seton, being deserted by her allies, and finding
the stream running so strongly against her, at length gave an
unwilling consent to the marriage of the lovers, which was celebrated
amidst general rejoicings; and at the request of his bride, Willie, on
his wedding-day, attired himself in the clothes which the moths had
so considerately spared for the happy occasion.
A PASSAGE OF MY LIFE.
Maiden aunts are very tough. Their very infirmities seem to bring
about a new term of life. They are like old square towers—nobody
knows when they were built, and nobody knows when they will
tumble down. You may unroof them, unfloor them, knock in their
casements, and break down their doors, till the four old black walls
stand, and stand through storm and sunshine year after year, till the
eye, accustomed to contemplate the gradual decay of everything else,
sickens to look at this anomaly in nature. My aunt, dear good soul,
seemed resolved never to die,—at least to outlive her hopeful
nephew. I thought she was to prove as perdurable as a dried
mummy,—she was by this time equally yellow and exsiccated as any
of the daughters of Pharaoh.
I had run myself quite aground. But my extravagances, as well as
my distresses, I had the policy to conceal from my aged relative. She,
honest lady, occasionally had pressed me to accept of some slight
pittances of two or three £50’s at different times, which, after much
difficulty and entreaty, I made a merit of accepting, stoutly asserting
that I only received them to avoid hurting her feelings—that my own
income was amply sufficient for the limited wants of a scholar, or to
any one who could put in practice the rules of wholesome economy;
but this trifle certainly would enable me to purchase a few rather
expensive publications which I could not otherwise have hoped to do,
and which would prove of essential use in furthering the progress of
the two great works I had commenced while at college, and had been
busy with ever since, viz.: “A History of Antediluvian Literature, Arts,
and Sciences,” and, “A Dissertation on the Military Tactics of the
Assyrians,” which I intended should appear along with the last
volume of Valpy’s Greek Dictionary, or the first of Sir James
Mackintosh’s History of Great Britain.
Fortune at last grew tired of persecuting me; she fairly turned her
wheel, and put me on the brightest spoke. My aunt’s factor called one
day, and let me know that he thought I should make my visits at
Broadcroft more frequent—take a little interest in looking over the
ditching and draining of the estate (short-sighted man, he little knew
how much I had ditched and drained it by anticipation!)—walk
through the woods and plantations, and bestow my opinion as to
thinning them (they were long ago, in my own mind, transferred to
the timber-yard)—apply myself a little to master the details of
business connected with agricultural affairs, such as markets, green
and white crops, manure, &c. &c.; and concluded by telling me that
his son was a remarkably clever lad, knew country matters
exceedingly well, and would be a most valuable acquisition as factor
or land grieve to any gentleman of extensive landed property. The
drift of this communication I perfectly understood. I listened with
the most profound attention, lamented my own ignorance of the
subjects wherein his clever son was so much at home, and wished
only that I had an estate, that I might entrust it to the care of so
intelligent a steward. After dispatching a bottle or two of claret, we
parted mutually pleased.
He had seen my aunt’s will, and, in the fulness of his heart, ran
over the legal jargon which constituted me the owner of Broadcroft,
Lilliesacre, Kittleford, Westerha’, Cozieholm, Harperston, and
Oxgang, with hale parts and pendicles, woods and fishings, mills and
mill-lands, muirs and mosses, rights of pasturage and commonty. I
never heard more delightful music all my days than the hour I spent
hearkening to this old rook cawing over the excellent lands that were
mine in prospective. My aunt’s letters, after this, I found assumed a
querulous tone, and became strongly impregnated with religious
commonplaces—a sure sign to me that she herself was now winding
up her earthly affairs—and generally concluded with some such
sentence as this: “I am in a comfortable frame of spirit, but my
fleshly tabernacle is sorely decayed—great need hath it of a sure prop
in the evening of its days.” These epistles I regularly answered,
seasoning them with scriptural texts as well as I could. Some, to be
sure, had no manner of connection or application whatsoever; but I
did not care for that if they were there. I stuck them thick and
threefold, for I knew my aunt was an indulgent critic, provided she
got plenty of matter. I took the precaution also of paying the postage,
for I learned, with something like satisfaction, that of late she had
become rather parsimonious in her habits. I also heard that she daily
took much comfort in the soul-searching and faith-fortifying
discourses of Mr Samuel Salmasius Sickerscreed, a migratory
preacher of some denomination or other, who had found it
convenient for some months to pitch his tent in the Broadcroft.
Several of my aunt’s letters told me, in no measured terms, her high
opinion of his edifying gifts. With these opinions, as a matter of
course, I warmly coincided. Sheet after sheet now poured in from
Broadcroft. I verily thought all the worthy divines, from the
Reformation downwards, had been put in requisition to batter me to
pieces with choice and ghostly counsel.
This infliction I bore up against with wonderful fortitude, and
repaid with my weightiest metal. To supply the extraordinary drafts
thus made on my stores of devout phraseology, I had to call in my
worthy friend Tom ——. He had been a regularly-bred theologian,
but finding the casque more fitting for his hot head than the
presbyter’s cowl, he now lived in elegant starvation as a dashing
cornet in the —— Dragoons, and a better fellow never breathed. His
assistance was of eminent service: when we exhausted our own
invention, we immediately transcribed the sermon of some forgotten
divine of last century, and sent it thundering off. These we
denominated shells. At this time Tom’s fortune and mine were
hanging on the same pin; we were both up to the chin in debt; we
had stretched our respective personal credits, as far as they would go,
for each other. We were involved in such a beautiful multitude and
labyrinth of mutual obligations, that we could neither count them
nor see our way out of them. In the holy siege of Broadcroft citadel
we therefore joined heart and hand.
In this manner things went on smoothly. My aunt was becoming
daily weaker, seldom left her own bedroom, and permitted no person
to see her save the Rev. S. S. Sickerscreed. Indeed, every letter I
received from my aunt intimated more plainly than its predecessor
that I might make up my mind for a great and sudden change, and
prepare myself for afflictions. As in duty bound, my answers
breathed of sorrow and resignation—lamented the mutability of this
world—its nothingness—the utter vanity of all earthly joys. I really
loved the good old lady; but I was hampered most villanously. I knew
not a spot where I could put the sole of my foot, without some legal
mine blowing me up a shivered rag into the azure firmament,—a fate
a thousand times more picturesque than pleasant. I may therefore be
excused for confessing that I looked upon my aunt’s release from this
world as the dawn of my own deliverance. Yet, even then, I felt
shame when I looked into the chambers of my heart, and found that
every feeling of grief I had there for my aunt’s illness was beautifully
edged with a gleam of satisfaction. The cypresses and yews, and
other mournful trees that threw their pensive shadows around me,
were positively resting above a burning volcano of joy. No; it was not
in human nature for a desperate man like me to exclude from his
contemplation the bills, bonds, moneys, and manors that had
accumulated for years under her thrifty and prudent management.
One morning, while musing in this indescribable state of feeling, a
little ragged boy, besmeared with dust and sweat, whom I recognised
as turnspit and running footman of the establishment at Broadcroft,
thrust a crumpled greasy-like billet in my hand.
“Come awa, laird, come awa, gin ye would like to see your auld
auntie afore she gangs aff a’thegither.”
I started up, threw down the “Sporting Magazine,” and
instinctively snatched up my hat.
“When did it happen, wee Jamie?”
“This morning, nae far’er gane—but come awa; everything’s gaun
tap-salteerie at Braidcraft—sae unexpected by us a’! Has your horse
been fed yet? Dinna put aff, but come awa. We’re a’ dementit ower
the way, and ye’re muckle wanted, and sair missed.”
With this wee Jamie darted away; I roared after him to obtain
further particulars, but wee Jamie shot off like an arrow, only
twisting his head over his shoulder, notwithstanding his trot, he
screamed—
“Gerss maunna grow under my heels, if I care for my lugs. But it’s
a’ by noo, and there’s nae gude in granin’.”
With which sapient remark the kitchen boy got out of hearing, and
soon out of sight.
I now hastily broke the black wax of the billet. The note was
subscribed by Mr S. S. Sickerscreed, and was written in his most
formal small-text hand. He had been a schoolmaster in his youth,
and could write legibly, which no gentleman who regards his caste
should do. The three big S S S were dearer to me than a collar of
knighthood. It required my immediate presence at Broadcroft to talk
over certain serious and impressive matters. So had Mr Samuel
Salmasius Sickerscreed penned his billet, and in the fulness of my
heart I gave the poor man credit for an excess of delicacy more than I
ever noticed had belonged to him before. Poor dear man, he, too, has
lost a valuable friend. Judging of the exquisiteness of my feelings by
the agony of his own, he has kindly delayed the fatal announcement
of my aunt’s demise, till my heart has been prepared to meet the
shock with becoming fortitude. How considerate—how very
compassionate he has been! Worthy man—would I could repay his
kindness with a benifice! Thus did I soliloquise over the dispatch
from Broadcroft; but notwithstanding the tumult which it and its
bearer raised in my bosom, I did not omit communicating to Tom the
unexpected change which a few hours had produced in our destinies,
and charging him at the same time to moderate his transports till I
returned with a confirmation of our hopes.
Then backing my stoutest hunter, and taking a crow’s flight across
the country, I spared not her heaving flanks, nor drew bridle, till I
reached the long, straight, dusky avenue that led to the tall, narrow
slip of a house yclept Broadcroft Place. Here I slackened my pace,
and left my wearied and panting brute to crawl as lazily as she liked
along the avenue. I, too, lengthened my visage to the requisite degree
necessary for the melancholy purpose on which I came. The very
trees had a lugubrious and sepulchral aspect. I took them in fancy to
be so many Sawlies waiting the time for heading the funeral
procession of my lamented aunt. They seemed to mourn for her in
sincere sorrow, and, in fact, walking under their shadows disposed
my mind very much to melancholy. Now a green leaf, now a withered
one, dropped on my beaver as I passed, and in the deep silence that
reigned around me, I could not, despite my constitutional
recklessness, be wholly insensible to the appeals these mute
emblems of man’s mortality made to reflection.
But a pleasanter train of feelings arose when I looked at the stately
trunks of the venerable oaks, their immense girth, and (with a glow
of patriotic virtue, quite common now-a-days) pictured forth to
myself how admirably they were suited to bear Britannia’s thunders
triumphantly across the wave. Yes, every tree of them shall be
devoted to the service of my country. Perish the narrow thought, that
for its own gratification would allow them to vegetate in unprofitable
uselessness, when they can be so beneficially employed for the state.
Every old, druidical-looking oak which my eye scanned was, of
course, devoted to the axe. I already saw the timber yards piled with
Broadcroft oak, and the distant sea my imagination soon whitened
with a fleet of noble barks wholly built of them. Thus did I speculate
till I reached the end of the avenue, where, to my surprise, I found a
travelling post-chaise and four drawn up before the door of the
mansion. This vehicle, an apparition of rare occurrence in so
secluded a part of the country, and at the residence of so retired a
lady as my departed aunt, was literally crushed with trunks, and
boxes, and bags, and packages of one kind or another, strapped
above, behind, and before it.
Being never unfertile in surmises, I immediately guessed that the
equipage I saw must, of necessity, belong to the clerk to the signet,
my aunt’s city lawyer, who had trundled himself into the country
with the whole muniments of my estate, for the mere purpose of
welcoming me, and regulating my deceased relative’s affairs. His
prompt appearance, I attributed, with my usual goodness of heart, to
the kindly foresight of Mr Samuel. I really did not know how I could
sufficiently recompense him for the warm, disinterested, and
valuable services he had rendered in this season of affliction. But my
aunt must have remembered him in her testament. She was ever
grateful. She cannot possibly have overlooked him. As the d—l would
have it, I then asked myself, now, if your aunt has forgotten Mr
Samuel Salmasius Sickerscreed altogether, how will you act? At first,
I said he must have £100 at least; then as I looked on my own
necessities, the uncertainty of rents, the exorbitance of taxes, this
sum speedily subsided into half the amount. And by the time I fairly
reached my aunt’s door, I found my mind reconciling itself to the
handsome duty of presenting Mr Sickerscreed with a snuff-box, value
£2, 10s., a mourning ring worth 30s., a new coat, and ten guineas; in
all, some twenty pieces of gold or thereby.
On alighting, I gave my horse to the servant to walk and cool. John
was old as his late mistress—a very good, foolish, gray-headed
domestic, marvellously fond of the family he served with, and
marvellously fond of conversation. He looked profoundly melancholy
when he took my reins.
“It’ll be a sair dispensation to you, Maister William,” quoth John,
“this morning’s news. Ye wud be wonderfully struck and put about
when ye heard it.”
“It is, indeed,” said I, throwing as much of mournfulness as
possible into the tones of my voice. “Heavy news indeed, and most
unexpected. Great cause have I to grieve. My poor dear aunt to be
thus lost to me for ever!”
“Nae doubt, nae doubt, Maister William, ye maun hae a heavy
heartfu’. We were a’ jalousing as muckle,—that’s me, Souple Rab, and
wee Jamie; however, it’ll no do to be coosten down a’thegither,—a
rainy night may bring a blithe morrow. Every thing is uncertain in
this world but death! But come on, Kate;” and John and my reeking
jade disappeared in the direction towards the stable; John, no doubt,
bursting with impatience till he could communicate to his select
cabinet, Souple Rab and wee Jamie, the awsome and doncie looks of
the young laird.
I was yet lingering on the threshold in a most comfortable frame of
mind, when the door was thrown open. Imagine my horror when the
first figure I saw was my aunt herself, not in the drapery of the grave,
but bedizzened with ribbons from head to heel, and leaning her
withered hand on the arm of the Reverend Mr Sickerscreed. I gasped
for breath—my tongue swelled and clung to the roof of my mouth—
my eyes literally started from their sockets as if they would leave
their bony casements altogether. Had I not caught hold of the porch,
down I should have dropped.
“Am I in my senses, aunt? Do I see you really alive? Is this no
unreal mockery—no cruel hallucination? Resolve me, for Heaven’s
sake, else I go mad.”
“Dear me, nephew,” said the old lady, “what agitates you so? I feel
so glad that you have paid me this visit ere I set off on my marriage
jaunt with the elect of my heart, your worthy connection, Mr
Sickerscreed.”
“Marriage!” thundered I, “marriage!—I came to mourn over your
bier, not to laugh at your bridal. O, the infernal cruelty, Mr What’s-

Communication Research Measures Iii A Sourcelizabeth E Graham Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communication Research Measures Iii A Sourcelizabeth E Graham Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communication Research Measures III:

A Sourcebook Elizabeth E. Graham

Elizabeth E. Graham (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is Professor and

Selected titles include:

Family Communication, 3rd Edition

Analyzing Media Messages, 4th Edition

The Media Handbook

Edited by Elizabeth E. Graham

ISBN: 978-1-138-30440-6 (hbk)

Editors and Contributors xiii

Measurement in Interpersonal Communication 3

Measurement in Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication 141

Active-Empathic Listening Scale 175

Measure of Online Communication Attitude 295

Student Academic Support Scale 460

Author Index 521

a speciﬁc focus on family caregiving. Other research interests include

Journal of Development Communication, and Journal of Media and Com-

communication. His research on transition to parenthood, defensive

Communication Studies, Communication Reports, and Communication

Prior to the early 1990s, no sourcebook of communication research

We would like to thank the contributors to this volume, all of whom

Consistent with the ﬁrst and second volumes of Communication

that employs factor analysis to reveal interrelationships between and

Measurement Trends and

It has been 25 years since Volume I of the sourcebook was published

Identiﬁcation and Inclusion Process

scale’s: (1) validity/reliability; (2a) frequent use in the ﬁeld or (2b)

Evolving Discipline and Interpersonal Communication

Table 1.1 List of 20 interpersonal communication measures reviewed in this chapter;

NAME OF SCALE CONCEPT/FOCUS AUTHOR(S) JOURNAL

*Active-Empathic Active-empathic Bodie, G. D. Communication

*Communication Emotion regulation White, K. H., Communication

Communication Emotional support Weber, K., Johnson, A., Communication

Dogmatism Scale Open- or closed- Shearman, S. M., & Communication

Table 1.1 (Cont).

NAME OF SCALE CONCEPT/FOCUS AUTHOR(S) JOURNAL

Nonverbal Nonverbal immedi- Richmond, V. P., McCros- Communication

Provider Verbal person- Harvey-Knowles, J. & Communication

*Relational Viewing and treating Hannawa, A. F., & Communication

*Relational Relationship Ledbetter, A. M. Southern

State Empathy Empathy during mes- Shen, L. Western Journal

Verbal Rumin- Repetitive speech Henson, D. F. Communication

* Indicates that this measure is proﬁled in Part II of this book

relationships and often serves as a quality measure for medical practices.

Conceptual Deﬁnitions, Theoretical Issues, and Operational

Other research is ﬁrmly grounded in appropriate theory. In the devel-

To extend the utility of scales to represent the views of both rela-

a 191-item pool that was ultimately reduced to a six-factor scale con-

Interpersonal communication research relies on both high-inference

Scale Development and Validation

Relevancy and Utility

Concluding Observations: Connections to Previous

continually evolving, and multifaceted. Understanding the intricacies of

Harvey-Knowles, J., & Faw, M. (2016). The provider expressions of verbal

Shearman, S. M., & Levine, T. R. (2006). Dogmatism updated: A scale revision

Family communication scholarship has continued to expand and grow in

Angus Macdonald, a son of Clanranald, having quarrelled with his

By one of the Authors of the “Odd Volume.”

You might also like