CMC competence measure p.

Competence in Computer-Mediated Communication:

An Evaluation and Potential Uses of a Self-Assessment Measure

Running Head: CMC competence measure

Goran Bubas
Faculty of Organization and Informatics
University of Zagreb
42000 Varazdin, Croatia
Phone: +385 42 390 867
Fax: +385 42 213 413
gbubas@foi.hr

Paper submitted to the Communication & Technology Division,

International Communication Association Conference,
Dresden, Germany, 2006
 CMC competence measure p. 2

Competence in Computer-Mediated Communication:

An Evaluation and Potential Uses of a Self-Assessment Measure

Abstract

A recently developed computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence measure was

evaluated on a convenience sample (N=270) regarding the reliability of its 15 subscales that were

designed to measure the following CMC-related constructs: Motivation, Knowledge,

Coordination, Expressiveness, Attentiveness, Composure, Efficacy, General Usage, CMC

Interactivity, Task Orientation, Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Satisfaction, Co-orientation, and

Productivity/Efficiency. Satisfactory reliability (Cronbach alpha) was found for almost all of the

subscales. Furthermore, significant correlation was found between most of the subscales of the

CMC competence measure and frequency of web use, e-mail use and instant messaging / chat

use. Finally, the total scores and the items of the subscales of the CMC competence measure

were used in separate factor analyses. The uncovered factors/dimensions of CMC competence

corresponded to the agency and communion dimensions of interpersonal interaction, and also to

the knowledge, motivation and skills model of interpersonal competence. The potential

educational use of the CMC competence measure is also briefly discussed.

Key words: computer-mediated communication, communication competence, self-assessment,

scale reliability, factor analysis.

 CMC competence measure p. 3

Competence in Computer Mediated Communication:

An Evaluation and Potential Uses of a Self-Assessment Measure

Introduction

The worldwide Internet population surpassed 900 million in 2005 (Miniwatts International,

2005). Consequently, the research of effective online communication becomes increasingly

important. According to the findings of the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Pew, 2005),

as much as 91% of about 135 million Internet users in the US reported sending an e-mail, 40%

reported sending instant messages, and 17% chatted in a chat room or in an online discussion.

Flanagin and Metzger (2001) have found that the channels for communicating by the Internet

receive high ratings in comparison with face-to-face (FtF) and other traditional means of

mediated interpersonal and mass communication in terms of the potential to satisfy various

personal needs. The obvious consequence is that the use of the Internet extends to both the

professional and private lives of its users and enhances their social worlds (Howard et al., 2002).

Because of its numerous advantages, e-mail has become an important means for connecting

people in workplaces, a supplement for other organizational communication channels, and a

support for diverse interpersonal and group interactions and activities (see Haythornthwaite,

1998). Other online communication technologies have also found their place in the organizational

environment, including various meeting support tools, voice and video conferencing tools, instant
 CMC competence measure p. 4

messaging, chat, group calendars, and repositories of shared knowledge (Olson and Olson, 2003).

For instance, use of instant messaging adds speed and ease to workplace communication and can

increase connectivity and a sense of community within organizations (Quan-Haase et al., 2005);

it can also improve the working relationship with co-workers within departments, across

departments, and outside the organization (Cho et al. 2005).

A report from a global survey of Internet users and uses (Chen et al., 2002) revealed that e-mail

has become a predominant means for preserving contact with friends beyond a distance of 50

kilometers, and it is used almost as much as the telephone for contacting kin beyond the same

radius. Another survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project (Rainie et al., 2000) found

that the Internet enables users to improve key social relations, expand social networks, improve

bonds with relatives, and locate long-lost friends. In fact, more than half of the Internet users in

the latter survey reported that e-mail had improved their connections with family and significant

friends and had enabled them to communicate more often with them once they had started using

e-mail for this purpose.

Interest in participation in online communities has attracted people of diverse demographic

attributes (age, culture, educational background, experience, and technical skills) and such means

of social and work-related interaction has been found not only to result in the realization of

common goals and interests, but also in shared understanding, a sense of social presence,

empathy and trust (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2003). In a study by the Pew Internet &

American Life Project (Horrigan et al., 2001), more than 80% of Internet users in the US reported

using the Internet to contact or receive information from a group, about 80% of users regularly
 CMC competence measure p. 5

stayed in contact via the Internet with a particular group, and about 50% stated that the Internet

has helped them connect with groups or people with shared interests.

According to Walther and Parks (2002), the social aspects of the Internet have been investigated

through research of interpersonal constructs like self-presentation, impression formation and

management, cooperation, attraction, intimacy, relational development, etc. However, despite the

pervasiveness of online communication, the number of investigated constructs that are related to

competent online interpersonal interaction still considerably contrasts with the much greater

number of constructs that are related to offline communication competence, for instance those

constructs used to interpret the results of factor-analytic research of social skills, interpersonal

skills and competence in face-to-face interpersonal interactions (for lists of related offline

interpersonal constructs, see Spitzberg and Cupach, 1989, 2002). In addition, considering the

number of measures of offline interpersonal skills, traits and/or competence it must be noted that

there are is a much lesser number of measures that are designed specifically for online interaction

and for the computer-mediated communication environment (for one collection of

communication measures, see Rubin, 2004).

This paper presents an outline of a recently developed theoretical model of computer-mediated

communication (CMC) competence (Spitzberg, 2004) and an evaluation of a related CMC

competence self-assessment measure. The use of such a measurement instrument and theoretical

model may be beneficial to individual users of the Internet and to employees in organizations, for

the design of corporate websites and for the marketing of new technologies, and also to policy

makers regarding the educational environment and digital divide issues (Buntz, 2003).
 CMC competence measure p. 6

The Spitzberg model of CMC competence

A number of theories have been used to account for CMC-related behaviors and phenomena: the

social presence theory (Short et al., 1976), the uses and gratification theories (Blumer and Katz,

1974; Rosengren et al., 1985), the media richness theory (Daft and Lengel, 1986), the social

context cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler, 1986), the social identification model of

“deindividuation” (Spears and Lea, 1992), the social information processing theory (Walther,

1992), the hyperpersonal model of CMC (Walther, 1996), as well as other more recent theories

(an overview and critique of CMC-related theories is provided by: Walther and Parks, 2002;

Walther et al., 2005).

The traditional CMC theories describe or explain CMC-related phenomena and user behavior.

However, these theories have not resulted in measures of CMC-related skills and traits, nor have

they been used to more explicitly prescribe or offer guidance on how to improve CMC skills. One

of the models of CMC that may be utilized for such a purpose was developed by Spitzberg (2004;

a simplified earlier version of this CMC competence model is also presented in Morreale et al.,

2001, pp. 182-193). This model is partly founded on the theoretical research of competence in

interpersonal interaction, especially on the related motivation, knowledge and skills model of

interpersonal competence (Spitzberg and Cupach, 1989, 2002). An outline of the more elaborated

CMC competence model that has been recently developed by Spitzberg (2004) is presented in

Figure 1 and briefly summarized.

 CMC competence measure p. 7

The primary components of the Spitzberg model of CMC competence are the interactant factors:

motivation, knowledge and skills. Motivation for CMC can be positive (approach motivation) or

negative (avoidance motivation) and this influences the level of engagement in online

communication. Knowledge is related to the cognitive characteristics of the individual and can be

of a content and procedural form. Between knowledge and motivation there is a bi-directional

causal relationship. Skills are repeatable, goal-oriented behaviors that are employed in a manner

that is affected by the motivation and knowledge components of CMC competence.

Numerous skills can be identified in both online and offline communicative interaction and those

that are related to the skill clusters of attentiveness, composure, coordination, and expressiveness

are represented in the Spitzberg CMC competence model. Attentiveness in CMC is associated

with the concern/interest for the other interactant(s), use of questions and display of interest for

topics that were initiated by others, with the supportive and comforting content of sent messages,

as well as with the attributes of a message, such as politeness and appropriateness. Composure in

CMC is displayed by the use of directives and imperatives in a message, the use of compliance-

gaining tactics, as well as by topic initiation and redirection. Coordination is a means for

interaction management regarding message attributes like content and length, rapidity and time of

response, number of messages, task orientation and the socioemotional content. Expressiveness is

manifested by vividness and animation in messages, for example the use of emoticons and other

paralanguage elements, and also by humor in message content.

According to the Sptzberg model of CMC competence, the contextual factors that are related to

CMC interactions may vary regarding the cultural attributes of the interactants (attitude, belief,

value, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, etc.), temporal attributes (e.g. the time stream,
 CMC competence measure p. 8

timing, and sequencing of messages), relationship attributes (type, quality, intensity, etc.),

environment attributes (place, situation, medium, etc.), and functional attributes (e.g. task,

romance). The message factors in the CMC competence model are related to the attributes of

message content (e.g. task versus socioemotional, openness, etc.). Messages may also vary

regarding complexity, ambiguity and other characteristics. The media factors are the level of

interactivity of a medium, the adaptability of a medium for specific types of use, and the

efficiency of a medium for different purposes.

The final components of the CMC competence model are the outcomes that are associated with

the level of competence in the CMC interactions of an individual. The typology of the outcomes

may include the appropriateness and effectiveness of the interaction, as well as co-orientation

(how well the received message was understood), the achieved level of satisfaction of the

interactants, and relationship development.

CMC competence measure

As a complement to the previously outlined CMC competence model (see Figure 1), Spitzberg

(2004) developed a set of propositional axioms and, more important for this research, a

multifaceted measure (see Appendix 1) with a total of 90 items and the following 15 subscales:

Motivation, Knowledge, Coordination, Expressiveness, Attentiveness, Composure, Efficacy,

General Usage, CMC Interactivity, Task Orientation, Appropriateness, Effectiveness,

Satisfaction, Co-orientation, and Productivity/Efficiency.

 CMC competence measure p. 9

It must be emphasized that the measure in Appendix 1 is the second version of a CMC

competence measure, and that the first version of this measure had been developed by Spitzberg

in 1997. This early version of the CMC competence measure was evaluated by Bubas et al.

(2003) and, in special detail, by Buntz (2003). However, the CMC competence measure used in

this research (see Appendix 1) was slightly modified in relation to the more recent form of the

original measure (Spitzberg, 2004). Except for the rephrasing of the original items of the CMC

Interactivity and Efficacy scales, the most important modification was the use of a 1-5 point self-

rating response scale (1 = "totally untrue"; 2 = "mostly untrue"; 3 = "neither true, nor untrue /

undecided"; 4 = "mostly true"; 5 = "totally true").

The subscales of the CMC competence measure do not represent all of the components of the

Spitzberg CMC competence model (compare Figure 1 with the subscales of the measure in

Appendix 1). Still, most of the elements of the model are represented as labels for separate

subscales of the CMC competence measure, especially those that are associated with the

interactant factors and outcomes of CMC.

Method

The CMC competence measure that was developed by Spitzberg (2004) was evaluated regarding

the internal consistency of its 15 subscales and was used for factor-analytical research of the

structure of competence in CMC.

 CMC competence measure p. 10

Subjects

Data were collected from a convenience sample of 270 Croatian college students. The students

were aged 19-21, about 75% of whom were male and 25% female; 94% of the respondents

reported that they had been using the Internet for more than 12 months (4% did not respond to the

question regarding how long they had been using the Internet).

Measure

A slightly modified version of a measure of competence in CMC (Spitzberg, 2004) consisting of

15 subscales and 90 items was used in this research (see Appendix 1). The reliability (Cronbach

alpha) of most of the subscales of this measure was above 0.70 (see Table 1).

Procedure

After administering the CMC competence measure (see Appendix 1) in a paper-and-pencil form

to a convenience sample of 270 subjects, analyses were performed regarding scale reliability

(Table 1), correlation with the intensity of Internet use (Table 2), and the factor structure of CMC

competence by using both the total scores of the subscales (Table 3) and the items of the CMC

competence measure (Table 4).

 CMC competence measure p. 11

Results

In this section, the results of the analyses of scale reliability, correlation of the subscales of the

CMC competence measure with the intensity of Internet use, and the factor analyses of the

structure of CMC competence are presented.

Internal consistencies of the subscales of the CMC competence measure

To evaluate the subscales of the CMC competence measure (Spitzberg, 2004), a modified version

of this instrument (see Appendix 1) was administered in a paper-and-pencil form to 270 college

students. The internal consistencies of the subscales of the CMC competence measure were

calculated by using the Cronbach alpha coefficient that indicates scale reliability in the form of

internal consistency (it indicates how well a set of items in a scale measures a single uni-

dimensional construct). The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the subscales of the CMC

competence measure are presented in Table 1.

For the following subscales of the CMC competence measure, the Cronbach alpha coefficient

was 0.80 or above: Composure, Efficacy, General Usage, CMC Interactivity, Task Orientation,

Satisfaction, and Productivity/efficiency. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was in the range 0.70-

0.79 for the following subscales: Motivation, Knowledge, Attentiveness, Appropriateness,

Effectiveness, Co-orientation. Only for the subscales Coordination and Expressiveness was the

Cronbach alpha coefficient below 0.70.

 CMC competence measure p. 12

Internal consistency (or homogeneity) is a measure of scale reliability that can be improved by

adding items that are in high correlation with other items in the scale, or by excluding items that

are not in sufficient correlation with the total score of the scale. An inspection of the item-total

correlations for all of the subscales of the CMC competence measure (these data are not

presented in this paper) revealed that the deletion of only one item of the Coordination subscale

and one item of the Expressiveness subscale was needed. To increase internal consistency new

items could be added to some of the subscales of the CMC competence measure (for instance, to

the Coordination and Expressiveness subscales). However, regarding this type of scale reliability,

most of the subscales of the CMC competence measure may be considered to be in their final

form.

Correlation of the subscales of the CMC competence measure with Internet use

To collect data on web use and asynchronous (e-mail) and synchronous (instant messaging, chat)

communication, the subjects in this research were asked to rate how often (on average) they used

the Internet for such purposes. The following response scale was used for data collection:

"never", "1-3 times per month", "1-2 times per week", "3-6 times per week", "every day". The

correlations of the subscales of the CMC competence measure with the frequency of use of the

web, as well as with the frequency of asynchronous (e-mail) and synchronous (instant messaging,

chat) communication are presented in Table 2.

It can be observed from the data in Table 2 that most of the subscales of the CMC competence

measure have significant correlations (up to 0.53) with the three aspects of the intensity of
 CMC competence measure p. 13

Internet use: frequency of web use, e-mail use, and instant messaging / chat use. The highest

correlations (0.44-.53) were found in relation to the General Usage subscale of the CMC

competence measure and this can be explained by the content of the items that constitute this

subscale (these items are related to the intensity of Internet use for CMC; see Appendix 1).

Relatively high correlations (0.30-0.48) were found between the Motivation, Knowledge and

Satisfaction subscales on the one hand, and the three previously mentioned aspects of the

frequency of Internet use on the other hand. Also, relatively high correlations (0.35-0.41) were

also uncovered between the CMC skills of coordination and expressiveness and the frequency of

asynchronous (e-mail) and synchronous (instant messaging, chat) use of the Internet. This

indicates that the basic components of CMC competence (i.e. knowledge, motivation and skills)

have an important impact on the frequency of Internet use. These results are comparable to data

obtained by LaRose et al. (2001) who found that Internet self-efficacy correlated with Internet

use. Also, Bubas and Hutinski (2003) found that the frequency of Internet use is predicted by the

possession of the needed knowledge/skill to use the Internet. Finally, Birnie and Horvath (2002)

found that computer skills were a predictor of contact frequency and socializing frequency over

the Internet.

Interestingly, the data in Table 2 show rather low correlations (0.08-0.26) between the three

aspects of intensity of Internet use (frequency of web use, e-mail use, and instant messaging /

chat use) and variables like attentiveness skill(s) and CMC interactivity, and also with

appropriateness and co-orientation outcomes. Perhaps the related other-oriented forms of online

communicative behavior (see the content of the items of the scales in Appendix 1 that measure

the former constructs) have less impact on the frequency and intensity of Internet use in

comparison with other more self-directed forms of CMC behaviors.

 CMC competence measure p. 14

Factor analysis of the total scores of the subscales of the CMC competence measure

As a composite self-assessment inventory with 15 subscales, the CMC competence measure

(Spitzberg, 2004) is applicable for factor-analytical research of the structure of CMC

competence. Such research is quite common in relation to competence in face-to-face

interpersonal interactions and about 100 labels for the uncovered factors/dimensions of

interpersonal/social competence have been listed by Spitzberg and Cupach (1989, 2002).

Recently, Bubas et al. (2003) have investigated the structure of CMC competence in a factor-

analytic study of selected items of the earlier version of the CMC competence measure that had

been developed by Spitzberg in 1997, and another factor analysis regarding the items of this

earlier version of the CMC measure was also perfomed by Buntz (2003). However, the more

recent (and slightly modified) version of the CMC competence measure (see Appendix 1) was

used in the research that is presented in this paper to investigate the structure of CMC

competence by factor analysis of the total scores of the subscales (see Table 3) and also of the

items of the CMC competence measure (see Table 4).

First factor analysis was performed using the total scores of the following subscales of the CMC

competence measure: Motivation, Knowledge, Coordination, Expressiveness, Attentiveness,

Composure, Efficacy, General Usage, CMC Interactivity, Task Orientation, Appropriateness,

Effectiveness, Satisfaction, Co-orientation, Productivity/efficiency. The principal components

factor analysis of the total scores of the subscales of the CMC competence measure revealed four

factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that explained 66% of the variance (actually, the
 CMC competence measure p. 15

eigenvalue for the fourth factor was 0.96). The result of the Varimax rotation of the principal

components is shown in Table 3.

The following variables/subscales of the CMC competence measure had the greatest loading on

the first factor (F1) in Table 3: Composure, Knowledge, Efficacy, Effectiveness, Coordination,

Co-orientation, and Expressiveness. These subscales are related to the Interactant factors

(knowledge, skills) and Outcomes components of the Spitzberg CMC competence model (see

Figure 1). Having in mind the interpretation of the items of the subscales of the CMC competence

measure (see Table 1), the variables that projected predominantly on the first factor are related to

self-assured/assertive CMC behavior (Composure), personal goal accomplishment through CMC

(Effectiveness), interaction management in CMC (Coordination), production of clear/understood

messages in CMC (Co-orientation), knowledge of CMC and related technology (Knowledge),

adoption of CMC-related technology (Efficacy), and expressive behavior in CMC

(Expressiveness).

The variables/subscales with the greatest loading on the second factor (F2) in Table 3 are also

related to the Interactant factors (subscale Motivation) and to the Outcomes (subscales

Productivity/efficiency and Satisfaction) as components of the CMC competence model. The

subscale General Usage had a predominant loading on the second factor as well. It must be noted

that the subscales General Usage, Productivity/efficiency, and Satisfaction of the CMC

competence measure are in direct or indirect association with motivation for CMC (i.e. they

measure constructs that are a consequence of motivation for CMC, or that affect motivation for

CMC). The items of the Productivity/efficiency subscale are connected with work-related

productivity through the use of CMC, the items of the Satisfaction subscale are associated with
 CMC competence measure p. 16

personal satisfaction with CMC interactions, and the items of the General Usage subscale

measure the intensity of Internet use for CMC.

The third factor (F3) in Table 3 is composed of the following variables/subscales:

Appropriateness, Attentiveness and CMC Interactivity. As can be observed in Figure 1,

Attentiveness is related to the Interactant factors of the CMC competence model, CMC

Interactivity is a part of the Media factors, and Appropriateness is a part of the Outcomes

component of the CMC competence model. The items of the Attentiveness subscale are related to

other-oriented CMC behavior, CMC Interactivity is associated with choice of medium based on

message attributes, and Appropriateness items denote the use of CMC in a socially acceptable

manner (concern for message recipients in CMC).

Finally, the fourth factor (F4) in Table 3 is characterized by the variable/subscale Task

Orientation that is composed of items associated with inclination toward task-oriented

(business/official) use of CMC. This variable/subscale is a part of the Message factors

component of the CMC competence model.

From an overview of the results of the factor analysis of the variables (i.e. total scores of the

subscales) that compose the CMC competence measure (see Table 3), it can be concluded that the

uncovered factor structure does not correspond to the categorization of constructs in the CMC

competence model presented in Figure 1 and briefly elaborated in the earlier section of this paper.

Perhaps factor analysis is not the best investigative tool for testing the agreement of the CMC

competence model (Spitzberg, 2004) with the empirical data collected by the CMC competence
 CMC competence measure p. 17

measure (Appendix 1). Structural equation modeling or experimental research design should

perhaps also be used for such a purpose.

However, the first factor (F1) in Table 3 structurally resembles a factor that was previously

uncovered by Spitzberg (1990) in a joint factor-analytic study of numerous measures related to

interpersonal (face-to-face) communication and that was labeled "self-efficacy / composure". In

another independent study of interpersonal (face-to-face) communication, Bubas (2003) used a

measure with 23 subscales related to interpersonal communication competence where the

following variables (among others) loaded on a comparable factor that was labeled "agency":

composure, interaction management, communication effectiveness, assertiveness, interpersonal

control, knowledge of the communication process, verbal expressivity, social relaxation, and

encoding skill. The similarities of the results of these studies with the variables/subscales of the

CMC competence measure that predominantly project on the first factor (F1) in Table 1

(Composure, Knowledge, Efficacy, Effectiveness, Coordination, Co-orientation, and

Expressiveness) implies some degree of equivalence between the face-to-face and CMC

modalities of interpersonal behavior, at least as far as this dimension of competence is concerned.

A closer inspection of the items of the subscales that have the greatest projections on the third

factor (F3) in Table 3 (see Appendix 1) reveals their considerable other-oriented content

(regarding interpersonal interaction). In fact, many of the items of the Attentiveness subscale

reflect interest/concern for the other person(s) in CMC interactions. The same applies to the

items of the Appropriateness subscale and, to a much lesser extent, to the CMC Interactivity

subscale. Interestingly, a somewhat comparable factor labeled other-directedness / altercentrism

was uncovered by Spitzberg (1990) in an earlier study of self-assessment measures related to

 CMC competence measure p. 18

competence in interpersonal (face-to-face) interaction. Also, Bubas (2003) revealed a similar

interpersonal (face-to-face) communication competence factor that was labeled "communion"

and which was composed of the following variables (among others): altercentrism, support,

empathy, collaboration.

The results of factor analysis of the variables/subscales of the CMC competence measure (see

Appendix 1) differ from the theoretical outline of the related CMC competence model (see Figure

1). However, two of the factors revealed by factor analysis (F1 and F3 in Table 3) correspond to a

certain extent to the broad concepts of agency and communion that refer to the realization of the

self as an individual (agency), or as a member of a social unity (communion). The finding of

these two factors (F1 and F3 in Table 3) has some similarity with the results of factor analytical

research of interpersonal variables that have uncovered comparable agency- and communion-

related factors, e.g. dominance versus affiliation dimensions (Dillard et al., 1999), and

nonaffectively oriented skills versus affectively oriented skills (Burleson and Samter, 1990).

Bearing in mind the previous discussion, it is possible to contemplate the structure of CMC

competence based on our empirical findings. If the first factor (F1) in Table 3 is interpreted as

agency in CMC, the third factor (F3) as communion in CMC, and the second factor (F2) as

motivation for CMC, it can be concluded that, at the level of a factor analysis of the total scores

of the subscales of the CMC measure, there is a possibility that competence in CMC is made up

of three such dimensions. Not to forget the fourth factor (F4) in Table 4, which is characterized

by the variable/subscale Task Orientation, one possible additional dimension of CMC-related

behavior could be style (e.g. inclination toward official or business-like CMC interaction).
 CMC competence measure p. 19

Factor analysis of the items of the CMC competence measure

To test the previous findings of the factor analysis of the total scores of the subscales of the CMC

competence measure (see Appendix 1), another factor analysis was performed using the items of

this measure. For this purpose, the items of the subscale Task Orientation were omitted from the

factor analysis because this subscale projected solely on the fourth factor (F4) in the previous

analysis (see Table 3). The items of the subscale CMC Interactivity were also excluded because

their form/wording differed too much from the other items in the CMC competence measure (see

Appendix 1). Therefore, only the data collected for the remaining 76 items of the CMC

competence measure were factor analyzed using the same data set (N=270). Principal

components analysis with Varimax rotation was performed in search of the dimensions

comparable to those uncovered by factor analyses of the total scores of the subscales of the CMC

competence measure. The initial solution had 19 components with eigenvalues above 1.0, and the

Scree test indicated that it would be optimal to extract 3-5 factors. The three-factor solution that

explained 35% of the variance was chosen because of its interpretability and correspondence to

the results of the first analysis with the total scores of the subscales, and also because of the

comparable earlier findings by Bubas et al. (2003).

The results of factor analysis of the items of the CMC competence measure are shown in Table 4.

For convenience, only the first 12 variables/items with the highest loading for every factor are

included in Table 4. To enable easier comparison, the factors in Table 4 are arranged in sequence

according to their similarity to the factors in Table 3.

 CMC competence measure p. 20

The first factor (F1) in Table 4 predominantly consists of the items from the subscales Efficacy

and Knowledge of the CMC competence measure, and a closer inspection of these items reveals

that they are related to CMC literacy and adoption of CMC technology. The items that

predominantly project on the second factor (F2) in Table 4 are broadly related to motivation for

CMC (e.g. intensity of CMC use, productivity/efficiency, and satisfaction with CMC). Finally,

the items with the greatest projections on the third factor (F3) in Table 4 are associated with

interaction skills in CMC.

The factors that were uncovered in Table 4 can be viewed as alternative dimensions of CMC

competence that are comparable to some extent with the Interactant Factors (see Figure 1) of the

Spitzberg CMC competence model (more precisely, with the Knowledge, Motivation and Skills

components of this model). Similar findings were reported in an earlier study when selected items

of the previous version of the CMC competence measure were used (Bubas et al., 2003). In that

study, the following factors were revealed: CMC technological literacy/adoption, CMC

dependency/motivation, and CMC interaction skill(s). This provides additional support for the

conclusion that the results of the factor analysis that are presented in Table 4 could be associated

with the well known motivation, knowledge and skills model of interpersonal competence in face-

to-face / offline interactions (Spitzberg and Cupach, 1989, 2002).

Finally, the results of factor analyses in Tables 3 and 4 should be compared. Clearly, there is

much similarity between the motivation-related factors (F2) in both tables. However, the CMC

literacy/knowledge and the CMC skills components appear to be distinctly separated in the results

of the factor analysis of items that is presented in Table 4. It must be noted that a four-factor

solution of a principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation of items of the CMC
 CMC competence measure p. 21

competence scale would produce separate agency and communion factors related to skills in

CMC. In other words, if both the factor analysis of the total scores of the subscales and the factor

analyses of the items of the CMC competence measure are used, a more complete set of CMC

competence-related dimensions could include CMC technology literacy/adoption, motivation for

CMC, agency in CMC, and communion in CMC.

The application of the CMC competence measure in education

The growth of the worldwide population of Internet users places more importance on the

theoretical analysis of CMC, the assessment of CMC-related skills and traits, and

education/training for competence in CMC. The CMC competence model (Spitzberg, 2004) is

applicable for both theoretical and empirical CMC-related research, and has resulted in the

development of a measure with most subscales having satisfactory reliability (only two subscales

had unsatisfactory internal consistency). As indicated by Segrin and Givertz (2003), social skills

training could be improved by a prior assessment that would determine which skills should

receive more attention. Therefore, the CMC competence measure is a candidate for such

assessment efforts that would precede training for improvement in CMC and would result in the

identification of the CMC skills and traits that could benefit most from training intervention.

The CMC competence model developed by Spitzberg (2004) has one potential advantage in

comparison with other CMC-related theories and models. It does not just describe CMC-related

phenomena, but it also indirectly prescribes what competent CMC behavior might include, e.g. it

lists the attributes, the causes, the symptoms, and the environments of competence in CMC.
 CMC competence measure p. 22

According to Green (2003), skill development is partly dependant on attention being focused on

the details of behavior, with an intention to modify and reorganize actions, and it can also profit

from the feedback information of the outcomes/effects of behavior. The CMC competence model

and measure provide more insight into the components of competent CMC that someone can

concentrate on in his/her efforts for self-improvement. This model also raises greater awareness

of the outcomes of CMC.

The CMC competence measure was effectively used by the author of this paper to illustrate the

components of the CMC competence model in a university course. In the first educational

environment, groups of 12-15 university students who were attending a course related to CMC

and the psychology of Internet use had access to online versions of the subscales of the CMC

competence measure in a computer laboratory. Brief theoretical explanations of the CMC

competence model preceded and followed the online self-assessment with automated scoring.

After each subscale was applied, the students received feedback regarding which scores should

be considered above average, average, or below average. This noticeably improved their interest

in the CMC competence model and increased their satisfaction with the instruction of this topic.

In the second educational environment the same online versions of some of the subscales of the

CMC competence measure were projected to large groups of 40-60 students that attended a

course on business communication in traditional ex-cathedra lecturing to briefly illustrate the

CMC competence model that was presented. The students marked their responses and performed

scoring themselves. Again, after each subscale was applied they received feedback regarding
 CMC competence measure p. 23

which scores should be considered above average, average, or below average. Increased interest

and attention was observed in this educational setting as well.

The face validity and simplicity for scoring of the subscales of the CMC competence measure

makes them good candidates for the development of concepts and for attracting audience

attention in lecturing and training that is related to online communication skills. The same applies

for e-learning courses where the potential for the self-assessment of online communication skills

could provide valuable feedback and increase awareness of the online communication skills that

need more attention in the conscious efforts of the students for self improvement. However,

several subscales of the CMC competence measure could be improved by redesign of the item

content and of the construct labels.

Conclusion

In a theoretical overview of communicative competence, Wilson and Sabee (2003) state that

researchers should use measures of communication competence that are related to a larger theory

of communication, and that new competence measures should be validated by showing that they

do relate to such theories. This paper has presented an effort to evaluate one such measure

(Spitzberg, 2004; see Appendix 1) for the assessment of communicative competence in the

computer-mediated environment. It can be concluded that the evaluated CMC competence

measure has grown from a theoretical perspective on interpersonal (Spitzberg and Cupach, 1989,

2002) and computer-mediated communication (Spitzberg, 2004) and that it offers a potential for

important CMC competence related research.

 CMC competence measure p. 24

The results of factor analyses that were presented in this paper could not confirm the links

between all of the subscales of the CMC competence measure and the components/constructs of

the CMC competence model (see Figure 1) and perhaps the further empirical investigations of the

model should be performed by structural equation modeling or by experimental research design.

However, the CMC competence measure has proven its applicability for researching the structure

of CMC competence.

The analyses of reliability of the subscales of the CMC competence measure (see Table 1) prove

that they are applicable for empirical research and that only a few of them require minor

improvements regarding internal consistency. However, there could be an overlap in what the

items of separate subscales measure. Perhaps a reduction in the number of subscales and/or a

focus on the Interactant Factors of the CMC competence model for the development of subscales

could be a useful direction for measurement improvement. For instance, Buntz (2003) has

engaged in considerable effort to derive improved subscales from the previous version of the

CMC competence measure.

As can be concluded from the data presented in Table 2, statistically significant correlations (up

to 0.53) were revealed in this research between the total scores of various subscales of the CMC

competence measure and three aspects of intensity of Internet use: frequency of web use, e-mail

use, and instant messaging / chat use. This indicates a potential for fruitful future investigations

regarding the relations of the components of the CMC competence measure and various

demographic characteristics of Internet users, as well as with diverse aspects of their online

behavior and traits.

 CMC competence measure p. 25

Finally, the CMC competence measure has proven its considerable potential for factor-analytical

research of the structure of competence in CMC. The uncovered set of possible CMC

competence-related dimensions includes CMC technology literacy/adoption, motivation for

CMC, agency in CMC, and communion in CMC. The results of the factor analyses that were

performed in this research indicate that a theoretical background for interpretation of the

dimensions of competence in CMC can be found in the field of interpersonal theory related to the

agency and communion dimensions of interpersonal interaction (Wiggins and Trapnell, 1996), as

well as in the theoretical foundations of competence in interpersonal interaction and the related

constructs of knowledge, motivation and skills (Spitzberg and Cupach, 1989, 2002). In a critique

of CMC-related theories, Walther et al. (2005) state that "perhaps communication dynamics

change little when they take place via technology, and computerized surface appearances belie

traditional communication mechanisms". It can be concluded that when focus is not placed on the

effects of the technological component (e.g. computer literacy), the structure of competence in

CMC may not be so different from competence in face-to-face interpersonal interactions.

References

Birnie, S.A., & Horvath, P. (2002). Psychological predictors of Internet social communication.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4). Retrieved 15 October, 2005,
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/horvath.html

Blumer, J.G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bubas, G. (2003). The structure of agency and communion dimension in interpersonal

communicative interaction. In A. Schorr, W. Campbell & M. Schenk (Eds.), Communication
Research and Media Science in Europe (pp. 459-475). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 CMC competence measure p. 26

Bubas, G., & Hutinski, Z. (2003, May). Conceptual model, empirically derived predictors and
potential dimensions of Internet affinity. Paper presented at the 53rd annual conference of the
International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, USA.

Bubas, G., Radosevic, D., & Hutinski, Z. (2003). Assessment of computer mediated
communication competence: Theory and application in an online environment. Journal of
Information and Organizational Sciences, 27(2), 53-71.

Bunz, U. (2003). Growing from computer literacy towards computer-mediated communication

competence: Evolution of a field and evaluation of a new measurement instrument. Information
Technology, Education, and Society, 4(2), 53-84.

Burleson, B.R. & Samter, W. (1990). Effects of cognitive complexity on the perceived
importance of communication skills in friends. Communication Research, 17(2), 165-182.

Chen, W., Boase, J., & Wellman, B. (2002). The global villagers: Comparing Internet users and
uses around the world. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday
Life (pp. 74-113). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Cho, H.-K., Trier, M., & Kim, E. (2005). The use of instant messaging in working relationship
development: A case study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Retrieved 15
October, 2005, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/cho.html

Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.

Dillard, J.P., Solomon, D.H., & Palmer, M.T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational
communication. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 49-65.

Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. (2001). Internet use in contemporary media environment. Human
Communication Research, 27(1), 153-181.

Green, J.O. (2003). Models of adult communication skill acquisition: Practice and the course of
performance improvement. In J.O. Greene & B.B. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of Communication
and Social Interaction Skills (pp. 51-91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B., & Garton, L. (1998). Work and communication via computer-
mediated communication. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 199-226). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Horrigan, J.B., Rainie, L., Fox, S. (2001). Online Communities: Networks that nurture long-
distance relationships and local ties. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved 15 October 2005, http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Communities_Report.pdf

Howard, P.E.N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2002). Days and Nights on the Internet. In B. Wellman
& C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 46-73). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
 CMC competence measure p. 27

LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the internet paradox: Social
cognitive explanations of internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behavior, 1 (2).
Retrieved 15 October 2005, http://www.behavior.net/job/v1n2/paradox.html

Minivats International (2005). Internet Usage Statistics - The Big Picture:

World Internet Users and Population Stats. Internet World Stats, Minivats International, LLC.
Retrieved 15 October 2005, http://www.Internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Morreale, S, Spitzberg, B.H., & Barge, K. (2001). Human Communication: Motivation,

Knowledge and Skills (pp. 182-193). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. (2003). Human-Computer Interaction: Psychological Aspects of the
Human Use of Computing. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 491-516.

Pew (2005). Internet Activities [Data compilation table]. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved 15 October 2005,
http://www.pewInternet.org/trends/Internet_Activities_5.18.05.htm

Preece, J., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2003). Online Communities. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.),
Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 596-620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Rainie, L., Fox, S., Horrigan, J., & Lenhart, A. (2000). Tracking Online Life: How Women Use
the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family and Friends. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet
& American Life Project. Retrieved 15 October 2005,
http://www.pewInternet.org/PPF/r/11/report_display.asp

Rosengren, K., Wenner, L., & Palmgreen, P. (1985). Media gratifications research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Rubin, R. (2004). Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Segrin, C., & Givertz, M. (2003). Methods of social skills training and development. In J.O.
Green & B.R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills (pp.
135-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication.
London: John Wiley & Sons.

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-
mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp.
30-65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
 CMC competence measure p. 28

Spitzberg, B.H. (2004, February). Preliminary development of a model and a measure of

computer mediated communication (CMC) competence. Paper presented at the 75th Annual
Convention of the Western States Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM, USA.

Spitzberg, B.H. (1990). The construct validity of trait-based measures of interpersonal

competence. Communication Research Reports, 7, 107-115.

Spitzberg, B.H., & Cupach, W.R. (2002). Interpersonal skills. In M.L. Knapp & J. Daly, (Eds.),
Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spitzberg, B.H., & Cupach, W.R. (1989). Handbook of Interpersonal Competence Research.
New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spitzberg, B.H., Cupach, W.R. (1984). Interpersonal Communication Competence. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.

Sproul, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational
context. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Quan-Haase, A., Cothrel, J., & Wellman, B. (2005). Instant messaging for collaboration: A case
study of a high-tech firm. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Retrieved 15
October 2005, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/quan-haase.html

Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and

hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated communication: A relational

perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.

Walhter, J.B., Gay, G., & Hancock, J.T. (2005). How do communication and technology
researchers study the Internet. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 632-657.

Walther, J.B., & Parks, M.R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer mediated
communication and relationships. In M.L. Knapp & J.A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication (pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wiggins, J.S., & Trapnell, P. (1996). A diadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model.
In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 88-
162). New York: Guilford Press.

Wilson, S.R., & Sabee, C.M. (2003). Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical
term. In J.O. Green and B.R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of Communication and Social
Interaction Skills (3-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 CMC competence measure p. 29

Figure 1

Basic components of a model of computer-mediated communication competence (adapted from

Spitzberg, 2004).

Context factors
- cultural
- chronemic
- relational
- environmental
- functional

Media factors
Interactant factors - interactivity
- adaptability Outcomes
- motivation - appropriateness
- knowledge - efficiency
- effectiveness
- skills - co-orientation
- attentiveness - satisfaction
Message factors
- composure - relational
- task vs. socio-
- coordination development
emotional
- expressiveness
- openness
 CMC competence measure p. 30

Table 1
Scale labels, number of items in a scale, reliability (Cronbach alpha), and interpretation of the
items of the CMC competence measure.

Reliability Interpretation of the items of the

Number in this subscales of the CMC competence measure (see
Subscale label
of items study Appendix 1)
Motivation 6 .76 Motivation for CMC interaction
Knowledge 6 .73 Knowledge of CMC and related technology
Coordination 6 .63 Interaction management in CMC
Expressiveness 6 .69 Expressivity in CMC
Attentiveness 6 .75 Other-oriented CMC behavior
Composure 6 .80 Self-assured (assertive) CMC behavior
Efficacy 10 .90 Adoption of CMC-related technology
General Usage 5 .86 Intensity of Internet use for CMC
CMC Interactivity 8 .85 Choice of medium based on message attributes
Task Orientation 6 .80 Inclination toward task-oriented use of CMC
Appropriateness 5 .75 Use of CMC in a socially acceptable manner
Effectiveness 5 .79 Personal goal accomplishment through CMC
Satisfaction 5 .86 Personal satisfaction with CMC interactions
Co-orientation 5 .72 Production of clear/understood messages in CMC
Productivity/efficiency 5 .80 Work-related productivity through use of CMC

Note. N=270.
 CMC competence measure p. 31

Table 2
Correlation of results obtained between the subscales of the CMC competence measure with
frequency of use of web, e-mail and instant messaging (IM) / chat.

Correlation
Correlation Correlation with
Subscale label with frequency with frequency frequency of
of web use of e-mail use IM and chat
use
Motivation .35 .38 .43
Knowledge .31 .48 .39
Coordination .29 .40 .35
Expressiveness .23 .37 .41
Attentiveness (.13) .24 .18
Composure .16 .25 .25
Efficacy .23 .35 .29
General Usage .44 .53 .49
CMC Interactivity .19 .26 (.10)
Task Orientation (.09) (.01) (-.08)
Appropriateness .18 .18 (.08)
Effectiveness .24 .31 .34
Satisfaction .36 .41 .43
Co-orientation (.13) .20 (.12)
Productivity/efficiency .23 .27 .24

Note. N=263. Correlation above 0.15 is statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.
 CMC competence measure p. 32

Table 3
Results of factor analysis of the total scores of the subscales of the CMC competence measure.

Subscale label F1 F2 F3 F4

Composure .74 - - -
Knowledge .73 - - -
Efficacy .66 - - -
Effectiveness .65 .45 - -
Coordination .63 .31 - -
Co-orientation .62 - - .34
Expressiveness .54 .43 - -
General Usage - .81 - -
Motivation - .79 - -
Productivity/efficiency - .70 - -
Satisfaction .42 .69 - -
Appropriateness - - .81 -
Attentiveness - .37 .70 -
CMC Interactivity - - .67 -
Task Orientation - - - .89

Note. N=270. Only factor loading above 0.30 is displayed.

 CMC competence measure p. 33

Table 4
Results of factor analysis of the items of the CMC competence measure.

Abbreviation ITEM F1 F2 F3
EFFIC-38 I feel completely capable of using almost all currently available CMC technologies. .75
EFFIC-43 I quickly figure out how to use new CMC technologies. .73
EFFIC-40 I am not nervous when I find I have to learn how to use a new communication technology. .69
EFFIC-39 I am confident that I will learn how to use any new CMC technology that is due to come out. .69
EFFIC-44 Having to learn new technologies never makes me anxious. .68
EFFIC-42 I do not find changes in technologies frustrating at all. .66
EFFIC-45 I know I can learn to use new CMC technologies when they come out. .64
KNOWL-10 I can always diagnose or fix what the problem is when my e-mail doesn’t work. .64
KNOWL-07 I am very knowledgeable about how to communicate through computers. .58
EFFIC-41 I am the first of my friends and colleagues to adopt or purchase a new CMC technology. .57 .34
EFFIC-37 I feel very competent in learning and using communication media technology. .57 .38
EFFIC-46 Even if a CMC technology isn't user friendly, I'm likely to use it. .54 .33
GENUS-50 I am a heavy user of computer-mediated communication. .73
PRODU-86 I get a tremendous amount accomplished through CMC. .71
GENUS-48 I use computer-mediated means of communication almost constantly. .69
GENUS-51 If I can use a computer for communicating, I tend to. .68
MOTIV-05 I look forward to sitting down at my computer to write to others. .66
MOTIV-01 I enjoy communicating using computer media. .64
GENUS-49 I can rarely go a week without any CMC interactions. .63
MOTIV-03 I am very motivated to use computers to communicate with others. .63 .30
PRODU-88 I am more efficient using CMC than other forms of communication. .63
SATIS-77 I enjoy my CMC interactions with others. .63 .38
PRODU-87 My CMC interactions are more productive than my face-to-face interactions. .62
SATIS-78 I feel good about my CMC conversations. .60 .41
COMPO-36 I am skillful at revealing composure and self-confidence in my CMC interactions. .63
COMPO-33 I have no trouble expressing my opinions forcefully in CMC. .61
COMPO-35 My CMC messages are written in a confident style. .60
COMPO-31 I display a lot of certainty in the way I write my CMC messages. .58
EXPRE-24 I am expressive in my CMC conversations. .33 .55
EXPRE-19 I am very articulate and vivid in my CMC messages. .54
COORI-82 I get my ideas across clearly when I use CMC. .51
COORI-83 My interactions using CMC are consistently accurate and clear. .50
ATTEN-25 I send comforting messages to others when I sense they are down. .49
APPRO-68 I pay as much attention to the WAY I say things in CMC as to WHAT I say. .49
ATTEN-30 I can show concern for and interest in the person I'm conversing with in CMC. .48
ATTEN-29 I ask questions of the other person in CMC. .47

Note. N=270. Only the first 12 variables/items with the highest loading for every factor are included in Table 4.
Factor loading below 0.30 is not displayed. Items are denoted by abbreviations and item number: MOTIV =
Motivation, KNOW = Knowledge, ATTEN = Attentiveness, COMPO = Composure, EFFIC = Efficacy, GENUS =
General Usage, INTER = CMC Interactivity, APPRO = Appropriateness, SATIS = Satisfaction, PRODU =
Productivity/efficiency.
 CMC competence measure p. 34

Appendix 1. CMC Competence measure

Note: This is a slightly modified version of the original mesure developed by Spitzberg (2004). The author has published the latest
version of the measure after the acceptance of this paper: Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and
measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communcation, 11(2).
Retireved 15 April 2006, URL: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/spitzberg.html

CMC COMPETENCE
(Spitzberg, © 2002)

Instructions: We are interested in how people use various computer-mediated communication

(CMC) technologies for conversing with others. For the purpose of this questionnaire, please
consider CMC to include all forms of e-mail and computer-based networks (e.g., World Wide
Web, chat rooms, personal data assistant, electronic bulletin boards, terminal-based video-
telephony, etc.) for sending and receiving written messages with other people. For the following
statements, indicate the degree to which each of the statements correctly describes you regarding
your activities and impressions about your use of the previously listed communication media,
using the following scale:
1 = TOTALLY UNTRUE
2 = MOSTLY UNTRUE
3 = NITHER TRUE, NOR UNTRUE; UNDECIDED
4 = MOSTLY TRUE
5 = TOTALLY TRUE

Motivation
__01. I enjoy communicating using computer media.
__02. I never get nervous using CMC.
__03. I am very motivated to use computers to communicate with others.
__04. Communicating through computers relieves some of my tension.
__05. I look forward to sitting down at my computer to write to others.
__06. I like tinkering with options to make my CMC messages more effective.

Knowledge
__07. I am very knowledgeable about how to communicate through computers.
__08. I am never at a loss for something to say in CMC.
__09. I am very familiar with e-mail and communication networks.
__10. I can always diagnose or fix what the problem is when my e-mail doesn’t work.
__11. I always seem to know how to say things the way I mean them using CMC.
__12. I feel quite comfortable when communicating via computer-mediated media.

Coordination
__13. When I receive a message from someone, I reply within 24 hours.
__14 I try to reply to each particular aspect of another person's message.
__15. I am usually the one who initiates new topics and/or agendas.
__16 I am good at managing the timing of my CMC conversations with others.
__17. I know when and how to close down a topic of conversation in CMC dialogues.
__18. I manage the give and take of CMC interactions skillfully.
 CMC competence measure p. 35

Expressiveness
__19. I am very articulate and vivid in my CMC messages.
__20. I use a lot of the expressive symbols [e.g. :) for "smile"] in my CMC messages.
__21. My CMC messages are clear and unambiguous.
__22. I try to use a lot of humor in my CMC messages.
__23. I express my true feelings in most of my CMC interactions with others.
__24. I am expressive in my CMC conversations.

Attentiveness
__25. I send comforting messages to others when I sense they are down.
__26. I make sure to include the other person’s interests in my responses in CMC.
__27. I adapt my word choices and writing style to the style of the person I'm corresponding
with.
__28. I stay on the other person’s topic or agenda as much as possible.
__29. I ask questions of the other person in my CMC.
__30. I can show concern for and interest in the person I'm conversing with in CMC.

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 in 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.

Efficacy
__37. I feel very competent in learning and using communication media technology.
__38. I feel completely capable of using almost all currently available CMC technologies.
__39. I am confident that I will learn how to use any new CMC technologies that are due to come
out.
__40. I am not nervous when I find I have to learn how to use a new communication technology.
__41. I am the first of my friends and colleagues to adopt or purchase a new CMC technology.
__42. I do not find changes in technologies frustrating at all.
__43. I quickly figure out how to use new CMC technologies.
__44. Having to learn new technologies never makes me anxious.
__45. I know I can learn to use new CMC technologies when they come out.
__46. If a CMC technology isn't user friendly, I'm still likely to use it.

General Usage:
__47. I rely heavily upon my CMC for getting me through each day.
__48. I use computer-mediated means of communication almost constantly.
__49. I can rarely go a week without any CMC interactions.
__50. I am a heavy user of computer-mediated communication.
__51. If I can use a computer for communicating, I tend to.
 CMC competence measure p. 36

CMC Interactivity
__52. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how quickly I need to get a message out to people.
__53. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how much benefit there would be to having the other(s) present.
__54. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how lively the interaction needs to be.
__55. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how much access the person I need to communicate with has to the medium.
__56. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how much information is involved in the message.
__57. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how much access I have to each channel or medium.
__58. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how long I need people to hang on to the message.
__59. I choose which medium (i.e. CMC, phone, face-to-face, etc.) to send messages based on
how many different uses and forms are needed (e.g. hardcopy, image processing, voice-
mail, computer language, etc.).

Task Orientation
__60. Most of my computer-mediated communication is about very specific tasks.
__61. I generally use CMC simply to get an idea of what I’m supposed to be doing on a project.
__62. I send most messages to persons “above me” (i.e. of higher status) in the organization.
__63. In my work, my CMC messages are “all business” and only about the task at hand.
__64. I treat my CMC messages more as opportunities to work on tasks rather than to foster
relationships.
__65. Getting the job done through CMC is more important than how people feel about their
CMC interactions.

Appropriateness
__66. My CMC interactions are appropriate to the relationship.
__67. I avoid saying things through CMC that might offend someone.
__68. I pay as much attention to the WAY I say things in CMC as WHAT I say.
__69. I never say things in CMC that hurt the other person.
__70. My CMC messages are appropriate to the situation.

Effectiveness
__71. I generally get what I want out of my CMC interactions.
__72. I consistently achieve my goals through CMC technologies.
__73. My CMC interactions are effective in accomplishing what I set out to accomplish.
__74. I can usually bring people round to my way of thinking in my CMC conversations.
__75. I am effective when using CMC technologies.

Satisfaction
__76. I am satisfied with my computer-mediated communication.
__77. I enjoy my CMC interactions with others.
__78. I feel good about my CMC conversations.
__79. I am generally pleased with my CMC interactions.
 CMC competence measure p. 37

__80. My expectations are generally fulfilled when using CMC technologies.

Co-orientation
__81. I very rarely have CMC interactions that make no sense.
__82. I get my ideas across clearly when I use CMC.
__83. My interactions using CMC are consistently accurate and clear.
__84. My CMC messages are rarely misunderstood.
__85. I feel understood when I use CMC.

Productivity/Efficiency
__86. I get a tremendous amount accomplished through CMC.
__87. My CMC interactions are more productive than my face-to-face interactions.
__88. I am more efficient using CMC than other forms of communication.
__89. Communication media allow me to get my work done.
__90. CMC technologies are tremendous time-savers in my work.