Diagnostic Analysis of Communication Skills

Running head: DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS
DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS
Introduction
The role of communication in the domain of business cannot be undermined. It goes a
long way in helping an individual to interact in the correct manner. The essay will be
highlighting the essential aspects of my communication and will be highlighting various
theoretical as well as practical instances (Cocks et al., 2014). The report shall diagnose and
analyzing the five essential communication tools used by me and help me to identify my areas of
weakness. An individual should always be up for taking up corrective measures I order to
improve their skills. I will be conducting an analysis and a literature review on the same. The last
part of the report will be focusing on an action plan which shall help me to improve my skills.
Diagnosis and Reflection
Analysis of diagnostic tools and Findings
In order to complete the assessment as a part of the coursework and to understand my
weaknesses I decided to take up the help of a diagnostic tool in order to analyze my personal
communication skills. The tools which I made use of are as follows. The Self Perceived
Communication Competence Questionnaire, the Personal Report of Intercultural Communication
Apprehension, the Talkaholic Scale, the Non-verbal Immediacy Scale and lastly the Tolerance
for Disagreement tool. The tools very highly complex in nature and involved a wide variety of
questions relating to my personal capabilities and other related aspects. These tools went a long
way in helping me to understand my shortcomings and guiding me towards the right path
(McNeill et al., 2016).
The first tool I used was the Self Perceived Communication tool. The tool involved a
competence Questionnaire in which I scored quite well. The tool helps in utilization and analysis

2DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS
of the competency of different people. In order to analyze the competency of an individual this
tool goes a long way in understanding the critical aspects of ones character. It states that when
there exist various receivers for a particular set of information, the person who is disseminating
the information reacts in a different manner. The score which I obtained in the given tool was 84
which is fairly high.
The second tool used was the Personal Report of Intercultural Communication
Apprehension. This tool is generally used in order to analyze the manner in which an individual
behaves when interacting with people belonging to other cultures. The score which an individual
receives in the given domain tends to determine his or her easiness around other cultured people
and helps in measuring their interactions based on other individuals. In this given scale I scored
51 which is fairly moderate. Although the score is fine there does exist some scope of
improvement for me in this aspect. Personally I feel that this is indeed a true reflection because I
often feel scared and uncomfortable while interacting with these people who are from a different
culture other than mine.
The third tool which I used for analyzing an interpreting various aspects of my character
was the Non Verbal Immediacy Scale Self Report. The tool helps in the analysis of different
individuals and their indicators with respect to the observation of how they tend to behave in
front of others especially in social gatherings and other such meetings (Utzinger et al., 2015).
The tool takes into consideration different aspects and the scores differ between genders. In this
given tool I got a low score of 80 which reflects that I fear social gatherings and my body
language and facial expressions fail to express my comfort and I may appear to be rude in certain
scenarios (Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). I fail at portraying cues about someone and this is a
major weakness in my communication aspect.

3DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS
The fourth tool which I made use of was the Tolerance for Disagreement. The given tool
helps analyzing the control level of an individual when he is face by a situation which does not
work in his favor (Mehrabian, 2017). This tool helps in the measurement of the fact that when a
person is faced by a scenario which is not favorable then what reaction does the person reflect.
This deals with the argumentativeness aspect of an individual and defines the extent to which an
individual would go in order to determine the right and the wrong thing (Marinho et al., 2017).
The ones who are more argumentative in nature have a lower tolerance level then the ones who
have a low argumentative nature. If an individual scores above 46 in this aspect it means that the
person has a high tolerance level. I scored a high 60 in this scale which shows that I am a highly
tolerant individual who has low argumentative skills. I easily agree with others and believe in
peaceful relationships.
The last tool used by me was the Talkaholic scale. The scale tends to measure the habit of
compulsive communication and tends to determine those individuals and their habits who talk
more than others. Although these people make sense when they talk, the general population falls
under the category of below 39. In general the score below 30 is considered to be fairly normal.
In this tool I achieved a score of 16 which is accurate (Knapp, Hall & Horgan, 2013). I believe
in listening more than speaking.
Hence, the results which I obtained from the diagnostic tools were fairly accurate and
true. They went a long way in helping me to identify the different strengths and flaws in my
character. Based on my observation it can be stated that I prefer learning and observing more
than speaking. Furthermore, I feel while uncomfortable around different cultured people but I am
highly tolerant. Lastly, I am extremely conscious about my body language and this tends to have
a negative impact on my image in social gatherings (Laske et al., 2015).