回声听力档案:四种听力习惯测量的初步有效性证据

Q1 Arts and Humanities International Journal of Listening Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1080/10904018.2019.1611433
G. Bodie, Jack Winter, Dana Dupuis, Tom Tompkins
{"title":"回声听力档案:四种听力习惯测量的初步有效性证据","authors":"G. Bodie, Jack Winter, Dana Dupuis, Tom Tompkins","doi":"10.1080/10904018.2019.1611433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article contributes to the larger literature on meaning construction and misunderstanding by developing a typology of listening habits and a corresponding scale to measure individual differences in typical ways of listening. Our typology includes four habits of listening grounded in two underlying aspects of meaning, content and relational, found in any spoken message. Analytical Listening (AL) involves filtering information through an interest in results and facts, while Conceptual Listening (CL) involves filtering information through an interest in concepts and possibilities. Connective Listening (CV) involves filtering information through interests in others (people, groups, processes, or audiences), while Reflective Listening (RV) involves filtering information through one’s own interests and purposes. Results from two studies provide construct, convergent, and discriminant validity evidence for the resulting ECHO Listening Profile. In particular, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to create a 40-item version of the ECHO Listening Profile (ECHO) that was shown to map onto a conceptually similar measure of listening habits, the Listening Style Profile; ECHO did not, however, fully duplicate that scale and thus adds to our knowledge of how all listening is biased. Moreover, through use of comparative forced-choice scaling, ECHO reduces concerns found with self-reporting of listening, including response bias. Future work investigating the impact of Connective, Reflective, Analytical, and Conceptual Listening on how people navigate their personal and professional lives is warranted.","PeriodicalId":35114,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Listening","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10904018.2019.1611433","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Echo Listening Profile: Initial Validity Evidence for a Measure of Four Listening Habits\",\"authors\":\"G. Bodie, Jack Winter, Dana Dupuis, Tom Tompkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10904018.2019.1611433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article contributes to the larger literature on meaning construction and misunderstanding by developing a typology of listening habits and a corresponding scale to measure individual differences in typical ways of listening. Our typology includes four habits of listening grounded in two underlying aspects of meaning, content and relational, found in any spoken message. Analytical Listening (AL) involves filtering information through an interest in results and facts, while Conceptual Listening (CL) involves filtering information through an interest in concepts and possibilities. Connective Listening (CV) involves filtering information through interests in others (people, groups, processes, or audiences), while Reflective Listening (RV) involves filtering information through one’s own interests and purposes. Results from two studies provide construct, convergent, and discriminant validity evidence for the resulting ECHO Listening Profile. In particular, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to create a 40-item version of the ECHO Listening Profile (ECHO) that was shown to map onto a conceptually similar measure of listening habits, the Listening Style Profile; ECHO did not, however, fully duplicate that scale and thus adds to our knowledge of how all listening is biased. Moreover, through use of comparative forced-choice scaling, ECHO reduces concerns found with self-reporting of listening, including response bias. Future work investigating the impact of Connective, Reflective, Analytical, and Conceptual Listening on how people navigate their personal and professional lives is warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Listening\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10904018.2019.1611433\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Listening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2019.1611433\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Listening","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2019.1611433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文通过发展听力习惯的类型学和相应的尺度来衡量典型听力方式的个体差异,为意义构建和误解的研究做出了贡献。我们的类型学包括四种听力习惯,它们建立在意义、内容和关系两个基本方面,存在于任何口语信息中。分析性听力(AL)通过对结果和事实的兴趣来过滤信息,而概念性听力(CL)通过对概念和可能性的兴趣来过滤信息。关联倾听(CV)涉及通过对他人(人、群体、过程或听众)的兴趣来过滤信息,而反思性倾听(RV)涉及通过自己的兴趣和目的来过滤信息。两项研究的结果提供了构建、收敛和判别效度的证据。特别是,探索性和验证性因素分析被用于创建一个包含40个项目的ECHO听力档案(ECHO)版本,该版本被证明可以映射到概念上类似的听力习惯测量,即听力风格档案;然而,回声并没有完全复制这个尺度,因此增加了我们对所有倾听是如何有偏见的认识。此外,通过使用比较强迫选择量表,ECHO减少了对自我报告倾听的担忧,包括反应偏差。未来的工作是调查连接性、反思性、分析性和概念性倾听对人们如何驾驭他们的个人和职业生活的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Echo Listening Profile: Initial Validity Evidence for a Measure of Four Listening Habits
This article contributes to the larger literature on meaning construction and misunderstanding by developing a typology of listening habits and a corresponding scale to measure individual differences in typical ways of listening. Our typology includes four habits of listening grounded in two underlying aspects of meaning, content and relational, found in any spoken message. Analytical Listening (AL) involves filtering information through an interest in results and facts, while Conceptual Listening (CL) involves filtering information through an interest in concepts and possibilities. Connective Listening (CV) involves filtering information through interests in others (people, groups, processes, or audiences), while Reflective Listening (RV) involves filtering information through one’s own interests and purposes. Results from two studies provide construct, convergent, and discriminant validity evidence for the resulting ECHO Listening Profile. In particular, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to create a 40-item version of the ECHO Listening Profile (ECHO) that was shown to map onto a conceptually similar measure of listening habits, the Listening Style Profile; ECHO did not, however, fully duplicate that scale and thus adds to our knowledge of how all listening is biased. Moreover, through use of comparative forced-choice scaling, ECHO reduces concerns found with self-reporting of listening, including response bias. Future work investigating the impact of Connective, Reflective, Analytical, and Conceptual Listening on how people navigate their personal and professional lives is warranted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Listening
International Journal of Listening Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INNATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRAITS AND THE ATTITUDES` ASSESSMENT TOWARD ACTIVE LISTENING AMONG EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS LISTENING TO BOOKS’ DURING THE PANDEMIC: EXAMINING THE USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF AUDIOBOOK LISTENING RHETORICAL LISTENING AS A PEDAGOGICAL TOOL IN HIGHER EDUCATION: EXPLORING THE BLACK PETE DEBATE IN FLANDERS RHETORICAL LISTENING AS A PEDAGOGICAL TOOL IN HIGHER EDUCATION: EXPLORING THE BLACK PETE DEBATE IN FLANDERS INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF RESPONSE FORMAT IN COMPUTER-BASED LECTURE COMPREHENSION TASKS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1