Behavior

Modification
http://bmo.sagepub.com/

Reliability of the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills in Individuals with Severe Retardation (MESSIER)
Johnny L. Matson, Linda A. Leblanc and Bruce Weinheimer
Behav Modif 1999 23: 647
DOI: 10.1177/0145445599234008
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/23/4/647

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Behavior Modification can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://bmo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/23/4/647.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 1999

What is This?

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

BEHAVIOR
Matson
et al. MODIFICATION
/ MATSON EVALUATION
/ October 1999
OF SOCIAL SKILLS

Recently, the concepts of social competence and social skills have become important aspects of
the evolving definitions of mental retardation. However, no psychometrically sound instruments
exist for assessing social skills in lower functioning developmentally disabled people. This study
examined the psychometric properties of the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals
with Severe Retardation (MESSIER)a new scale designed to measure social skills in adults
with severe developmental disabilities. The authors conducted a preliminary evaluation of the
test-retest and interrater reliability of the MESSIER. It was determined that the MESSIER has
high stability across raters and good stability over time. In addition, good internal consistency
was established with coefficient alpha. Potential uses for the scale and directions for future
research are discussed.

Reliability of the Matson Evaluation

of Social Skills in Individuals With
Severe Retardation (MESSIER)
JOHNNY L. MATSON
Louisiana State University

LINDA A. LEBLANC
The Kennedy Krieger Institute and Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine

BRUCE WEINHEIMER
Austin State School, Texas Department of Mental Health
and Mental Retardation

Social skills enable one to adjust and respond to complex environmental cues and can assist an individual in coping with stressinducing situations and avoiding interpersonal conflicts (Matson &
Swiezy, 1994). Social skills also enable the individual to obtain the
social interactions and relationships that all humans need to promote
healthy emotional functioning and psychological adjustment (Asher &
AUTHORS NOTE: Please address correspondence to Johnny L. Matson, Ph.D., Department of
Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; phone:
(504) 388-4104.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, Vol. 23 No. 4, October 1999 647-661
1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

647

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

648

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / October 1999

Renshaw, 1981; Guralnick, 1986). Given the complexities of social

relationships, it is no surprise that social skills problems are so pervasive among individuals with mental retardation (Siperstein, 1992).
Individuals with mental retardation exhibit more social skill deficits
than the general population, a major concern when the clinician considers the importance of developing social skills and social competence for community adjustment (Lovett & Harris, 1987).
Researchers have generally focused on persons with mild or moderate disabilities when examining social behavior, neglecting the
social behavior of adults with severe disabilities (Singh & Winton,
1983). However, basic social interaction skills, motor-gestural and
vocal-verbal skills, and basic conversational skills can be trained in
individuals with severe and profound mental retardation, thereby suggesting the value of developing social skills as a clinical and research
topic (Guralnick & Kravik, 1973; Warren, Baxter, Anderson, Marshall, & Baer, 1981; Whitman, Mercurio, & Caponigri, 1970).
Many instruments used for individuals with developmental disabilities are measures of general adaptive functioning that include
social behavior as a minor component. As no social-skill-specific
measures for severe and profound mental retardation exist, developing such a measure was the purpose of this study. An instrument of this
type would be valuable for helping establish level of functioning for
mentally retarded individuals. It would be particularly helpful in
cooperation with the American Association on Mental Retardations
definition of mental retardation, which has a social skills domain. Perhaps more importantly, a scale of this sort could be valuable in helping
to establish treatment goals.

METHOD

One hundred ninety-six adults (N = 196) with severe or profound

mental retardation as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) participated. All participants resided in residential facilities for adults with developmental disabilities in Texas and Louisiana.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

Matson et al. / MATSON EVALUATION OF SOCIAL SKILLS

649

These persons were between the ages of 20 and 88 with a mean age of
43 years (SD = 15). The sample consisted of 112 males and 84
females. Most participants were Caucasian (67%) with smaller
subsamples of African American (19%) and Hispanic populations
(11%). Race information was not available in some cases. Most participants functioned in the profound range of mental retardation
(70%) and were nonverbal (56%).
INFORMANTS

A staff member who had known the participant for at least 6 months
served as the informant. These staff held the positions of psychologist,
psychologists assistant, and qualified mental retardation professional
(QMRP). When direct care staff served as the informant, the participants staff psychologist or QMRP provided the name of the staff
member who knew the person best. Informants were interviewed in a
semistructured interview involving demographic questions and the
Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals with Severe Retardation (MESSIER). Each interviewer was trained on test administration prior to initiation of the assessment.
MESSIER

The MESSIER is an 85-item instrument designed to assess social

skills and social behavior in severely and profoundly retarded individuals. The items were compiled from items on the Vineland Communication and Socialization Domains, the Matson Evaluation of
Social Skills for Youngsters (MESSY), and nomination by experts.
The scale consists of six clinically derived dimensions: positive verbal, positive nonverbal, general positive, negative verbal, negative
nonverbal, and general negative. The MESSIER was completed based
on a semistructured interview with each participants informant. The
interviewer told the informant,
I am conducting an experiment which examines social skills in adults
with severe and profound mental retardation. I am going to read several

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

650

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / October 1999

statements to you. Please tell me whether each statement is true of the

participant: never = 0, rarely = 1, sometimes = 2, or almost always = 3.

The experimenter or a trained interviewer read the questions from the

MESSIER and recorded the informants responses.
Three types of reliability were calculated for this sample: internal
consistency, test-retest reliability, and interrater reliability.
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

Analysis of internal consistency was calculated based on data from

196 people to determine how consistently informants responded
across items in the scale. A coefficient alpha was computed for the
total MESSIER to provide an indicator of the internal consistency of
the measure based on this sample. Coefficient alphas were also computed for each clinically derived subscale.
INTERRATER RELIABILITY

Approximately 25% of all participants (n = 50) were selected by the

experimenter for a second interview with another rater. The interviews
with the second rater were conducted separately and independently
according to the same procedural guidelines as the first interview. The
second interview was conducted within 1 day of the interview with the
primary informant. Interrater reliability was calculated for items,
subscales, and total score to assess consistency of observations across
different raters. Spearman correlation coefficients were computed for
each pair of raters for the total MESSIER score and for subscale scores
to evaluate the interrater reliability. Percentage total agreement, percentage occurrence agreement, and Spearman rank-order correlation
coefficients were obtained for each item. Percentage total agreement
represents the exact hit rate for each item with every response
included. It was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by
the total of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100
(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). To control for potentially elevated
total agreement percentages due to low endorsement rate of items,
percentage occurrence agreement was also computed. Occurrence
agreement represents the exact hit rate given that the primary rating

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

Matson et al. / MATSON EVALUATION OF SOCIAL SKILLS

651

value is not zero (i.e., the item was endorsed). The same calculation formula was used but only nonzero value endorsements were included.
TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY

For test-retest reliability, the primary informant was interviewed

again approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the first administration of the
MESSIER for approximately 22% of the sample (n = 42). Participants
were randomly selected by the experimenter for a second interview. If
the same informant was unavailable at the 2- to 3-week interval, a new
participant was selected by the experimenter. Test-retest reliability
was computed for the total MESSIER score using Pearson product
moment correlations to assess stability of informant responses across
time. For each item, test-retest reliability was calculated by computing
total percentage agreement, percentage occurrence agreement, and a
Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient. This goal was accomplished by using the same formulas previously noted.

RESULTS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

Derived alpha values were high for the scale and for each subscale.
The alpha value for the entire scale was r = .94, which indicates a very
high degree of intercorrelation between items of the scale. In addition,
removal of any given item of the MESSIER had little impact on the
internal consistency of the scale as a whole (all resulting coefficients
at least r = .9417). The alpha values for the positive subscales of the
MESSIER were also quite high (range .87 to .96 , see Table 1). Alpha
values for the negative subscales of the MESSIER were slightly lower
but still significantly high (range .75 to .78).
INTERRATER RELIABILITY

Interrater reliability of the MESSIER was evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients. Good correlations were found between

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

652

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / October 1999

TABLE 1

Subscale Internal Consistency InformationCoefficient Alpha

Subscale

Alpha Value

Positive Verbal
Positive Nonverbal
General Positive
Negative Verbal
Negative Nonverbal
General Negative

.9558
.8709
.9374
.7611
.7567
.7831

raters for the total score (r = .73) and for all positive (r = .79) and negative items (r = .71). The use of the MESSIER in making consistent
social skills ratings was evaluated using percentage agreement (total
and occurrence) and Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients
(see Table 2). Percentage total agreement ranged from 30% to 90%,
with a 58.6% mean percentage agreement across all items. Percentage
occurrence agreement ranged from 11% to 83%, with a mean percentage agreement of 47.4% across all items. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients ranged from r = .14 to r = .89, suggesting inadequate to high interrater consistency on individual items, whereas the
Spearman coefficient (r = .73) suggests good interrater consistency
for the scale as a whole.
TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY

The test-retest reliability of the MESSIER total score was measured

using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients to evaluate
stability of ratings across time. High retest reliability was obtained
for the MESSIER total score (r = .86). The retest reliability or stability of the individuals items of the MESSIER was evaluated using percentage agreement (total and occurrence) and Spearman rank-order
correlation coefficients. Total percentage agreement for each item
ranged from 26% to 90%, with a 63% mean percentage agreement
across items. Percentage occurrence agreement ranged from 18% to
89%, with a 48.3% mean percentage occurrence agreement across all
items. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients ranged from r = .18
to r = .91 for the individual items of the MESSIER (see Table 3).
(text continues on p. 659)

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

653

TABLE 2

Comparison of Percentage Agreement (total and occurrence) and Spearman Rank-Order

Correlation Coefficient for the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals With
Severe Retardation (MESSIER) Ratings Made by Two Independent Raters

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

Item
1. Turns head in direction of caregiver.
2. Looks at face of caregiver when spoken to.
3. Responds to voice of caregiver or another person.
4. Distinguishes caregiver from others.
5. Shows interest in unfamiliar people.
6. Expresses two or more recognizable emotions.
7. Shows affection toward familiar people.
8. Shows interest in people other than caregivers.
9. Extends hand toward familiar person.
10. Plays with toy or object alone or with others.
11. Plays simple interaction game with others.
12. Distinguishes between people.
13. Shows interest in activities of other people.
14. Imitates simple movements.
15. Smiles in response to positive statements.
16. Addresses at least two familiar people by name.
17. Shows desire to please caregiver.
18. Participates in game or activity with others with prompting.
19. Participates in game or activity with others without prompting.
20. Has a friend.
21. Imitates phrases heard previously.
22. Shows a preference for certain friends over others.
23. Says please when asking for something.
24. Labels own emotional states.
25. Shares without being told to do so.

Total Agreement
(%)

Occurrence Agreement
(%)

Spearmans R

Significance Level

76
74
72
74
48
58
62
50
54
48
38
76
64
56
64
78
46
66
48
50
78
50
64
66
58

78
74
71
77
50
58
69
49
56
45
36
78
61
57
69
56
45
67
37
38
63
43
35
35
39

.4011
.7195
.2247
.4589
.4240
.1360
.6193
.7833
.4455
.1782
.3463
.6322
.6875
.6584
.5419
.8356
.5956
.6658
.4534
.5257
.8170
.3914
.6043
.7579
.4119

.00
.00
.11
.00
.00
.34
.00
.00
.00
.21
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

654

26. Orients to noise.

27. Responds to speech of others.
28. Imitates sounds.
29. Attempts to communicate using words or sounds.
30. Follows rules in simple games without being reminded.
31. Follows facility rules.
32. Apologizes for unintentional mistakes.
33. Talks with food in mouth.
34. Responds appropriately when introduced to strangers.
35. Returns borrowed items.
36. Responds appropriately to activities in the environment.
37. Disturbs others.
38. Prefers to be alone.
39. Isolates self.
40. Responds to hugs with rigidity.
41. Cries at inappropriate times.
42. Has major or minor frequent temper outbursts.
43. Exhibits inappropriate repetitive vocalizations.
44. Communicates most needs verbally.
45. Engages in self-injury or other inappropriate behavior to avoid
social contact.
46. Communicates most needs with gestures.
47. Initiates verbal communication.
48. Often does not attend to people or the environment.
49. Does not follow simple instructions.
50. Resists being touched.
51. Avoids eye contact.
52. Has trouble waiting for needs to be met.
53. Prefers objects to people.
54. Says hello when entering a room.
55. Says good-bye when leaving a room.
56. Has appropriate posture.
57. Initiates most of own activities.

58
74
52
60
54
60
64
66
66
70
42
52
56
52
54
48
50
56
84

57
75
44
83
32
59
30
30
63
29
46
47
54
45
43
29
43
47
75

.1525
.4170
.5608
.2142
.4079
.6808
.6649
.7493
.7373
.5303
.4667
.5343
.5688
.6235
.4106
.3504
.6543
.5645
.8641

.29
.00
.00
.13
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00

60
40
72
30
40
62
56
36
52
76
70
46
46

26
28
37
27
38
48
40
30
39
56
42
49
36

.5593
.3967
.8188
.1844
.4378
.6015
.6007
.2408
.5347
.8900
.7962
.1567
.5337

.00
.00
.00
.20
.00
.00
.00
.09
.00
.00
.00
.27
.00
(continued)

655

TABLE 2 Continued
Item

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

58. Interacts positively with others.

59. Interrupts teacher or caregiver helping another.
60. Likes to hold hands with others.
61. Follows caregivers around excessively.
62. Pushes, hits, kicks, and so on peers or caregivers.
63. Disrupts activities of others.
64. Speaks while others are speaking.
65. Does the opposite of what he or she is told.
66. Is timid or shy in social situations.
67. Exhibits peculiar or odd mannerisms in public.
68. Touches others inappropriately.
69. Holds onto others and will not let go.
70. Uses arm or hand gestures to communicate.
71. Demands excessive attention or praise.
72. Reacts poorly to correction.
73. Curses.
74. Sleeps unless directed into a new activity.
75. Makes embarrassing comments.
76. Complains often.
77. Makes loud inappropriate noises.
78. Waves hello appropriately.
79. Thanks or compliments others.
80. Makes negative statements about self.
81. Cooperates with caregivers.
82. Seems unaware of what is going on around him or her.
83. Shows interest in interacting.
84. Speech shows no emotion.
85. Carries out simple instructions.

Total Agreement
(%)
36
50
44
60
62
52
74
34
58
46
62
62
40
54
52
82
58
74
78
58
60
66
90
68
50
52%
74
66

Occurrence Agreement
(%)
42
34
38
52
52
28
56
29
52
35
32
20
30
38
46
67
35
11
53
43
52
40
80
71
33
56
25
69

Spearmans R

Significance Level

.3753
.4819
.3910
.5596
.5951
.5097
.7486
.1816
.4943
.4137
.5508
.5032
.3653
.5334
.3883
.8279
.3849
.5888
.7162
.6744
.7485
.7223
.7000
.5070
.4084
.5936
.4502
.5628

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

TABLE 3

Comparison of Percentage Agreement (total and occurrence) and Spearman Rank-Order

Correlation Coefficient for the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals With
Severe Retardation (MESSIER) Original Ratings and Test-Retest Ratings
Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

Item

656

1. Turns head in direction of caregiver.

2. Looks at face of caregiver when spoken to.
3. Responds to voice of caregiver or another person.
4. Distinguishes caregiver from others.
5. Shows interest in unfamiliar people.
6. Expresses two or more recognizable emotions.
7. Shows affection toward familiar people.
8. Shows interest in people other than caregivers.
9. Extends hand toward familiar person.
10. Plays with toy or object alone or with other people.
11. Plays simple interaction game with other people.
12. Distinguishes between people.
13. Shows interest in activities of other people.
14. Imitates simple movements.
15. Smiles in response to positive statements.
16. Addresses at least two familiar people by name.
17. Shows desire to please caregiver.
18. Participates in game/activity with prompting.
19. Participates in game/activity without prompting.
20. Has a friend.
21. Imitates phrases heard previously.
22. Shows a preference for certain friends over others.
23. Says please when asking for something.
24. Labels own emotional states.

Total Agreement
(%)

Occurrence Agreement
(%)

Spearmans R

Significant Level

67
62
71
69
45
64
43
55
62
40
45
57
52
50
64
81
43
48
62
55
81
74
74
81

67
61
71
68
36
63
42
48
58
42
38
56
41
50
61
64
38
47
36
18
64
75
18
55

.2835
.3799
.4534
.5867
.4937
.4311
.4759
.6861
.6087
.5002
.4207
.5512
.6666
.5567
.7253
.7749
.3924
.4153
.6323
.6781
.7327
.7324
.5597
.7150

.069
.013
.003
.000
.001
.004
.001
.000
.000
.001
.006
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.010
.006
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
(continued)

657

TABLE 3 Continued
Item

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

25. Shares without being told to do so.

26. Orients to noise.
27. Responds to speech of others.
28. Imitates sounds.
29. Attempts to communicate using words or sounds.
30. Follows rules in simple games without being reminded.
31. Follows facility rules.
32. Apologizes for unintentional mistakes.
33. Talks with food in mouth.
34. Responds appropriately when introduced to strangers.
35. Returns borrowed items.
36. Responds appropriately to activities in the environment.
37. Disturbs others.
38. Prefers to be alone.
39. Isolates self.
40. Responds to hugs with rigidity.
41. Cries at inappropriate times.
42. Has major or minor frequent temper outbursts.
43. Exhibits inappropriate repetitive vocalizations.
44. Communicates most needs verbally.
45. Engages in self-injury or other inappropriate behavior
to avoid social contact.
46. Communicates most needs with gestures.
47. Initiates verbal communication.
48. Often does not attend to people or the environment.
49. Does not follow simple instructions.
50. Resists being touched.
51. Avoids eye contact.

Total Agreement
(%)

Occurrence Agreement
(%)

Spearmans R

Significance Level

52
69
67
60
71
64
48
81
79
60
86
52
57
55
62
52
71
74
74
90

24
71
72
42
65
50
46
56
50
37
43
48
39
45
46
29
64
52
75
83

.4279
.2518
.5177
.4997
.6980
.6353
.4302
.7089
.7124
.6864
.7541
.4864
.7242
.6968
.6951
.3536
.5409
.5016
.6947
.9336

.005
.108
.000
.001
.000
.000
.004
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.022
.000
.001
.000
.000

57
57
86
43
26
69
67

40
46
75
35
18
50
59

.3065
.6097
.9191
.3981
.2293
.5523
.6962

.048
.000
.000
.009
.144
.000
.000

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

658

52. Has trouble waiting for needs to be met.

53. Prefers objects to people.
54. Says hello when entering a room.
55. Says good-bye when leaving a room.
56. Has appropriate posture.
57. Initiates most of own activities.
58. Interacts positively with others.
59. Interrupts teacher or caregiver helping another.
60. Likes to hold hands with others.
61. Follows caregivers around excessively.
62. Pushes, hits, kicks, and so on peers or caregivers.
63. Disrupts activities of others.
64. Speaks while others are speaking.
65. Does the opposite of what he or she is told.
66. Is timid or shy in social situations.
67. Exhibits peculiar or odd mannerisms in public.
68. Touches others inappropriately.
69. Holds onto others and will not let go.
70. Uses arm or hand gestures to communicate.
71. Demands excessive attention or praise.
72. Reacts poorly to correction.
73. Curses.
74. Sleeps unless directed into a new activity.
75. Makes embarrassing comments.
76. Complains often.
77. Makes loud inappropriate noises.
78. Waves hello appropriately.
79. Thanks or compliments others.
80. Makes negative statements about self.
81. Cooperates with caregivers.
82. Seems unaware of what is going on around him or her.
83. Shows interest in interacting.
84. Speech shows no emotion.
85. Carries out simple instructions.

52
57
81
86
64
40
60
43
60
67
50
38
71
48
64
64
71
64
45
64
57
86
71
83
81
64
64
90
86
48
57
55
83
64

50
43
45
60
64
28
56
20
38
40
31
21
38
33
47
42
38
35
29
52
35
67
58
67
25
59
39
89
33
46
35
47
60
62

.3207
.4518
.8194
.9052
.7056
.2743
.7164
.5263
.6915
.6497
.5511
.3701
.6723
.1800
.6064
.6413
.5688
.5158
.5000
.5556
.4821
.8548
.7080
.5586
.7972
.5539
.6893
.8067
.4011
.2453
.5640
.5935
.5115
.6137

.038
.003
.000
.000
.000
.079
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.016
.000
.254
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.008
.117
.000
.000
.001
.000

Matson et al. / MATSON EVALUATION OF SOCIAL SKILLS

659

DISCUSSION

Initial psychometric properties of the MESSIER were studied.

Internal consistency as measured by coefficient alpha was high for the
MESSIER (r = .94). Consistency was also high for the individual
clinically derived subscales. From these findings, it can be concluded
that a large portion of the variance in MESSIER scores is accounted
for by common factors underlying item performance (Crocker &
Algina, 1986). The high internal consistency for each of the individual
clinically derived subscales also lends support to the notion that each
set of items represents constructs that account for a significant portion
of the variance in their respective scores. Later factor analytic studies
with a larger sample should help to confirm or disconfirm this
hypothesis.
Test-retest reliability was also calculated for the MESSIER. The
test-retest reliability, as measured by a Pearson product-moment correlation, was also quite high for the MESSIER (r = .86), indicating that
peoples ratings remained fairly consistent over short periods of time.
Lastly, interrater reliability was investigated for the MESSIER. Good
correlations were found between raters for the total MESSIER score
(r = .73) and for all positive (r = .79) and negative MESSIER items (r =
.71). Only 15 of 85 items achieved interrater reliability coefficients of
below .4. These items appear to be the most subjective items on the
scale and are not easily observed or quantified behaviors. These numbers support the use of the MESSIER for making consistent social
skills ratings.
Reliable and valid instruments were requested by the American
Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) in the development of
their new definition of mental retardation. The MESSIER may fulfill
this goal following further evaluation of validity of the measure and
the development of norms. Another clinically relevant feature is that the
MESSIER can be used to illustrate an individuals social skills and
deficits, and help clinicians identify and understand the individuals
aberrant behaviors as related to these deficits. The MESSIER may be
useful for identifying areas where the individual needs training and
development to replace existing aberrant behaviors with socially
appropriate behaviors. Given the substantial research literature on
training adaptive social skills to severe and profoundly mentally

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

660

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / October 1999

retarded persons, such interventions are needed (Irvin et al., 1996;

Reid & Farrell, 1984).

REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Asher, S. R., & Renshaw, P. (1981). Children without friends: Social knowledge and social skill
training. In S. Asher & J. Gottman (Eds.), The development of childrens friendships. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. New York:
Macmillan.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace.
Guralnick, M. J. (1986). The peer relations of young handicapped and nonhandicapped children.
In P. S. Strain, M. J. Guralnick, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Childrens social behavior: Development, assessment, and modification. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Guralnick, M. J., & Kravik, M. A. (1973). Reinforcement procedures and social behavior in a
group context with severely retarded children. Psychological Reports, 32, 295-301.
Irvin, D., Realon, R., Hartley, R., Phillips, J., Bradley, F., & Daly, M. (1996). The treatment of
self-injurious hand mouthing by using multicomponent intervention with a group of individuals with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 8, 43-59.
Lovett, D. L., & Harris, M. B. (1987). Identification of important community living skills for
adults with mental retardation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34-41.
Matson, J. L., & Swiezy, N. (1994). Social skills training with autistic children. In J. Matson
(Ed.), Autism in children and adults. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Reid, D. H., & Farrell, J. E. (1984). Group instruction with persons who have severe disabilities:
A critical review. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 167-177.
Singh, N. N., & Winton, A.S.W. (1983). Social skills training with institutionalized severely and
profoundly mentally retarded persons. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 383-398.
Siperstein, G. N. (1992). Social competence: An important construct in mental retardation.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, iii-iv.
Warren, S. F., Baxter, D. K., Anderson, S. R., Marshall, A., & Baer, D. M. (1981). Generalization
of question asking by severely retarded individuals. Journal of the Association for the
Severely Handicapped, 6, 15-22.
Whitman, T. L., Mercurio, J. R., & Caponigri, C. (1970). Development of social responses in two
severely retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 133-138.

Johnny L. Matson, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology and the director of clinical training at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. He has authored more than 300 publications, including more than 30 books. His interests include developmental disabilities
and child psychopathology.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013

Matson et al. / MATSON EVALUATION OF SOCIAL SKILLS

661

Linda A. LeBlanc, Ph.D., is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins School
of Medicine and Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore. This project was completed as
part of the requirements for her doctoral degree in clinical psychology at Louisiana State
University. Her interests include aspects of aging in individuals with developmental disabilities and the assessment and treatment of severe behavior disorders.
Bruce Weinheimer, Ph.D., is the chief psychologist at the Austin State School in Austin,
Texas. His professional interests include the use of applied behavior analysis in the training and treatment of persons with developmental disabilities. He is particularly interested in those persons who are dually diagnosed.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on May 3, 2013