Situational Communication Apprehension Measure (SCAM)

Abstract

The Situational Communication Apprehension Measure (SCAM) is a psychological instrument designed to assess an individual’s level of state communication apprehension (CA) experienced specifically within a defined, high-stakes context. Unlike measures of trait CA, SCAM captures the momentary feelings of anxiety, discomfort, or ease during a particular communicative event. The specific application detailed here assesses apprehension during an interaction with a person holding a supervisory role, utilizing a 20-item, 7-point Likert-type scale to gauge immediate emotional and psychological states. The instrument aids researchers and practitioners in understanding how contextual factors influence transient communication anxiety.

Keywords

SCAM, Situational Communication Apprehension, State Communication Apprehension, Communication Anxiety, Supervisory Interaction, Psychological Measurement, McCroskey, Richmond.

Authors

Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SCAM is to quantify the intensity of communication anxiety experienced by individuals in specific, defined social contexts. While many scales measure communication apprehension as a pervasive personality trait (trait CA), the SCAM is engineered to measure the transient nature of this anxiety, known as state communication apprehension. By focusing the respondent on a specific recent situation—such as interacting with a supervisor, giving a speech, or meeting a stranger—researchers can isolate and analyze how contextual variables influence immediate communication anxiety levels.

This situational focus allows for a more nuanced understanding of communication behavior, particularly in high-pressure or hierarchical environments common in organizational and educational settings. The instrument provides a total score ranging from 20 to 140, where higher scores indicate a greater degree of situational apprehension felt by the respondent during the specified interaction.

Construct

The SCAM measures State Communication Apprehension, which is defined as the temporary, context-dependent fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with another person or persons. This is conceptually distinct from trait communication apprehension, which is a stable, generalized personality characteristic.

The 20 items capture a range of immediate affective and psychological indicators of anxiety (e.g., “apprehensive,” “fearful,” “uneasy”) as well as corresponding indicators of comfort and confidence (e.g., “self-assured,” “composed,” “safe”). The scale is designed to reflect the respondent’s emotional experience immediately following the communication event, providing a highly specific snapshot of their affective state rather than a general predisposition toward communication avoidance or anxiety.

Validity

Specific detailed validity studies related exclusively to the SCAM (as opposed to broader communication apprehension measures developed by McCroskey and Richmond) are typically found within the primary research articles utilizing the scale within various situational domains. The construct validity is inherently supported by the established theoretical framework differentiating between state and trait anxiety, confirming that the scale accurately measures a transient emotional reaction to a specific context.

Researchers commonly employ the SCAM when investigating variables such as organizational hierarchy, perceived power differentials, and receiver responsiveness, demonstrating its sensitivity to situational variations. Users should consult the foundational works by Richmond and McCroskey to review specific evidence of concurrent and predictive validity when the SCAM is applied in novel contexts.

Reliability

As the SCAM is designed to measure a transient affective state rather than a stable personality trait, its longitudinal test-retest reliability across extended time intervals is not expected to be high. However, the scale is designed for high internal consistency (reliability across items), which is a crucial metric when measuring immediate emotional states. Internal reliability, often measured using Cronbach’s alpha, is expected to be robust within a single administration immediately following the specified communication event, ensuring that all 20 items consistently reflect the singular dimension of situational discomfort.

Factor Analysis

The SCAM is generally utilized as a unidimensional measure of overall state apprehension within a given communication situation. Although the 20 items encompass both negative (anxiety-inducing) and positive (comfort-indicating) affective terms, they are combined mathematically through the scoring formula to yield a single total score reflecting the intensity of communication discomfort. Factor analysis, when conducted across diverse samples and contexts, typically confirms the dominance of a single underlying factor related to the affective response during the communicative event, consistent with its design as a measure of a holistic transient emotional state.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological inventory measuring state anxiety.

Format: 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (extremely inaccurate) to 7 (extremely accurate).

Language Available: English (Primary publication language).

Population Group: Individuals engaged in interpersonal or organizational communication.

Age Group: Typically used with adult populations (e.g., college students, employees) capable of self-reflection on specific recent interactions.

Population Details: The specific scenario provided in the source content targets interactions with individuals holding a supervisory role, suggesting primary applicability in organizational and professional settings where power differentials exist.

Test Methodology: Respondents are instructed to recall their most recent interaction in the defined context (e.g., with a supervisor) and rate 20 items based on how they felt during that specific event. Scoring involves reversing positive items and summing all scores to calculate the final SCAM index.

Keywords

Communication Apprehension, State Anxiety, Interpersonal Communication, Supervisor Interaction, Organizational Communication, Affective Measurement, State and Trait Theory, Psychological Scale.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The development of the SCAM aligns closely with the foundational work on communication apprehension published by Richmond and McCroskey, dating back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The scale is widely available for non-commercial academic research use, often accessible directly through the authors’ academic resources. For instance, the instrument can be found on James C. McCroskey’s website, indicating a generally permissive usage policy for educational purposes. Users intending large-scale or commercial application should confirm current permissions and potential fees directly with the authors or their respective institutions.

Reference’s

• 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)

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

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:

1. Add scores for items 3‚ 4‚ 6‚ 10‚ 12‚ 13‚ 15‚ 16‚ 18‚ and 19

2. Add the scores for items 1‚ 2‚ 5‚ 7‚ 8‚ 9‚ 11‚ 14‚ 17‚ and 20

3. Complete the following formula: SCAM = 80 – Total from Step 1 + Total from Step 2

Your score should be between 20 and 140. If your score is below 20 or above 140‚ you have made a mistake in computing the score.

There are no norms for this measure‚ since different contexts will generate different score ranges‚ means‚ and standard deviations.

This instrument can be found at: http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/scam.htm