The Psychometric Efficiency of the Effective Communication skills Scale for youth ( E.C.S )

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Abstract

The aim of the search is to investigate the psychometric properties for the Effective Communication Scale for university youth, for that the researcher has designed this scale to determine the Effective Communication skills Scale for  university youth which consists of ( 64 ) phrase distributed over four dimensions
- Effective body language Communication skills which consists of (18) phrase.
- Speech skills which consists of (18) phrase.
- Listening skills which consists of (12) phrase.
- Persuasion and questioning skills which consists of (16) phrase
Each phrase from the scale dimensions will be answered through five options as follows:
(It is not agreed with me at all) it takes 1 degree.
(It is not agree with me to some extent) it takes 2 degrees.
(Hesitant)   it takes 3 degree.
(It is agreed with me to some extent) it takes 4 degrees.
(It is agreed with me)   it takes 5 degrees.
The Psychometric Efficiency of the scale has been investigated through the reliability and stability of the scale for a sample of (127) university youth, the researcher used the factor reliability, and evaluation of internal coordination result that all correlation factors equal (,01) statistically , and the stability of  the Effective Communication skills Scale calculated by (Cronbach  Alpha) and result that all Alpha factors & half split are high degrees which emphases the stability of the scale .
So  the Effective Communication skills Scale for youth is trustful to use in scientific researches.   

Keywords


  1. Adler, Ronald B.& Rodman, George (2006) :Understanding Human Communication. (9th edition). Oxford University Press, Inc.
  2. Burton, Graeme & Dimbleby, Richard (2002): Teaching communication. (2nd edition) Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc..
  3. Dunbar, E. Ramirez, JR., and Burgoon, K. (2003).The effects of participation on the ability to judge deceit. Communication reports, 16, 23–33.
  4. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, Vol.49, 207–219.
  5. Gillespie, A. (2005): G.H. Mead: Theorist Of The Social Act. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,  Vol. 3, No.1, pp19-39.
  6. Green, Andy (2006): EffectivePersonalCommunication Skills For PublicRelations . London and Philadelphia : Kogan Page.
  7. Hans Klinzing (2009). The importance of nonverbal aspects of communication in teaching and the pre and in service teacher education curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the american educational research association san diego,Usa,April 2009, University of Tubingen, and University of Stuttgart, Germany
  8. Ho, Hau-Kuo(2008): Human Communication .Taipei: Wu-Nan
  9. Lee, W, & Guerrero, K, (2001). Types of touch in cross-sex relationships between coworkers: perceptions of relational and emotional messages, inappropriateness, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 197–22.
  10. Lombardo, Jaclyn Friedman (1999).An Emprical Analysis of Personality Disorder in Female  Adolescents. Ph.D., University of Ruode  Island.p63.
  11. Mahnaz Sharifian & Simaye Najafi and Farhad Shaghagh (2011) .An Investigation of coup the communication program (CCP)on the life quality and Intimacy of Unsatisfied women, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences ,30,3,991-994.
  12. Puckering, C., Pickles, A.,Skuse, D.,Heptinstall, E., Dewdney L., Zur-Szpiro, S.(1995):Mother child interaction  and the cognitive and behavior development of four year old children with poor growth journal child of Psychology & Allied Disciplines., Vol ,3 Issue 4.
  13. Richmond,V.P.& McCroskey ,C.,(1997)Nonverbal Behavior In Interpersonal Relation, 3rd.Ed.,allyn And Bacon .London's
  14. Samover A. And Porter, R (1995): Communication between cultures.2nd ed. Belmont, Ca, wads worth
  15. Wheeler, L. and Nelek, J. (1977): Sex Differences in Social Participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,Vol. 35, pp 742–754.
  16. Wilson, G. (2000). ):Body language – M.A, Corcoran College of Art , Design, united States, District of Columbia.