Beyond Silence: Developing a Multidimensional Communication Avoidance Scale for Higher Education

Beyond Silence: Developing a Multidimensional Communication Avoidance Scale for Higher Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Beyond Silence: Developing a Multidimensional Communication Avoidance Scale for Higher Education Waleed Khalifa, Ahmed Abdulrahman Osman, Ashraf Ibrahim, Mohamed Nemt-allah This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6315802/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Face-to-face communication remains crucial in academic settings, yet university students encounter significant challenges in personal interactions. Despite the importance of interpersonal communication, existing measurement tools fail to comprehensively address the complex psychological, cultural, and linguistic barriers students experience. This study aimed to develop and validate a specialized scale to assess face-to-face communication avoidance among university students, providing a nuanced understanding of the factors influencing their communicative behaviors. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at Al-Azhar University, recruiting 411 students from two Education faculties. Participants completed a 43-item questionnaire designed to measure communication avoidance tendencies. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were employed to validate the scale's structure. Statistical techniques included Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, factor loadings calculation, and reliability coefficient assessment. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27.0 and AMOS version 26.0, with significance set at p < .05. Results The analysis revealed a robust three-factor structure explaining 47.836% of total variance: Situational Triggers (16.597%), Social Conformity Anxiety (16.319%), and Social Introversion (14.921%). Factor loadings ranged from .565 to .775 across dimensions. The scale demonstrated exceptional psychometric properties, with McDonald's ω values between 0.877 and 0.898, Cronbach's α between 0.876 and 0.897, and a Composite Reliability of 0.854. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the model's excellent fit, with indices including CMIN/DF of 1.721 and RMSEA of 0.042. Conclusions The Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale provides a sophisticated, culturally sensitive instrument for understanding communication barriers in university settings. By illuminating the multidimensional nature of communication avoidance, the scale offers researchers and educators a powerful tool for developing targeted interventions that support students' communicative development and promote more inclusive academic environments. communication avoidance university students face-to-face communication scale development communication anxiety Figures Figure 1 Introduction Face-to-face communication remains essential in academic and professional settings due to its significant impact on productivity and collaboration. It enables immediate information exchange, accelerating decision-making processes [ 1 ], while fostering trust and openness among faculty members vital for effective research partnerships [ 2 ]. For university students, these interactions are crucial for developing soft skills including networking, empathy, and adaptability [ 3 ]. Moreover, face-to-face communication helps overcome cognitive and organizational barriers present in digital interactions [ 4 ], while providing valuable opportunities for impression management through non-verbal cues [ 5 ]. Communication avoidance has been conceptualized through multiple theoretical lenses across research domains. It encompasses communication apprehension, defined as fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication [ 6 ], and has been modeled as involving conditioned anxiety, negative cognitive appraisal, and skills deficit [ 7 ]. Researchers identify it as multidimensional, with cognitive, affective, and behavioral modalities manifesting in various contexts [ 8 ]. Topic avoidance specifically involves either leaving conversations due to conflict concerns or remaining silent due to privacy considerations [ 9 ]. Additionally, communication avoidance is influenced by situational triggers and individual differences that create unique response profiles [ 10 ]. University students encounter multifaceted challenges in face-to-face communication across cultural, linguistic, and psychological dimensions. Cultural differences significantly impact group interactions, with Asian students reporting greater difficulties with feedback compared to European peers [ 11 ]. Social barriers between students and teachers often outweigh linguistic obstacles, affecting participation willingness [ 12 ]. Language proficiency issues, including pronunciation errors and limited vocabulary, impede effective communication [ 13 , 14 ]. Psychologically, anxiety and fear of making mistakes in front of peers create significant barriers [ 14 ], while varying interaction styles further complicate effective communication dynamics [ 15 , 16 ]. Recent technological and social changes have significantly impacted university students' communication preferences. Social media has enhanced digital literacy and communication skills [ 17 ], while smartphones have transformed social practices across education and daily life [ 18 ]. The internet offers both benefits and drawbacks, facilitating information access while potentially diminishing personal communication quality [ 19 , 20 ]. Generational differences exist, with younger students favoring digital methods [ 21 ], though students demonstrate remarkable adaptability across platforms [ 22 ]. Students expect institutions to utilize diverse communication channels including email and social media [ 23 ], while technology impacts parent-child relationships depending on communication repertoire and privacy concerns [ 24 ]. A specific measurement tool for face-to-face communication avoidance among university students is essential as it allows for tailored assessment of unique affective variables impacting willingness to communicate in person [ 25 ]. Cultural relevance ensures validity across populations [ 26 ], while comprehensive evaluation provides insights into physical interaction dynamics [ 27 ]. Face-to-face communication differs significantly from digital environments [ 28 ], necessitating distinct assessment approaches [ 29 ]. With students showing high preference for offline interaction despite barriers [ 30 ], and communication skills being crucial for academic success [ 31 ], a specialized tool enables effective intervention development [ 32 ]. Research on university students' communication avoidance reveals critical gaps in existing measures. These fail to adequately address cultural and linguistic barriers that impact student-instructor interactions [ 33 , 12 ], psychological factors like communication apprehension [ 34 , 26 ], and insufficient support for first-year students facing unique challenges [ 27 ]. Additionally, current measures lack comprehensive strategies [ 33 ], rarely consider the digital communication landscape [ 35 , 30 ], and overlook the underlying fears that influence communication strategies [ 36 , 37 ]. University settings present distinct aspects of face-to-face communication avoidance that require specialized assessment tools. The hierarchical nature of academic environments creates unique power dynamics between students and faculty that significantly influence communication patterns [ 12 , 33 ]. These dynamics differ substantially from workplace or social settings, as students must navigate relationships with instructors who simultaneously serve as mentors, evaluators, and authority figures. The classroom context presents challenges, as participation expectations often conflict with students' anxiety about peer judgment [ 14 ]. This classroom-specific communication apprehension manifests differently from general social anxiety and requires targeted measurement approaches. Furthermore, university campuses increasingly represent multicultural microcosms where students navigate complex intercultural barriers that shape avoidance behaviors [ 11 ]. International students face compound challenges of linguistic barriers, cultural adjustment, and academic integration simultaneously, creating unique avoidance patterns not observed in more homogeneous populations [ 13 ]. Additionally, the transitional nature of university life—particularly for first-year students—introduces distinctive communication challenges as students establish new identities and social networks [ 27 ]. Unlike stable community or workplace settings, university environments feature continual social reconfiguration that complicates communication norms. Today's university students exist at a unique intersection of digital fluency and required in-person interaction that creates specific avoidance patterns [ 35 ]. Unlike purely professional or social contexts, academic settings demand that students regularly transition between digital and face-to-face communication modes, often with the same individuals [ 30 ]. This digital-physical communication duality produces distinctive avoidance strategies as students navigate multiple communication channels simultaneously. These uniquely academic aspects of communication avoidance highlight the critical need for a specialized assessment instrument tailored to university contexts. Consequently, the primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a specialized Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale (FCAS) tailored specifically to university students' unique communication contexts. By constructing a comprehensive measurement tool that addresses the nuanced intersections of cultural, linguistic, psychological, and technological factors influencing face-to-face communication, this research aims to provide academic institutions with a robust instrument for understanding and addressing communication barriers. The proposed scale seeks to bridge existing methodological gaps by offering a culturally sensitive, multidimensional assessment that captures the complex dynamics of communication avoidance in contemporary university environments. Method Participants and Sampling The study was conducted at Al-Azhar University, employing a convenience sampling approach that recruited 411 university students from two faculties of Education. The participants' ages ranged from 18 to 23 years (Mage = 20.09; SD = 1.37). Table 1 presents the comprehensive demographic characteristics of the participants. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 411) Variable Category Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Gender Male 193 47.0 47.0 Female 218 53.0 100 Academic Year First Year 85 20.7 20.7 Second Year 112 27.3 48.0 Third Year 134 32.6 80.6 Fourth Year 80 19.4 100 Specialization Practical 258 62.8 62.8 Theoretical 153 37.2 100 Residence Urban 104 25.3 25.3 Rural 307 74.7 100 Social Media Usage User 273 66.4 66.4 Non-User 138 33.6 100 College Faculty of Education, Tafhna Al-Ashraf (Male) 193 47.0 47.0 Faculty of Education for Girls, Cairo 218 53.0 100 Instrument The primary research instrument was the FCAS, a comprehensive 44-item questionnaire designed to measure university students' tendencies to avoid face-to-face communication (see Supplementary File 1). The original scale was developed in Arabic and subsequently translated into English through a rigorous translation process involving three experienced bilingual specialists. The translation methodology included forward translation, synthesis of translations, back-translation, and careful review to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence. The questionnaire utilized a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, allowing participants to express their level of agreement with various statements related to face-to-face communication behaviors. Procedure Data collection was conducted during regular academic sessions at Al-Azhar University. Participants received clear instructions about the study's purpose and were guided through the survey completion process. The administration ensured voluntary participation and confidentiality of responses. Data Analysis The data analysis employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability analysis using SPSS version 27.0 and AMOS version 26.0 software. Statistical techniques included Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, factor loadings calculation, and assessment of reliability coefficients. Significance was set at p < .05, ensuring rigorous statistical evaluation of the scale's psychometric properties. Results The psychometric properties of the scale were rigorously examined through a comprehensive series of statistical analyses. The initial assessment began with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy, which returned a remarkable value of .952. This was further substantiated by Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, which demonstrated statistical significance (χ² = 9591.768, df = 946, p < .000), confirming the appropriateness of proceeding with factor analysis. The CFA revealed a sophisticated three-factor structure, which collectively explained 47.836% of the total variance. Specifically, the analysis uncovered three distinct factors: Situational Triggers accounting for 16.597% of variance, Social Conformity Anxiety explaining 16.319%, and Social Introversion contributing 14.921%. Table 2 Factor Loading Analysis of FCAS-29 Items Factor loading M SD Item total correlation Situational Triggers (Factor 1) 26.20 8.17 0.468 ** 10. I avoid participating in student activities that require direct interaction .775 2.56 1.12 0.627 ** 11. I feel nervous when speaking in work group meetings .709 2.66 1.09 0.660 ** 8. I feel distressed when asked to participate in group discussions .686 2.52 1.12 0.627 ** 5. I avoid working in study groups that require direct interaction .680 2.51 1.08 0.620 ** 1. I avoid situations that require me to speak in front of a large group of peers .674 2.81 1.23 0.610 ** 4. I hesitate to participate in class discussions even when I know the answer .616 2.74 1.11 0.601 ** 9. I hesitate to ask for help from my peers face-to-face .610 2.56 1.12 0.563 ** 13. I avoid attending social gatherings with my university colleagues .604 2.47 1.07 0.592 ** 2. I feel uncomfortable when I have to speak with my university professor in their office .602 2.68 1.13 0.529 ** 3. I prefer communicating online rather than attending face-to-face study meetings .565 2.68 1.19 0.440 ** Social Conformity Anxiety (Factor 2) 27.55 7.22 0.443 ** 32. I avoid situations that might cause embarrassment to me or others .756 3.23 1.12 0.469 ** 40. I worry about my actions being judged from a cultural perspective .727 3.31 1.19 0.466 ** 43. I hesitate to participate in discussions about culturally sensitive topics .689 3.17 1.09 0.486 ** 41. I avoid situations that might lead to conflict or disagreement .651 2.81 1.04 0.563 ** 42. I feel pressured to agree with others to maintain harmony .641 3.02 1.11 0.541 ** 44. I worry about not respecting acceptable social boundaries .634 2.99 1.11 0.561 ** 39. I avoid situations that require me to defend my point of view .617 2.76 1.07 0.569 ** 30. I feel embarrassed when talking about my personal achievements .608 3.07 1.28 0.536 ** 33. I worry about violating social norms during communication .604 3.15 1.13 0.487 ** Social Introversion (Factor 3) 26.96 8.15 0.435 ** 27. I hesitate to express my opinion for fear of criticism .676 3.02 1.25 0.607 ** 25. I find it difficult to maintain eye contact during conversations .671 2.74 1.16 0.593 ** 23. I prefer working alone rather than as part of a team .659 2.52 1.08 0.659 ** 21. I find it difficult to form new friendships at university .605 2.61 1.06 0.553 ** 24. I feel tense when trying to start a conversation with someone new .600 2.64 1.16 0.568 ** 20. I prefer listening to others rather than participating in conversations .579 2.35 1.16 0.503 ** 22. I feel exhausted after direct social interactions .573 2.86 1.24 0.528 ** 19. I feel that direct communication drains my energy significantly .573 3.13 1.17 0.553 ** 26. I feel that others misunderstand my expressions and gestures .572 2.62 1.18 0.657 ** 17. I feel that my personality makes me tend to be introverted in social situations .566 2.42 1.13 0.635 ** Table 2 provides a comprehensive breakdown of the factor loadings and item characteristics, revealing the intricate details of each factor. The Situational Triggers factor included items with factor loadings ranging from .565 to .775, capturing students' tendencies to avoid direct interactions. Notable items in this factor include avoidance of student activities requiring direct interaction (loading of .775) and feeling nervous during work group meetings (loading of .709). The Social Conformity Anxiety factor, with loadings between .604 and .756, illuminated students' concerns about social judgment and maintaining harmony. Key items in this dimension included avoiding situations that might cause embarrassment (loading of .756) and worrying about actions being judged from a cultural perspective (loading of .727). The Social Introversion factor, with loadings from .566 to .676, revealed the internal experiences of students finding social interactions challenging. Significant items included hesitation to express opinions due to fear of criticism (loading of .676) and difficulty maintaining eye contact during conversations (loading of .671). Following the exploratory factor analysis, a CFA was conducted to validate the proposed three-factor structure of the FCAS. Figure 1 illustrates the standardized CFA model, which demonstrates the relationships between the latent variables and their respective observed indicators. The model exhibited excellent fit indices (Table 3 ), confirming the robustness of the theoretical framework. Table 3 Model Fit Indices of FCAS-29 Index Value CMIN/DF 1.721 SRMR 0.059 CFI 0.948 NFI 0.900 IFI 0.948 RFI 0.900 GFI 0.900 AGFI 0.883 RMSEA 0.042 The model's fit was comprehensively assessed through confirmatory factor analysis, with results presented in Table 3 . The model demonstrated excellent fit indices, including CMIN/DF of 1.721, SRMR of 0.059, CFI of 0.948, and RMSEA of 0.042. These indices collectively suggest a robust alignment between the theoretical model and observed data. Reliability analysis, detailed in Table 4 , confirmed the scale's strong psychometric properties. McDonald's ω values ranged from 0.877 to 0.898 across factors, with Cronbach's α showing similar consistency (0.876 to 0.897). The overall scale exhibited exceptional reliability, with a Composite Reliability (CR) of 0.854 and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.666. Table 4 Reliability Coefficients of FCAS-29 Variable McDonald's ω Cronbach's α Guttman's λ2 Situational Triggers 0.898 0.897 0.898 Social Conformity Anxiety 0.877 0.876 0.870 Social Introversion 0.885 0.884 0.885 Total 0.937 0.937 0.939 The psychometric analysis of FCAS-29 reveals a robust and theoretically grounded instrument for assessing communication avoidance among university students. The three-factor structure—Situational Triggers, Social Conformity Anxiety, and Social Introversion—not only demonstrates strong statistical validity but also provides nuanced insights into the complex psychological mechanisms underlying face-to-face communication challenges. With exceptional reliability coefficients, high factor loadings, and excellent model fit indices, this scale offers researchers and educational practitioners a precise, culturally sensitive tool for understanding and addressing communication barriers in academic settings. Discussion The development of the Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale (FCAS-29) represents a significant advancement in understanding the complex psychological mechanisms underlying communication barriers among university students. By identifying three distinct factors—Situational Triggers, Social Conformity Anxiety, and Social Introversion—this study provides a nuanced framework for conceptualizing communication avoidance that extends beyond traditional unidimensional approaches [ 6 – 8 ]. The three identified factors of communication avoidance offer nuanced insights into students' psychological barriers. Situational triggers, such as loneliness and self-presentation concerns, can lead to cognitive overload and social media addiction [ 38 ], while social conformity anxiety manifests through fears of negative evaluation that directly impede academic achievement [ 39 ]. Social introversion further compounds these challenges, with students preferring social media communication to mitigate face-to-face interaction anxiety [ 40 ], ultimately reducing engagement and satisfaction in academic settings [ 41 ]. The three-factor structure revealed by our research offers profound insights into the multidimensional nature of communication avoidance. Unlike previous models that often treated communication apprehension as a monolithic construct, our findings demonstrate the intricate interplay between situational, social, and intrapsychic factors that shape students' communicative behaviors [ 9 , 10 ]. The Situational Triggers factor illuminates how specific academic and social contexts precipitate communication avoidance. With factor loadings ranging from .565 to .775, this dimension captures students' tendency to withdraw from direct interactions across various university settings, aligning with research by [ 13 , 14 ] on linguistic and psychological barriers to communication. These findings resonate with extensive literature on communication dynamics in higher education. Popov et al. [ 11 ] highlighted significant cultural differences in group interactions, while Imad [ 12 ] emphasized the complex power dynamics between students and faculty. The Social Conformity Anxiety factor, with factor loadings between .604 and .756, reveals the profound impact of cultural and social expectations on communication behaviors. This dimension critically explores how students navigate social boundaries, balancing individual expression with collective expectations in multicultural academic environments [ 15 , 16 ]. The Social Introversion factor, with loadings from .566 to .676, offers unprecedented insights into students' internal experiences of communication. Researchers like Li et al. [ 17 ] and Griškēviča [ 21 ] have documented generational shifts in communication preferences, with younger students demonstrating increasing comfort with digital platforms. Our research extends these insights by exploring the psychological landscape of communication avoidance, revealing how internal factors such as difficulty maintaining eye contact, preference for solitary work, and social interaction-induced exhaustion significantly impact students' communicative behaviors. The FCAS-29 represents a valuable diagnostic instrument for academic institutions, enabling administrators and educators to systematically assess and address students' communication difficulties [ 30 , 35 ]. This scale provides an evidence-based framework for developing tailored interventions targeting the multifaceted psychological barriers that hinder effective interpersonal communication in academic settings. The instrument's development responds to the increasingly complex communication environment in higher education, which requires continuous adaptation between digital and face-to-face interaction modalities [ 30 , 35 ]. Several methodological limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. The reliance on convenience sampling from a single university setting may affect the generalizability of results, indicating the need for cross-cultural validation across diverse institutional contexts [ 27 , 36 ]. Future research directions should include multi-institutional sampling strategies, examination of demographic variables in communication avoidance patterns, and longitudinal investigations of communication anxiety trajectories [ 27 , 36 ]. This study makes a significant contribution to the understanding of communicative behaviors in modern higher education environments, which are increasingly shaped by digital competencies, intercultural interactions, and dynamic social norms [ 31 , 32 ]. The FCAS-29 provides researchers and practitioners with a robust measurement tool that facilitates comprehensive examination of the psychological dimensions underlying student communication patterns, while addressing identified limitations in existing assessment approaches [ 31 , 32 ]. The FCAS-29 advances understanding of student communication in digital, multicultural academic environments [ 31 , 32 ]. This validated tool enables systematic examination of communication barriers, addressing existing measurement limitations while providing new insights into psychological-communicative interactions in higher education [ 31 , 32 ]. Ultimately, the Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale represents more than a measurement tool; it is a window into the intricate psychological experiences of university students navigating complex communicative landscapes. By illuminating the multifaceted nature of communication avoidance, we open new pathways for understanding, supporting, and empowering students in their academic and personal communicative journeys. The FCAS-29 provides university administrators, educators, and student support services with a sophisticated diagnostic tool for addressing communication challenges. Educational institutions can utilize the scale to develop targeted interventions tailored to the three identified factors. For situational triggers, universities might design structured communication workshops that gradually expose students to low-stakes interactive scenarios. Addressing social conformity anxiety could involve creating culturally sensitive communication training programs that validate diverse communication styles and reduce performance pressure. For students exhibiting social introversion, institutions could develop alternative communication platforms, such as mentorship programs with flexible interaction modes or technology-mediated communication opportunities that ease face-to-face anxiety. Several limitations of the current study must be acknowledged. The research was conducted exclusively at Al-Azhar University, utilizing a convenience sampling approach that may limit generalizability. The sample, while comprehensive, represents a specific cultural and educational context, potentially restricting the scale's broader applicability. The age range of participants (18–23 years) and the focus on Education faculty students further narrow the study's representativeness. Additionally, the self-report nature of the questionnaire introduces potential response bias, as participants might not accurately assess their communication behaviors. The FCAS-29 scale needs further research to enhance its applicability and understanding. This could involve cross-cultural validation in diverse university settings, longitudinal studies tracking communication avoidance patterns, investigating its correlations with psychological constructs like academic performance and social anxiety, developing intervention strategies based on identified factors, exploring demographic variables like gender, socioeconomic background, and technological exposure, and adapting the scale for different educational levels and professional contexts. Conclusion The Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale (FCAS-29) represents a significant advancement in understanding the complex psychological mechanisms underlying communication barriers among university students. By providing a nuanced, theoretically grounded, and empirically validated instrument, this research offers unprecedented insights into the multidimensional nature of communication avoidance. The scale not only measures communication challenges but invites a more empathetic, individualized approach to supporting student communication development, ultimately contributing to more inclusive and supportive educational environments. Declarations Ethical Approval The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education at Al-Azhar University, Dakahlia, Egypt (Ref. No. EDU-REC-2024-0353). All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Consent for publication Not Applicable. Consent to participate Written informed consent was obtained from all student participants. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Funding Not applicable Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author contributions WK conceptualized the research design and contributed to the theoretical framework of the study. MN wrote the manuscript and was primarily responsible for its final composition. AI conducted the statistical analysis. AO contributed to data collection and supported the methodological approach. All authors collectively reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript, ensuring its scientific integrity and academic rigor. Acknowledgements The authors extend their sincere gratitude to Al-Azhar University for providing the necessary institutional support and facilities for this research. Special thanks to the students from the Faculty of Education who participated in this study, and to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments significantly improved the manuscript's quality. References Battiston D, Vidal J, Kirchmaier T. Face-to-face communication in organisations [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2934290 Tan C. Enhancing knowledge sharing and research collaboration among academics: the role of knowledge management. High Educ. 2016;71:525–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9922-6 . Harris K, Williams J. Some Experiences Cannot Be Had at a Distance: The Importance of Face-to-Face Settings for Building Professional Networking Skills. Atl Mark J. 2014;3(5):1–15. Werker C, Ooms W. Substituting face-to-face contacts in academics’ collaborations: modern communication tools, proximity, and brokerage. Stud High Educ. 2019;45(7):1431–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1655723 . Hellmann A, Ang L, Sood S. Towards a conceptual framework for analysing impression management during face-to-face communication. J Behav Exp Finance. 2020;25:100265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100265 . Sakamoto M, Pribyl C, Keaten J. The history and current state of communication avoidance research. Jpn J Psychol. 1998;68(6):491–507. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.68.491 . Glaser S. Oral communication apprehension and avoidance: The current status of treatment research. Commun Educ. 1981;30(4):321–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378489 . Bell R. The multivariate structure of communication avoidance. Commun Monogr. 1986;53(4):365–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376150 . Sun K, Slepian M. The conversations we seek to avoid. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2020;160:87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.002 . Frederickx S, Mechelen I. Identifying the situational triggers underlying avoidance of communication situations and individual differences therein. Pers Individ Differ. 2012;52(3):438–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.004 . Popov V, Brinkman D, Fortuin K, Lie R, Li Y. Challenges home and international students face in group work at a Dutch university. Eur J Eng Educ. 2022;47(4):664–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2044762 . Imad M. Investigating Barriers of Oral Communication between University Teachers and Students: English Department Students as a Case Study. Int J Linguist Transl Stud. 2022;3(3):71–80. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v3i3.238 . Hamad K, Seyyedi K. Communication Challenges Facing Soran University Students in Speaking English as a Foreign Language. Int J Linguist Lit Transl. 2020;3(8):40–53. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt . Tran D, Mai N. Oral Communication Skills Among English-Majored Graduates: A Survey of Those at Companies in Binh Duong Province, Vietnam. J Law Sustain Dev. 2023;11(9):e1232. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i9.1232 . Kidd J. How does experience teaching in Japanese EFL classrooms inform English native-speaker educators classroom practices? The negotiation of face in university classrooms. J Politeness Res. 2022;18(2):423–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2020-0018 . Eklund M, Isotalus P. Having it both ways: learning communication skills in face-to-face and online environments. Front Educ. 2024;9:1270164. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1270164 . Li J, Man L, Chen P. Understanding the Influence of Social Media on University Students' Communication Skills in Digital Information Environment. Prof Inf. 2025;33(6):e330603. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2024.ene.0603 . Poltavskaya M, Khomutova N, Vasiliev E. Telecommunication Means of Communication as a Factor of Changing Social Practices of Students. Logos et Praxis. 2022;21(4):84–94. https://doi.org/10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2022.4.8 . Moisei A. The impact of the internet on student communication development. J Soc Sci. 2024;7(2):68–80. https://doi.org/10.52326/jss.utm.2024.7(2).07 . Syalwa J, Mzuhaffar M, Fadillah A. The impact of the use of technology on social interaction in communication science department students semester vi state Islamic university of North Sumatera. OPINI J Commun Soc Sci. 2024;1(2):27–33. https://doi.org/10.70489/opini.v1i2.323 . Griškēviča I. The psychological impact of changing habits in contemporary communication on education processes. Soc Integr Educ Proc Int Sci Conf. 2020;7:43–50. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol7.4813 . Hossain E, Cox A, Dowthwaite A, Rogers Y, Adaptive. Sociable and Ready for Anything: Undergraduate Students Are Resilient When Faced with Technological Change. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2024;8:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3653689 . Gilani D. Student attitudes and preferences towards communications from their university – a meta-analysis of student communications research within UK higher education institutions. J High Educ Policy Manag. 2024;46(3):274–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2024.2344234 . McCurdy A, Benito-Gomez M, Lee G, Fletcher A. College students’ perceptions of communication technology use and parent–child relationships. Emerg Adulthood. 2022;10(5):1118–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968211060954 . Mulyono H, Saskia R, Arrummaiza V, Suryoputro G. Psychometric assessment of an instrument evaluating the effects of affective variables on students’ WTC in face-to-face and digital environment. Cogent Psychol. 2020;7(1):1823617. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1823617 . Rimkeeratikul S. Intercultural Communication Apprehension (ICA) among BA and MA Students. LEARN J Lang Educ Acquis Res Netw. 2024;17(2):638–54. https://doi.org/10.70730/bsnc8514 . Chishiba C, Joseph M. Communication Skills Challenges Experienced by First-year University Students: A Systematic Review. J Educ Soc Behav Sci. 2024;37(6):465–77. https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2024/v37i61358 . Yin H, Shi L. Which Type of Interpersonal Interaction Better Facilitates College Student Learning and Development in China: Face-to-Face or Online? ECNU Rev Educ. 2021;5(1):209653112110108. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311211010818 . Sevim O, Veyis F. Cultural Avoidance Scale in Foreign Language Learning: Validity and Reliability Study. Eur J Educ Stud. 2020;7(2):19–40. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3714984 . Shrivastava G, Ovais D, Arora N. Measuring the walls of communication barriers of students in higher education during online classes. J Content Community Commun. 2021;13(7):263–71. https://doi.org/10.31620/JCCC.06.21/22 . Natalizi F, Gómez-Merino N, Arfé B, Ferrer A, Gheller F, Fajardo I. Being a deaf student in a face mask world: Survey data from Italian university students. Res Dev Disabil. 2023;143:104618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2023.104618 . Riboldi I, Calabrese A, Piacenti S, Capogrosso C, Paioni S, Bartoli F, et al. Understanding University Students' Perspectives towards Digital Tools for Mental Health Support: A Cross-country Study. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2024;20:e17450179271467. https://doi.org/10.2174/0117450179271467231231060255 . Freeman V, Loss S, Baese-Berk M. Interventions to improve undergraduate communication with international instructors. J Acoust Soc Am. 2023;153(3):A212. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0018688 . Amiri F, Puteh M. Strategies to Overcome Communication Apprehension during Academic Presentations: A Case of International Students in Malaysian Universities. J Intercult Commun. 2022;21(2):34–43. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v21i2.12 . Greenwald O, Islamov R. Communicative Patterns of University Students in Virtual Academic Netiquette. Virtual Commun Soc Netw. 2024;2:135–44. https://doi.org/10.21603/2782-4799-2024-3-2-135-144 . Ahmad S, Rahmat N, Shahabani N. Exploring Communication Strategies and Fear of Oral Presentation among Undergraduates. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2022;12(8):1810–32. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i8/14642 . Song Y, Wang L. A Study of Avoidance Phenomenon in College Oral English Course for Non-English Majors. Int J Lang Lit Linguist. 2023;9(3):229–34. https://doi.org/10.18178/IJLLL.2023.9.3.410 . Jabeen F, Tandon A, Azad N, Islam A, Pereira V. The dark side of social media platforms: A situation-organism-behaviour-consequence approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2023;186:122404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122104 . Brook C, Willoughby T. The Social Ties That Bind: Social Anxiety and Academic Achievement Across the University Years. J Youth Adolesc. 2015;44:1139–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0262-8 . Punyanunt-Carter N, Cruz J, Wrench J. Analyzing College Students' Social Media Communication Apprehension. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2018;21(8):511–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0098 . Pörhölä M, Almonkari M, Kunttu K. Bullying and social anxiety experiences in university learning situations. Soc Psychol Educ. 2019;22:723–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09496-4 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryFile1.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6315802","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":436140685,"identity":"3132e239-c114-4cb9-92ec-8cc59e39c8d9","order_by":0,"name":"Waleed Khalifa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al-Azhar University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Waleed","middleName":"","lastName":"Khalifa","suffix":""},{"id":436140686,"identity":"59df73de-cfaf-474a-ba5e-06092b89ecb7","order_by":1,"name":"Ahmed Abdulrahman Osman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zagazig University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ahmed","middleName":"Abdulrahman","lastName":"Osman","suffix":""},{"id":436140687,"identity":"fa79e90d-f00d-4c54-87b5-47cad47dcd7d","order_by":2,"name":"Ashraf Ibrahim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al-Azhar University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ashraf","middleName":"","lastName":"Ibrahim","suffix":""},{"id":436140688,"identity":"7f87dec6-fac3-4c2a-9a4b-ff3640fef73d","order_by":3,"name":"Mohamed Nemt-allah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al-Azhar University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohamed","middleName":"","lastName":"Nemt-allah","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-27 00:53:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6315802/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6315802/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79677439,"identity":"3995000c-d895-46ab-bc84-9d02d6ff90a0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-01 12:22:52","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":135666,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis Model of FCAS-29\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6315802/v1/d03f6c3a14b412c160cc142b.png"},{"id":86840738,"identity":"72f3f662-6e36-43b6-9164-acfe9be4b40a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-16 07:54:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1007108,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6315802/v1/08243287-58d9-41bd-b813-b0ebc86780bc.pdf"},{"id":79678817,"identity":"abbbea55-b954-4af8-9f64-bf263481bc88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-01 12:30:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":61581,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6315802/v1/7327c31b6080bf5b2546fb9a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Beyond Silence: Developing a Multidimensional Communication Avoidance Scale for Higher Education","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFace-to-face communication remains essential in academic and professional settings due to its significant impact on productivity and collaboration. It enables immediate information exchange, accelerating decision-making processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], while fostering trust and openness among faculty members vital for effective research partnerships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. For university students, these interactions are crucial for developing soft skills including networking, empathy, and adaptability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, face-to-face communication helps overcome cognitive and organizational barriers present in digital interactions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], while providing valuable opportunities for impression management through non-verbal cues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication avoidance has been conceptualized through multiple theoretical lenses across research domains. It encompasses communication apprehension, defined as fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], and has been modeled as involving conditioned anxiety, negative cognitive appraisal, and skills deficit [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Researchers identify it as multidimensional, with cognitive, affective, and behavioral modalities manifesting in various contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Topic avoidance specifically involves either leaving conversations due to conflict concerns or remaining silent due to privacy considerations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, communication avoidance is influenced by situational triggers and individual differences that create unique response profiles [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity students encounter multifaceted challenges in face-to-face communication across cultural, linguistic, and psychological dimensions. Cultural differences significantly impact group interactions, with Asian students reporting greater difficulties with feedback compared to European peers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Social barriers between students and teachers often outweigh linguistic obstacles, affecting participation willingness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Language proficiency issues, including pronunciation errors and limited vocabulary, impede effective communication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Psychologically, anxiety and fear of making mistakes in front of peers create significant barriers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], while varying interaction styles further complicate effective communication dynamics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent technological and social changes have significantly impacted university students' communication preferences. Social media has enhanced digital literacy and communication skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], while smartphones have transformed social practices across education and daily life [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. The internet offers both benefits and drawbacks, facilitating information access while potentially diminishing personal communication quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Generational differences exist, with younger students favoring digital methods [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], though students demonstrate remarkable adaptability across platforms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Students expect institutions to utilize diverse communication channels including email and social media [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], while technology impacts parent-child relationships depending on communication repertoire and privacy concerns [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA specific measurement tool for face-to-face communication avoidance among university students is essential as it allows for tailored assessment of unique affective variables impacting willingness to communicate in person [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Cultural relevance ensures validity across populations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], while comprehensive evaluation provides insights into physical interaction dynamics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Face-to-face communication differs significantly from digital environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], necessitating distinct assessment approaches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. With students showing high preference for offline interaction despite barriers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], and communication skills being crucial for academic success [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], a specialized tool enables effective intervention development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on university students' communication avoidance reveals critical gaps in existing measures. These fail to adequately address cultural and linguistic barriers that impact student-instructor interactions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], psychological factors like communication apprehension [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], and insufficient support for first-year students facing unique challenges [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, current measures lack comprehensive strategies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], rarely consider the digital communication landscape [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], and overlook the underlying fears that influence communication strategies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity settings present distinct aspects of face-to-face communication avoidance that require specialized assessment tools. The hierarchical nature of academic environments creates unique power dynamics between students and faculty that significantly influence communication patterns [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. These dynamics differ substantially from workplace or social settings, as students must navigate relationships with instructors who simultaneously serve as mentors, evaluators, and authority figures. The classroom context presents challenges, as participation expectations often conflict with students' anxiety about peer judgment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. This classroom-specific communication apprehension manifests differently from general social anxiety and requires targeted measurement approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, university campuses increasingly represent multicultural microcosms where students navigate complex intercultural barriers that shape avoidance behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. International students face compound challenges of linguistic barriers, cultural adjustment, and academic integration simultaneously, creating unique avoidance patterns not observed in more homogeneous populations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, the transitional nature of university life\u0026mdash;particularly for first-year students\u0026mdash;introduces distinctive communication challenges as students establish new identities and social networks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike stable community or workplace settings, university environments feature continual social reconfiguration that complicates communication norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eToday's university students exist at a unique intersection of digital fluency and required in-person interaction that creates specific avoidance patterns [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike purely professional or social contexts, academic settings demand that students regularly transition between digital and face-to-face communication modes, often with the same individuals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. This digital-physical communication duality produces distinctive avoidance strategies as students navigate multiple communication channels simultaneously. These uniquely academic aspects of communication avoidance highlight the critical need for a specialized assessment instrument tailored to university contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, the primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a specialized Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale (FCAS) tailored specifically to university students' unique communication contexts. By constructing a comprehensive measurement tool that addresses the nuanced intersections of cultural, linguistic, psychological, and technological factors influencing face-to-face communication, this research aims to provide academic institutions with a robust instrument for understanding and addressing communication barriers. The proposed scale seeks to bridge existing methodological gaps by offering a culturally sensitive, multidimensional assessment that captures the complex dynamics of communication avoidance in contemporary university environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and Sampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted at Al-Azhar University, employing a convenience sampling approach that recruited 411 university students from two faculties of Education. The participants' ages ranged from 18 to 23 years (Mage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.09; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.37). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the comprehensive demographic characteristics of the participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic Characteristics of Participants (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;411)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCumulative Percent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e218\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecialization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResidence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e307\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Media Usage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e273\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-User\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollege\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFaculty of Education, Tafhna Al-Ashraf (Male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFaculty of Education for Girls, Cairo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e218\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstrument\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary research instrument was the FCAS, a comprehensive 44-item questionnaire designed to measure university students' tendencies to avoid face-to-face communication (see Supplementary File 1). The original scale was developed in Arabic and subsequently translated into English through a rigorous translation process involving three experienced bilingual specialists. The translation methodology included forward translation, synthesis of translations, back-translation, and careful review to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence. The questionnaire utilized a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, allowing participants to express their level of agreement with various statements related to face-to-face communication behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection was conducted during regular academic sessions at Al-Azhar University. Participants received clear instructions about the study's purpose and were guided through the survey completion process. The administration ensured voluntary participation and confidentiality of responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data analysis employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability analysis using SPSS version 27.0 and AMOS version 26.0 software. Statistical techniques included Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, factor loadings calculation, and assessment of reliability coefficients. Significance was set at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, ensuring rigorous statistical evaluation of the scale's psychometric properties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe psychometric properties of the scale were rigorously examined through a comprehensive series of statistical analyses. The initial assessment began with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy, which returned a remarkable value of .952. This was further substantiated by Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, which demonstrated statistical significance (χ\u0026sup2; = 9591.768, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;946, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.000), confirming the appropriateness of proceeding with factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CFA revealed a sophisticated three-factor structure, which collectively explained 47.836% of the total variance. Specifically, the analysis uncovered three distinct factors: Situational Triggers accounting for 16.597% of variance, Social Conformity Anxiety explaining 16.319%, and Social Introversion contributing 14.921%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor Loading Analysis of FCAS-29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor loading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem total correlation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSituational Triggers (Factor 1)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.468\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10. I avoid participating in student activities that require direct interaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.775\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.627\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11. I feel nervous when speaking in work group meetings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.709\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.660\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. I feel distressed when asked to participate in group discussions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.686\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.627\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. I avoid working in study groups that require direct interaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.680\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.620\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I avoid situations that require me to speak in front of a large group of peers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.674\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.610\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. I hesitate to participate in class discussions even when I know the answer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.616\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.601\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. I hesitate to ask for help from my peers face-to-face\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.610\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.563\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13. I avoid attending social gatherings with my university colleagues\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.604\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.592\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. I feel uncomfortable when I have to speak with my university professor in their office\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.602\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.529\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. I prefer communicating online rather than attending face-to-face study meetings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.565\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.440\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Conformity Anxiety (Factor 2)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.443\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32. I avoid situations that might cause embarrassment to me or others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.756\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.469\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40. I worry about my actions being judged from a cultural perspective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.727\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.466\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43. I hesitate to participate in discussions about culturally sensitive topics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.689\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.486\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41. I avoid situations that might lead to conflict or disagreement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.651\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.563\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42. I feel pressured to agree with others to maintain harmony\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.641\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.541\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44. I worry about not respecting acceptable social boundaries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.634\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.561\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39. I avoid situations that require me to defend my point of view\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.569\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30. I feel embarrassed when talking about my personal achievements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.608\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.536\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33. I worry about violating social norms during communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.604\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.487\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Introversion (Factor 3)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.435\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27. I hesitate to express my opinion for fear of criticism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.676\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.607\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25. I find it difficult to maintain eye contact during conversations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.671\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.593\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23. I prefer working alone rather than as part of a team\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.659\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.659\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21. I find it difficult to form new friendships at university\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.605\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.553\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24. I feel tense when trying to start a conversation with someone new\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.568\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20. I prefer listening to others rather than participating in conversations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.579\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.503\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22. I feel exhausted after direct social interactions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.573\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.528\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19. I feel that direct communication drains my energy significantly\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.573\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.553\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26. I feel that others misunderstand my expressions and gestures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.572\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.657\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17. I feel that my personality makes me tend to be introverted in social situations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.566\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.635\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e provides a comprehensive breakdown of the factor loadings and item characteristics, revealing the intricate details of each factor. The Situational Triggers factor included items with factor loadings ranging from .565 to .775, capturing students' tendencies to avoid direct interactions. Notable items in this factor include avoidance of student activities requiring direct interaction (loading of .775) and feeling nervous during work group meetings (loading of .709).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Social Conformity Anxiety factor, with loadings between .604 and .756, illuminated students' concerns about social judgment and maintaining harmony. Key items in this dimension included avoiding situations that might cause embarrassment (loading of .756) and worrying about actions being judged from a cultural perspective (loading of .727).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Social Introversion factor, with loadings from .566 to .676, revealed the internal experiences of students finding social interactions challenging. Significant items included hesitation to express opinions due to fear of criticism (loading of .676) and difficulty maintaining eye contact during conversations (loading of .671).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the exploratory factor analysis, a CFA was conducted to validate the proposed three-factor structure of the FCAS. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the standardized CFA model, which demonstrates the relationships between the latent variables and their respective observed indicators. The model exhibited excellent fit indices (Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), confirming the robustness of the theoretical framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel Fit Indices of FCAS-29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCMIN/DF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.721\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.948\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.948\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAGFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.883\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model's fit was comprehensively assessed through confirmatory factor analysis, with results presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. The model demonstrated excellent fit indices, including CMIN/DF of 1.721, SRMR of 0.059, CFI of 0.948, and RMSEA of 0.042. These indices collectively suggest a robust alignment between the theoretical model and observed data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability analysis, detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, confirmed the scale's strong psychometric properties. McDonald's ω values ranged from 0.877 to 0.898 across factors, with Cronbach's α showing similar consistency (0.876 to 0.897). The overall scale exhibited exceptional reliability, with a Composite Reliability (CR) of 0.854 and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.666.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability Coefficients of FCAS-29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMcDonald's ω\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach's α\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuttman's λ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSituational Triggers\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.898\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.898\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Conformity Anxiety\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.877\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.876\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.870\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Introversion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.885\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.884\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.885\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.937\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.937\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.939\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe psychometric analysis of FCAS-29 reveals a robust and theoretically grounded instrument for assessing communication avoidance among university students. The three-factor structure\u0026mdash;Situational Triggers, Social Conformity Anxiety, and Social Introversion\u0026mdash;not only demonstrates strong statistical validity but also provides nuanced insights into the complex psychological mechanisms underlying face-to-face communication challenges. With exceptional reliability coefficients, high factor loadings, and excellent model fit indices, this scale offers researchers and educational practitioners a precise, culturally sensitive tool for understanding and addressing communication barriers in academic settings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe development of the Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale (FCAS-29) represents a significant advancement in understanding the complex psychological mechanisms underlying communication barriers among university students. By identifying three distinct factors\u0026mdash;Situational Triggers, Social Conformity Anxiety, and Social Introversion\u0026mdash;this study provides a nuanced framework for conceptualizing communication avoidance that extends beyond traditional unidimensional approaches [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three identified factors of communication avoidance offer nuanced insights into students' psychological barriers. Situational triggers, such as loneliness and self-presentation concerns, can lead to cognitive overload and social media addiction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], while social conformity anxiety manifests through fears of negative evaluation that directly impede academic achievement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Social introversion further compounds these challenges, with students preferring social media communication to mitigate face-to-face interaction anxiety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e], ultimately reducing engagement and satisfaction in academic settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three-factor structure revealed by our research offers profound insights into the multidimensional nature of communication avoidance. Unlike previous models that often treated communication apprehension as a monolithic construct, our findings demonstrate the intricate interplay between situational, social, and intrapsychic factors that shape students' communicative behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. The Situational Triggers factor illuminates how specific academic and social contexts precipitate communication avoidance. With factor loadings ranging from .565 to .775, this dimension captures students' tendency to withdraw from direct interactions across various university settings, aligning with research by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] on linguistic and psychological barriers to communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings resonate with extensive literature on communication dynamics in higher education. Popov et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] highlighted significant cultural differences in group interactions, while Imad [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] emphasized the complex power dynamics between students and faculty. The Social Conformity Anxiety factor, with factor loadings between .604 and .756, reveals the profound impact of cultural and social expectations on communication behaviors. This dimension critically explores how students navigate social boundaries, balancing individual expression with collective expectations in multicultural academic environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Social Introversion factor, with loadings from .566 to .676, offers unprecedented insights into students' internal experiences of communication. Researchers like Li et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] and Griškēviča [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] have documented generational shifts in communication preferences, with younger students demonstrating increasing comfort with digital platforms. Our research extends these insights by exploring the psychological landscape of communication avoidance, revealing how internal factors such as difficulty maintaining eye contact, preference for solitary work, and social interaction-induced exhaustion significantly impact students' communicative behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe FCAS-29 represents a valuable diagnostic instrument for academic institutions, enabling administrators and educators to systematically assess and address students' communication difficulties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. This scale provides an evidence-based framework for developing tailored interventions targeting the multifaceted psychological barriers that hinder effective interpersonal communication in academic settings. The instrument's development responds to the increasingly complex communication environment in higher education, which requires continuous adaptation between digital and face-to-face interaction modalities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral methodological limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. The reliance on convenience sampling from a single university setting may affect the generalizability of results, indicating the need for cross-cultural validation across diverse institutional contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Future research directions should include multi-institutional sampling strategies, examination of demographic variables in communication avoidance patterns, and longitudinal investigations of communication anxiety trajectories [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study makes a significant contribution to the understanding of communicative behaviors in modern higher education environments, which are increasingly shaped by digital competencies, intercultural interactions, and dynamic social norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. The FCAS-29 provides researchers and practitioners with a robust measurement tool that facilitates comprehensive examination of the psychological dimensions underlying student communication patterns, while addressing identified limitations in existing assessment approaches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe FCAS-29 advances understanding of student communication in digital, multicultural academic environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. This validated tool enables systematic examination of communication barriers, addressing existing measurement limitations while providing new insights into psychological-communicative interactions in higher education [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, the Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale represents more than a measurement tool; it is a window into the intricate psychological experiences of university students navigating complex communicative landscapes. By illuminating the multifaceted nature of communication avoidance, we open new pathways for understanding, supporting, and empowering students in their academic and personal communicative journeys.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe FCAS-29 provides university administrators, educators, and student support services with a sophisticated diagnostic tool for addressing communication challenges. Educational institutions can utilize the scale to develop targeted interventions tailored to the three identified factors. For situational triggers, universities might design structured communication workshops that gradually expose students to low-stakes interactive scenarios. Addressing social conformity anxiety could involve creating culturally sensitive communication training programs that validate diverse communication styles and reduce performance pressure. For students exhibiting social introversion, institutions could develop alternative communication platforms, such as mentorship programs with flexible interaction modes or technology-mediated communication opportunities that ease face-to-face anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations of the current study must be acknowledged. The research was conducted exclusively at Al-Azhar University, utilizing a convenience sampling approach that may limit generalizability. The sample, while comprehensive, represents a specific cultural and educational context, potentially restricting the scale's broader applicability. The age range of participants (18\u0026ndash;23 years) and the focus on Education faculty students further narrow the study's representativeness. Additionally, the self-report nature of the questionnaire introduces potential response bias, as participants might not accurately assess their communication behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe FCAS-29 scale needs further research to enhance its applicability and understanding. This could involve cross-cultural validation in diverse university settings, longitudinal studies tracking communication avoidance patterns, investigating its correlations with psychological constructs like academic performance and social anxiety, developing intervention strategies based on identified factors, exploring demographic variables like gender, socioeconomic background, and technological exposure, and adapting the scale for different educational levels and professional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale (FCAS-29) represents a significant advancement in understanding the complex psychological mechanisms underlying communication barriers among university students. By providing a nuanced, theoretically grounded, and empirically validated instrument, this research offers unprecedented insights into the multidimensional nature of communication avoidance. The scale not only measures communication challenges but invites a more empathetic, individualized approach to supporting student communication development, ultimately contributing to more inclusive and supportive educational environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education at Al-Azhar University, Dakahlia, Egypt (Ref. No. EDU-REC-2024-0353). All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all student participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWK conceptualized the research design and contributed to the theoretical framework of the study. MN wrote the manuscript and was primarily responsible for its final composition. AI conducted the statistical analysis. AO contributed to data collection and supported the methodological approach. All authors collectively reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript, ensuring its scientific integrity and academic rigor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors extend their sincere gratitude to Al-Azhar University for providing the necessary institutional support and facilities for this research. Special thanks to the students from the Faculty of Education who participated in this study, and to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments significantly improved the manuscript\u0026apos;s quality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBattiston D, Vidal J, Kirchmaier T. Face-to-face communication in organisations [Internet]. 2017. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2934290\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2139/ssrn.2934290\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan C. Enhancing knowledge sharing and research collaboration among academics: the role of knowledge management. High Educ. 2016;71:525\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9922-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10734-015-9922-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris K, Williams J. Some Experiences Cannot Be Had at a Distance: The Importance of Face-to-Face Settings for Building Professional Networking Skills. Atl Mark J. 2014;3(5):1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWerker C, Ooms W. Substituting face-to-face contacts in academics\u0026rsquo; collaborations: modern communication tools, proximity, and brokerage. Stud High Educ. 2019;45(7):1431\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1655723\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2019.1655723\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHellmann A, Ang L, Sood S. Towards a conceptual framework for analysing impression management during face-to-face communication. J Behav Exp Finance. 2020;25:100265. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100265\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100265\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSakamoto M, Pribyl C, Keaten J. The history and current state of communication avoidance research. Jpn J Psychol. 1998;68(6):491\u0026ndash;507. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.68.491\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4992/jjpsy.68.491\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlaser S. Oral communication apprehension and avoidance: The current status of treatment research. Commun Educ. 1981;30(4):321\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378489\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634528109378489\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBell R. The multivariate structure of communication avoidance. Commun Monogr. 1986;53(4):365\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376150\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03637758609376150\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun K, Slepian M. The conversations we seek to avoid. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2020;160:87\u0026ndash;105. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrederickx S, Mechelen I. Identifying the situational triggers underlying avoidance of communication situations and individual differences therein. Pers Individ Differ. 2012;52(3):438\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePopov V, Brinkman D, Fortuin K, Lie R, Li Y. Challenges home and international students face in group work at a Dutch university. Eur J Eng Educ. 2022;47(4):664\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2044762\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03043797.2022.2044762\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eImad M. Investigating Barriers of Oral Communication between University Teachers and Students: English Department Students as a Case Study. Int J Linguist Transl Stud. 2022;3(3):71\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v3i3.238\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.36892/ijlts.v3i3.238\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamad K, Seyyedi K. Communication Challenges Facing Soran University Students in Speaking English as a Foreign Language. Int J Linguist Lit Transl. 2020;3(8):40\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32996/ijllt\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran D, Mai N. Oral Communication Skills Among English-Majored Graduates: A Survey of Those at Companies in Binh Duong Province, Vietnam. J Law Sustain Dev. 2023;11(9):e1232. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i9.1232\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.55908/sdgs.v11i9.1232\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKidd J. How does experience teaching in Japanese EFL classrooms inform English native-speaker educators classroom practices? The negotiation of face in university classrooms. J Politeness Res. 2022;18(2):423\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2020-0018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/pr-2020-0018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEklund M, Isotalus P. Having it both ways: learning communication skills in face-to-face and online environments. Front Educ. 2024;9:1270164. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1270164\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2024.1270164\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi J, Man L, Chen P. Understanding the Influence of Social Media on University Students' Communication Skills in Digital Information Environment. Prof Inf. 2025;33(6):e330603. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2024.ene.0603\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3145/epi.2024.ene.0603\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoltavskaya M, Khomutova N, Vasiliev E. Telecommunication Means of Communication as a Factor of Changing Social Practices of Students. Logos et Praxis. 2022;21(4):84\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2022.4.8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2022.4.8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoisei A. The impact of the internet on student communication development. J Soc Sci. 2024;7(2):68\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.52326/jss.utm.2024.7(2).07\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.52326/jss.utm.2024.7(2).07\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSyalwa J, Mzuhaffar M, Fadillah A. The impact of the use of technology on social interaction in communication science department students semester vi state Islamic university of North Sumatera. OPINI J Commun Soc Sci. 2024;1(2):27\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.70489/opini.v1i2.323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.70489/opini.v1i2.323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGriškēviča I. The psychological impact of changing habits in contemporary communication on education processes. Soc Integr Educ Proc Int Sci Conf. 2020;7:43\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol7.4813\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17770/sie2020vol7.4813\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHossain E, Cox A, Dowthwaite A, Rogers Y, Adaptive. Sociable and Ready for Anything: Undergraduate Students Are Resilient When Faced with Technological Change. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2024;8:1\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1145/3653689\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1145/3653689\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGilani D. Student attitudes and preferences towards communications from their university \u0026ndash; a meta-analysis of student communications research within UK higher education institutions. J High Educ Policy Manag. 2024;46(3):274\u0026ndash;90. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2024.2344234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1360080X.2024.2344234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCurdy A, Benito-Gomez M, Lee G, Fletcher A. College students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of communication technology use and parent\u0026ndash;child relationships. Emerg Adulthood. 2022;10(5):1118\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21676968211060954\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21676968211060954\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulyono H, Saskia R, Arrummaiza V, Suryoputro G. Psychometric assessment of an instrument evaluating the effects of affective variables on students\u0026rsquo; WTC in face-to-face and digital environment. Cogent Psychol. 2020;7(1):1823617. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1823617\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/23311908.2020.1823617\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRimkeeratikul S. Intercultural Communication Apprehension (ICA) among BA and MA Students. LEARN J Lang Educ Acquis Res Netw. 2024;17(2):638\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.70730/bsnc8514\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.70730/bsnc8514\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChishiba C, Joseph M. Communication Skills Challenges Experienced by First-year University Students: A Systematic Review. J Educ Soc Behav Sci. 2024;37(6):465\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2024/v37i61358\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.9734/jesbs/2024/v37i61358\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin H, Shi L. Which Type of Interpersonal Interaction Better Facilitates College Student Learning and Development in China: Face-to-Face or Online? ECNU Rev Educ. 2021;5(1):209653112110108. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/20965311211010818\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/20965311211010818\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSevim O, Veyis F. Cultural Avoidance Scale in Foreign Language Learning: Validity and Reliability Study. Eur J Educ Stud. 2020;7(2):19\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3714984\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/zenodo.3714984\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShrivastava G, Ovais D, Arora N. Measuring the walls of communication barriers of students in higher education during online classes. J Content Community Commun. 2021;13(7):263\u0026ndash;71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31620/JCCC.06.21/22\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31620/JCCC.06.21/22\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNatalizi F, G\u0026oacute;mez-Merino N, Arf\u0026eacute; B, Ferrer A, Gheller F, Fajardo I. Being a deaf student in a face mask world: Survey data from Italian university students. Res Dev Disabil. 2023;143:104618. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2023.104618\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ridd.2023.104618\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiboldi I, Calabrese A, Piacenti S, Capogrosso C, Paioni S, Bartoli F, et al. Understanding University Students' Perspectives towards Digital Tools for Mental Health Support: A Cross-country Study. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2024;20:e17450179271467. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2174/0117450179271467231231060255\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2174/0117450179271467231231060255\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreeman V, Loss S, Baese-Berk M. Interventions to improve undergraduate communication with international instructors. J Acoust Soc Am. 2023;153(3):A212. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1121/10.0018688\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1121/10.0018688\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmiri F, Puteh M. Strategies to Overcome Communication Apprehension during Academic Presentations: A Case of International Students in Malaysian Universities. J Intercult Commun. 2022;21(2):34\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v21i2.12\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.36923/jicc.v21i2.12\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenwald O, Islamov R. Communicative Patterns of University Students in Virtual Academic Netiquette. Virtual Commun Soc Netw. 2024;2:135\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21603/2782-4799-2024-3-2-135-144\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21603/2782-4799-2024-3-2-135-144\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad S, Rahmat N, Shahabani N. Exploring Communication Strategies and Fear of Oral Presentation among Undergraduates. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2022;12(8):1810\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i8/14642\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i8/14642\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSong Y, Wang L. A Study of Avoidance Phenomenon in College Oral English Course for Non-English Majors. Int J Lang Lit Linguist. 2023;9(3):229\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18178/IJLLL.2023.9.3.410\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18178/IJLLL.2023.9.3.410\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJabeen F, Tandon A, Azad N, Islam A, Pereira V. The dark side of social media platforms: A situation-organism-behaviour-consequence approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2023;186:122404. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrook C, Willoughby T. The Social Ties That Bind: Social Anxiety and Academic Achievement Across the University Years. J Youth Adolesc. 2015;44:1139\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0262-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10964-015-0262-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePunyanunt-Carter N, Cruz J, Wrench J. Analyzing College Students' Social Media Communication Apprehension. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2018;21(8):511\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0098\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1089/cyber.2018.0098\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eP\u0026ouml;rh\u0026ouml;l\u0026auml; M, Almonkari M, Kunttu K. Bullying and social anxiety experiences in university learning situations. Soc Psychol Educ. 2019;22:723\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09496-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11218-019-09496-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"communication avoidance, university students, face-to-face communication, scale development, communication anxiety","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6315802/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6315802/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFace-to-face communication remains crucial in academic settings, yet university students encounter significant challenges in personal interactions. Despite the importance of interpersonal communication, existing measurement tools fail to comprehensively address the complex psychological, cultural, and linguistic barriers students experience. This study aimed to develop and validate a specialized scale to assess face-to-face communication avoidance among university students, providing a nuanced understanding of the factors influencing their communicative behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional study was conducted at Al-Azhar University, recruiting 411 students from two Education faculties. Participants completed a 43-item questionnaire designed to measure communication avoidance tendencies. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were employed to validate the scale's structure. Statistical techniques included Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, factor loadings calculation, and reliability coefficient assessment. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27.0 and AMOS version 26.0, with significance set at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed a robust three-factor structure explaining 47.836% of total variance: Situational Triggers (16.597%), Social Conformity Anxiety (16.319%), and Social Introversion (14.921%). Factor loadings ranged from .565 to .775 across dimensions. The scale demonstrated exceptional psychometric properties, with McDonald's ω values between 0.877 and 0.898, Cronbach's α between 0.876 and 0.897, and a Composite Reliability of 0.854. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the model's excellent fit, with indices including CMIN/DF of 1.721 and RMSEA of 0.042.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Face-to-Face Communication Avoidance Scale provides a sophisticated, culturally sensitive instrument for understanding communication barriers in university settings. By illuminating the multidimensional nature of communication avoidance, the scale offers researchers and educators a powerful tool for developing targeted interventions that support students' communicative development and promote more inclusive academic environments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Beyond Silence: Developing a Multidimensional Communication Avoidance Scale for Higher Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-01 12:22:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6315802/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"047d54ed-2a63-4543-af8d-8efc411d8f67","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 1st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-16T07:53:54+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-01 12:22:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6315802","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6315802","identity":"rs-6315802","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}