Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale (SPCC)

Abstract

The Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale (SPCC), formulated by James C. McCroskey and Linda L. McCroskey in 1988, is an established psychometric assessment developed to evaluate an individual’s subjective awareness of their own communication effectiveness. Built around a 12-item matrix structure, the instrument intersects four fundamental communication contexts (Public Speaking, Large Meetings, Small Groups, and Dyadic Interactions) with three receiver categories (Strangers, Acquaintances, and Friends). Respondents rate their perceived competence on an interval-ratio continuum ranging from 0 (“completely incompetent”) to 100 (“competent”). Psychometrically, the instrument demonstrates a robust total-score internal consistency (α ≈ .92), with receiver subscales consistently yielding strong reliability coefficients (ranging from .78 to .87) and context subscales exhibiting moderate-to-good reliability (.44 to .72). The SPCC holds widespread empirical utility across instructional communication, organizational diagnostics, cross-cultural studies, and research on willingness to communicate (WTC) and communication apprehension. This article provides an exhaustive theoretical and psychometric analysis of the SPCC, evaluating its underlying constructs, factorial architecture, convergent and discriminant validity parameters, operational administration protocol, and full authentic questionnaire items.

Keywords

Self-Perceived Communication Competence, SPCC, James C. McCroskey, Communication Competence, Communication Apprehension, Willingness to Communicate, Self-Efficacy, Interpersonal Communication, Public Speaking, Psychometrics

Authors

The SPCC was developed by James C. McCroskey, Ed.D., and Linda L. McCroskey, Ph.D. Both scholars served as prolific researchers in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University (WVU). James C. McCroskey (1934–2012) served as Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at WVU and later as a scholar at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He was among the most cited scholars in the discipline of speech communication, recognized for conceptualizing communication apprehension, instructional communication theory, and socio-communicative style. Linda L. McCroskey has conducted extensive psychometric and applied research in instructional communication, organizational leadership, and interpersonal behavior. Inquiries regarding their programmatic research on communication traits are preserved through the academic archives of West Virginia University and dedicated scholarly repositories.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale is to quantify an individual’s subjective evaluation of their ability to communicate effectively across structured relational contexts and social environments. When McCroskey and McCroskey introduced the instrument in 1988, behavioral assessments of communication competence predominantly relied on third-party behavioral rating scales, observer checklists, and standardized performance tests. However, the authors argued that objective behavioral performance and an individual’s cognitive perception of their own competence represent distinct psychological phenomena.

In applied and empirical contexts, an individual’s self-perception frequently governs subsequent behavior to a greater extent than their actual, externally judged skill. Even individuals possessing high objective skill may withdraw from communicative exchanges or experience crippling avoidance if they perceive themselves as incompetent. Conversely, individuals with modest technical skills who harbor robust perceptions of competence often initiate conversations, volunteer for leadership roles, and display a high willingness to communicate (WTC). Consequently, the SPCC was specifically engineered to capture this self-referential cognitive appraisal.

In clinical, pedagogical, and organizational settings, the SPCC serves multiple purposes:

• Diagnostic Screening in Higher Education: Identifying students entering academic disciplines requiring rigorous communicative engagement (e.g., business, nursing, education, law) who suffer from self-perceived communication deficits.
• Intervention Pre/Post-Testing: Gauging cognitive changes in self-efficacy following speech therapy, public speaking training, assertiveness coaching, or cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety.
• Workplace Leadership Assessment: Evaluating candidates’ confidence across hierarchical levels, determining whether employees feel competent interacting in large-group executive meetings versus peer dyads.
• Cross-Cultural Research: Analyzing how self-construal, collectivism, and linguistic factors influence communicative self-evaluations across diverse international populations.

Psychological Construct

Communication competence is classically defined in speech communication literature as the ability to choose among available communicative behaviors in order that one may successfully accomplish one’s own interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and relationship of the partner. However, self-perceived communication competence focuses specifically on meta-cognitive awareness and self-evaluation rather than objective behavioral execution.

The SPCC operationalizes this construct across a balanced 4 × 3 matrix, yielding seven distinct subscales categorized by Communication Context and Receiver Relationship:

1. Context-Based Dimensions

• Public Speaking (Items 1, 8, 12): Appraises perceived competence when delivering formal, uninterrupted discourse to a collective audience. In this setting, the communicator assumes primary responsibility for structuring content, managing nonverbal delivery, and holding collective attention.
• Meetings (Items 3, 6, 10): Evaluates perceived effectiveness in semi-structured or structured organizational assemblies characterized by multi-party turn-taking, procedural rules, and formal social presence.
• Small Groups (Items 4, 9, 11): Focuses on collaborative discussions within compact groups (typically 3 to 7 participants), requiring simultaneous message production, dynamic listening, consensus building, and spontaneous conversational navigation.
• Dyads (Items 2, 5, 7): Quantifies the individual’s perceived capability to maintain one-on-one interpersonal interaction, which requires direct eye contact, mutual feedback, rapid conversational exchange, and high relational sensitivity.

2. Receiver-Based Dimensions

• Strangers (Items 1, 4, 7, 10): Measures the cognitive evaluation of competence when communicating with unknown individuals, where uncertainty is elevated, shared social scripts are limited, and risk of negative evaluation is high.
• Acquaintances (Items 2, 6, 9, 12): Assesses perceived capability with familiar individuals who fall between strangers and close personal associates, requiring moderate self-disclosure and balanced social norms.
• Friends (Items 3, 5, 8, 11): Measures competence in relational environments characterized by high psychological safety, mutual trust, relaxed norms, and extensive shared history.

Theoretical Framework

The SPCC is anchored within Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, with a particular focus on the construct of perceived self-efficacy. Bandura defined self-efficacy as individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to execute specific performance attainments. In communication studies, self-perceived competence functions as a domain-specific manifestation of communicative self-efficacy. According to social cognitive theory, human functioning is regulated through proactive, self-reflective forethought; people plan courses of action and anticipate outcomes based on what they believe they are capable of achieving.

A second theoretical foundation is McCroskey and Richmond’s conceptual model of Willingness to Communicate (WTC). McCroskey identified two primary cognitive/affective antecedents that dictate an individual’s decision to initiate or avoid discourse: Communication Apprehension (CA) and Self-Perceived Communication Competence (SPCC). In this model, high communication apprehension (anxiety or fear associated with real or anticipated communication) acts as an inhibitory force, whereas high self-perceived communication competence serves as an initiating, facilitating force.

McCroskey and McCroskey (1988) argued that while objective communication skill is undoubtedly valuable, an individual’s subjective cognitive map of their own skill serves as the ultimate behavioral gatekeeper. If an individual holds an internal schema that classifies them as inept when talking to strangers in large meetings, they will exhibit conversational avoidance, defensive communication, or behavioral paralysis, regardless of whether objective observers would rate their linguistic competence as adequate.

Validity

Extensive empirical studies have evaluated the psychometric validity of the SPCC across diverse academic and professional cohorts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the systematic differentiation of scores across relational intimacy and situational formality. Empirical investigations uniformly demonstrate that individuals report the highest perceived competence when communicating with friends in dyadic settings, and the lowest perceived competence when presenting public speeches to strangers. This stable gradient aligns directly with theoretical predictions regarding relational uncertainty and audience evaluation.

Convergent Validity

The SPCC exhibits strong and statistically significant inverse correlations with instruments measuring communication apprehension, particularly the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24). Across multiple samples, total SPCC scores correlate negatively with total PRCA-24 scores, typically ranging between r = −.50 and r = −.65. In context-specific analyses, the Public Speaking subscale of the SPCC correlates inversely with the PRCA-24 Public Speaking dimension at comparable or higher magnitudes (often exceeding r = −.70).

Furthermore, convergent validity is verified by strong positive correlations between the SPCC and the Willingness to Communicate (WTC) scale (typically r = .55 to .75). Individuals who appraise their communication skills favorably consistently report higher propensity to initiate conversation across varied communicative settings.

Discriminant Validity

The SPCC demonstrates appropriate discriminant divergence from constructs that do not directly measure social competence. For instance, correlations between SPCC scores and standardized measures of general intelligence (IQ), cognitive aptitude, or academic GPA are generally weak and non-significant (r < .15). Additionally, self-perceived competence diverges predictably from third-party behavioral ratings of competence (with correlations rarely exceeding r = .30), confirming McCroskey and McCroskey’s foundational proposition that subjective self-efficacy and objective execution inhabit distinct psychometric domains.

Reliability

The SPCC has consistently demonstrated high internal consistency across a multitude of demographic groups, academic levels, and international settings.

Internal Consistency

In their seminal 1988 validation study, McCroskey and McCroskey reported the following Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the composite scale and its nested subscales:

• Total Scale: α = .92
• Stranger Subscale: α = .87
• Acquaintance Subscale: α = .84
• Friend Subscale: α = .78
• Public Speaking Subscale: α = .72
• Meeting Subscale: α = .68
• Small Group Subscale: α = .67
• Dyad Subscale: α = .44

Subsequent independent studies have corroborated these trends. The composite score consistently meets or exceeds the α = .90 benchmark for clinical and applied utility. Notably, the Dyad subscale frequently yields lower alpha estimates (α ≈ .44–.60) across literature. Psychometricians attribute this attenuation to the profound behavioral heterogeneity inherent within two-person communication (e.g., casual dialogue with a friend vs. confrontation with an adversarial stranger), coupled with ceiling effects that emerge during peer-to-peer interactions.

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest reliability across intervals ranging from two to eight weeks generally remains high (stability coefficients typically range from r = .78 to r = .86), illustrating that self-perceived communication competence functions primarily as a stable personality trait rather than a fluctuating emotional state, provided no targeted pedagogical or clinical interventions have taken place.

Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the SPCC reflects its 4 × 3 crossed-facet matrix design. Initial exploratory factor analyses (EFA) conducted by McCroskey and McCroskey identified clear factor extraction patterns, though the cross-classification of contexts and receivers causes the instrument to exhibit multidimensionality that depends on the analytic rotation applied.

Exploratory and Confirmatory Modeling

When factor-analyzed, items systematically load strongly on their primary relational categories (Strangers, Acquaintances, Friends). In principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax or oblimin rotation, three dominant factors emerge corresponding to the receiver relationships, explaining over 60% of the total variance. In these solutions, items involving strangers (Items 1, 4, 7, 10) load predominantly on Factor 1, items involving acquaintances (Items 2, 6, 9, 12) load on Factor 2, and items involving friends (Items 3, 5, 8, 11) load on Factor 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) investigations examining alternative structural architectures—such as a single unidimensional factor, a correlated four-factor context model, a correlated three-factor receiver model, and a bi-factor (or higher-order) hierarchical model—have provided compelling insights. Standard correlated first-order context models often show moderate fit because they fail to account for variance introduced by receiver familiarity. Conversely, a higher-order general factor model or a bi-factor model containing one overarching general SPCC factor alongside specific receiver facets typically yields optimal fit indices (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .94, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .06), affirming the validity of reporting both an aggregate composite score and targeted subscale profiles.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Construct Measured: Self-Perceived Communication Competence across varied social contexts and target receiver types.
• Instrument Type: Self-report questionnaire / psychometric rating scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents, university undergraduates, working adults, and clinical cohorts.
• Item Count: 12 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Response Scale: Continuous percentage-style numerical scale from 0 (completely incompetent) to 100 (competent). Respondents estimate their perceived percentage of communicative competence for each scenario.
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Public Speaking: Add percentages for Items 1 + 8 + 12; divide by 3.
  • Meeting: Add percentages for Items 3 + 6 + 10; divide by 3.
  • Group: Add percentages for Items 4 + 9 + 11; divide by 3.
  • Dyad: Add percentages for Items 2 + 5 + 7; divide by 3.
  • Stranger: Add percentages for Items 1 + 4 + 7 + 10; divide by 4.
  • Acquaintance: Add percentages for Items 2 + 6 + 9 + 12; divide by 4.
  • Friend: Add percentages for Items 3 + 5 + 8 + 11; divide by 4.
  • Total SPCC Score: Add the calculated subscores for Stranger + Acquaintance + Friend; divide by 3 (or alternatively, sum all 12 items and divide by 12).
• Normative Interpretation Benchmarks:
  • High Competence: Total Score > 82 (or > 1 SD above the mean). Represents communicators who feel highly capable and self-assured across diverse environments.
  • Moderate Competence: Total Score between 68 and 82 (within ±1 SD). Represents typical communicators with normative situational fluctuations.
  • Low Competence: Total Score < 68 (or > 1 SD below the mean). Indicates pervasive self-doubt regarding communicative performance, signaling potential conversational avoidance and high communication apprehension.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale was published in 1988 by James C. McCroskey and Linda L. McCroskey. In accordance with the scholarly philosophy of James C. McCroskey and the West Virginia University Communication Studies department, the SPCC is placed in the public domain for non-commercial educational, scholarly, and research purposes. Researchers and practitioners are permitted to administer the scale without licensing fees, provided that appropriate academic attribution is cited in resulting publications, theses, or presentations. Commercial usage, monetization, or inclusion within proprietary software platforms requires authorization from the copyright holders or representative estate.

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00599.x
• McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
• McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824098809359810
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–156). SAGE Publications.
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 56(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949009372817
• Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. SAGE Publications.

Items of the Scale