The Cognitive Flexibility Scale is a brief self-report measure of cognitive flexibility developed by Martin and Rubin in the mid-1990s within communication research, where flexibility is treated as an integral component of communication competence.
It captures three interlocking components, awareness that alternatives exist in any situation, willingness to be flexible and adapt, and self-efficacy in being flexible, combined into a single total score with no subscales.
The evidence base covers acceptable internal consistency, good short-term stability, and convergent and discriminant validity against measures of communication flexibility, rigidity, and unwillingness to communicate, with later work adding agreement between self-ratings and friends' ratings and a strong relationship with the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory.
It measures perceived rather than performance-based flexibility: scores reflect beliefs about one's adaptability, no published cutoffs exist, and reported sample means are descriptive rather than normative.
At a Glance
Items
12 statements, all published in the original journal article
Administration time
About 5 minutes (typical for a 12-item scale; no published timing study)
Single total score (sum of all items after reversing items 2, 3, 5, and 10); range 12-72; no subscales
Validated populations
College students (development samples); mixed student and adult samples in later validation work
License
Free for research use with attribution; no commercial licensor
Original citation
Martin & Rubin (1995), Psychological Reports
Introduction
The Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS) is a 12-item self-report measure of cognitive flexibility, developed by Martin and Rubin (1995) within communication research rather than neuropsychology. The scale rests on the premise that before individuals can display flexibility in social situations, they must first be cognitively flexible: aware that options and alternatives are available in any given situation, willing to be flexible and adapt, and self-efficacious in being flexible (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Unlike performance-based measures of cognitive flexibility (such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test), the CFS assesses self-perceived flexibility: what respondents believe about their own capacity to recognize alternatives and adapt their communication behavior. Scores therefore describe a person’s flexibility-related beliefs and confidence, not their observed switching performance, and the two should not be treated as interchangeable.
Understanding Cognitive Flexibility in Communication
Martin and Rubin (1995) framed flexibility as an integral component of competence in communication. In their account, people who can acknowledge possible adjustments based on situational factors are more cognitively flexible than those who see only one proper or correct behavioral response. Flexible communicators can generate and weigh multiple approaches when handling interpersonal problems, which is why the construct matters for interpersonal effectiveness, conflict management, and adaptation across social contexts (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Theoretical Foundation
The scale operationalizes cognitive flexibility as three interlocking components (Martin & Rubin, 1995):
Awareness that in any given situation there are options and alternatives available. Awareness arises through social cognition: before deciding to adapt, people first become conscious of the choices open to them.
Willingness to be flexible and adapt to the situation. Awareness alone is not enough; people need a reason or motive before they are willing to make a change.
Self-efficacy in being flexible. Even people who see alternatives and are willing to adapt must also believe they can carry out the adapted behavior effectively.
The three components are measured jointly as a unified construct: the CFS yields one overall score, and Martin and Rubin (1995) reported no factor analysis and established no subscales.
🗣️ Key insight: The CFS treats cognitive flexibility as the precondition of flexible behavior: before people can communicate flexibly, they must be aware that alternatives exist, be willing to adapt, and believe they are able to do so (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
12 self-report items, reproduced in full in the original article (Martin & Rubin, 1995, Table 1)
6-point Likert response scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree
Single total score; the measure is treated as unidimensional, with no subscales
About 5 minutes to complete (a practical estimate; neither source paper reports administration time)
Development samples were U.S. college students; later validation used mixed student and adult samples (Martin & Anderson, 1998)
Free for research use with attribution to the original authors
Dimensions Assessed
Awareness – recognition that options and alternatives are available in any given situation
Willingness – openness and motivation to be flexible and adapt to the situation
Self-efficacy – confidence in one’s ability to behave flexibly and effectively
The three components are scored together as one total; they are conceptual facets of the construct, not separately scored subscales (Martin & Rubin, 1995).
Versions & Adaptations
Original 12-item CFS (Martin & Rubin, 1995) – the only English form; no short form or revised version was identified during verification
Translations – published translations and cross-cultural adaptations exist, including Japanese, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, and Turkish versions; validation quality varies by language and sample
Not a version: the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI; Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010) is a separate 20-item instrument with its own subscales, not a form of the CFS
Research Applications
Communication studies – interpersonal competence and communication effectiveness research
Organizational psychology – workplace communication, team dynamics, and leadership communication
Educational psychology – student communication skills and collaborative learning
Social and counseling psychology – interpersonal flexibility, social adaptation, and communication in helping relationships
Assess your cognitive flexibility in communication across awareness, willingness, and self-efficacy dimensions.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
The original instructions read: “The following statements deal with your beliefs and feelings about your own behavior. Read each statement and respond by circling the number that best represents your agreement with each statement” (Martin & Rubin, 1995, Table 1, p. 624). Each statement is rated on a 6-point Likert scale:
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Slightly disagree
4 = Slightly agree
5 = Agree
6 = Strongly agree
CFS Items
The items were published in full in the original article and are free to reproduce for research; the 12 items of the Cognitive Flexibility Scale (Martin & Rubin, 1995, Table 1, p. 624):
I can communicate an idea in many different ways.
I avoid new and unusual situations. (R)
I feel like I never get to make decisions. (R)
I can find workable solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems.
I seldom have choices when deciding how to behave. (R)
I am willing to work at creative solutions to problems.
In any given situation, I am able to act appropriately.
My behavior is a result of conscious decisions that I make.
I have many possible ways of behaving in any given situation.
I have difficulty using my knowledge on a given topic in real life situations. (R)
I am willing to listen and consider alternatives for handling a problem.
I have the self-confidence necessary to try different ways of behaving.
The CFS yields a single total score. No clinical cutoffs or normative bands have been published for the scale, and none are offered here; the sample means below are descriptive, not normative. Scores should be interpreted relative to comparable research samples, where means cluster around 54-55.
Sample
N
M
SD
Source
College students, Study 1 (all)
247
54.1
6.9
Martin & Rubin (1995), Table 2
College students, Study 1 (women)
142
54.4
6.3
Martin & Rubin (1995), Table 2
College students, Study 1 (men)
105
53.4
7.4
Martin & Rubin (1995), Table 2
Mixed college-student and adult sample
678
55.09
7.42
Martin & Anderson (1998), Study 1
General interpretation: higher scores indicate greater self-reported flexibility (awareness of behavioral options, willingness to adapt, and confidence in doing so); lower scores indicate greater self-reported rigidity. Because the CFS is a self-report measure, scores reflect beliefs about one’s flexibility rather than observed flexible behavior.
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency: α = .76 in the development study (Study 1, N = 247; Martin & Rubin, 1995, Table 2, p. 624); α = .81, .72, and .73 across the three later validity studies (Martin & Anderson, 1998); α = .79 and .78 across two administrations in an independent undergraduate sample (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010)
Test-retest reliability: r = .83 over one week in a sample of 50 students (Martin & Rubin, 1995, p. 625); r = .73 over seven weeks in an independent sample (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010)
These values indicate acceptable internal consistency for a 12-item measure and good short-term temporal stability.
Validity Evidence
Convergent validity:
In Study 1, cognitive flexibility scores were positively related to scores on the 14-item Communication Flexibility Scale, a measure of behavioral flexibility (Martin & Rubin, 1995, p. 624). In Study 2 (N = 275), cognitive flexibility was positively correlated with all three dimensions of the Interaction Involvement Scale (attentiveness, perceptiveness, and responsiveness) and with the three dimensions of self-monitoring (Martin & Rubin, 1995, pp. 624-625).
Martin and Anderson (1998, Study 1; N = 678) reported that cognitive flexibility was positively related to two identified constructs of communication competence:
Assertiveness: r = .49, p < .001
Responsiveness: r = .31, p < .001
Together the two variables had a multiple correlation of R = .55 with cognitive flexibility, accounting for 30% of the variance (Martin & Anderson, 1998, p. 4).
Discriminant validity (Martin & Rubin, 1995):
Rigidity of Attitudes Regarding Personal Habits Scale: r = −.16, p < .05 (Study 1; Table 2, p. 624)
Unwillingness to Communicate Scale: cognitive flexibility was negatively correlated with both dimensions of unwillingness to communicate — avoidance and value of communication (Study 2, pp. 624-625)
No significant gender differences: Martin and Rubin (1995) found no significant difference between women’s and men’s cognitive flexibility scores in either study (Study 1: t = 1.16, p > .05, p. 624; Study 2: t = 1.78, p > .05, p. 625).
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.
Subsequent Research
Martin and Anderson (1998) conducted three validity studies of the CFS:
Study 1 (N = 678): cognitive flexibility was positively related to assertiveness (r = .49) and responsiveness (r = .31), two identified constructs of communication competence (p. 4)
Study 2 (N = 33): participants’ self-ratings of their own cognitive flexibility were positively related to close friends’ ratings of them (r = .35, p < .05; r = .49 corrected for attenuation) (p. 5)
Study 3 (N = 101): cognitive flexibility was positively related to self-efficacy (confidence) in communication situations, correlating significantly in five of the seven rated situations (p. 6)
Dennis and Vander Wal (2010) used the CFS as a convergent validity criterion when developing their Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI). In their 7-week undergraduate study, the CFI correlated with the CFS at r = .73 (Time 1) and r = .75 (Time 2), both p < .001, with the two instruments sharing approximately 56% of their variance. The measures remain distinct: the CFS is communication-focused and unidimensional, whereas the 20-item CFI targets the cognitive flexibility needed to cope with difficult life events and has separate Alternatives and Control subscales (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010).
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Research Applications
Measuring individual differences in self-perceived cognitive flexibility, particularly in communication contexts
Examining relationships between cognitive flexibility and communication competence, interpersonal outcomes, and social adaptation
Assessing baseline flexibility and evaluating outcomes of communication skills training in educational and organizational settings
Research Design Considerations
Match the measure to the construct: the CFS captures perceived flexibility in communication; studies targeting performance-based set-shifting or executive function need a different instrument
Use the single total score: the three components are conceptual facets, not scored subscales; component-level analyses have no published basis in the original instrument
Interpret against comparable samples: published means are descriptive values from college and mixed student/adult samples, not norms or cutoffs
Cultural Considerations
The scale was developed and validated with U.S. college students; generalization to other populations should be checked rather than assumed
Translations and cross-cultural adaptations (Japanese, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Turkish, among others) have been published; check the local validation work for the language and population under study before use
Limitations and Cautions
Self-report: scores reflect beliefs about one’s flexibility and may not fully reflect actual behavioral flexibility
Social desirability: the positive connotations of adaptability invite overreporting
Communication-specific framing: developed within communication research; may not generalize to other flexibility domains
No clinical norms: no published cutoffs exist, so the scale cannot support clinical classification
Unidimensional structure: the single total score does not separate the awareness, willingness, and self-efficacy components
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 was published in full in the original journal article and is free for research use with proper attribution to the original authors. No commercial licensor was identified during verification.
Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Communication Reports, 11(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367680
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
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, framed by Martin and Rubin (1995) as a component of communication competence. It taps three interconnected components: awareness that options and alternatives are available in any given situation, willingness to be flexible and adapt, and self-efficacy in being flexible. The scale yields a single total score; the components are conceptual facets, not separately scored subscales.
How is the CFS scored?
Reverse-score the four designated items (items 2, 3, 5, and 10; reverse score = 7 minus the original score), then sum all 12 item responses. Total scores range from 12 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater self-reported cognitive flexibility. No subscales are calculated.
Is the CFS free to use?
Yes. The 12 items were published in full in the original journal article, and no commercial licensor was identified during verification. The scale is free for research use with proper attribution: cite Martin and Rubin (1995) when using or referencing it.
How reliable is the CFS?
Internal consistency was α = .76 in the development study (Martin & Rubin, 1995) and ranged from .72 to .81 across the three later validity studies (Martin & Anderson, 1998), with α = .78-.79 in an independent undergraduate sample (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010). Test-retest reliability was r = .83 over one week in the original work and r = .73 over seven weeks in the independent sample, indicating acceptable internal consistency and good temporal stability.
How does the CFS differ from the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI)?
The CFS is a 12-item, unidimensional measure of flexibility developed in communication research. The CFI (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010) is a separate 20-item instrument developed to measure the cognitive flexibility needed to cope with difficult life events, and it has two subscales, Alternatives and Control. In the CFI development study the two instruments correlated at r = .73-.75, sharing roughly 56% of their variance, so they overlap substantially while remaining distinct in focus and structure.
Are there cutoff scores or norms for the CFS?
No. No clinical cutoffs or normative bands have been published. Published sample means are descriptive reference points only: about 54 in the original college-student sample (Martin & Rubin, 1995) and about 55 in a large mixed student and adult sample (Martin & Anderson, 1998). Scores should be interpreted relative to comparable research samples, not against fixed thresholds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the CFS measure?
The Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS) measures self-perceived cognitive flexibility, framed by Martin and Rubin (1995) as a component of communication competence. It taps three interconnected components: awareness that options and alternatives are available in any given situation, willingness to be flexible and adapt, and self-efficacy in being flexible. The scale yields a single total score; the components are conceptual facets, not separately scored subscales.
How is the CFS scored?
Reverse-score the four designated items (items 2, 3, 5, and 10; reverse score = 7 minus the original score), then sum all 12 item responses. Total scores range from 12 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater self-reported cognitive flexibility. No subscales are calculated.
Is the CFS free to use?
Yes. The 12 items were published in full in the original journal article, and no commercial licensor was identified during verification. The scale is free for research use with proper attribution: cite Martin and Rubin (1995) when using or referencing it.
How reliable is the CFS?
Internal consistency was α = .76 in the development study (Martin & Rubin, 1995) and ranged from .72 to .81 across the three later validity studies (Martin & Anderson, 1998), with α = .78-.79 in an independent undergraduate sample (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010). Test-retest reliability was r = .83 over one week in the original work and r = .73 over seven weeks in the independent sample, indicating acceptable internal consistency and good temporal stability.
How does the CFS differ from the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI)?
The CFS is a 12-item, unidimensional measure of flexibility developed in communication research. The CFI (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010) is a separate 20-item instrument developed to measure the cognitive flexibility needed to cope with difficult life events, and it has two subscales, Alternatives and Control. In the CFI development study the two instruments correlated at r = .73-.75, sharing roughly 56% of their variance, so they overlap substantially while remaining distinct in focus and structure.
Are there cutoff scores or norms for the CFS?
No. No clinical cutoffs or normative bands have been published. Published sample means are descriptive reference points only: about 54 in the original college-student sample (Martin & Rubin, 1995) and about 55 in a large mixed student and adult sample (Martin & Anderson, 1998). Scores should be interpreted relative to comparable research samples, not against fixed thresholds.
