Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

Abstract

The Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Competence Scale, primarily developed by Spitzberg (2006), is a comprehensive psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s perceived ability and disposition toward effective communication in digital environments. This scale operationalizes communication competence across multiple dimensions, including internal factors like Motivation and Knowledge, behavioral factors categorized under Skills (e.g., Coordination, Expressiveness, Composure), and perceptual outcomes (e.g., Effectiveness, Satisfaction, Appropriateness). The instrument moves beyond simple technology usage to measure the sophisticated psychosocial processes involved in successful digital interaction, recognizing that competence in computer-mediated environments is a complex, multi-faceted construct.

Keywords

Computer-mediated communication, CMC competence, communication skills, digital literacy, self-efficacy, motivation, Spitzberg, interpersonal communication

Authors

Spitzberg, B. H.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CMC Competence Scale is to provide a robust, multi-dimensional measure for researchers and practitioners to evaluate individual differences in adapting and performing effectively within various computer-mediated communication contexts. It seeks to quantify how well individuals manage the unique challenges and opportunities presented by digital media, such as asynchronous delays, lack of nonverbal cues, and rapid technological change.

The scale aids in identifying specific areas—ranging from technical confidence (Efficacy) to strategic choices (Selectivity) and interactional quality (Attentiveness, Appropriateness)—where an individual excels or struggles in CMC. This detailed assessment allows for targeted interventions or training programs aimed at enhancing overall digital communication proficiency.

Construct

The scale measures CMC Competence, which is theoretically grounded in the traditional model of communication competence, conceptualized as an interaction of Motivation, Knowledge, and Skills (Morreale, Spitzberg, & Barge, 2001). However, this instrument adapts the model specifically to the digital domain, integrating 15 distinct factors grouped into three main categories:

• Motivation/Arousal: Factors related to the desire, enjoyment, and anxiety surrounding CMC usage (Motivation, Composure, Attractiveness).
• Knowledge/Cognition: Factors concerning understanding how to communicate effectively through digital media and confidence in using new technologies (Knowledge, Efficacy).
• Skills/Behavior: Specific interactional abilities and strategic choices made during CMC (Coordination, Attentiveness, Expressiveness, Selectivity, Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Clarity, Satisfaction, Efficiency/Productivity, General Usage).

Validity

The scale’s validity is supported by its careful development process, which aimed to establish strong construct validity by linking items directly to established theoretical dimensions of competence. Spitzberg (2006) detailed the preliminary development and testing, indicating that the multi-dimensional structure successfully mapped onto the proposed components of CMC competence.

Furthermore, the inclusion of outcome-oriented dimensions (Effectiveness, Satisfaction) and strategic dimensions (Selectivity) demonstrates the instrument’s ability to predict and reflect successful communication outcomes, lending support to its predictive validity within the context of digital interaction studies.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the subscales, assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, demonstrates generally high reliability across the major dimensions, though some usage-oriented subscales show lower scores. The reliability coefficients reported by Bubaš et al. (2003) and confirmed in subsequent research (Spitzberg, 2006) are as follows:

• High Reliability (Alpha > .80): Knowledge (.90), Motivation (.85), Efficacy (.85), Composure (.88), Appropriateness (.87), Effectiveness (.85), CMC Interactivity Orientate (.87).
• Moderate Reliability (Alpha .70 – .79): Coordination (.78), Attentiveness (.82), Expressiveness (.74), Satisfaction (.78), Task Orientation (.77), Co-orientation (.80), Productivity/Efficiency (.72).
• Acceptable Reliability (Alpha < .70): General Usage (.65).

These values suggest that the core cognitive and affective components of the scale are highly reliable measures of their respective constructs.

Factor Analysis

While the specific details of the initial factor analysis method (e.g., Exploratory Factor Analysis or Confirmatory Factor Analysis) are elaborated upon in the seminal 2006 article, the resulting structure confirms a highly differentiated, multi-factor model. The scale is organized into 15 distinct factors, which are clustered under the broader headings of Motivation, Knowledge, Efficacy, and various Skill categories (Coordination, Attentiveness, Expressiveness, Composure, Selectivity, Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Clarity, Satisfaction, Attractiveness, Efficiency/Productivity, General Usage).

This extensive factor structure allows researchers to analyze specific facets of competence rather than relying solely on a single, global CMC competence score. The factors concerning Efficacy and Motivation often emerge as key drivers influencing performance across the various behavioral skill dimensions.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychometric Scale / Inventory

Format: 77 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The response anchors are: 1- not at all true of me, 2- mostly not true of me, 3- neither true nor untrue of me; undecided, 4- mostly true of me, 5- very true of me. Some items are reverse-scored [R].

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: Individuals who regularly engage in computer-mediated communication (e.g., email, instant messaging, online forums).

Age Group: Adults (college students and general professional populations are typical research samples).

Population Details: The scale is relevant for anyone whose daily activities involve significant digital interaction, particularly in academic, professional, or social contexts that rely on digital platforms.

Test Methodology: Quantitative, self-administered questionnaire typically used in communication studies and social psychology research.

Keywords

CMC, digital communication, interpersonal competence, communication research, psychometric properties, self-efficacy, technology usage

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source.)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source.)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source.)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Preliminary model and measure development published in 2006 (Spitzberg, B. H., 2006).

Permissions & Fee: For academic use, direct contact with the author (B. H. Spitzberg) or reference to the published journal articles is typically required. No specific fee information is provided, suggesting use is generally permitted for non-commercial academic research with proper citation.

The instrument can be found online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281162801 & http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x/full

Reference’s

• Spitzberg‚ B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge‚ skill‚ and impression. Communication Education‚ 32(3)‚ 323–328.
• Spitzberg‚ B. H. (1990). The construct validity of trait-based measures of interpersonal competence. Communication Research Reports‚ 7(2)‚ 107–116.
• Morreale‚ S. P.‚ Spitzberg‚ B. H.‚ & Barge‚ J. K. (2001). Human communication: Motivation‚ knowledge‚ & skills. Belmont‚ CA: Wadsworth.
• Spitzberg‚ B. H.‚ & Hoobler‚ G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society‚ 4(1)‚ 71–92.
• Bubaš‚ Goran.‚ Radoševic‚ Danijel.‚ Hutinski‚ Željko. (2003). Assessment of Computer Mediated Communication Competence: Theory and Application in an Online Environment. Journal of information and organizational sciences‚ 27(2)‚ 53-71.
• Ladwig‚ M. A.‚ & Spitzberg‚ B. H. (2005). Great expectations: An expectancy approach to computer-mediated communication competence. Manuscript submitted for conference presentation.
• Spitzberg‚ B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication‚ 11(2)‚ 629-666.
• Perry‚ Martha (2010). FACE TO FACE VERSUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION: COUPLES SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCE ACROSS CONDITIONS. University of Kentucky Master’s Theses. Paper 66. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/66.

Items of the Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

MOTIVATION

1. I enjoy communicating using computer media.
2. I am nervous about using the computer to communicate with others. [R]
3. I am very motivated to use computers to communicate with others.
4. I look forward to sitting down at my computer to write to others.
5. Communicating through a computer makes me anxious. [R]

KNOWLEDGE

6. I am very knowledgeable about how to communicate through computers.
7. I am never at a loss for something to say in CMC.
8. I am very familiar with how to communicate through email and the internet.
9. I always seem to know how to say things the way I mean them using CMC.
10. When communicating with someone through a computer‚ I know how to adapt my messages to the medium.

EFFICACY

11. I don’t feel very competent in learning and using communication media technology.
12. I feel completely capable of using almost all currently available CMCs.
13. I am confident I will learn how to use any new CMCs that are due to come out.
14. I’m nervous when I have to learn how to use a new communication technology.
15. I find changes in technologies very frustrating.
16. I quickly figure out how to use new CMC technologies.
17. I know I can learn to use new CMC technologies when they come out.
18. If a CMC isn’t user friendly‚ I’m likely not to use it.

SKILLS

COORDINATION

19. I know when and how to close down a topic of conversation in CMC dialogues.
20. I manage the give and take of CMC interactions skillfully.
21. I am skilled at timing when I send my responses to people who email me.
22. I am skilled at prioritizing (triaging) my email traffic.

ATTENTIVENESS

23. I ask questions of the other person in my CMC.
24. I show concern for and interest in the person I’m conversing with in CMC.
25. I can show compassion and empathy through the way I write emails.
26. I take time to make sure my emails to others are uniquely adapted to the particular receiver I’m sending it to.

EXPRESSIVENESS

27. I am very articulate and vivid in my CMC messages.
28. I use a lot of the expressive symbols [e.g.‚ ? for “smile”] in my CMC messages.
29. I try to use a lot of humor in my CMC messages.
30. I am expressive in my CMC conversations.

COMPOSURE

31. I display a lot of certainty in the way I write my CMC messages.
32. I use an assertive style in my CMC writing.
33. I have no trouble expressing my opinions forcefully on CMC.
34. I make sure my objectives are emphasized in my CMC messages.
35. My CMC messages are written in a confident style.
36. I am skillful at revealing composure and self-confidence in my CMC interactions.

se‎lectIVITY

I choose which medium (i.e.‚ computer‚ phone‚ face-to-face‚ etc.) to communicate based on . . .

37. how quickly I need to get a message out to people.
38. how much benefit there would be to ha‎ving the other(s) present face-to-face.
39. how lively the interaction needs to be.
40. how much access the person I need to communicate with has to the medium.
41. how much information is involved in the message I need to communicate.
42. how much access I have to the channel or medium.
43. how long I need people to hang on to or remember the message.
44. how many different uses and forms are needed (e.g.‚ hardcopy‚ image processing‚ voicemail‚ computer language‚ etc.)
45. how personal or intimate the information in the message is.
46. how quickly the receiver needs to react to the message.
47. the extent to which I need to get some “back and forth‚”“give and take‚” and interchange of ideas.
48. the extent to which I need some creative brainstorming.

APPROPRIATENESS

49. I avoid saying things through that might offend someone.
50. I pay as much attention to the WAY I say things as WHAT I say.
51. I never say things that offend the other person.
52. I am careful to make my comments and behaviors appropriate to the situation.

EFFECTIVENESS

53. I generally get what I want out of interactions.
54. I consistently achieve my goals in interactions.
55. My interactions are effective in accomplishing what I set out to accomplish.
56. I am effective in my conversations with others.

CLARITY

57. I get my ideas across clearly in conversations with others.
58. My comments are consistently accurate and clear.
59. My messages are rarely misunderstood.
60. I feel understood when I interact with others.

SATISFACTION

61. I am generally satisfied with my communication encounters.
62. I enjoy my interactions with others.
63. I feel good about my conversations.
64. I am generally pleased with my interactions.

ATTRACTIVENESS

65. If I can engage someone in conversation‚ I can usually get them to like me.
66. I come across in conversation as someone people would like to get to know.
67. I make friends easily.
68. People generally enjoy my company when interacting with me.

EFFICIENCY/PRODUCTIVITY

69. I get a tremendous amount accomplished through CMC.
70. My CMC interactions are more productive than my face-to-face interactions.
71. I am more efficient using CMC than other forms of communication.
72. CMC technologies are tremendous time-savers for my work.

GENERAL USAGE/EXPERIENCE

73. I rely heavily upon my CMCs for getting me through each day.
74. I use computer-mediated means of communication almost constantly.
75. I can rarely go a week without any CMC interactions.
76. I am a heavy user of computer-mediated communication.
77. If I can use a computer for communicating‚ I tend to.