The CFS is a 12-item self-report measure assessing cognitive flexibility in communication through three components: awareness of alternatives, willingness to adapt, and self-efficacy in being flexible, yielding a single total score (range: 12-72).
The scale demonstrates acceptable reliability (α=0.76-0.77, test-retest r=0.83) and validity evidence including positive correlations with communication competence measures and negative correlations with rigidity and communication avoidance.
Taking only 5 minutes to complete, the CFS is freely available for research and useful for communication training evaluation, organizational assessment, educational applications, and studying interpersonal competence across diverse contexts.
Introduction
The Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS) is a 12-item self-report measure designed to assess cognitive flexibility as an essential component of communication competence. Developed by Martin and Rubin (1995), this scale captures individuals’ awareness of communication alternatives, willingness to adapt to situations, and self-efficacy in being flexible during interpersonal interactions.
Unlike performance-based measures of cognitive flexibility (such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test), the CFS assesses self-perceived flexibility in communication contexts—the individual’s awareness of their capacity for flexible communication and their confidence in applying it during social interactions. This makes it particularly useful for understanding how people approach communication challenges, adapt their communication styles, and demonstrate flexibility in interpersonal situations (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Understanding Cognitive Flexibility in Communication
Cognitive flexibility in communication represents the capacity to adapt one’s thinking and behavior to changing social demands. Martin and Rubin (1995) argue that before individuals can display flexibility in social situations, they must first be cognitively flexible – possessing awareness of behavioral options, willingness to be flexible, and confidence in their ability to adapt.
Why communication flexibility matters:
Interpersonal competence: The ability to adapt communication approaches enhances effectiveness in diverse social contexts and relationships.
Problem-solving in relationships: Flexible communicators can generate and consider multiple approaches when handling interpersonal problems (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Social adaptation: Understanding different perspectives and adjusting communication styles improves social effectiveness and relationship quality.
Professional success: Workplace communication, team collaboration, and leadership all require adaptability in communication approaches.
Conflict resolution: The capacity to consider alternative interpretations and responses facilitates constructive conflict management.
Research has shown that communication flexibility relates positively to communication competence measures and negatively to communication rigidity (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Theoretical Foundation
The CFS is grounded in communication theory and interpersonal competence research. Martin and Rubin (1995) conceptualized cognitive flexibility as comprising three interconnected components necessary for effective interpersonal communication:
1. Awareness of communication alternatives and options
This component reflects the recognition that multiple communication approaches, interpretations, and behavioral options exist for most social situations. High awareness involves:
Recognizing that ideas can be communicated in many different ways
Understanding that various behavioral options are available in social situations
Appreciating that different communication strategies may be appropriate in different contexts
Being conscious of one’s communication choices and their alternatives
2. Willingness to be flexible and adapt
Beyond mere awareness, communication flexibility requires openness and motivation to actually adapt one’s communication behavior. This includes:
Willingness to work at creative solutions to communication problems
Readiness to try different communication approaches when initial attempts fail
Openness to listening and considering alternatives for handling interpersonal problems
Motivation to adjust communication behavior to fit changing social circumstances
3. Self-efficacy in being flexible
The confidence component reflects belief in one’s capacity to successfully implement flexible communication:
Confidence in ability to communicate ideas in multiple ways
Belief in capacity to find workable solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems
Trust in one’s ability to act appropriately in various social situations
Self-assurance in making behavioral decisions and adapting when needed
These three components work together—awareness provides the recognition that communication alternatives exist, willingness provides the motivation to adapt, and self-efficacy provides the confidence to successfully implement flexible communication strategies.
The CFS measures these components as a unified construct, yielding a single overall score that captures general cognitive flexibility in communication contexts (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
🗣️ Communication Competence: Cognitive flexibility is an integral component of competence in communication, enabling individuals to adapt their behavior effectively across diverse social situations (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
12 items providing efficient assessment
5 minutes administration time
College students and adults as primary populations
Higher scores indicate greater cognitive flexibility in communication
Score Interpretation
The CFS yields a single total score representing overall cognitive flexibility. Martin and Rubin (1995) did not establish specific clinical cutoffs or normative ranges. Instead, scores should be interpreted relative to research samples:
Research norms (Martin & Rubin, 1995):
Study 1 (N=247 college students): M = 54.1, SD = 6.9
Study 2 (N=275 college students): M = 55.0, SD = 6.7
General interpretation:
Higher scores: Greater self-reported cognitive flexibility; likely to adapt communication styles effectively, generate multiple behavioral options, and demonstrate confidence in interpersonal situations
Lower scores: Greater self-reported cognitive rigidity; may experience more difficulty adapting communication approaches and generating alternative behavioral strategies
Note: The CFS assesses self-perceived cognitive flexibility in communication, not actual behavioral performance. Scores reflect beliefs about one’s flexibility rather than observed flexible behavior.
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency (Martin & Rubin, 1995):
Study 1: α = 0.76 (N=247 college students)
Study 2: α = 0.77 (N=275 college students)
These values indicate acceptable internal consistency for a 12-item measure.
Test-retest reliability (Martin & Rubin, 1995):
1-week interval: r = 0.83 (N=50 students)
This demonstrates excellent temporal stability over a short period.
Validity Evidence
Convergent validity (Martin & Rubin, 1995):
Study 1 showed positive correlations with:
Communication Flexibility Scale (behavioral flexibility): r = 0.53, p < .001
Study 2 showed positive correlations with measures of interaction involvement:
Attentiveness: r = 0.32, p < .001
Perceptiveness: r = 0.31, p < .001
Responsiveness: r = 0.42, p < .001
Discriminant validity (Martin & Rubin, 1995):
Negative correlations with:
Rigidity of Attitudes Regarding Personal Habits Scale: r = -0.16 (Study 1)
Unwillingness to Communicate Scale: Study 2 showed expected negative relationships with avoidance and communication value dimensions
No significant gender differences:
Martin and Rubin (1995) found no significant difference between men and women on cognitive flexibility scores (Study 1: t = 1.16, p > .05; Study 2: t = 1.78, p > .05).
Factor Structure
Martin and Rubin (1995) did not report a factor analysis or establish subscales. The measure is treated as unidimensional, yielding a single total score representing overall cognitive flexibility in communication.
Subsequent Research
Martin and Anderson (1998) further validated the CFS, demonstrating its relationships with:
Communication assertiveness
Responsiveness in interpersonal interactions
Overall communication competence
Dennis and Vander Wal (2010) examined the CFS in relation to their newly developed Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI), finding correlations of r = 0.73-0.75, suggesting substantial overlap while measuring related but distinct constructs.
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Research Applications
Communication studies examining interpersonal competence and communication effectiveness
Organizational psychology investigating workplace communication, team dynamics, and leadership communication styles
Educational psychology studying student communication skills and collaborative learning
Social psychology researching interpersonal flexibility and social adaptation
Counseling psychology examining therapeutic alliance and communication in helping relationships
Communication Assessment Applications
Communication training:
Assess baseline communication flexibility before training interventions
Evaluate effectiveness of communication skills programs
Identify individuals who may benefit from communication enhancement training
Organizational development:
Screen for positions requiring interpersonal flexibility
Assess team member communication adaptability
Guide leadership development programs focused on communication competence
Research applications:
Measure individual differences in communication-related cognitive flexibility
Examine relationships between cognitive flexibility and communication outcomes
Investigate moderators of communication effectiveness
Educational Applications
Student assessment:
Identify students who may struggle with collaborative learning situations
Assess readiness for group work and team-based learning
Evaluate communication skills for academic and professional contexts
Intervention planning:
Target communication skills training for students with lower flexibility scores
Design programs to enhance awareness of communication alternatives
Build self-efficacy in communication adaptability
Organizational Uses
Personnel selection:
Assess communication flexibility for customer-facing roles
Evaluate adaptability for team-based positions
Screen for roles requiring frequent interpersonal interaction and adjustment
Training and development:
Identify employees needing communication skills enhancement
Track development of communication competence over time
Evaluate effectiveness of communication training programs
Research Design Considerations
Appropriate uses:
Measuring self-perceived cognitive flexibility in communication contexts
Assessing communication competence components related to flexibility
Evaluating communication training program outcomes
Investigating individual differences in communication-related flexibility
Limitations and Cautions:
Self-report bias: May not fully reflect actual behavioral flexibility in communication
Social desirability: Participants may overreport flexibility given positive connotations of adaptability
Communication-specific: Developed for communication contexts; may not generalize to other domains
No clinical norms: Lacks established cutoffs for clinical interpretation
Unidimensional structure: Single total score limits assessment of specific flexibility components
Not performance-based: Assesses beliefs about communication flexibility rather than observed behavior
Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.
The Cognitive Flexibility Scale is available for research use with proper attribution to the original authors.
Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626.
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626.
Validation Studies:
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Communication Reports, 11(1), 1-9.
Related Research:
Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241-253.
A playful monkey swinging freely with ease and adaptability — the metaphor for cognitive flexibility measured by the CFS (Cognitive Flexibility Scale)
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the CFS measure?
The Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS) measures self-perceived cognitive flexibility in communication contexts. It assesses three interconnected components: awareness of communication alternatives, willingness to adapt communication behavior, and self-efficacy in being flexible during interpersonal interactions. The scale yields a single total score representing overall communication flexibility.
How long does the CFS take to complete?
The CFS takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. With only 12 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale, it provides an efficient assessment of cognitive flexibility in communication without placing significant burden on participants.
Is the CFS free to use?
Yes, the Cognitive Flexibility Scale is freely available for research use with proper attribution to the original authors. Researchers should cite Martin and Rubin (1995) when using or referencing the scale in their work.
How is the CFS scored?
The CFS is scored by reverse-scoring six designated items (7 minus original score), then summing all 12 item responses. Total scores range from 12 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater self-reported cognitive flexibility in communication. No subscales are calculated; only a single total score is used.
What's the difference between CFS and the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory?
The CFS focuses specifically on communication flexibility, measuring awareness, willingness, and self-efficacy in adapting communication behavior. The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI) by Dennis and Vander Wal (2010) measures broader cognitive flexibility including alternatives and control dimensions. While correlated (r=0.73-0.75), the CFS is communication-specific while the CFI addresses general cognitive flexibility.
How reliable is the CFS?
The CFS demonstrates acceptable to good reliability. Internal consistency ranges from α=0.76 to 0.77 across validation studies with college students. Test-retest reliability over one week is excellent at r=0.83, indicating strong temporal stability. These values support the scale's reliability for research applications.
