Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 283–300 | Cite as

The Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics Required for Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: Similar or Distinct Constructs?

  • Julian SchulzeEmail author
  • Martin Schultze
  • Stephen G. West
  • Stefan Krumm
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated the convergence of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required for either face-to-face (FtF) or text-based computer-mediated (CM) communication, the latter being frequently mentioned as core twenty-first century competencies.

Design/Methodology/Approach

In a pilot study (n = 150, paired self- and peer reports), data were analyzed to develop a measurement model for the constructs of interest. In the main study, FtF and CM communication KSAOs were assessed via an online panel (n = 450, paired self- and peer reports). Correlated-trait-correlated-method minus one models were used to examine the convergence of FtF and CM communication KSAOs at the latent variable level. Finally, we applied structural equation modeling to examine the influence of communication KSAOs on communication outcomes within (e.g., CM KSAOs on CM outcomes) and across contexts (e.g., CM KSAOs on FtF outcomes).

Findings

Self-reported communication KSAOs showed only low to moderate convergence between FtF and CM contexts. Convergence was somewhat higher in peer reports, but still suggested that the contextualized KSAOs are separable. Communication KSAOs contributed significantly to communication outcomes; context-incongruent KSAOs explained less variance in outcomes than context-congruent KSAOs.

Implications

The results imply that FtF and CM communication KSAOs are distinct, thus speaking to the consideration of CM KSAOs as twenty-first century competencies and not just a derivative of FtF communication competencies.

Originality/Value

This study is the first to examine the convergence of context-specific communication KSAOs within a correlated-trait-correlated-method minus one framework using self- and peer reports.

Keywords

Computer-mediated communication Face-to-face communication Communication competence KSAO Correlated-trait-correlated-method minus one model [CT-C(M-1) model] 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Michael Eid for his valuable advice on interpreting the CT-C(M-1) models and Manuel Trumpfheller for his help in collecting the data.

Supplementary material

10869_2016_9465_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 83.4 kb)

References

  1. Aguado, D., Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Salas, E. (2014). Teamwork competency test (TWCT): A step forward on measuring teamwork competencies. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(2), 101–121. doi: 10.1037/a0036098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakke, E. (2010). A model and measure of mobile communication competence. Human Communication Research, 36(3), 348–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01379.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millenium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185–1203. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, T. (2002). Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(2), 148–154. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.33.2.148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367–380. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.Google Scholar
  11. Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65(2), 241–261. doi: 10.1007/BF02294377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, F. W., & Trierweiler, L. I. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C (M-1) model. Psychological Methods, 8(1), 38–60. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.1.38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?. International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Enders, C. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  15. Freund, P. A., & Kasten, N. (2012). How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 296–321. doi: 10.1037/813a0026556.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Funder, D. C., & West, S. G. (1993). Consensus, self-other agreement, and accuracy in personality judgment: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 457–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00778.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiser, C., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2008). On the meaning of the latent variables in the CT-C (M-1) model: A comment on Maydeu-Olivares and Coffman (2006). Psychological Methods, 13(1), 49–57. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Geiser, C., Eid, M., West, S. G., Lischetzke, T., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2012). A comparison of method effects in two confirmatory factor models for structurally different methods. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 409–436. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2012.687658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. doi: 10.1177/0149206314559946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Voss, K. (2006). Competencies for virtual teamwork: Development and validation of a web-based selection tool for members of distributed teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(4), 477–504. doi: 10.1080/13594320600908187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holtz, B. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Dominguez, A. (2005). Testing the rules of justice: The effects of frame-of-reference and pre-test validity information on personality test responses and test perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(1), 75–86. doi: 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00301.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoyt, W. T. (2000). Rater bias in psychological research: When is it a problem and what can we do about it? Psychological Methods, 5(1), 64–86. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.5.1.64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hwang, Y. (2011). Is communication competence still good for interpersonal media?: Mobile phone and instant messenger. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 924–934. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, P., Heimann, V., & O’Neill, K. (2001). The “wonderland” of virtual teams. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(1), 24–30. doi: 10.1108/13665620110364745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalman, Y. M., & Gergle, D. (2014). Letter repetitions in computer-mediated communication: A unique link between spoken and online language. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 187–193. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keyton, J. (2015). Outcomes and the criterion problem in communication competence research. In A. F. Hannawa & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), Communication competence (pp. 585–604). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110317459-024.Google Scholar
  29. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15(3), 327–348. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity mediated communication in organizations. Communication Research, 5(1), 3–24. doi: 10.1177/009365027800500101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf.pdf.
  33. Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Schollaert, E. (2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 268–279. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 280–296. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacCallum, R. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107–120. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 107–117. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.107.Google Scholar
  38. Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 975–990. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 108–113. doi: 10.1080/08824098809359810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mischel, W. (2009). From personality and assessment (1968) to personality science, 2009. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 282–290. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pauleen, D. J., & Yoong, P. (2001). Relationship building and the use of ICT in boundary-crossing virtual teams: A facilitator’s perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 16(4), 205–220. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Payne, H. J. (2005). Reconceptualizing social skills in organizations: Exploring the relationship between communication competence, job performance, and supervisory roles. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(2), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
  46. Riggio, R. E., & Taylor, S. J. (2000). Personality and communication skills as predictors of hospice nurse performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(2), 351–359. doi: 10.1023/A:1007832320795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 1009–1037. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00714.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rubin, R. B. (1982). Assessing speaking and listening competence at the college level: The communication competency assessment instrument. Communication Education, 31(1), 19–32. doi: 10.1080/03634528209384656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rubin, R. B. (1985). The validity of the communication competency assessment instrument. Communications Monographs, 52(2), 173–185. doi: 10.1080/03637758509376103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 607–620. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 445–494. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01250.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Education, 32(3), 323–329. doi: 10.1080/03634528309378550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C. H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 67–105). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spitzberg, B. H. (2011). The interactive media package for assessment of communication and critical thinking (IMPACCT©): Testing a programmatic online communication competence assessment system. Communication Education, 60(2), 145–173. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2010.518619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spitzberg, B. H. (2015). The composition of competence: Communication skills. In A. F. Hannawa & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), Communication competence (pp. 237–269). Berlin, B: de Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110317459-011.Google Scholar
  58. Spitzberg, B. H., & Brunner, C. C. (1991). Toward a theoretical integration of context and competence inference research. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(1), 28–46. doi: 10.1080/10570319109374369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). A component model of relational competence. Human Communication Research, 10(4), 575–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00033.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503–530. doi: 10.1177/014920639402000210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vandergriff, I. (2013). Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 51, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. N. (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35(5), 622–645. doi: 10.1177/0093650208321783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  67. Westmyer, S. A., DiCioccio, R. L., & Rubin, R. B. (1998). Appropriateness and effectiveness of communication channels in competent interpersonal communication. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 27–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02758.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Young, B. S., Arthur, W. A, Jr., & Finch, J. (2000). Predictors of managerial performance: More than cognitive ability. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 53–72. doi: 10.1023/A:1007766818397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2014). Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 111–125. doi: 10.1177/1745691613518075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian Schulze
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Schultze
    • 2
  • Stephen G. West
    • 3
  • Stefan Krumm
    • 1
  1. 1.Division Psychological Assessment and Differential and Personality Psychology, Department of Education and PsychologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Division of Methods and Evaluation, Department of Education and PsychologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options