In Defense of the Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Scales

Two Studies Examining the Error Theory Underlying the Measurement Model of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

“…Infante et al () argued that treating the VAS as a unidimensional measure with one latent method factor was based on theory. Two points are important.…”

“…In such cases, item errors contain both systematic and random error. An error theory positing significant correlations among the error terms for all 10 VAS items affected by wording bias but uncorrelated error terms for the other 10 VAS items is precisely the error theory corresponding to Infante and Wigley's (1986) initial conceptualization and Infante et al's (2011) more recent stance. Unfortunately, this error theory has never been explored in the literature.…”

“…Several researchers have offered competing interpretations of the meaning of the second factor (Beatty, Rudd, & Valencic, 1999;Hamilton & Hample, 2011;Hamilton & Tafoya, 2012;Kotowski, Levine, Baker, & Bolt, 2009;Levine et al, 2004;Levine, Kotowski, Beatty, & Van Kelegom, 2012), but Infante and colleagues (Infante, Rancer, & Wigley, 2011) have insisted that the second factor is merely an artifact due to a latent method effect. Although researchers have suggested a variety of labels for the two factors, we have chosen to use verbal aggressiveness and verbal benevolence to facilitate comparison of our analysis to Infante and Wigley's (1986) original work.…”

Dispelling Four Myths about Correction for Attenuation in Communication Trait Research

“…Type II error is better than Type I error because the logic of hypothesis testing makes it easier to identify and refute Type II errors than is the case for Type I errors. As has been noted, one cannot confirm null hypotheses by statistical inference (Infante, Rancer, & Wigley, 2011). A Type II error can be discovered and strongly refuted by confirming the relevant research hypothesis, but a Type I error is difficult to refute because one cannot confirm (by inference) the relevant null hypothesis.…”

A Test of the Relationship Between Argumentativeness and Individualism/Collectivism in the United States and Finland

“…One side (e.g., Levine, Kotowski, Beatty, & Van Kelegom, 2012) asserts that the scale is inconsistent, it lacks construct validity, and thus the scale measures "want to be" argumentativeness and not "the tendency to engage in actual argumentativeness" (Levine et al, 2012, p. 95). Others (e.g., Infante, Rancer, & Wigley, 2011) defend the scale's validity, dimensionality, and theoretical construction. We use argumentativeness as conceptualized by Infante and Rancer (1982) with the hope of adding to this discussion.…”