Immediacy and Learning Meta-Analysis 9
concerns have been raised about the validity of Gorham’s measure in relation to Mehrabian’s
original construct of verbal immediacy (Robinson & Richmond, 1995), this measure continues to
be employed in some immediacy research. By contrast, Jordan (1989; Jordan & Wheeless, 1990)
measured verbal immediacy through items more closely related to the verbal behaviors
delineated in Mehrabian’s original work, but Jordan’s unpublished measure has not been widely
adopted by other researchers.
Learning Measurement
Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives delineated the cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor domains of learning. Valid measurement of learning in these three domains has
proved problematic. Arguing that traditional learning indicators such as course grades do not
constitute valid measurement of cognitive learning gain (Richmond & McCroskey, 1992;
Richmond et al., 1987), some researchers have turned to student self-reports of perceived
learning as evidence of cognitive outcomes (e.g., Baker, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992;
Christophel, 1990; Folwell, 1995; McAlister, 2001; McCroskey et al., 1996a, 1996b; Menzel &
Carrell, 1999; Neuliep, 1995, 1997; Rodriguez et al., 1996; Schaller, 1993; Teven, 1998;
Thomas, 1994). The interpretation of Richmond et al.’s (1987) learning loss measure as an index
of cognitive learning was a widespread practice during the 90’s. This self-report of students’
perceived learning may provide useful data, if test-retest reliabilities are obtained and it is
collected along with other learning indicators. However, the essential question is whether this
type of perceived learning is indicative of cognitive learning as delineated by Bloom (1956).
Believing that recall, recognition, and retention provide more objective and valid data for lower-
level cognitive gain, some researchers have elected to measure cognitive learning through these
types of direct performance measures (e.g., Andersen, 1979; Comstock et al., 1995; Frymier &
Convention