Assessing work-related social skills: Existing approaches and instruments Jonathan Perry & David Felce Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities Cardiff University The importance of social relations and social competence to human beings According to Myers & Diener (1995), happiness is related to “knowing a person’s traits, whether the person enjoys a supportive network of close relationships, whether the person’s culture offers positive interpretation for most daily events, whether the person is engaged in work and leisure, and whether the person has faith which entails social support, purpose and hope” (p. 17). Social relationships and work are important elements in this quotation. Social relationships have been found to mediate stress and be positively associated with quality of life (House, 1981; Hughes et al., 1995; Schalock, 2000). For adults, working is clearly important in its own right, but it also contributes to social connectedness. Work settings are the second most important context for social relationships after the family home (Stewart, 1985). Moreover, social relationships are important to working. Studies conducted to find out why people with disabilities lose their jobs have shown that social factors are as important as any inability to carry out the tasks of the job (Ford et al., 1984; Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Hanley-Maxwell et al., 1986; Wehman et al., 1982; 1987). Therefore, there are life enhancement opportunities and job maintenance necessities to establishing social competence in the workplace among people with intellectual disabilities. Social competence Greenspan and Granfield (1992) set out a model of general competence which contains two components: instrumental and social competence. Both subdivisions contain intellectual and non-intellectual components. The intellectual component of social competence is reflected in two constructs: practical intelligence and social intelligence. Practical intelligence refers to activities of daily living typically measured by adaptive 1
44
Embed
Assessing work-related social skills: Existing approaches and
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Assessing work-related social skills: Existing approaches and instruments
Jonathan Perry & David Felce
Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities
Cardiff University
The importance of social relations and social competence to human beings
According to Myers & Diener (1995), happiness is related to “knowing a person’s
traits, whether the person enjoys a supportive network of close relationships, whether the
person’s culture offers positive interpretation for most daily events, whether the person is
engaged in work and leisure, and whether the person has faith which entails social
support, purpose and hope” (p. 17). Social relationships and work are important elements
in this quotation. Social relationships have been found to mediate stress and be positively
associated with quality of life (House, 1981; Hughes et al., 1995; Schalock, 2000). For
adults, working is clearly important in its own right, but it also contributes to social
connectedness. Work settings are the second most important context for social
relationships after the family home (Stewart, 1985). Moreover, social relationships are
important to working. Studies conducted to find out why people with disabilities lose
their jobs have shown that social factors are as important as any inability to carry out the
tasks of the job (Ford et al., 1984; Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Hanley-Maxwell et al.,
1986; Wehman et al., 1982; 1987). Therefore, there are life enhancement opportunities
and job maintenance necessities to establishing social competence in the workplace
among people with intellectual disabilities.
Social competence
Greenspan and Granfield (1992) set out a model of general competence which
contains two components: instrumental and social competence. Both subdivisions contain
intellectual and non-intellectual components. The intellectual component of social
competence is reflected in two constructs: practical intelligence and social intelligence.
Practical intelligence refers to activities of daily living typically measured by adaptive
1
behaviour checklists. Social intelligence refers "to a person's ability to understand and to
deal effectively with social and interpersonal objects and events. Included in this
construct are such variables as role-taking, empathic judgement, person perception, moral
judgement, referential communication, and interpersonal tactics" (Greenspan, 1979 p.
483). Such a construct can be further divided into: awareness (e.g., perspective-taking,
person perception, social inference, social comprehension) and skill (e.g., referential
communication, problem solving). The non-intellectual component of social competence
contains personality dimensions: temperament and character. Temperament may be
thought of as an inherited trait, whereas character may be considered susceptible to
environmental and/or self control. Together, these personality aspects of social
competence are closely related to the maladaptive or aberrant behaviour sections of most
widely available adaptive behaviour rating scales.
In similar vein, Haccou (2004) recognises that competence is a broader, more
situation specific construct than skill. In general, competence is a person's ability to
perform a certain task in a certain context at a certain moment. However, that
performance is defined not only by the person's skill (i.e., the ability to emit the
behaviour) but also by their attitude (personal traits and motivation), underlying
knowledge (information) and experience.
Such a view is supported by definitions of ‘occupational’ competence as "being
able to perform 'whole' work roles , to the standards expected in employment, in real
working environments" (Reid et al., 1992, p.236) … "… as opposed to mastery or
excellence, it is the necessary skills, knowledge, attitudes and experience required in
order to perform an occupational role to a satisfactory standard". Social competence in
the workplace would, therefore, refer to the satisfactory performance of the social aspects
of being a worker. These might be categorised as work-related, that is directly related to
doing the job (e.g., following directions, requesting assistance, sharing work information,
responding to managerial feedback ) or non-work-related, that is social behaviours
unrelated to job duties but important for establishing relationships (e.g., teasing, joking,
sharing information about interests, confiding, eliciting confidences).
2
Measuring social competence or social skills
The complexity in the conceptualisation of social competence set out above raises
a number of difficulties for assessment. Greenspan and Granfield (1992) recognise that
there are significant obstacles to measuring social intelligence. McGrew et al. (1996)
state that "although there have been efforts to operationalize the measurement of the
social intelligence construct, none to date has produced a practically useful assessment
tool similar in psychometric stature to the current collection of standardized measures of
intelligence and adaptive behavior" (p. 543).
It is clear from a variety of behavioural checklists or scales (see below) that the
assessment of social skills has been undertaken more successfully and that such
assessments have to some extent been a substitute for the assessment of social
competence. Schumaker and Hazel (1984) define a social skill as "any cognitive function
or overt behavior in which an individual engages while interacting with another person"
(p. 422). Cognitive functions include such capacities as empathy or understanding other
people's feelings, discriminating and making inferences about social cues, and predicting
and evaluating the consequences of social behaviour. Overt behaviours include the non-
verbal (e.g., eye contact, facial expression) and verbal (e.g., speech) components of social
expression. Citing Libet and Lewinsohn (1973) and Trower et al. (1978), they go on to
define social competence as involving "an individual's generative use of a variety of
cognitive and overt social skills that leads to positive consequences for him/her and those
interacting with him/her" (p. 422). Social competence is therefore seen as a composite of
four sets of skills: (a) discriminating situations in which social behaviour is appropriate
(e.g., determining whether someone is ready or too busy to talk), (b) choosing appropriate
verbal and non-verbal social skills (e.g., to fit the age, gender, or authority of the other
person), (c) performing these social skills fluently (e.g., according to current social
mores), and (d) accurately perceiving the other person's verbal and non-verbal cues and
adjusting to this feedback (e.g., stopping talking when the other person has tried to
speak). Possession of social skills may be a necessary condition, but fluent performance
of social skills is based not only on proficiency but also on motivation to use such skills,
which in turn is an issue of social understanding and of valuing the positive consequences
which successful social exchanges bring.
3
Moreover, the emphasis on satisfactory performance in the definitions of
occupational competence above suggests that competence may be a relative rather than
an absolute state (e.g., while generally behaving in a socially appropriate manner may be
important, it may not always be necessary to behave correctly; as there may be a certain
tolerance of inconsistency or of differences between individuals, such as relative shyness,
boisterousness etc.). In addition, judgements of competence may be holistic rather than
based on discrete elements (i.e., although a person may lack certain desirable skills,
strengths in other areas may compensate for the deficits so as to allow the person to be
seen overall as a sufficiently proficient worker). Therefore, although ratings of social
skills may be a guide to social competence, ideal proficiency may overestimate actual
environmental requirements.
Competence may also be situation specific (i.e., a person's ability to follow an
instruction may be adequate in a situation where instructions are simple and to be acted
on immediately, as in a flow of requests such as "pass me the hammer", "pass me a nail",
"hold that end" etc. but not if they are more complex, require to be remembered and
require reaction to a changing situation, as in the following: "check the pizza after 5
minutes, if the crust is golden brown, take it out; if not leave it for another minute and
check again"). In such cases, while highly developed social competence which is portable
from one setting to another may be a long-term instructional objective, more limited
social competence matched to the specific setting may be an adequate short-term goal.
Generalised social competence should not be inferred from such a restricted definition,
but on the other hand, it may not be a necessary developmental target. Where the severity
of intellectual disabilities or other disability (e.g., autism) makes generalised social
competence an unrealistic objective, it is important to restrict teaching to the particular
requirements of the setting (and to follow a 'place and train' supported employment model
rather than a 'train and place' vocational readiness model).
In the absence of any adequate measure of social intelligence, the assessment of
social competence necessarily relies on the assessment of the possession of social skills,
despite the limitations of this approach. This could be complemented by the assessment
of: (a) maladaptive behaviour, in order to gain information relevant to motivation,
temperament or character, and (b) the appropriateness and adequacy of social behaviour
4
in situ. However, in what is to follow, it must be remembered that researchers have
repeatedly emhasised that most assessment items in social skills inventories have been
selected for their face validity only. No-one has identified specific social skills that are
critical for social competence, which could therefore be seen as key teaching priorities.
The use of such assessment items as a guide to the selection of teaching targets in social
skills training is similarly limited. With this kept very much in mind, we can proceed to
the remit for this report, which was to review assessments of ‘vocational’ social skills.
Approaches to assessment
Schumaker & Hazel (1984) provide a typology of assessment approaches with a general
discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each type. They set a number of
criteria for ideal measurement of social skills functioning. An assessment must measure
whether or not skills are present in the person’s repertoire (overt and cognitive
behaviours), the quality of behavioural performance (sequences, timing, contexts,
content), the person’s physical appearance, and the use of skills in situations of interest
and the consequences of those behaviours. Overall, it is important to distinguish between
performance deficits and skill deficits. Moreover, in order to be psychometrically
acceptable, assessment devices must be reliable and valid, sensitive to changes in the
person, non-reactive, and capable of yielding diagnostic information specific to the skills
that should be taught. In addition, they must be quick and easy to use and not require
additional resources.
Four general approaches to social skills assessment are reviewed:
Observation and Coding of Behaviour. Social interactions of the person of interest
are defined in terms of a series of observational codes. The occurrence of these
coded behaviours is then observed and recorded to yield data on the frequency
and/or duration of their occurrence.
Advantages: (a) when used in natural contexts it reflects the behaviours a person
would typically exhibit, (b) it can be reliable if efforts are made to train the
observers and to carry out adequate inter-observer reliability checks, (c) it can be
used repeatedly in natural environments to evaluate change.
5
Disadvantages: (a) general measures of the frequency or duration of social
interaction do not have social validity or long-term predictive validity so specific
behaviours to be observed within interactions should be defined and coded
separately, adding to practical complexity, (b) the quality of behaviours is
difficult to distinguish and therefore rarely coded, (c) normative cut-off levels
with regard to performance of social skills have not been determined for
identifying individuals who need training, (d) the method is time-consuming and
difficult, (e) opportunities for the use of social skills of interest cannot be
guaranteed during scheduled observation sessions.
Observational checklists. Behaviours of interest which could occur in a specific
kind of interaction are listed. After watching an interaction, which could be in a
role-playing situation, naturally occurring situation, or a contrived situation within
the natural milieu, the rater indicates how well each behaviour was performed.
Role-play is quick and easy to do, but may not accurately reflect behaviours that
occur in natural situations. Observation in natural situations is optimal but
behaviours might not occur or might be inhibited by the observer’s presence.
Contrived situations programmed to occur without the advance knowledge of the
target person can be a good compromise.
Advantages: (a) the approach can be easy to use - little time is required to train
individuals to use checklists reliably or to record all behaviours in an interaction,
(b) it can allow the recording of overt verbal and non-verbal behaviours, the
circumstances surrounding the interaction, and the consequences of the behaviour,
(c) sequences and timing of behaviours can be recorded, enabling pinpointing of
specific behaviours to be taught, (d) it is more possible to specify and record
quality levels within responses, (e) it can be non-reactive and used repeatedly.
Disadvantages: (a) normative cut-off points have not been identified for
identifying social skill training needs, (b) behaviours not represented on the
checklist are not recorded.
Sociometric Assessment. This refers to the practice of determining how well-liked
or socially accepted individuals are. A measure might be devised comprising a
6
series of items representing a range of social relationship attributes each assessed
via a Likert-type or visual analogue scale. In a work setting, for example, the
workforce in a particular area might be asked to rate colleagues. The ratings are
averaged to obtain a measure of social acceptance.
Advantages: (a) the measure addresses the ultimate outcome precisely, that is, the
feelings of the specific peer group in a particular setting about an individual’s
social competence (a form of social validity), (b) the approach has been shown to
have good predictive validity and to be sensitive to changes in social behaviour,
(c) it has acceptable test-retest reliability, (d) it has been found to demonstrate
concurrent validity with behavioural measures, (e) normative data can be
obtained, (f) administration is quick and easy.
Disadvantages: (a) may be insensitive to change in situations where friendships,
likes and dislikes have become more stable, (b) results provide no diagnostic
information about which social skills to teach, (c) measures cannot be used too
often because they are reactive, (d) arguably, any use of ‘negative nomination’
(i.e., to identify individuals who are socially less acceptable or liked) might
encourage the rejection of people with disabilities or other differences.
Behavioural rating scales. These list several behaviours or descriptive items and
the respondent (person themselves or significant other) indicates whether the skill
is present in the person's repertoire or how well the behaviour is ‘emitted’.
Advantages: (a) quick and easy, (b) may indicate deficits from which targets can
be chosen for intervention, (c) normative data can be collected and criterion cut-
off points identified.
Disadvantages: (a) responses to items tend to be global indicators of a person’s
abilities; correlations with behavioural observations are not necessarily high (i.e.,
may be an inaccurate representation of actual behaviour in a specific setting);
performance deficits as opposed to skill deficits may be obscured.
7
Schumaker & Hazel (1984) conclude, as others have done since that time, that
none of the measurement types is ideal. Use of a combination of measurement
approaches is, therefore, advocated. For example, one type of instrument might be used
as a global screening device to identify social status and another to pinpoint particular
performance problems requiring intervention. Preferably, assessments should be based on
relevant situations in the natural environment (i.e., in this case, settings in the workplace
where the person of interest needs to behave in a socially acceptable or sufficiently
positive way).
Method of identifying published social skills assessments
A search of the published literature on social skills assessments was undertaken
(NB THIS USED ENGLISH LANGUAGE DATABASES AND KEY WORDS -
ATLAS WILL ALSO IDENTIFY EUROPEAN NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ASSESSMENTS. WA ALREADY IDENTIFIED SOME SOUCES, BUT WE THINK
THAT MORE WILL BE EXPECTED). This was supplemented by asking leading
academics from a range of English and non-English speaking countries who are
knowledgeable about vocational or other training of people with intellectual disabilities
to provide references to social skills assessments known to them (see Appendix 1 for
those who were contacted). Directly field-testing assessment instruments was not part of
this stage of the project. The remainder of this report summarises the literature identified
by the search procedure described below. As such, it is based on the work of others who
have discussed and field-tested measures, as opposed to direct experience of the measures
by the current authors.
A number of online databases at the University of Wales College of Medicine
(now part of Cardiff University) were interrogated to search for relevant literature. These
included: Psychinfo, which lists abstracts for the professional and academic literature in
psychology and related disciplines (psychiatry, education, linguistics, neurosciences,
etc.), and Medline, which lists abstracts in biomedicine, allied health, biological and
physical sciences, humanities and information science as they relate to medicine and
health care. The literature search was restricted to material published since 1980.
Searches were undertaken using various combinations of the following terms: social,
disabilities, intellectual disabilities, mental retardation, workplace, work, vocational. In
addition, journals which might not have been included in the online databases, but which
were likely to include literature on behavioural training, vocational training or intellectual
disability (e.g., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Research in Developmental
Disabilities, American Journal on Mental Retardation, European Journal of Special
Education, British Journal of Special Education) were searched manually.
Annotated directory of assessment instruments
The following is a list of assessment instruments together with the names of
authors, a brief description, and, where available, details of psychometric properties and
user-friendliness. Measures are grouped according to whether they are specifically
measures of social skills or more generically of adaptive behaviour, whether vocationally
oriented or not, and by age group (see Table 1 for a descriptive summary of the
characteristics of each measure). The majority of instruments were designed for use with
children, and do not relate specifically to vocational social skills. The dearth of
employment-related social skills assessments in comparison with strategies for teaching
social skills is something which (Meyer et al., 1990, p. 57) commented on:
"Despite the increased quantity and sophistication of efforts to teach social
skills, two issues remain unresolved. On the one hand, no overall
conceptualization of social competence exists to guide researchers or
practitioners. On the other hand, no one has identified specific social skills that
are critical for social competence and which might be considered intervention
priorities".
According to the comments of the experts in the field who were approached in the course
of the current project this statement appears to be a fairly accurate reflection of the
current situation.
The measures identified are first listed below and then described one by one.
Their characteristics are summarised in Table 1, which also includes contact details of
publishers or distributors.
1. General behavioural rating scales which include a section on social skills
9
Adaptive Behavior Scales (ABS)
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS)
The Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP)
Responsibility and Independence Scale for Adolescents (RISA)
2. Social skills assessments
(a) Adults
Matson Evaluation of Social Skills in Individuals with Severe Retardation (MESSIER)
Scale for the Evaluation of Social Abilities (VAS)
Assessment of social competence for children and young adults with developmental
disabilities (ASC)
Social Performance Survey Schedule-Revised (SPSS-R)
(b) Children & adolescents
Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters (MESSY)
School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2)
Home & Community Social Behavior Scales (HCSBS)
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)
Waksman Social Skills Rating Scale (WSSRS)
Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (WSSCSA)
The School Social Skills Rating Scale (SSSRS)
Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI)
3. Vocational assessment scales which include a section on social skills
Vocational Assessment and Curriculum Guide (VACG)
Transition Behavior Scales (2nd ed.) (TBS)
Transition Planning Inventory (TPI)
Occupational Skills Assessment Instrument (OSAI)
4. Dedicated vocational social skills assessments
Social Competence in the Workplace – experimental version (SCW)
10
Table 1 Social Skills Rating Scales
Acronym Date Focus Target group
Age range
Psycho-metrics Administration
(see key below)
dedicated social skills
dedicated vocational
general adaptive
behaviour ID gen
eric self-completion
profess- ional
others time
(mins) training software
ABS 1993 x x √ √ x 3-80 √ x √ x 30-45 √ √ VABS 1984 x x √ √ x all √ x √ x 20-90 √ √ ICAP 1986 x x √ √ x all √ x √ √ 15 x xRISA 1990 x x √ x √ 12-20 √ x √ √ 30-45 x x
MESSIER 1995 √ x x √ x ? √ x √ √ ? √ xVAS ? √ x x x √ ? √ x √ √ ? x xASC 1985 √ x x x √ all √ x √ √ 45 √ x
SPSS-R 1983 √ x x √ x adults x x √ √ ? x xMESSY 1983 √ x x x √ children √ √ √ √ 15 x xSSBS 2002 √ x x x √ 5-18 √ x √ x 5-10 x x
HCSBS 2002 √ x x x √ 5-18 √ x √ √ 5-10 x xSSRS 1990 √ x x x √ 3-18 √ √ √ √ 10-25 √ √
WSSRS 1985 √ x x x √ 5-18 √ x √ x 15-20 x xWSSCSA 1988 √ x x x √ 5-18 √ x √ x 10 x x
SSSRS 1984 √ x x x √ 5-18 √ x √ x 10 x xSBAI 1992 √ x x √ x grade k-9 √ x √ x 30-45 x x
VACG 1982 x √ x √ x adults √ x √ √ x xTBS-2 2000 x √ x x √ 12-18 √ √ √ x 15-20 x x
TPI 1997 x √ x x √ 14-25 √ √ √ √ ? x xOSAI 1980 x √ x x √ ? √ x √ x ? x xSCW 2004 √ √ x x √ ? ? x √ √ ? x x
11
Key Acronym Title Authors Publisher/Distributor Email URL
Arkowitz, H. (1981). Assessment of social skills. In M. Hersen & A. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral assessment (pp. 296-327). New York: Pergamon Press.
Bielecki, J. & Swender, S. (2004). The assessment of social functioning in individuals with mental retardation: A review. Behavior Modification, 28, 5, 694-708.
Brolin, D. (1997). Life Centered Career Education: A Competency Based Approach, 5th Edition. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Brown, L., Black, D., & Downs, J. (1984). School Social Skills Rating Scale. New York: Slosson Educational Publications.
Bruininks, R., Hill, B., Weatherman, R., & Woodcock, R. (1986). Inventory for Client and Agency Planning. Allen, Texas: DLM Teaching Resources.
Clark, G., & Patton, J. (1997). Transition Planning Inventory. Austin, TX: PRO ED.
Demaray, M., Ruffalo, J., Busse, R., Olson, A., McManus, S., & Leventhal, A. (1995). Social skills assessment: A comparative evaluation of six published scales. School of Psychology Review, 24, 618-671.
Elliott, S., Sheridan, S., & Gresham, F. (1989). Assessing and treating social skills deficits: A case study for the scientist-practitioner. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 197-222.
Ford, L, Dinen, J., & Hall, J. (1984). Is there a life after placement? Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 26, 258-270.
Greenspan, S. (1979). Social intelligence in the retarded. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.) Handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory and research (2nd ed., pp.483-531). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenspan, S., & Granfield, J. M. (1992). Reconsidering the construct of mental retardation: Implications of a model of social competence. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 442-453.
Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 23-38.
Gresham, F. (1981). Social skills training with handicapped children: A review. Review of Education Research, 51, 139-176.
Gresham, F., & Elliott, S. (1990). The Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Haccou, R. (2004). Labour-market related social competences. Paper prepared for the ATLAS project. Brussels: EASPD.
Hanley-Maxwell,C, Rusch, F. R., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Renzaglia, A. (1986). Factors contributing to job terminations. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 45-52.
29
Haring, T. (1991). Social Relationships. In L. Meyer, C. Peck & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 195-217). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Heber, R. (1961). A manual on terminology and classification on mental retardation, Second edition. Monograph supplement to the American Journal of Mental Deficiency. Washington DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hughes, C., Hwang, B., Kim, J., Eisenman, L. T., & Killian, D. J. (1995). Quality of life in applied research: A review and analysis of empirical measures. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 623-641.
Irvin, L., & Walker, H. (1994). Assessing children's social skills using video-based microcomputer technology. Exceptional Children, 61, 182-196.
Libet, J. M., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1973). Concept of social skills with special reference to the behavior of depressed persons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 304-312.
Lowe, M., & Cautela, R. (1978). A self report measure of social skill. Behavior Therapy, 9, 535-544.
Loyd, R., & Brolin, D. (1997). Life Centered Career Education: Modified Curriculum for Individuals with Moderate Disabilities. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Mathews, R., Whang, P., & Fawcett, S. (1980a). Behavioral assessment of job-related skills: Implications for learning disabled young adults (Research Report No. 6). Lawrence: KS: The University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
Mathews, R., Whang, P., & Fawcett, S. (1980b). Development validation of an occupational skills assessment instrument. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 71-85.
Mathews, R., Whang, P., & Fawcett, S. (1981). Behavioral assessment of job-related skills. Journal of Employment Counseling, 18, 3-11.
Mathews, R., Whang, P., & Fawcett, S. (1982). Behavioural assessment of occupational skills of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 38-41.
Matson, J. (1995). The Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals with Severe Retardation. Baton Rouge, LA: Scientific Publishers, Inc.
Matson, J., Helsel, W., Bellack, A., & Senatore, V. (1983). Development of a rating scale to assess social skill deficits in mentally retarded adults. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 399-407.
Matson, J., Le Blanc, L., & Weinheimer, B. (1999). Reliability of the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills in Individuals With Severe Retardation. Behavior Modification, 23, 647-661.
30
Matson, J., Rotatori, A., & Helsel, W. (1983). Development of a rating scale to measure social skills in children. The Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters (MESSY). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21, 335-340.
McCarney, S., & Sanderson, P. (2000). Transition Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Columbia, MO: Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc.
McConaughy, S. (1993). Advances in empirically based assessment of children's behavioral and emotional problems. School of Psychology Review, 22, 285-307.
McGrew, K. S., Bruininks, R. H., & Johnson, D. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analytic investigation of Greenspan's model of personal competence. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 553-545.
Menchetti, B., & Rusch, F. (1988). Reliability and validity of the vocational assessment and curriculum guide. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 283-289.
Merrell, K. (2002). School Social Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition. Eugene, OR: Assessment-Intervention Resources.
Merrell, K., & Caldarella, P. (2002). Home & Community Social Behavior Scales. Eugene,OR: Assessment-Intervention Resources.
Meyer, L., Cole, D., McQuarter, R., & Reichle, J. (1990). Validation of the Assessment of social competence (ASC) for children and young adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 57-68.
Meyer, L., Reichle, J., McQuarter, R., Evans, I., Neel, R., & Kishi, G. (1985). Assessment of social competence (ASC): A scale of social competence functions. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Consortium Institute.
Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19.
Nihira, K., Leland, H., & Lambert, N. (1993). Adaptive Behavior Scale, Second edition. Washington DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.
Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (undated). Social ability evaluation in Adults with Mental Retardation. Padova: Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, Service and Research Center on Disability, Handicap and Rehabilitation.
Odom, S., Peterson, C., McConnell, S., & Ostrosky, M. (1990). Ecobehavioral analysis of early childhood/specialized classroom settings and peer social interaction. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 316-330.
Reid, M., Barrington, H., & Kenney, M. (1992). Training Interventions, third edition. London: IPM.
Rusch, F., Schutz, R., Mithaug, D., Stewart, J., & Mar, D. (1982). Vocational Assessment and Curriculum Guide. Seattle, WA: Exceptional Education.
31
Sabourin, S., Laferriere, N., Sicuro, F., & Coallier, J.-C. (1989). Social desirability, psychological distress, and consumer satisfaction with mental health treatment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 36, 352-356.
Schalock, R. L. (2000). Three decades of quality of life. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 116-127.
Schumaker, J., & Hazel, J. (1984). Social skills assessment and training for the learning disabled: Who's on first and what's on second? Part 1. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 422-430.
Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Survey form manual. Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service.
Stephens, T., & Arnold, K. (1992). Social Behavior Assessment Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa,FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Stewart, N. (1985). Winning friends at work. New York: Ballantine Books.
Storey, K. (1996). Social validation issues in social skills assessment. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43, 167-174.
Storey, K. (1997). Quality of life issues in social skills assessment of persons with disabilities. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 32, 197-200.
Trower, P., Bryant, B., & Argyle, M. (1978). Social skills and mental health. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Waksman, S. (1985). The Waksman Social Skills Rating Scale. Portland, OR: ASIEP Education.
Walker, H., & McConnel, S. (1995). Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment. Belmont,CA: Thomson Publishing Company.
Wehman, P., Hill, J. W., Wood, W., & Parent, W. (1987). A report on competitive employment histories of persons labeled severely mentally retarded. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 11-17.
32
Appendix 1
Academics contacted for information about social skills assessments
Australia: Keith McVilly
Austria: Germain Weber
Belgium: Ghislaine Magerotte
Denmark: Per Holm
Finland: Leena Matikka
France: Charles Aussilloux
Ireland: Pat Walsh
Italy: Laura Nota, Salvatore Soresi, Giulio Lancioni
Netherlands: Michael Kamp, Marinka Trass
Norway: Jan Tossebro
Spain: Miguel Verdugo
Sweden: Kent Ericsson
UK: Steve Beyer, Justine Schneider, William Lindsay, Chris Cullen, Keith
Topping
US: Paul Wehman, Janis Chadsey, Jim Martin, Mike Callaghan, Luanna
Meyer, Mark Mathews, Johnny Matson, Gary Clark, Bradley Hill
33
Appendix 2 Adaptive and Maladaptive Behaviour Scales (This section is reproduced from web: www.cpinternet.com/~bhill/icap/compare.htm with permission from Brad Hill)
Materials
Full Scale
Manual: 287 pp. Response Booklet: 26 pp. Optional Interview Easel: 172 pp. Planning Worksheet: 2pp. (in response booklet) Software (Scoring & Reporting; PC/Mac)
Short Form Response Booklet: 8 pp. Response Booklet adapted for people who are blind Planning Worksheet: 2pp. Shares Full Scale Manual, Interview Easel, and software.
SIB-R
Early Development Form
Response Booklet: 8 pp. Planning Worksheet: 2pp. Shares Full Scale Manual, Interview Easel, and software.
Interview Expanded Form
Manual: 321 pp. Item Booklet: 16 pp. Score Summary & Profile Booklet: 12pp. Program Planning Report: 8 pp. Report to Parents: 4pp. (also in Spanish) Software (Apple II/PC)
Interview Survey Form
Manual: 301 pp. Record Booklet: 12 pp. (also in Spanish) Report to Parents: 4pp. (also in Spanish) Software (Apple II/PC)
Vineland
ABS
Classroom Edition
Manual: 175 pp. Questionnaire Booklet: 16 pp. Report to Parents: 4pp. (also in Spanish) Software (PC)
School Edition
Manual: 118 pp. Examination Booklet: 16pp. Profile/Scoring Form: 4 pp. Software (Scoring & Reporting; Apple/Mac/PC)
AAMR
ABS
2nd Ed. Residential & Community Edition
Manual: 76 pp. Examination Booklet: 16pp. Profile/Scoring Form: 4 pp. Software (Scoring & Reporting; Apple/Mac/PC)
34
SIB-R Content
Scale subscale N of Items Type of Score
Full Scale
Short Form
Early Dev. Age Pct Std
Broad Independence (Total) Motor Skills Gross Motor Fine Motor Social & Communication Skills Social Interaction Language Comprehension Language Expression Personal Living Skills Eating & Meal Preparation Toileting Dressing Personal Self-Care Domestic Skills Community Living Skills Time & Punctuality Money & Value Work Skills Home/Community Orientation
Maladaptive Behavior - General . Internalized Hurts Self Repetitive Habits Withdrawn or Inattentive Asocial Socially Offensive Uncooperative Externalized Hurts Others Destructive to property Disruptive
24 . 9 3 3 3 6 3 3 9 3 3 3
24 . 9 3 3 3 6 3 3 9 3 3 3
24 . 9 3 3 3 6 3 3 9 3 3 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
X . X . . . X . . X . . .
Note. The SIB-R also provides a Support Score, an overall score that combines adaptive and maladaptive behavior.
35
Vineland Content
Scale subscale N of Items Type of Score
Expand Surv Class Age Pct Std
Adaptive Behavior Composite . Communication Receptive Expressive Written Daily Living Skills Personal Domestic Community Socialization Interpersonal Relationships Play & Leisure Time Coping Skills Motor Skills (dev. age < 6) Gross Fine
541 .
133 23 76 34
201 90 45 66
134 50 48 36 73 42 31
261 .
67 13 31 23 92 39 21 32 66 28 20 18 36 20 16
244
. 63 10 29 24 99 36 21 42 53 17 18 18 29 16 13
X . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X . X . . . X . . . X . . . X . .
X . X . . . X . . . X . . . X . .
Maladaptive Behavior Part 1 (All children) Part 2 (Children with handicaps)
36 .
27 9
36 .
27 9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Note. Maladaptive behavior scale yields raw scores with interpretative levels.
36
AAMR ABS Content
Factor/Domain N of Items Type of Score
Resid/ Cmnty School Age Pct Std
Part I (Personal independence) Personal Self-Sufficiency Independent Functioning Physical Development Community Self-Sufficiency Independent Functioning Economic Activity Language Development Numbers & Time Domestic Activity Prevocational/Vocational Activity Personal-Social Responsibility Prevocational/Vocational Activity Self-Direction Responsibility Socialization Part II (Personality/behavior) Social Adjustment Social Behavior Conformity Trustworthiness Personal-Social Responsibility Stereotyped & Hyperactive Behavior Sexual Behavior Self-Abusive Behavior (Other) Social Engagement Disturbing Interpersonal Behavior
. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . . .
X X X X X X X X .
X X
.
.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX...
XXXXXXXX.
XX
Note. Item types are scored yes/no or select which statement best applies. For comparability with other scales, each statement is counted as an item.
37
ICAP Content
Item scale/subscale N of Items Type of Score
Age Pct Std
Descriptive Characteristics age/height/weight/legal status Primary & Additional Diagnoses Special Needs vision/hearing/mobility healthcare/medication Residential Supports now & in the future School/Vocational Supports now & in the future Other Support Services now & in the future Social/Leisure Activities Adaptive Behavior Motor Skills Social & Communication Skills Personal Living Skills Community Living Skills Maladaptive Behavior Self-injury/Stereotyped/Withdrawn Offensive/Uncooperative Disruptive/Destructive/Hurts others
10 .
14 10 . . 2 . 2 .
26 .
16 .
77 18 19 21 19 .
24 9 6 9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. X X X X X . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. X X X X X . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. X X X X X . X X X X
Note. The ICAP also provides a Service Score, an overall score that combines adaptive and maladaptive behavior.
38
Standardization and Norming Adaptive Behavior Full Scales (a)
SIB-R VinelandStandard
AAMR School ICAP
Norm group age in yrs. 0 - 90 0 - 18 (b) 3 - 18 0 - 50
Norm group size 2,182 3,000 1,254 1,764
Supplemental standardization group (Children & adults with handicaps) 1,681 2,844 2,074 (c) 1,681
Construct validity - correlation with age 0-18 .91 - .41 .91
Criterion validity - correlation with IQ (g) .20 -.78 .28 -.52 .41 -.72 .29 -.91
Criterion validity - correlation with other AB scales .66 -.81 .55 -.58 .53 -.61 .64 -.75
Comparison scores for age matched groups of non-handicapped students and those with hearing, learning, and emotional disabilities
yes - - yes
Discriminant analysis for school placement level and level of mental retardation yes - - yes
Note. These statistics, selected from the tests' manuals, are for non-handicapped groups of comparable age, unless otherwise indicated. Consult the tests' manuals for additional reliability and validity studies with other ages and other groups.
(a) The AAMR does not have a total score; data are averages for the three factors The Vineland Motor Skills domain ends at age 6; data for older children are averages for 3 domains. (b) Classroom edition: age 3-12. (c) Residential & Community form: 4,103. (d) Expanded form ± 3; Classroom form ± 2. (e) Emotionally disturbed grade 9-11; no study for non-handicapped children. (f) Mentally retarded adults; no study for non-handicapped children. (g) Correlations range from high for heterogeneous groups of handicapped children to low for non-handicapped adults.
39
Standardization and Norming
Problem Behavior Scales
Vineland
SIB-R &
ICAP (a)
Part 1 Part 2
AAMR School
(b)
Norm group age in yrs. 0 - 50 5 - 18 - 3 - 18
Norm group size 778 2,000 0 1,254
Supplemental standardization group (Children & adults with handicaps) 1,681 2,844 2,844 2,074
Criterion validity - correlation with other maladaptive scales
.09 to .58 - - -
Comparison scores for age matched groups of non-handicapped students and those with hearing, learning, and emotional disabilities
yes - - -
Discriminant analysis for school placement level and level of mental retardation yes - - -
Note. These statistics, selected from the tests' manuals, are for non-handicapped groups of comparable age, unless otherwise indicated. Consult the tests' manuals for additional reliability and validity studies with other ages and other groups. None of the four tests found consistent relationships between maladaptive behavior and intelligence. Each found a slight negative relationship between maladaptive behavior and age, and each factors age into their scoring systems.
(a) The SIB-R and the ICAP have the same problem behavior scale. (b) The AAMR does not have a total score; data are averages for the two factors. (c) SIB-R/ICAP maladaptive behavior categories are mutually exclusive. (d) Emotionally disturbed grade 9-11; no study for non-handicapped children.
40
Appendix 3 Social Competence in the Workplace -Experimental Version by L. Nota and
S. Soresi
Listed below are a number of social behaviors that can favour or worsen relationships and
performances in the work setting.
The supervisor is required to indicate whether in any working day each worker has
actually has had (YES) or not (NO) such behaviors. Please indicate YN (neither YES nor
NO) when uncertain between YES or NO. However, please try to use YN as little as