That is, a person scoring high on one scenario is likely to score high on the other scenario received, while a person with a low breadth score on one scenario is likely to have a low breadth score on their other scenario. This suggests that breadth scores for the various scenarios are tapping some common dimension. Depth scores on each of the scenarios are related to the depth scores on each of the other scenarios. That is, a person with a high depth score on one scenario is likely to score high on the other scenario he or she responded to, and those scoring with a low on one scenario are likely to score low on their other scenario. This implies that the depth scores are indicators of a characteristic being tapped consistently across all the scenarios.
Depth is related to breadth.
The depth of the responses to the scenarios are correlated with the breadth of the scenario responses. That is, people with higher breadth scores also had higher depth scores. Questions were included in the survey relevant to each of these areas in order to construct a scale that could be correlated with the scenario breadth and depth measures. These scales were included to provide insight into how information competence as assessed through scenarios relates to other ways of getting at information competence. The pattern of relationships between the scenario breadth and depth measures of information competence and collateral aspects of information competence can help clarify the significance of the information competence scores.