A study by Malcolm R. Parks reported in "Communication Monographs" called into question the cross-situational validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA). Park's study, however, is flawed in many ways. He does not provide an adequate definition of "situation." Both the type of factor analysis he chose (orthogonal rotation) and his use of a two-factor solution for interpretation of the data reflect inaccurate assumptions. Given these problems, his study provided no real test of the cross-situational consistency of the PRCA. In fact, given the inappropriateness of Parks's design for testing the PRCA, the amount of cross-situational consistency he observed was quite remarkable. Another study used 295 teachers and 295 of their friends as the subjects of a test of the PRCA's cross-situational validity. The teacher subjects completed PRCAs for themselves and for their friends, and then their friends completed an identical task. Results indicated that the PRCA was a cross-situationally consistent predictive instrument. (JL)