This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pearce, C. G. Articles by Barker, R. T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Assessment of the Listening Styles Inventory

Progress in Establishing Reliability and Validity

Iris W. Johnson

Randolph T. Barker

Virginia Commonwealth University

This article describes the authors’ progress in establishing the validity and reliability of the Listening Styles Inventory (LSI) following their initial report in an earlier study (Barker, Pearce, and Johnson). The LSI provides managers with a self-administered tool for determining their own perceived listening effectiveness. The authors examined the data provided by 359 respondents in diverse managerial groups using factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, Spearman’s rank order coefficient, structured interviews, expert observation, the Statistical Analysis System General Linear Model (GLM) procedure (analysis of variance), and a Tukey Student Range (honestly significant difference or HSD) test. The results yielded further evidence of the validity and reliability of the LSI as a self-administered diagnostic listening tool. The authors conclude that the LSI in its present form can serve as a guide for assessing a manager’s perceived listening effectiveness, but further research is needed to refine the instrument and to test other managerial groups.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Amidon and S. Blythe Wrestling With Proteus: Tales of Communication Managers in a Changing Economy Journal of Business and Technical Communication, January 1, 2008; 22(1): 5 - 37. [Abstract] [PDF]