Articoli su invito / Invited articles
Academic Relational Civility Scale: a multidimensional “mirror” measure
Academic Relational Civility Scale: A multidimensional “mirror” measure
Annamaria Di Fabio
Responsible for the International Research and Intervention Laboratory in Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability (CroCPosPsychP&S), and for the International Research and Intervention Laboratory in Psychology for Vocational Guidance and Career Counseling and Talents (LabOProCCareer&T), http://www.scifopsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html
Sommario
L’articolo presenta le proprietà psicometriche di una nuova misura multidimensionale per rilevare la civiltà accademica relazionale. Questa nuova self-report mirror measure ha due sezioni speculari (Parte A–Me con gli altri nel contesto accademico; Parte B–gli altri con me nel contesto accademico) che rilevano la percezione di civiltà relazionale accademica aiutando a ridurre i bias nel processo di valutazione. La scala ha tre dimensioni con una buona coerenza interna: Decenza Relazionale (DR), Cultura Relazionale (CR) e Prontezza Relazionale (PR). L’analisi fattoriale confermativa ha indicato un buon fit del modello ai dati. Lo strumento presenta una buona validità. La nuova misura mirror per valutare la civiltà accademica relazionale rappresenta un valido strumento per misurare questo costrutto nel contesto italiano.
Parole chiave
Civiltà accademica; civiltà relazionale; decenza relazionale; cultura relazionale.
Abstract
This article presents the psychometric properties of a new multidimensional measure for evaluating academic relational civility (ARC). This new self-report mirror measure has two specular sections (Part A–Me with others in the academic context; Part B–Others with me in the academic context) that detect the perception of academic relational civility, helping to reduce the bias in the assessment process. The scale has three dimensions with good internal consistency: Relational Decency (RD), Relational Culture (RCu), and Relational Readiness (RR). Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit of the model to the data. Good validity was also established. The new mirror measure for assessing ARC is a valid instrument for measuring this construct in the Italian context.
Keywords
Academic civility; relational civility; relational decency; relational culture; relational readiness.
The 21st century has been characterised by acceleration (Rosa, 2015), continuous transitions and changes (Di Fabio, 2014; Guichard, 2013; Blustein, 2011), which threaten the well-being of individuals in a life-long perspective (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016b). In this framework, the university environment needs to be supportive and capable of fostering the well-being, satisfaction and performance of students (Cotton, Dollard, & de Jong, 2002). University students who perceive more meaningful and fulfilling interpersonal relationships also perceive higher psychosocial well-being (Lee & Loke, 2005). Furthermore, the social support of parents, teachers and friends is related to the psychological well-being (Friedlander, Reid, Shupak, & Cribbie, 2007; Kong, Zhao, & You, 2013; Wilcox, Winn, & Fyvie-Gauld, 2005) and academic performance of university students (Bahar, 2010; Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005; Li, Han, Wang, Sun, & Cheng, 2018).
The results of studies in literature show that academic incivility, which regards any speech or action that disrupts the harmony of the teaching-learning environment, represents a threat for well-being, learning and academic success (Clark & Springer, 2007). Weeks (2011) reports an increase of academic incivility in different parts of the world due to growth in competition, caused by the current economic crisis, which leads to a decrease in the well-being of students. Relationships and social support have a fundamental role both in life in general and in working life (Blustein, 2006, 2011, 2013; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016a; Ferguson & Goodwin, 2010; Gallagher & Vella-Brodrick, 2008; Kalpana Rani, 2016). Considering the essential role of relationships, the concept of relational civility was developed initially as workplace relational civility and the relative scale to detect it was also created (Di Fabio & Gori, 2016a). This construct and scale appears extremely interesting also for the academic context, in terms of the importance of relational aspects and the relevance of relationships for the well-being and the academic success of students. Starting from the initial conceptualisation of relational civility in work contexts in terms of “a form of relational style characterised by respect and concern for self and others, interpersonal sensitivity, personal education and kindness toward others” and the scale to measure it (Di Fabio & Gori, 2016a), the construct and scale of academic relational civility was developed focusing on the academic context. The promising new construct and scale of academic relational civility declines the relational civility style (Di Fabio & Gori, 2016a) in the academic context and thus it could be defined as a relational style in the academic environment, characterised by respect and concern for oneself and others, interpersonal sensitivity, personal education, and kindness toward others. It also includes civil behaviours such as treating others with dignity and following social norms to promote peaceful and productive sharing. The academic relational civility construct has three dimensions. Relational decency in the academic environment: relationships founded on decency in terms of respect for the self and others, assertiveness, ability to express ideas, and relational capacity; Relational culture in the academic environment: kindness, good manners, courtesy, politeness; Relational readiness in the academic environment: responsiveness towards others in terms of speed in understanding the feelings of others and showing proactive sensitivity, ability to comprise the emotions of others, interest for others, delicacy, attentiveness to the reactions of others, empathy, and compassion.
The Academic Relational Civility Scale was developed by adapting the 26 items of the Workplace Relational Civility Scale (Di Fabio & Gori, 2016a) to the academic context, respecting its structure and the mirror modality. The Academic Relational Civility Scale consists of two specular parts: Part A- Me with others in the academic context; Part B- Others with me in the academic context. The “mirror” modality permits academic relational civility to be assessed both from one’s own perspective and from the perspective of others at the same time, allowing us to detect any discrepancy between the individual’s point of view and that of others. This modality allows individuals to reflect on their own role in relational processes relative to academic relational civility, increasing their awareness of relational dynamics in the academic context. Academic relational civility appears to be a fundamental construct which helps in promoting the well-being and academic success of students in a primary prevention perspective (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016a; Hage et al., 2007; Kenny & Hage, 2009).
According to this framework, the aim of this study is to analyse the psychometric properties of the Academic Relational Civility Scale.
Material and methods
Participants
Two hundred and sixty three Italian university students from the university of Florence participated in the study. With regards to gender, men comprised 39.67% of the participants and women 60.33%. The participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 26 years (M = 23.67, SD = 2.95).
Measures
Academic Relational Civility Scale (ARCS). The Academic Relational Civility Scale by Di Fabio was used to evaluate the three dimensions of academic relational civility: Relational Decency (RD, examples of items: «I was able to express my point of view without being disrespectful», «Others were able to express their point of view without being disrespectful towards me»); Relational Culture (RCu, examples of items: «I was generally kind toward others», «Others were generally kind towards me»); and Relational Readiness (RR, examples of items: «I was sensitive about the difficulties of others»; «Others were sensitive about my difficulties»). Each dimension comprises items relating to Parts A and B. Part A regards the individual’s perception of themselves with respect to a particular aspect of relational functioning (example of item: «I was polite towards others»), while Part B concerns the individual’s perception of others with regard to the same aspect of functioning (example of item: «Others were polite towards me»). RD encompasses 4 items for part A and 4 items for part B; RCu includes 4 items for part A and 4 for part B; and the RR dimension comprises 5 items for part A and 5 items for part B. The participants in this study were asked to describe their relationships with others in the academic context over the past 3 months, and then to describe their perception of others’ relationships or interactions with them in the academic context over the same time period. The items have a response format on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal. The psychometric properties of this scale will be analysed in this study.
Positive Relational Management Scale (PRMS). To evaluate positive relational management the Positive Relational Management Scale (Di Fabio, 2016b) was used. The scale comprises 12 items with a response format on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. This scale permits three dimensions to be detected: Respect (example of item: «I have respect for the value and uniqueness of others»), Caring (example of item: «I keep a balance between taking care of others and of myself»), and Connectedness (example of item: «I have good relationships with significant others»). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were: .82 for Respect, .80 for Caring, .81 for Connectedness, and .85 for the total score.
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). To evaluate perceived social support, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) in the Italian version by Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2015) was used. This scale comprises 12 items with a response format on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scale has three dimensions: Family (example of item: «I can talk about my problems with my family»), Friends (example of item: « I can count on my friends when things go wrong»), and Significant others (example of item: «There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows»). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were: .91 for Family, .93 for Friends, .88 for Significant others, and .92 for the total score.
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). To evaluate life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) in the Italian version by Di Fabio and Gori (2016b) was used. It comprises 5 items with responses on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scale permits a global score of life satisfaction to be detected. Examples of items are: «In most ways my life is close to my ideal», «So far I have achieved the important things I want in life». The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the Italian version was .85.
Flourishing Scale (FS). To evaluate flourishing, the Flourishing Scale (FS; Diener et al., 2010) in the Italian version by Di Fabio (2016a) was used. The scale comprises 8 items with a response format on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scale permits a global score of flourishing to be detected. Examples of the items: «I am engaged and interested in my daily activities», «I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others», «I am a good person and live a good life». The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the Italian version was .88.
Procedure
The questionnaires were administered to university students in a group setting by trained psychologists, in line with the requirements of privacy and informed consent of Italian law (Legislative Decree DL-196/2003). The order of administration was counterbalanced by changing the sequence of administration of the questionnaires to control the effects of presentation order.
Data analysis
The factorial structure of the Academic Relational Civility Scale was evaluated through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with AMOS version 6 (Arbuckle, 2005), using the maximum likelihood method. The fit of empirical data to the theoretical model was analysed through different indices: the ratio between chi-square and degree of freedom (χ2/df), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Values of the ratio between chi-square and degree of freedom (χ2/gdl) included between 1 and 3 are considered indicators of a good adaptation. In relation to the TLI, Bentler and Bonnet (1980; Hu & Bentler 1999) affirm that a value greater than .90 represents a good fit. Concerning the CFI, values greater than .90 are considered good (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980). Values of the SRMR and of the RMSEA less than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) represent indices of a good fit (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Muller, 2003; Steiger, 1990). The reliability of ARCS was verified through the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Concurrent validity was verified through correlations of ARCS with PSRM, MSPSS, SWLS and FS.
Results
To verify the three-dimensional structure of the Academic Relational Civility Scale (ARCS) a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was carried out. The indices of Goodness of Fit are reported in Table 1.
Table 1 – Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Goodness of Fit (N = 263)
|
ARCS |
χ2/gdl |
TLI |
CFI |
SRMR |
RMSEA |
|
WRC (Part A) |
1.47 |
.95 |
.96 |
.05 |
.06 |
|
WRC (Part B) |
1.95 |
.91 |
.92 |
.07 |
.08 |
In relation to the considered indices, the Italian version of the scale confirmed a three-dimensional structure.
Regarding internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are: .85 for Part A and .89 for Part B. Furthermore, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the three factors of Part A are: .79 for Relational Decency, .80 for Relational Culture and .82 for Relational Readiness. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the three factors of Part B are: 83 for Relational Decency, .86 for Relational Culture and .84 for Relational Readiness.
Regarding concurrent validity, correlations are reported in Table 2.
Table 2 – Correlations of ARCS with PRMS, MSPSS, SWLS, and FS
|
|
PRMS |
MSPSS |
SWLS |
FS |
|
Relational Decency Part A |
.40** |
.31** |
.38** |
.40** |
|
Relational Culture Part A
|
.33** |
.30** |
.32** |
.39** |
|
Relational Readiness Part A |
.35** |
.30** |
.30** |
.38** |
|
ARC Part A
|
.43** |
.36** |
.39** |
.41** |
|
Relational Decency Part A |
.30** |
.28** |
.31** |
.30** |
|
Relational Culture Part B |
.32** |
.28** |
.32** |
.32** |
|
Relational Readiness Part B
|
.31** |
.30** |
.31** |
.30** |
|
ARC Part B
|
.34** |
.29** |
.37** |
.34** |
Nota. N = 263. **p < .01.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Academic Relational Civility Scale. The fit of the three-dimensional model was tested through Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The reliability of the scale was verified through Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The correlations between the two parts of the ARCS and their dimensions and the other constructs used to verify some aspects of concurrent validity are all significant and positive and thus in the expected direction. These correlations showed an adequate concurrent validity of the scale with reference to the effected measures. Individuals that perceive higher academic relational civility seem to perceive higher positive relational management and social support, and seem to have more life satisfaction and flourishing.
Despite the fact that the results of this study showed that the Academic Relational Civility Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for detecting academic relational civility in the Italian context, it is necessary to underline the limitation of having verified the psychometric properties of the scale only with university students from the University of Florence. Future research should therefore extend to participants from different geographical areas in Italy. This study could also be replicated in other countries, in order to verify the cross-cultural relevance of the construct.
Notwithstanding the limitations shown above, the Academic Relational Civility Scale (ARCS) emerges as an instrument capable of detecting academic relational civility in the Italian context. The availability of this scale opens new and promising perspectives for research and intervention, underlining the importance of academic relational civility for the well-being and academic success of students in a primary prevention perspective (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016a; Hage et al., 2007; Kenny & Hage, 2009).
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Bahar, H. H. (2010). The effects of gender, perceived social support and sociometric status on academic success. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3801-3805.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling and public policy. NY: Routledge.
Blustein, D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 1-17.
Blustein, D. L. (2013). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and public policy. New York: Routledge.
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). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Clark, C. M., & Springer, P. J. (2007). Incivility in nursing education: A descriptive study of definitions and prevalence. Journal of nursing education, 46(1), 7-14.
Cotton, S. J., Dollard, M. F., & De Jonge, J. (2002). Stress and student job design: Satisfaction, well-being, and performance in university students. International Journal of Stress Management, 9(3), 147-162.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of college student development, 46(3), 223-236.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156.
Di Fabio, A. (2014). Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: A new construct for the 21st century. Journal of Employment Counseling, 51, 98-111.
Di Fabio, A. (2016a). Flourishing Scale: Primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 9(1). doi: 10.14605/CS911606
Di Fabio, A. (2016b). Positive Relational Management for healthy organizations: Psychometric properties of a new scale for prevention for workers. In G. Giorgi, M. Shoss, & A. Di Fabio (Eds.), From organizational welfare to business success: Higher performance in healthy organizational environments. Research Topic in Frontiers in Psychology. Organizational Psychology, 7, 1523. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01523
Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016a). Assessing Workplace Relational Civility (WRC) with a new multidimensional “mirror” measure. In A. Di Fabio & D. L. Blustein (Eds.), From meaning of working to meaningful lives: The challenges of expanding decent work. Research Topic in Frontiers in Psychology. Section Organizational Psychology, 7, 890. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00890
Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016b). Measuring adolescent life satisfaction: Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in a sample of Italian adolescents and young adults. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 501-506.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2011). Promoting emotional intelligence and career decision making among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 21-34.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence and perceived social support among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Development, 39, 461-475.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2015). The contributions of emotional intelligence and social support for adaptive career progress among Italian youth. Journal of Career Development, 42, 48-59.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2016a). From decent work to decent lives: Positive Self and Relational Management (PS&RM) in the twenty-first century. In A. Di Fabio & D. L. Blustein (Eds.), From meaning of working to meaningful lives: The challenges of expanding decent work. Research Topic in Frontiers in Psychology. Section Organizational Psychology, 7, 361. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00361
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2016b). Promoting well-being: The contribution of emotional intelligence. In G. Giorgi, M. Shoss, & A. Di Fabio (Eds.), From organizational welfare to business success: Higher performance in healthy organizational environments. Research Topic in Frontiers in Psychology. Organizational Psychology, 7, 1182. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01182
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2015). Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS): Un contributo alla validazione italiana. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 8(3).
Ferguson, S. J., & Goodwin, A. D. (2010). Optimism and well-being in older adults: The mediating role of social support and perceived control. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 71(1), 43-68.
Friedlander, L. J., Reid, G. J., Shupak, N., & Cribbie, R. (2007). Social support, self-esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 48(3), 259-274.
Gallagher, E. N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2008). Social support and emotional intelligence as predictors of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1551-1561.
Guichard, J. (2013, November). Career guidance, education, and dialogues for a fair and sustainable human development. Inaugural conference of the UNESCO chair of Lifelong guidance and counseling, University of Wroclaw, Poland.
Hage, S. M., Romano, J. L., Conyne, R. K., Kenny, M., Matthews, C., Schwartz, J. P., & Waldo, M. (2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 493-566.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Kalpana Rani, E. (2016). Perceived social support and psychological well-being: Testing the unique association and gender differences among young working adults. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3, 99-113.
Kenny, M. E., & Hage, S. M. (2009). The next frontier: Prevention as an instrument of social justice. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 1-10.
Kong, F., Zhao, J., & You, X. (2013). Self-esteem as mediator and moderator of the relationship between social support and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Social Indicators Research, 112(1), 151-161.
Lee, R. L., & Loke, A. J. (2005). Health‐promoting behaviors and psychosocial well‐being of university students in Hong Kong. Public Health Nursing, 22(3), 209-220.
Li, J., Han, X., Wang, W., Sun, G., & Cheng, Z. (2018). How social support influences university students’ academic achievement and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of self-esteem. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 120-126.
Rosa, H. (2015). Accellerazione e alienazione: Per una teoria critica del tempo nella tarda modernità. Roma, Italia: Einaudi.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and goodness-of-fit models. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173-180.
Weeks, K. M. (2011). In search of civility: Confronting incivility on the college campus. New York, USA: Morgan James.
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie‐Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’: The role of social support in the first‐year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), 707-722.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30-41.
Autore per la corrispondenza
A. Di Fabio. Fax +39 055 2756134. Tel. +39 055 2755013.
Indirizzo e-mail: adifabio@psico.unifi.it
Department of Education and Psychology (Section of Psychology), University of Florence, Via di San Salvi 12 – Complesso di San Salvi, Padiglione 26, 50135, Florence, Italy.
Note
1 A
© 2017 Edizioni Centro Studi Erickson S.p.A.
ISSN 2421-2202. Counseling.
Tutti i diritti riservati. Vietata la riproduzione con qualsiasi mezzo effettuata, se non previa autorizzazione dell'Editore.
