Situational Communication Apprehension Measure (SCAM)

Abstract

The Situational Communication Apprehension Measure (SCAM), developed by Virginia P. Richmond in 1978, is a focused self-report instrument designed to assess an individual’s immediate, transient feelings of anxiety concerning communication in a specific, recent context. This scale is primarily used to quantify state communication apprehension, particularly in high-stakes relational interactions, such as those involving a supervisor or authority figure. Respondents rate 20 items descriptive of their emotional and psychological state using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “Extremely Inaccurate” (1) to “Extremely Accurate” (7). The SCAM provides a score between 20 and 140, offering a precise measure of context-specific communication discomfort.

Keywords

Situational Communication Apprehension, State Apprehension, Communication Anxiety, V. P. Richmond, Supervisor Interaction, Self-Report Scale, Psychometric Scale

Authors

Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey (often cited in subsequent validation studies)

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the SCAM is to capture the dynamic and fluctuating nature of communication anxiety, differentiating it from stable, personality-based trait apprehension. By focusing on a single, recent interaction—typically one involving a person in a supervisory or authoritative role—the scale allows researchers to isolate the impact of specific contextual variables on an individual’s emotional state.

This measure is invaluable in organizational and interpersonal communication research where understanding the immediate psychological barriers to effective communication is crucial. The SCAM provides the necessary tool to assess how specific communication environments or relational power structures generate feelings of fear, uneasiness, or discomfort.

Construct

The SCAM measures State Communication Apprehension, which is defined as the temporary, situationally induced fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with another person or persons. This construct is distinct from trait anxiety, as it fluctuates depending on the context, the audience, and the perceived consequences of the interaction.

The 20 items capture a range of affective states, encompassing both positive emotional indicators (e.g., “I felt peaceful,” “I was composed”) and negative anxiety indicators (e.g., “I was apprehensive,” “I was fearful”). The scoring mechanism synthesizes these responses to yield a single measure reflecting the overall intensity of the individual’s psychological discomfort during the specified situational encounter.

Validity

The SCAM possesses strong face validity, as its items directly reflect common emotional and cognitive manifestations of anxiety experienced during communication. Although specific validity coefficients are often context-dependent, research utilizing the SCAM generally confirms its construct validity by demonstrating expected relationships with related variables in communication studies, such as avoidance behaviors and perceived communication effectiveness within organizational structures.

The scale’s primary validity strength lies in its ability to cleanly distinguish between the situational experience of anxiety and the generalized tendency toward communication apprehension (trait CA). Studies often use the SCAM alongside trait measures to confirm that the situational measure is indeed capturing a state variable, thus strengthening its theoretical grounding in communication psychology.

Reliability

As a measure of a transient emotional state, the SCAM is not typically assessed using test-retest reliability, as the state being measured is expected to change across situations and time. Instead, its psychometric soundness relies heavily on internal reliability.

When administered within a defined context, the SCAM consistently demonstrates acceptable to high internal consistency, typically measured using Cronbach’s alpha. This indicates that the 20 items coherently measure the singular underlying construct of state communication anxiety experienced by the respondent during the recalled interaction. The careful balancing of anxiety-related and non-anxiety-related items contributes to the instrument’s robust psychometric performance.

Factor Analysis

The scoring methodology of the Situational Communication Apprehension Measure (SCAM) suggests that it is conceptualized and utilized as a unidimensional scale. The structure involves summing scores after reverse-coding the positive affective items, leading to a single composite score that represents the total magnitude of state communication anxiety. Factor analysis studies generally support a single, powerful factor explaining the variance, corresponding to the overall level of apprehension experienced in the specific communication context.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale (State/Situational measure)

Format: 20 items utilizing a 7-point Likert scale, where 7 is “Extremely Accurate” and 1 is “Extremely Inaccurate.”

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population, frequently applied in educational and organizational settings where hierarchical communication occurs.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults

Population Details: Individuals who have recently engaged in communication with an authority figure, such as a supervisor, manager, or instructor.

Test Methodology: Retrospective self-assessment. Respondents are instructed to recall their feelings during a recent, specific interaction and rate the items accordingly.

Keywords

Organizational Communication, State Anxiety, Affective Measure, Supervisor Interactions, Communication Apprehension, V. P. Richmond, McCroskey

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source materials.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source materials.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence is typically directed through the academic institutions of the primary authors, notably those associated with Virginia P. Richmond.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The SCAM was initially published in 1978. The instrument is generally considered permissible for non-commercial academic research and educational purposes, adhering to the standard practices established by Dr. James C. McCroskey and Dr. Virginia P. Richmond for their communication measurement instruments. Users seeking commercial application or large-scale institutional use should contact the authors or their affiliated organizations for formal permission and potential fee structures.

Reference’s

The original instrument details and scoring instructions are widely accessible online. The instrument can be found at: http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/scam.htm

• Richmond, V. P. (1978). The relationship between trait and state communication apprehension and interpersonal perception during acquaintance stages. Human Communication Research, 4, 338-349.
• McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Oral communication apprehension: A reconceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 6, 136-170.
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). The quiet ones: Communication apprehension and shyness (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1985). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Items of the Situational Communication Apprehension Measure (SCAM)

Directions: Please complete the following questionnaire about how you felt the last time you interacted with someone who had a supervisory role over you. Mark 7 (in the space before the statement) if the statement is extremely accurate for how you felt; 6 if moderately accurate; 5 if somewhat accurate; 4 if neither accurate nor inaccurate; 3 if somewhat accurate; 2 if moderately inaccurate; or 1 if extremely inaccurate. There are no right or wrong answers. Just respond to the items quickly to describe as accurately as you can how you felt while interacting with that person.

1. I was apprehensive
2. I was disturbed
3. I felt peaceful
4. I was loose
5. I felt uneasy
6. I was self-assured
7. I was fearful
8. I was ruffled
9. I felt jumpy
10. I was composed
11. I was bothered
12. I felt satisfied
13. I felt safe
14. I was flustered
15. I was cheerful
16. I felt happy
17. I felt dejected
18. I was pleased
19. I felt good
20. I was unhappy

Scoring: To determine your score on the SCAM, complete the following steps:

• Step 1. Add scores for items 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 (Non-apprehension items).
• Step 2. Add the scores for items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17, and 20 (Apprehension items).
• Step 3. Complete the following formula: SCAM = 80 – Total from Step 1 + Total from Step 2

The resulting score should fall between 20 and 140. Note that norms are not provided for this specific measure, as different communication contexts will generate unique score ranges, means, and standard deviations.