| Metric name | Knowledge |
| Standards area | Communications lifecycle (awareness, knowledge, Interest and relevance, relationship, intent and preference, and advocacy) |
| Metric description and application | “The most basic and fundamental challenge in assuring the effectiveness of public relations is exposure of key messages about the brand, product, issue, or topic to the target audience. Many of these key messages are basic facts about the brand, product, issue, or topic that serves as the essential level of knowledge that is critical for a target audience to understand. Levels of agreement with statements that present factual knowledge is a highly effective tool that determines if exposure to the messages occurred and if there is initial acceptance of the messages. Knowledge testing can be supplemented with a credibility measure that determines if the overall story about the brand, product, service, topic or issue is believable.” (Michaelson and Stacks, 2011) |
| Status | Interim Standard |
| Standard or guideline | Standard |
| Metric type | Communications outcome: “Quantifiable changes in awareness, knowledge, attitude, opinion, and behavior levels that occur as a result of a public relations program or campaign; an effect, consequence, or impact of a set or program of communication activities or products, and may be either short-term (immediate) or long-term.” (Don Stacks, ed. 2006. Dictionary of Public Relations Measurement. Institute for Public Relations.)) |
| Detailed description.This is the actual standard, and must include full description of how to use this metrics. | The table below provides recommended survey questions to measure awareness using common survey methods. |
|
Data Collection Method |
Prototype Question |
Response Categories |
| Interviewer Administered | Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about a (brand/ product/ issue/ service/topic). That (brand/product/ service/ issue/topic) is a (insert category) called (insert name). After I read you each statement, please indicate if you “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” or “strongly disagree,” with each statement about (insert name). | List of attributes that describe the brand, product, services, issues or topics that are or should have been included in the communication. These attributes are typically read to respondents in a random sequence. |
| Self-Administered | Next, you are going to read a series of statements about a (brand/ product/service/ issue/ topic). That (brand/product/service/ issue/topic) is a (insert category) called (insert name). After you read each statement, please indicate if you “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” or “strongly disagree,” with each statement about (insert name). | List of attributes that describe the brand, product, service, issues or topic that are or should have been included in the communication. These attributes are typically presented to respondents in a random sequence if an online survey method is used. Answer categories are shown with each statement. |
| Interviewer or Self-Administered | Based on everything you have read, how believable is the information you just saw about the (brand/product/service/ issue/ topic)? By believable we mean that you are confident that what you are (seeing/reading/ hearing/observing) is truthful and credible. | The response categories for this question are typically a scale that measures an overall level of credibility or believability. One of the most common and reliable scales consists of five points ranging from ”very believable” to “very unbelievable” with a neutral midpoint |
| Source documents | David Michaelson, Ph.D. and Don W. Stacks, Ph.D. 2011. “Standardization in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation,” Public Relations Journal Vol. 5, No. 2. |
| Academic research supporting this standard. | See supporting documents. |
| Validity and reliability of the standard. This should reference formal, preferably published, research demonstrating the validity and reliability of the metric, or, in the absence of such research, the kind of research that should be conducted. | |
| Team leads and contact information | David Michaelson, Ph.D.: Teneo Strategy; Chair, Institute for Public Relations Research Fellows; and IPR Measurement CommissionProf. Don Stacks, Ph.D., University of Miami, Institute for Public Relations, and IPR Measurement Commission |
|
Data Collection Method |
Prototype Question |
Response Categories |
| Interviewer or Self-Administered | After (seeing/reading/ hearing/observing) this material would you say you are “very interested”, “somewhat interested”, “neither interested nor uninterested,” “somewhat uninterested” or “very uninterested” in this (brand/product/service/ issue/ topic)? | The response categories for this question are typically a scale that measures an overall level of interest. One of the most common and reliable scales consists of five points ranging from “very interested” to “very uninterested” with a neutral midpoint. The scale is similar to that used in the credibility or believability measure described in Table 1 |
| Source documents | David Michaelson, Ph.D. and Don W. Stacks, Ph.D. 2011. “Standardization in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation,” Public Relations Journal Vol. 5, No. 2. |
| Academic research supporting this standard. | See supporting documents. |
| Validity and reliability of the standard. This should reference formal, preferably published, research demonstrating the validity and reliability of the metric, or, in the absence of such research, the kind of research that should be conducted. | |
| Team leads and contact information | David Michaelson, Ph.D.: Teneo Strategy; Chair, Institute for Public Relations Research Fellows; and IPR Measurement CommissionProf. Don Stacks, Ph.D., University of Miami, Institute for Public Relations, and IPR Measurement Commission |
