Psychometric Report Communication test – Revisedhr.psychtests.com/archprofile/stats/[email protected] PsychTests.com advancing psychology and technology tel

PsychTests.com advancing psychology and technology

tel 514.745.8272 fax 514.745.6242 CP Normandie PO Box 26067 l Montreal, Quebec l H3M 3E8 [email protected]

PPssyycchhoommeettrriicc RReeppoorrtt

CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn tteesstt –– RReevviisseedd

Copyright Plumeus Inc. 2003 2

Description:

A 34-item test assessing communication. Low scores indicate poor communication skills; high scores indicate good communication skills. The test yields five sub-scores:

1. Listening Skills: measures ability to listen actively rather than passively. 2. Ability to get the message across: measures ability to deliver a clear message to others. 3. Insight to the communication process: measures understanding of how communication works and

ability to "read" others. 4. Emotion management in the communication process: measures ability to express emotions and

deal with the emotions of others. 5. Assertive communication: measures ability to express differing opinions and stand up for oneself.

Reference: Jerabek, I. (2001). Communication test – Revised. QueenDom.com. Sample Size: 81821 Sample Description : The sample used in this study was randomly selected from a pool of nearly five hundred thousand participants. It includes men and women, aged 10 to 80, who took the test on the Queendom.com website. Number of questions: 34


Descriptive Statistics See Annex 1 for Legend of scale abbreviations See Annex 2 for Descriptive statistics


Distribution for the Communication Test The distribution of the scores is shown in red; the normal curve is represented by the black line plotted over it. The scores are displayed on the x-axis. The y-axis corresponds to the number of respondents who fall into the relevant score range.

OVERALL SCORE

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE

Freq

uenc

y

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Std. Dev = 11.28

Mean = 62.6

N = 81821.00


LISTENING SCORE

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

LISTENING

Freq

uenc

y

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 11.60

Mean = 62.2

N = 81821.00

CLEAR EXPRESSION SCORE

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

EXPRESSES SELF CLEARLY

Freq

uenc

y

30000

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 14.89

Mean = 63.0

N = 81821.00


INSIGHT SCORE

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

INSIGHT INTO PROCESS

Freq

uenc

y

30000

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 13.30

Mean = 70.2

N = 81821.00

EMOTION MANAGEMENT SCORE

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

EMOTION MANAGEMENT

Fre

quen

cy

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 15.35

Mean = 63.0

N = 81821.00


ASSERTIVENESS SCORE

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

ASSERTIVENESS

Fre

quen

cy

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 19.02

Mean = 60.5

N = 81821.00


Reliability and Internal Consistency Overall Score

Score (34 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.8639

Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.7413 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.8514 Guttman’s formula: 0.8506

Sub-scores

Listening (12 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.6582

Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.5601 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.7180 Guttman’s formula: 0.7168

Clear expression (12 items)

Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.7911 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.6314 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.7741 Guttman’s formula: 0.7737


Insight into communication process (9 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.6859 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.5550 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.7158 Guttman’s formula: 0.7071

Emotion management (11 items)

Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.7820 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.5822 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.7372 Guttman’s formula: 0.7314

Assertiveness (5 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.6976 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.5609 Spearman-Brown formula: 0.7251 Guttman’s formula: 0.7107


Criterion and Construct Validity 1. Relationship between communication skills and ‘communication with family’ self-rating. Question #1: How would you rate your level of communication with your family? VALUE="1" > Th e pits VALUE="2" > Could use some work VALUE="3" > Satisfactory VALUE=”4” > Pretty good VALUE=”5” > Excellent a) General Score: Significant communication score differences were found among people depending on their ‘communication with family’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with family’ self-rating had the highest overall communication skills scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,53534) = 2163.558 p < 0.0001 OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY’ SELF-RATING

Communication with Family

ExcellentPretty goodSatisfactoryCould use some workThe pits

Mea

n of

SC

OR

E

70

60

50


b) Listening: Significant differences in scores on the listening scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with family’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with family’ self-rating had the highest listening skills scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,53534) = 1019.845 p < 0.0001 LISTENING AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

LIS

TE

NIN

G

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


c) Clear expression: Significant differences in scores on the clear expression scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with family’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with family’ self-rating had the highest clear expression scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,53534) = 2218.808 p < 0.0001 CLEAR EXPRESSION AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

CLE

AR

EX

PR

ES

SIO

N

80

70

60

50


d) Insight into the communication process: Significant differences in scores on the insight scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with family’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with family’ self-rating had the highest insight scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,53534) = 951.350 p < 0.0001 INSIGHT INTO THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

INS

IGH

T IN

TO

PR

OC

ES

S

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64


e) Emotion management: Significant differences in scores on the emotion management scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with family’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with family’ self-rating had the highest emotion management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,53534) = 1890.033 p > 0.0001 EMOTION MANAGEMENT AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

EM

OT

ION

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

80

70

60

50


f) Assertiveness: Significant differences in scores on the assertiveness scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with family’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with family’ self-rating had the highest assertiveness scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,53534) = 1224.140 p < 0.0001 ASSERTIVENESS AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

AS

SE

RT

IVE

NE

SS

80

70

60

50

40


2. Relationship between communication skills and ’communication with friends’ self-rating. Question #2: How would you rate your level of communication with your friends? VALUE="1" > The pits VALUE="2" > Could use some work VALUE="3" > Satisfactory VALUE=”4” > Pretty good VALUE=”5” > Excellent a) General Score: Significant communication score differences were found among people depending on their ’communication with friends’ self-rating. The group with the highest ’communication with friends’ self-rating had the highest overall communication skills scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,63706) = 12475.099 p < 0.0001 OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FRIENDS’ SELF-RATING

Communication with Friends Self-Rating


Mea

n of

OV

ER

ALL

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N S

CO

RE 70

60

50

40


b) Listening: Significant differences in scores on the listening scale were found among people depending on their ’communication with friends’ self-rating. The group with the highest ’communication with friends’ self-rating had the highest listening skills scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,63706) = 11552.541 p < 0.0001 LISTENING AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FRIENDS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

LIS

TE

NIN

G

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Clear expression: Significant differences in scores on the clear expression scale were found among people depending on their ’communication with friends’ self-rating. The group with the highest ’communication with friends’ self-rating had the highest clear expression scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,63706) = 11749.985 p < 0.0001 CLEAR EXPRESSION AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FRIENDS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

CLE

AR

EX

PR

ES

SIO

N

80

70

60

50

40


d) Insight into the communication process: Significant differences in scores on the insight scale were found among people depending on their ’communication with friends’ self-rating. The group with the highest ’communication with friends’ self-rating had the highest insight scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,63706) = 10640.690 p < 0.0001

INSIGHT AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FRIENDS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

INS

IGH

T

80

70

60

50


e) Emotion management: Significant differences in scores on the emotion management scale were found among people depending on their ’communication with friends’ self-rating. The group with the highest ’communication with friends’ self-rating had the highest emotion management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,63706) = 6701.040 p > 0.001 EMOTION MANAGEMENT AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FRIENDS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

EM

OT

ION

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

80

70

60

50

40


f) Assertiveness: Significant differences in scores on the assertiveness scale were found among people depending on their ’communication with friends’ self-rating. The group with the highest ’communication with friends’ self-rating had the highest assertiveness scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,63706) = 11025.483 p > 0.0001 ASSERTIVENESS AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH FRIENDS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

AS

SE

RT

IVE

NE

SS

80

70

60

50

40

30


3. Relationship between communication skills and communication with co-workers/fellow students: Question #3: How would you rate your level of communication with your co-workers/fellow students? VALUE="1" > The pits VALUE="2" > Could use some work VALUE="3" > Satisfactory VALUE=”4” > Pretty good VALUE=”5” > Excellent a) General Score: Significant communication score differences were found among people depending on their ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating had the highest overall communication skills scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52981) = 3621.745 p < 0.0001 OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS’ SELF-RATING

Communication with Co-workers/Students Self-Rating


Mea

n of

OV

ER

ALL

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N S

CO

RE 80

70

60

50

40


b) Listening: Significant differences in scores on the listening scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating had the highest listening scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52981) = 1398.130 p < 0.0001 LISTENING AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

LIS

TE

NIN

G

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Clear expression: Significant differences in scores on the clear expression scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating had the highest clear expression scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52981) = 4151.146 p < 0.0001 CLEAR EXPRESSION AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

CLE

AR

EX

PR

ES

SIO

N

80

70

60

50

40


d) Insight into the communication process: Significant differences in scores on the insight scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating had the highest insight scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52981) = 1533.168 p < 0.0001

INSIGHT AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

INS

IGH

T

80

70

60


e) Emotion management: Significant differences in scores on the emotion management scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating had the highest emotion management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52981) = 3157.981 p > 0.001 EMOTION MANAGEMENT AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

EM

OT

ION

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

80

70

60

50

40


f) Assertiveness: Significant differences in scores on the assertiveness scale were found among people depending on their ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating. The group with the highest ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating had the highest assertiveness scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52981) = 2555.932 p > 0.0001 ASSERTIVENESS AND ‘COMMUNICATION WITH CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS’ SELF-RATING



Mea

n of

AS

SE

RT

IVE

NE

SS

80

70

60

50

40

30


4. Relationship between communication skills and perception of how co-workers/fellow students might rate communication level: Question #4: How would your co-workers/fellow students rate your communication skills? VALUE="1" > The pits VALUE="2" > Could use some work VALUE="3" > Satisfactory VALUE=”4” > Pretty good VALUE=”5” > Excellent a) General Score: Significant communication score differences were found among people depending on how they think co-workers/fellow students would rate their communication skills. The group with the highest co-workers/fellow students ratings had the highest overall communication skills scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52024) = 3725.589 p < 0.0001 OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE AND CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS RATING

Co-worker/fellow student rating


Mea

n of

OV

ER

ALL

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N S

CO

RE 80

70

60

50

40


b) Listening: Significant differences in scores on the listening scale were found among people depending on how they think co-workers/fellow students would rate their communication skills. The group with the highest co-workers/fellow students ratings had the highest listening scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52024) = 1381.399 p < 0.0001 LISTENING AND CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS RATING



Mea

n of

LIS

TE

NIN

G

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Clear expression: Significant differences in scores on the clear expression scale were found among people depending on how they think co-workers/fellow students would rate their communication skills. The group with the highest co-workers/fellow students ratings had the highest clear expression scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52024) = 4640.123 p < 0.0001 CLEAR EXPRESSION AND CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS RATING



Mea

n of

CLE

AR

EX

PR

ES

SIO

N

80

70

60

50

40


d) Insight into the communication process: Significant differences in scores on the insight scale were found among people depending on how they think co-workers/fellow students would rate their communication skills. The group with the highest co-workers/fellow students ratings had the highest insight scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52024) = 1711.531 p < 0.0001

INSIGHT AND CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS RATING



Mea

n of

INS

IGH

T

80

70

60

50


e) Emotion management: Significant differences in scores on the emotion management scale were found among people depending on how they think co-workers/fellow students would rate their communication skills. The group with the highest co-workers/fellow students ratings had the highest emotion management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52024) = 3196.368 p > 0.001 EMOTION MANAGEMENT AND CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS RATING



Mea

n of

EM

OT

ION

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

80

70

60

50

40


f) Assertiveness: Significant differences in scores on the assertiveness scale were found among people depending on how they think co-workers/fellow students would rate their communication skills. The group with the highest co-workers/fellow students ratings had the highest assertiveness scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,52024) = 2570.055 p > 0.0001 ASSERTIVENESS AND CO-WORKERS/FELLOW STUDENTS RATING



Mea

n of

AS

SE

RT

IVE

NE

SS

80

70

60

50

40

30


5. Relationship between communication skills and propensity for misunderstanding self-rating: Question #5: How prone are you to having misunderstandings with people around you? VALUE="1" > Less than others VALUE="2" > Same as others VALUE="3" > More than others

a) General Score: Significant communication score differences were found among people depending on how prone to misunderstandings they are. The group most prone to misunderstandings had the lowest overall communication skills scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,51960) = 5410.845 p < 0.0001 OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE AND PROPENSITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Prone to misunderstandings

More than othersSame as othersLess than others

Mea

n of

OV

ER

ALL

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N S

CO

RE 70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


b) Listening: Significant differences on the listening scale were found among people depending on how prone to misunderstandings they are. The group most prone to misunderstandings had the lowest listening scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,51960) = 3786.103 p < 0.0001 LISTENING AND PROPENSITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDINGS



Mea

n of

LIS

TE

NIN

G

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Clear expression: Significant differences on the clear expression scale were found among people depending on how prone to misunderstandings they are. The group most prone to misunderstandings had the lowest clear expression scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,51960) = 4011.047 p < 0.0001 CLEAR EXPRESSION AND PROPENSITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDINGS



Mea

n of

CLE

AR

EX

PR

ES

SIO

N

70

60

50


d) Insight into the communication process: Significant differences on the insight scale were found among people depending on how prone to misunderstandings they are. The group most prone to misunderstandings had the lowest insight scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,51960) = 3324.004 p < 0.0001

INSIGHT AND PROPENSITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDINGS



Mea

n of

INS

IGH

T

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60


e) Emotion management: Significant differences on the emotion management scale were found among people depending on how prone to misunderstandings they are. The group most prone to misunderstandings had the lowest emotion management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,51960) = 2308.816 p > 0.001 EMOTION MANAGEMENT AND PROPENSITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDINGS



Mea

n of

EM

OT

ION

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


f) Assertiveness: Significant differences on the assertiveness scale were found among people depending on how prone to misunderstandings they are. The group most prone to misunderstandings had the lowest assertiveness scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,51960) = 1495.405 p > 0.0001 ASSERTIVENESS AND PROPENSITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDINGS



Mea

n of

AS

SE

RT

IVE

NE

SS

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52

50


7. Relationship between age and communication. Question #7: How old are you? VALUE="1" > 10-15 VALUE="2" > 16-18 VALUE="3” > 19-24 VALUE=”4” > 25-29 VALUE=”5” > 30-34 VALUE=”6” > 35-39 VALUE=”7” > 40-49 VALUE=”8” > 50-59 VALUE=”9” > 60+ a) General Score: Significant statistical differences in communication scores were found among groups of subjects depending on age. Communication skills scores increase with age, with a slight decrease for those within the sixty plus age group. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,55700) = 329.035 p < 0.0001 OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE AND AGE GROUP

Age Groups

60+

50-59 yrs old

40-49 yrs old

35-39 yrs old

30-34 yrs old

25-29 yrs old

19-24 yrs old

16-18 yrs old

10-15 yrs old

Mea

n of

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N S

CO

RE

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


b) Listening: Significant statistical differences in the listening scale were found among groups of subjects depending on age. Listening scores tend to increase with age, with a slight decrease for those within the sixty plus age group. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,55700) = 423.475 p < 0.0001 LISTENING AND AGE GROUP

Age Groups

60+

50-59 yrs old

40-49 yrs old

35-39 yrs old

30-34 yrs old

25-29 yrs old

19-24 yrs old

16-18 yrs old

10-15 yrs old

Mea

n of

LIS

TE

NIN

G

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


c) Clear expression: Significant statistical differences in the clear expression scale were found among groups of subjects depending on age. Clear expression scores tend to increase with age, with a slight decrease for those within the sixty plus age group. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,55700) = 143.779 p < 0.0001 CLEAR EXPRESSION AND AGE GROUP

Age Groups

60+

50-59 yrs old

40-49 yrs old

35-39 yrs old

30-34 yrs old

25-29 yrs old

19-24 yrs old

16-18 yrs old

10-15 yrs old

Mea

n of

CLE

AR

EX

PR

ES

SIO

N

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


d) Insight into the communication process: Significant statistical differences in the insight scale were found among groups of subjects depending on age. Insight scores tend to increase with age and decrease for those within the sixty plus age group. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,55700) = 199.480 p < 0.0001

INSIGHT AND AGE GROUP

Age Groups

60+

50-59 yrs old

40-49 yrs old

35-39 yrs old

30-34 yrs old

25-29 yrs old

19-24 yrs old

16-18 yrs old

10-15 yrs old

Mea

n of

INS

IGH

T

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64


e) Emotion management: Significant statistical differences in the emotion management scale were found among groups of subjects depending on age. Emotion management scores tend to increase with age, with a slight decrease for those within the sixty plus age group. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. . F(8,55700) = 79.460 p > 0.001 EMOTION MANAGEMENT AND AGE GROUP

Age Groups

60+

50-59 yrs old

40-49 yrs old

35-39 yrs old

30-34 yrs old

25-29 yrs old

19-24 yrs old

16-18 yrs old

10-15 yrs old

Mea

n of

EM

OT

ION

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

70

68

66

64

62

60


f) Assertiveness: Significant statistical differences in the assertiveness scale were found among groups of subjects depending on age. Assertiveness scores tend to increase with age, with a slight decrease for those within the sixty plus age group. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,55700) = 66.797 p > 0.0001 ASSERTIVENESS AND AGE GROUP

Age Groups

60+

50-59 yrs old

40-49 yrs old

35-39 yrs old

30-34 yrs old

25-29 yrs old

19-24 yrs old

16-18 yrs old

10-15 yrs old

Mea

n of

AS

SE

RT

IVE

NE

SS

68

66

64

62

60

58


Gender differences Several statistically significant gender differences were identified. However, the mean differences are small and may be of little theoretical significance.

?? Women scored significantly higher than men on general communication skills: t(54936) = 6.564 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: .6362 ?? Women scored significantly higher than men on listening: t(54936) = 10.769 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: 1.0793 ?? Men scored significantly higher than women on clear expression. The difference

is statistically significant but not theoretically significant: t(54936) = -1.969 p < 0.049 Mean difference: -.2544 ?? Women scored significantly higher than men on insight into the communication

process: t(54936) = 18.879 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: 2.1202 ?? Men scored significantly higher than women on assertiveness: t(54936) = -6.736 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: -1.1218

GROUP STATISTICS

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean SCORE Woman 33781 63.0224 10.6138 5.775E-02

Man 21157 62.3862 11.7279 8.063E-02

LISTENING Woman 33781 62.6991 11.0877 6.033E-02 Man 21157 61.6198 11.9598 8.222E-02

CLEAR

EXPRESSIONWoman 33781 63.1694 14.3317 7.798E-02

Man 21157 63.4237 15.3548 .1056

INSIGHT Woman 33781 71.4392 12.3190 6.703E-02 Man 21157 69.3189 13.5564 9.320E-02

EMOTIONAL

MANAGEMENTWoman 33781 63.4789 14.9651 8.142E-02

Man 21157 63.3195 15.6488 .1076

ASSERTIVENESS Woman 33781 60.3690 18.8678 .1027 Man 21157 61.4908 19.1951 .1320


INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower UpperSCORE 6.564 54936 .000 .6362 9.693E-02 .4463 .8262

LISTENING 10.769 54936 .000 1.0793 .1002 .8829 1.2757

CLEAR

EXPRESSION-1.969 54936 .049 -.2544 .1292 -.5076 -1.1684E -

03

INSIGHT 18.879 54936 .000 2.1202 .1123 1.9001 2.3404

EMOTIONAL MANAGEMENT

1.194 54936 .233 .1594 .1335 -.1024 .4211

ASSERTIVENESS -6.736 54936 .000 -1.1218 .1665 -1.4482 -.7954


Correlations

Communication with FamilySelf-Rating

Communication with Friends

Self-Rating

Communication with Co-workers/Fellow

Students Self-Rating

Communication Rating by Co-

workers/Fellow Students

OVERALL SCORE

Pearson Correlation

.368 .439 .462 .471

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000

N 53539 53511 52986 52029LISTENING Pearson

Correlation .259 .268 .306 .309

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000

N 53539 53511 52986 52029CLEAR

EXPRESSIONPearson

Correlation .374 .480 .488 .513

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000

N 53539 53511 52986 52029INSIGHT Pearson

Correlation .250 .314 .319 .339

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000

N 53539 53511 52986 52029EMOTION

MANAGEMENTPearson

Correlation .349 .452 .439 .444

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000

N 53539 53511 52986 52029ASSERTIVENESS Pearson

Correlation .286 .393 .402 .406

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000

N 53539 53511 52986 52029** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Correlations (Continued) ?? A moderate positive correlation was found between ‘communication with family’ self-

rating and clear expression, emotional management, and overall communication score.

?? A weak positive correlation was found between ‘communication with family’ self-rating and listening, insight, and asserti veness.

?? A moderate positive correlation was found between ’communication with friends’ self-rating and clear expression, insight, emotional management, assertiveness, and overall communication score.

?? A weak positive correlation was found between ’communication with friends’ self-rating and listening.

?? A moderate positive correlation was found between ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating and listening, clear expression, insight, emotional management, assertiveness, and overall communication score.

?? A moderate positive correlation was found between perceived co-worker/fellow student communication rating and listening, clear expression, insight, emotional management, assertiveness, and overall communication score.


ANNEX 1 - Descriptive Statistics Legend of Scale abbreviations Legend of scale abbreviations: SCORE = Overall communication score LISTENIN = Ability to listen actively CLEAR = Ability to get the message across INSIGHT = Insight into the communication process EMOTION = Emotional management ASSERTIV = Assertive communication


ANNEX 2 -Descriptive Statistics

SCORE LISTENING CLEAR INSIGHT EMOTION ASSERTIV N Valid 81821 81821 81821 81821 81821 81821

Mean 62.5501 62.1549 62.9510 70.1831 63.0139 60.5318 Std. Error of Mean 3.943E-02 4.057E-02 5.206E-02 4.649E-02 5.367E-02 6.649E-02

Median 63.0000 62.5000 62.5000 69.4444 63.6364 60.0000 Mode 63.00 60.42 64.58 72.22 61.36 60.00

Std. Deviation 11.2790 11.6048 14.8921 13.2973 15.3526 19.0177 Variance 127.2162 134.6713 221.7756 176.8177 235.7038 361.6724

Skewness -.045 -.063 -.171 -.471 -.203 -.195 Std. Error of

Skewness .009 .009 .009 .009 .009 .009

Kurtosis .723 .799 .068 .831 .045 -.182 Std. Error of Kurtosis .017 .017 .017 .017 .017 .017

Range 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Minimum .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Maximum 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Percentiles 5 44.0000 43.7500 37.5000 47.2222 36.3636 30.0000

10 49.0000 47.9167 43.7500 52.7778 43.1818 35.0000 15 51.0000 50.0000 47.9167 55.5556 47.7273 40.0000 20 53.0000 52.0833 50.0000 58.3333 50.0000 45.0000 25 55.0000 54.1667 52.0833 61.1111 52.2727 50.0000 30 57.0000 56.2500 56.2500 63.8889 54.5455 50.0000 35 58.0000 58.3333 58.3333 66.6667 56.8182 55.0000 40 60.0000 58.3333 60.4167 66.6667 59.0909 55.0000 45 61.0000 60.4167 62.2917 69.4444 61.3636 60.0000 50 63.0000 62.5000 62.5000 69.4444 63.6364 60.0000 55 64.0000 62.5000 64.5833 72.2222 65.9091 65.0000 60 65.0000 64.5833 66.6667 75.0000 68.1818 65.0000 65 66.0000 66.6667 68.7500 75.0000 68.1818 70.0000 70 68.0000 68.7500 70.8333 77.7778 70.4545 70.0000 75 70.0000 68.7500 72.9167 80.5556 72.7273 75.0000 80 72.0000 70.8333 75.0000 80.5556 75.0000 75.0000 85 74.0000 72.9167 79.1667 83.3333 79.5455 80.0000 90 77.0000 77.0833 81.2500 86.1111 81.8182 85.0000 95 81.0000 81.2500 87.5000 91.6667 88.6364 90.0000 97 84.0000 83.3333 89.5833 94.4444 90.9091 95.0000 99 91.0000 91.6667 95.8333 97.2222 95.4545 100.0000


ANNEX 3 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to level of ‘communication with family’ self-rating. OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05

Communication with Family Self-Rating

1 2 3 4 5

The pits 2877 54.7991 Could use some

work 9423 57.9989

Satisfactory 9849 60.0435 Pretty good 21417 64.2534

Excellent 9973 69.0726 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7120.444. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. LISTENING Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5


work 9423 58.9024


Excellent 9973 67.0264Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7120.444. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


CLEAR EXPRESSION Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5


work 9423 56.4967


Excellent 9973 71.5906Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7120.444. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INSIGHT INTO COMMUNICATION PROCESS Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5


work 9423 67.0381


Excellent 9973 75.8774Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000



EMOTION MANAGEMENT Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5


work 9423 57.0304


Excellent 9973 71.4552Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7120.444. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. ASSERTIVENESS Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5


work 9423 54.0741


Excellent 9973 69.2069Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000



ANNEX 4 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to level of ’communication with friends’ self-rating. OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5

The pits 785 48.4790 Could use some work 4095 53.3419


Excellent 16281 68.3556Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000




1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 16281 65.8253Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000






1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 16281 71.2839Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 2862.979. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INSIGHT Tukey HSD



1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 16281 75.4161Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000






1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 16281 71.3981Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000




1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 16281 69.4392Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000



ANNEX 5 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to level of ‘communication with co-workers/fellow students’ self-rating. OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE Tukey HSD


Communication with Co-Workers/Fellow


1 2 3 4 5


work 6188 55.1739


Excellent 8646 70.6123 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000





1 2 3 4 5


work 6188 57.2721


Excellent 8646 68.1257Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 8646 73.7579Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000





1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 8646 77.3373Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







1 2 3 4 5


work 6188 53.1671


Excellent 8646 73.1621Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000





1 2 3 4 5


work 6188 48.7080


Excellent 8646 71.8749Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000



ANNEX 6 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to perceived co-worker/fellow student communication rating. OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE Tukey HSD


Co-worker/fellow student

communication rating

1 2 3 4 5

The pits 1577 49.7178Could use some work 6247 54.8162

Satisfactory 11997 59.3856Pretty good 23556 65.0406

Excellent 8652 70.4289Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000





1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 8652 67.7969Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 8652 74.1199Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000





1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 8652 77.4057Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 8652 73.1712Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000





1 2 3 4 5



Excellent 8652 71.9620Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000



ANNEX 7 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to propensity for misunderstandings with others. OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE Tukey HSD



1 2 3

More than others 6004 53.4494Same as others 23676 60.9987

Less than others 22283 67.5422Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000




1 2 3



Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 11826.400. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. CLEAR EXPRESSION Tukey HSD



1 2 3





INSIGHT Tukey HSD



1 2 3



Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 11826.400. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EMOTION MANAGEMENT Tukey HSD



1 2 3






1 2 3





ANNEX 8 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to age. OVERALL COMMUNICATION SCORE Tukey HSD


Age Groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 10-15 yrs old 4507 59.2864 16-18 yrs old 8546 60.2881 19-24 yrs old 15714 61.8926 25-29 yrs old 8156 62.8089 62.8089 30-34 yrs old 5819 63.7750 63.7750 35-39 yrs old 4069 63.9187 40-49 yrs old 6018 65.7373

60+ 325 66.5415 50-59 yrs old 2555 69.6493

Sig. .089 .166 .116 1.000 .325 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1966.255. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. LISTENING Tukey HSD


Age Groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 10-15 yrs old 4507 58.6282 16-18 yrs old 8546 59.8545 19-24 yrs old 15714 60.9533 25-29 yrs old 8156 62.1531 30-34 yrs old 5819 63.1938 63.1938 35-39 yrs old 4069 63.7083 40-49 yrs old 6018 65.9580

60+ 325 66.6795 50-59 yrs old 2555 70.6963

Sig. 1.000 .051 .081 .879 .521 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1966.255. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.




Age Groups 1 2 3 410-15 yrs old 4507 60.0372 16-18 yrs old 8546 60.7438 19-24 yrs old 15714 62.7148 25-29 yrs old 8156 63.3736 35-39 yrs old 4069 63.9843 30-34 yrs old 5819 64.1394 40-49 yrs old 6018 65.6523

60+ 325 66.7628 50-59 yrs old 2555 69.3770

Sig. .849 .057 .294 1.000Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1966.255. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INSIGHT Tukey HSD


Age Groups 1 2 3 4 5 10-15 yrs old 4507 66.4183 16-18 yrs old 8546 68.5048 19-24 yrs old 15714 70.3675 25-29 yrs old 8156 70.6065 35-39 yrs old 4069 71.1422 30-34 yrs old 5819 71.2284

60+ 325 72.7692 40-49 yrs old 6018 72.9400 50-59 yrs old 2555 76.9711

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .459 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1966.255. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.




Age Groups 1 2 3 4 5 16-18 yrs old 8546 61.7955 10-15 yrs old 4507 61.9269 19-24 yrs old 15714 62.6477 62.6477 25-29 yrs old 8156 63.1161 63.1161 30-34 yrs old 5819 63.6149 35-39 yrs old 4069 64.0179 64.0179 40-49 yrs old 6018 65.3815 65.3815

60+ 325 66.5874 50-59 yrs old 2555 68.8659

Sig. .137 .106 .109 .235 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1966.255. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. ASSERTIVENESS Tukey HSD


Age Groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 16-18 yrs old 8546 58.7485 10-15 yrs old 4507 58.7486 19-24 yrs old 15714 59.7384 59.7384 25-29 yrs old 8156 60.9937 60.9937 35-39 yrs old 4069 61.7928 61.7928 30-34 yrs old 5819 61.8165 61.8165 40-49 yrs old 6018 62.9146 62.9146

60+ 325 64.4462 64.4462 50-59 yrs old 2555 66.3112

Sig. .783 .488 .912 .643 .214 .052 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1966.255. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


NEED FOR APPROVAL Tukey HSD


Age Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 60+ 664 31.2726

50-59 3199 34.1529 40-49 7459 36.4633 35-39 4991 38.4660 30-34 6679 40.2310 19-24 15568 40.5362 40.5362 25-29 8204 41.2149 41.2149 16-18 12674 41.3798 41.3798 10-15 8950 42.1952

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .456 .055 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 3358.796. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. BELIEFS & ATTITUDE Tukey HSD


Age Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 10-15 8950 62.2722 16-18 12674 62.8936 62.8936 25-29 8204 63.7604 63.7604 19-24 15568 64.1347 30-34 6679 64.6074 35-39 4991 66.2539 40-49 7459 67.7217 50-59 3199 69.7046

60+ 664 70.2801 Sig. .827 .422 .455 1.000 1.000 .880



PROACTIVE ATTITUDE Tukey HSD


Age Group 1 2 3 425-29 8204 62.9080 30-34 6679 63.0552 16-18 12674 63.5825 63.5825 19-24 15568 63.6890 63.6890 10-15 8950 64.3323 35-39 4991 64.3615 64.3615 40-49 7459 65.6121 50-59 3199 67.1094

60+ 664 68.2892Sig. .591 .595 .051 .084


Documents

Psychometric Report Communication test – Revisedhr.psychtests.com/archprofile/stats/[email protected] PsychTests.com advancing psychology and technology tel