nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

25.07.2016 | Original Paper

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

verfasst von: Julian Schulze, Martin Schultze, Stephen G. West, Stefan Krumm

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 3/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Work Ethic and Work Outcomes in an Expanded Criterion Domain

Nächster Artikel Generational Differences in Work Ethic: Fact or Fiction?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Spitzberg refers to his model as “communication competence model.” However, this model also includes constructs which researchers may not necessarily consider as “competencies” (e.g., motivation). Although several umbrella terms may apply, we prefer KSAOs as a very broad term including other characteristics (such as motivation).

Not all items of the original Spitzberg (2006) questionnaire could be included because of respondent burden and the inapplicability of some of the items for both communication contexts. For example, the coordination item “I am skilled at prioritizing (triaging) my email traffic” has no clear counterpart for FtF communication.

We did also test for a series of competing models: (a) a general factor model linking all variables of the KSAOs to one factor, (b) a two-factor model consisting of a FtF and a CM context factor, and (c) a five-factor model consisting of separate factors for each type of KSAOs, but without separating the contexts. However, none of these models achieved acceptable model fit in any condition. Details about these analyses can be obtained from the first author upon request.

The model for CM communication outcomes (peer reports) exhibited a close fit with CFI = .887 that was considered to be acceptable for this initial phase.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.

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.CrossRef

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.

Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65(2), 241–261. doi:10.1007/BF02294377.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Enders, C. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.

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.CrossRef

Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity mediated communication in organizations. Communication Research, 5(1), 3–24. doi:10.1177/009365027800500101.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

MacCallum, R. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107–120. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.107.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Rubin, R. B. (1985). The validity of the communication competency assessment instrument. Communications Monographs, 52(2), 173–185. doi:10.1080/03637758509376103.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Education, 32(3), 323–329. doi:10.1080/03634528309378550.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

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.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics Required for Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: Similar or Distinct Constructs?
verfasst von: Julian Schulze
Martin Schultze
Stephen G. West
Stefan Krumm
Publikationsdatum: 25.07.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9465-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Methodology/Approach

Findings

Implications

Originality/Value

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2017

Generational Differences in Work Ethic: Fact or Fiction?

Infusing Twenty-First-Century Skills into Engineering Education

Situating Ethical Behavior in the Nomological Network of Job Performance

The Latent Change Score Model: A More Flexible Approach to Modeling Time in Self-Regulated Learning

Exploring the Effects of Job Autonomy on Engagement and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Performance Pressure and Learning Goal Orientation

Work Ethic and Work Outcomes in an Expanded Criterion Domain