O'-{q

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A LARGE..SCALEPROGRAM OF SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATIONFOR COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION

James C. McCroskey

T HE Speech Communication profes-sion has recognized for many years

that normal classroom instruction does

not provide sufficient assistance formany students to overcome their fear ofcommunication transactions. Over the

last decade an increasing body of re-search has indicated that a behavior

therapy known as systematic desensitiza-tion (SD) is highly effective in helpingpeople to overcome phobic and neuroticanxieties such as communication appre-hension. vVhile most of the research on

systematic desensitization has focused onother anxieties, several have dealt spe-cifically with communication apprehen-sion.1 The conclusion from this body of

James C. McCroskey is Professor and Chairmanof the Department of Speech Communicationat West Virginia University. He supervised thesystematic desensitization program at IllinoisState University the past three years after origi-nating and supervising a similar program fortwo years at Michigan State University.

1 Gordon L. Paul, Insight vs. Desensitizationin Psychotherapy: An Experiment in AnxietyReduction (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1966); Gordon L. Paul, "Two-year Follow-up ofSystematic Desensitization in Therapy Groups,"Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73 (1968),119-130; O. Kondas, "Reduction of ExaminationAnxiety and 'Stage-Fright' by Group Desensiti-zation and Relaxation," Behavior Research andTherapy, 5 (1967), 275-281; James C. McCroskey,David C. Ralph, and James E. Barrick, "TheEffect of Systematic Desensitization on SpeechAnxiety," Speech Teacher, 19 (1970), 32-36;Jack G. Nichols, "An Investigation of the Effectsof Varied Rates of Training on Systematic De-sc:nsitization for Interpersonal CommunicationApprehension" (unpubl. Ph.D. diss., MichiganState University, 1969); Charles D. Ertle, "AStudy of the Effect of Homogeneous Groupingon Systematic Desensitization for the Reductionof Interpersonal Communication Apprehension"(unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University,

research is that SD is a highly effectivemethod for assisting students to over-come communication a.pprehension; atleast it is highly effective when adminis-tered in a carefully controlled, labora-tory setting. No research has been reported indicating whether these labora-tory results can be generalized to condi-tions which normally obtain in the regu-lar college or secondary school environ-ment.

The purpose of this paper is two-fold:I) to report the results of a field test ofSD and 2) to indicate the procedure bywhich a program of SD may be estab-lished in other institutions.

This investigation was concerned withone major question and three secondaryquestions. Of primary importance wasthe question whether SD would be aseffective when applied on a mass scale asit has been previously under laboratoryconditions. Of secondary interest werethe following questions: 1) Is SD as ef-fective when administered in the stu-

dent's regular classroom as it is whenadministered in laboratory surround-ings? 2) Is SD as effective when adminis-tered by male trainers as when adminis-tered by female trainers? 3) Is SD equal-ly effective for males and females?

The first secondary question resultedfrom suggestions of both trainers and

1969); Judith Wells. "A Study of the Effects ofSystematic Desensitization on the CommunicativeAnxiety of Individuals in Small Groups" (un-publ. M.A. thesis, San Jose State College, 1970).

256 THE SPEECH TEACHER

students in pilot administrations of SDin regular classrooms at Illinois StateUniversity. Both complained of distrac-tions as a result of noise from hallwaysand adjoining classrooms. The secondquestion arose from the comments ofsome students that their female trainers'

voices were too high pitched and causedthem to become tense when they weresupposed to relax. The final questionwas deemed important for study be-cause females had been found regularlyto score higher than males on measuresof communication apprehension.

PROCEDURE

Students in the basic course in com-

munication at Illinois State Universitywere screened by means of the Personal

Report of Communication Apprehen-sion (PRCA), College form.2 Studentswith PRCA scores above the previouslydetermined population mean (60) were

considered eligible for treatment. Amaximum of seven students in each sec-

tion were selected for this investigation,the seven students with the highestPRCA scores. In some sections fewer

than seven students were eligible for

treatment. A total of 37 graduate as-sistants who were section instructors inthe course served as trainers. The train-

ers and 541 eligible students were di-

vided into four experimental conditions:

1. Male trainers who administered SD in theregular classroomn =81 males, 165 females).

2. Female trainers who administered SD in theregular classroom (n =38 males, 95 females).

3. Male trainers who administered SD in aspecial room designed for SD in the ISUCommunication Research Laboratory (n =24 males, 32 females).

4. Control-no SD administered (n =35 males,71 females).

2 James C. McCroskey, "Measures of Com-I!lunication-Bound Anxiety," Speech Mono-graphs, 37 (1970), 269-277.

Because of the shortage of female train-ers available, no female-trainer-in-Iab

condition was employed.Treatment began the second week of

the term and ran six weeks. A post-testmeasure (PRCA) was taken immediatelyafter the completion of the final sessionand again the last week of the semester(16th week). The delayed posttest wasadministered during the last class periodin the course. Some subjects were lostfrom the experiment because of absencefrom class on that day. Each treatmentsession was one hour in length and wasthe second hour of a two-hour class peri-od. Students not receiving SD were dis-missed during this hour. The procedurefor administration of SD that was fol-lowed is the one discussed in a later

section of this paper.

STATISTICAL Al"{ALYSIS

PRCA change scores (pre-post andpre-delayed post) were analyzed in a 4(treatment) X 2 (sex of student) analy-sis of variance with adjustments for un-equal and disproportionate cell size.Since significant F-ratios were obtainedfor the treatment effects, t-tests were em-

ployed to determine the nature of thedifferences between treatments. The .05

criterion was set for significance of alltests.

REsULTS

Analysis of variance of pre-post PRCAchange scores produced significant F-ratios for sex of subject and treatment(See Table 1). The male students im-

proved more (D = 16.13) than did thefemale students (:5 = 12.86). The stu-dents with male trainers in the class-

room (:0 = 14.90), the students with fe-

male trainers in the classroom (:0 =14.81), and the students with male train-

ers in the laboratory CD = 13.79) all

PROGRAM OF SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION 257

improved significantly more than did

the control group (:0 = .97). The threeexperimental groups did not differ fromeach other.

Analysis of variance of the pre-delayedpost PRCA change scores indicated that,although there was some loss of effective-ness. for SD over the nine-week delayperiod, the effectiveness of the treat-ments was still significant when com-pared with the control group (See Table2). The students with male trainers in

the classroom (:0 = 12.97), the studentswith female trainers in the classroom (D= 10.50), and the students with male

trainers in the lab (D = 13.38)all im-proved significantly more than the con-

trol group (D = 2.09). Although the

male students (D = 13.74) appeared tohave been more affected by SD than thefemale students (D = 10.82), the differ-

ence was not significant at the .05 level(F = 3.51). However, a supplementaryanalysis indicated that when the controlgroup was omitted, the difference wassignificant (t = 2.36, P <.05, 354 d.f.).

DISCUSSION

The most important conclusion wemay draw from the investigation is thatthe results of previous laboratory in-vestigations of SD may be generalizedbeyond the laboratory to more normalacademic settings with SD retaining itspreviously demonstrated effectivenesseven when administered on a very largescale.

There is no reason to believe from the

results of this study that the sex of thetrainer or the environment in which SD

is administered (laboratory or class-room) will have a major impact on the

effectiveness of SD. However, it does ap-

TABLE 2REsuLTS ON PRETEST-DELAYED POSTTEST CHANGE SCORES

Analysis of Variance Summary Table

F

18.843.51.67

P

.05

.10NSD

Control

2.231.942.09

Total

13.7410.82

TABLE. 1REsULTSOF PRETEST-Il\IMEDIATEPaSTIEST CHANGESCORES

Analysis of Variance Summary Table

Source Sums of Squares d.f. Mean Square F P

Treatment 16862.18 3 5620.73 44.50 .05Sex of Subject 595.02 1 595.02 4.71 .05Interaction 218.08 3 72.69 .58 NSDError 67320.13 533 126.30

Cell MeansMale Trainer. Male Trainer-

Classroom Female Trainer Lab Control Total

Male Ss 15.79 16.82 15.79 - .83 16.13Female Ss 11.78 12.98 13.82 -1.10 12.86

Total 13.79 14.81 14.90 - .97

Source Sums of Squares d.f. Mean SquareTreatment 6613.11 3 2204.37Sex of Subject 411.15 1 411.15Interaction 234.64 3 78.21Error 51957.47 444 117.02

Cell MeansMale Trainer- Male Trainer-

Classroom Female Trainer Lab

Male 5s 15.44 11.69 14.10Female 5s 10.49 9.30 12.66

Total 12.97 10.50 13.38

PROGRAM OF SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION

money. Neither of these barriers is a

really serious problem. Trainers do notneed to be professional psychologists,they may be almost anyone. Training oftrainers can be accomplished in a singleday at a very low cost. In terms of the

money barrier, the implementation ofthe program for systematic desensitiza-tion is so inexpensive, compared to oth-er programs for assisting handicappedindividuals, that its cost can best be de-

scribed as a pittance. After the smallinitial investment for equipment andtraining of trainers, the total cost for de-sensitization per individual can be lessthan ten dollars. In short, there is no

significant barrier to the implementationof a program of systematic desensitiza-tion for communication apprehension.

l\:!OTIVATING PEOPLE TO IMPLEMENT

PROGRAMS

The first step in establishing a pro-gram of systematic desensitization forcommunication in either a school or

business is to gain approval from the in-dividuals in authority. We are not hereattempting to set forth some kind ofdevious strategy for gaining such ap-proval. Rather, we believe that mostpeople in authority in schools and busi-nesses, when presented with the factsconcerning communication apprehen-sion and its treatment, will be veryfavorably disposed toward implementingsuch a program. Throughout the edu-cational and business world homage ispaid to the importance and value ofcommunication. Leaders in education

point to developing communication skillsin students as one of the primary goalsof education. On a more crass level, thedollar talks in the business world. The

uncommunicative employee is not pro-ducing at the level at which he is capa-ble. If that problem can be overcome,

259

he is more valuable to the business con-cerned.

The essence of the argument thatneeds to be presented to people in au-thority when requesting the authoriza-tion and funds for implementing a pro-gram of systematic desensitization goeslike this: Communication apprehensionis accompanied by a tendency on thepart of people to withdraw from com-munication transactions. An individualwho withdraws from communicationtransactions does not make his full con-

tribution to his society or to his businessor profession. Systematic desensitizationcan reduce communication apprehen-sion and help overcome withdrawal be-havior. It is economically feasible for al-most any school or business to imple-ment a program of systematic desensiti-zation for their students or employees.

This is a relatively simple, straightforward argument. When accompaniedwith the data available from previousresearch on systematic desensitization,we believe it is reasonable to assume that

most people in authority will agree withthe conclusion that a program should beadopted. Presuming that such agree-ment is obtained, let us consider pro-cedures which should be employed inthe actual implementation and opera-tion of the program.

DEFINING THE NEED

Before putting a program into fulloperation, it is essential that informa-tion be obtained concerning how manypeople will need treatment. The num-ber of people needing treatment at anygiven point in time will determine, to

a large extent, the cost of the program.

It is difficult to estimate how many peo-ple suffer from communication appre-hension that is severe enough to re-

quire treatment in any given population

without testing. For example, at Michi-

260 THE SPEECH TEACHER

gan State University it was found onthe basis of scores obtained from the

Personal Report of Communication Ap-prehension-College that between 10and 20 percent of the students sampledsuffered from extreme communication

apprehension and a total of 40 percentwere found to have a sufficient degree ofapprehension to require treatment.These percentages may vary sharplyfrom one environment to another. If a

program is being contemplated in aninner-city school, for example, it wouldbe reasonable to assume that a largerproportion of the students would sufferfrom communication apprehension thanmight be the case if the school were in awealthy suburb. A similiar distinction interms of the percentage of the peopleneeding treatment might be present intwo different business environments,

one in which most of the employeeswere direct-contact sales personnel andthe other where the bulk of the employ-ees were engineers. The latter groupwould probably have a much higher in-cidence of communication apprehension.

The procedure for determining thesize of the population needing treat-ment is very simple. Each student or em-ployee should be asked to complete thePersonal Report of Communication Ap-prehension.3 The scores thus obtainedmay then be graphed to see what kindof distribution of anxiety is present with-

,in the group. Pretesting of a large num-ber of college students indicates that thisinstrument yields a normal, bell-shapeddistribution, but that may not be thedistribution in any given business orschool. The possible range of scores onthe PRCA is from 20 to 100. Experiencewith college students indicates that any-one with a score above 70 should defi-

nitely be considered for treatment, but

some students falling below 70 (down to

3 McCroskey, "Measures of .. "

60) need treatment. Obviously, there isa certain amount of error involved inmeasuring anything in the psychologicalworld. Thus, other things being equal,anyone with a score of 61 or highershould have treatment made available.

A second step in defining the need forthe program is to determine whether theprogram will be a short-term or a long-term program. In the schools, of course,all programs should be long-term in na-ture as the clientele of the school is con-

stantly changing. In business the answeris not quite as simple. In some busi-nesses there is a considerable turnover

of employees while in other businessesthere is a relatively small turnover. Busi-nesses with small turnovers may find iteconomically advantageous to simplyhire someone from the outside to set upand operate their program on a short-term basis rather than establishing theirown program. The essential question tobe answered at this point in the imple-mentation of the program of systematicdesensitization is "How many peo.pleneed treatment now and how many willbe needing treatment periodically?"

"TOOLING-UP" FOR THE PROGRAM

The operation of a program of syste-matic desensitization for communication

apprehension requires a certain amountof hardware, software, and trainers.

Hardware. Administration of syste-matic desensitization requires a room,comfortable chairs, a tape recorder, arelaxation tape, and if the program is toinvolve a large number of people, anelectrical signaling system. The size ofthe room required will be determined bythe number of the people to be givensimultaneous treatment. In most of the

work with systematic desensitizationsmall groups of 5-7 individuals havebeen desensitized simultaneously. This

requires a room no larger than 10ft. by

PROGRAM OF SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION 261

15 ft. This does not have to be a sepa-rate room which is only used for syste-matic desensitization, it may be used therest of the day as a lounge or it may evenbe a regular classroom. The main fea-tures of an appropriate room are sub-dued lighting and quiet. In short, itmust have a relaxing atmosphere. Thedollar outlay for .such a room will nor-mally be minimal because systematic de-sensitization may be administered afterhours or whenever the room is free. Verylarge programs, of course, would requirea separate room (or rooms) and the costof such rooms must be considered.

The most essential ingredient in theadministration of systematic desensitiza-tion is comfortable seating. Individualsare asked to relax, and these are indi-

divuals for whom relaxation initially isnot easy. Thus, the more comfortablethe seating, the easier it will be to relaxthe people. Reclining chairs are mostsuitable for this purpose and can be ob-tained at a fairly minimal cost. For ex-ample, five chairs of this type were ob-tained in the Lansing, Michigan area fora total of $250.00. If purchase of suchchairs is financially prohibitive, chaiselounges with aluminum frames such as

are used on the patio or beach can servenearly as well. In most areas five of thesemay be obtained for about $35.00. Since

a tape recorder is normally available inin a school or business environment, this

item should not produce a financial

handicap. Any tape recorder will do, buta tape recorder with a tone control

which permits screening out treble tones

is to be preferred. A tape recording 9fdeep relaxation instructions must eitherbe obtained or made.4

4 A coPy of a relaxation tape may be securedby writing to the national office of the SpeechCommunication Association, Statler Hilton Ho-tel. New York, New York 10001. This tape isbased on relaxation instructions provided byJoseph Wolpe and Arnold A. Lazarus, Behavior

If the program is to involve a large. number of people receiving simultane-

ous desensitization, it will be necessary

to develop an electrical signaling systemfor communication between the trainees

and the trainer. Such a system would in-volve a simple button switch attached toeach chair that would connect with a

light panel which the trainer could ob-serve. We have received an estimate of

$100 for the installation of such a sys-tem for twenty-five chairs, but this pricemay vary according to local conditions.

As was noted previously, the financialoutlay necessary for the implementationof the program of systematic desensitiza-tion should prove to be no barrier ex-cept under highly unusual circum-stances. If a room and comfortable chairs

were available, if a relaxation tape isobtained, if a tape recorder is available,and only a small number of people areto receive treatment at anyone time, theactual dollar outlay can be zero. Onesuch program has been adopted in ahigh school at no cost by borrowing fivelounge chairs from teachers in the sys-tem, and employing the regular facilitiesand equipment available at the school.More commonly, some outlay will benecessary for comfortable chairs.

Software. Two items of software are

essential for implementing the programof systematic desensitization. A measureof communication apprehension appro-priate to the population from whom in-,dividuals are going to be selected fortreatment, and hierarchies of anxietystimuli appropriate to that population.Measures and hierarchies that have been

developed for seventh grade, tenthgrade, and college populations are avail-able.5 In special circumstances, such as

Therapy Techniques (New York: PergamonPress, 1966), 177-180.

5 Communication apprehension instrumentsare available in McCroskey, "Measures of . . ,"Copies of communication apprehension hierarch-ies are available from the SCA national office.

262 THE SPEECH TEACHER

working with the- population made upof the "culturally deprived," the alreadydeveloped instruments might be inapro-priate.

Trainers. A trainer must be employedto administer systematic desensitization.As has been noted, such trainers do not

need to be skilled clinical psychologists.They may be any reasonably sensitiveperson who does not have a visual orvocal handicap. With proper instnic-tion any reasonably mature student orlow-level employee in business shouldbe able to administer the treatment suc-

cessfully. But the trainer must betrained before he can administer treat-

ment. One way of obtaining such in-struction is through a local counseling

clinic. Contact with the professional staffof the clinic is desirable for two reasons.

First, these individuals will most likely befamiliar with systematic desensitizationand in a position to give competent in-struction to trainers. Secondly, it is goodto have close contact with a counselor

because during the operation of a pro-gram it is not uncommon to discover in-dividuals who need additional psycho-logical counseling that lay trainers arein no position to give. If a good workingrelationship is established with the coun-seling clinic, it will be possible to referthese individuals for appropriate treat-ment. .

If there is no local counselor or if

none is willing to serve as an instructorof trainers, an alternative approach is tosend the person who is to receive train-ing as a trainer to where a program hasalready been established or to bring inthe director of an established programon a short-term consultant basis. In anycase, the training of a trainer shouldnot require more than one day's effort.Thus the cost of such instruction shouldbe minimal. In addition, once there isone trainer available he can instruct

other people in the essential character-

istics of administration of systematic de-sensitization.

OPERATING THE PROGRAM

Once facilities, equipment, and train-ers are available, the program of syste-matic desensitization for communication

apprehension may be put into opera-tion. The population of students oremployees needs to be screened and thepeople selected for treatment. These peo-ple are then assigned in groups to treat-ments. Treatments may be administeredin any reasonable time sequence. Syste-matic desensitization has been successfulwhen administered on either daily, twicea week, or weekly bases. The proceduresfor administration of treatment are de-scribed below.

Subjects should be seated in comfor-table chairs and told to lean back andrelax. Then the communication systembetween trainee and trainer needs to be

explained. Trainees should be informedthat whenever they feel tension, oncethe relaxation tape has been played,they should indicate that tension bymerel y raising the index finger of theirright hand. If a very large group is be-ing administered treatment simultane-ously, of course, the instruction wouldbe to touch the button on their chairbecause the trainer would be unable toobserve all the finger indications in alarge group.

After the trainer is certain that thisinstruction is clear, the trainees shouldbe instructed to lean back in their chairsand follow the instructions on the deeprelaxation tape. The tape is then played.When it is completed, the tape recordershould be turned off and the trainershould continue with relaxation instruc-

tions similar to those on the tape for afew moments.

The trainer should check to make sureall trainees arc awake, because in a state

PROGRAM OF SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION 263

of deep relaxation trainees tend to £allasleep. The procedure for determiningwhether trainees are awake is to tell thetrainees that when their name is caUed,

if they hear it, they should indicate byraising the index finger on their righthand. Then each trainee's first name is

called. If a trainee does not respondwhen his name is called, it should be re-

peated. If there continues to be no re-

sponse, the trainee should be tapped onthe leg or foot and awakened. Then foranother minute or so relaxation instruc-

tions should be given by the trainer.At this point, all trainees should be in

a state of deep relaxation. It is now timeto begin administration of the com-

munication apprehension hierarchy.The first item on the hierarchy shouldbe presented to the subjects by thetrainer and then he should remain

silent for a period of 15 seconds. If anytrainee indicates anxiety during that 15seconds, the trainer should ask aU of the

trainees to put the image of the anxietystimulus out of their minds and concen-trate on relaxation. He should continue

to give relaxation instructions for a peri-od of 15 to 30 seconds. After that time,

he should again ask the subjects to vis-ualize the anxiety stimulus. If the 15second period elapses with no indicationof anxiety from any trainee, the train-ees should be asked to put the imageout of their minds and go back to re-laxing. The trainer again gives addi-tional relaxation instructions for about15 to 30 seconds. After that time the

anxiety stimulus should again be admin-istered with a pause of 30 seconds. If.any trainee indicates anxiety during the30 second period, the trainees should beasked to put the image out of theirminds and go back to relaxing and re-ceive more relaxation instructions. This

procedure is continued until it is possi-ble for all trainees in the group to vis-ualize the anxiety stimulus for 15 seconds

without indication of anxiety and for30 seconds without indication of anxi-

ety. When sequential 15 and 30 secondintervals have been completed with noindication of anxiety, the trainer maythen go on to the second anxiety stimu-lus in the communication apprehensionhierarchy. This procedure is continueduntil the end of time for treatment at

a given setting or until the hierarchy iscompleted.

Sessions should last no more than

from 50 minutes to an hour, includingthe time used in listening to the relax-ation tape. As the time for completionnears, the trainer should go down thehierarchy to the last stimulus which thetrainees successfully completed with noanxiety indication. This stimulus shouldbe presented with a 60 second pause bythe trainer. If no trainee indicates amd-

ety during this period, treatment maybe terminated with the assurance that

all subjects will leave the treatment ses-sion in a low state of arousal. If anytrainee indicates anxiety during this pe-riod, the trainer should move back to a

still less anxiety provoking stimulus thathas been succesfuUy completed andadminister it for a 60 second period.

Treatments should be continued for a

preset number of sessions, such as 5 to 7.This will normaUy permit the comple-tion of the amdety hierarchy by aUtrainees. At this point the traineesshould be asked again to complete thePRCA. Those individuals with scores60 or below should be considered curedand should be removed from treatment.

Those individuals who still report mod-erate to high levels of communicationapprehension should be formed in newgroups and treatments should continuefor another 5 to 7 sessions. At that time,the individual again should be asked tocomplete the PRC.-\.. By this point, al-most all trainees will have overcome

their communication apprehension.

264 THE SPEECH TEACHER

However, some individuals do not re-spond to systematic desensitization. This

small number (probably less than 5%)should be encouraged to seek profes-sional assistance from a psychologist.

Although the research indicates thatthe effects of systematic desensitization

are maintained for extended periods oftime, if the program is an on-going one,it would be useful to reinforce the ef-fects of systematic desensitization on

communication apprehension for thoseindividuals who have been identified as

cured by giving them single session treat-ments at three to six month intervals

for the following year or two.

DETERMINING THE EFFECTS OF THE

PROGRAM

Any program that involves the outlay-of time or money by a school or business

should be subjected to a systematic pro-gram evaluation. A program of syste-matic desensitization for communication

apprehension should be no exception.Although there is no reason to believe

that a program implemented in themanner discused above would not be ex-

tremely successful, it still should be putto the test.

There are at least three ways of evalu-ating a program of systematic densitiza-

tion for communication apprehensionthat seem to be appropriate. The firstmethod is analogous to the procedureswhich have been employed in the re-search on systematic desensitization.

This procedure involves administrationof the PRCA to people who have beentreated and to people who have notbeen treated but who, on earlier tests,

indicated that they were in need oftreatment. Not everyone who is offeredtreatment accepts it. Thus, in any schoolor business there will be people whohave not volunteered for treatment who

are in other ways comparable. If thescores on the PRCA are not substantial-

ly lower for those who receive treatmentthan those who have not, this would in-dicate that the treatment has been un-successful.

But systematic desensitization for com-munication apprehension is not merelydesigned to lower anxiety scores on thePRCA. Presumably, if communicationapprehension is reduced, there shouldbe other behavioral manifestations. In

the school environment observations bythe students' instructors could be use-

fully employed as an evaluation tool. Inshort, their instructors can simply beasked whether or not they have observedany difference in the behaviors of these

people. In the business atmosphere, rat-ings by superiors or more direct measuresof productivity can serve as a usefulevaluation tool.

'''Thatever method is employed to eval-uate the success of the program, all indi-cations are that a properly administeredprogram of systematic desensitization forcommunication apprehension will pro-vide significant benefits to those in-volved.