Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Cardiff University
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
8
interpersonal, skills, competence, assessments, measures, instruments, learning
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.
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)
10
Table 1 Social Skills Rating Scales
11
Key
12
In addition, it is worth noting that numerous systems are available to teach social
skills and that many such training packages include assessment instruments. For example,
the Life Centered Career Education curriculum (LCCE) is widely used in the United
States. This is a comprehensive package which contains lesson plans covering three
broad areas, one of which is personal social skills. 371 lessons cover this area. The LCCE
includes two assessment instruments designed to test knowledge and performance of the
skills taught. [See: Life Centered Career Education: A Competency Based Approach, 5th
Edition (Brolin, 1997) & Life Centered Career Education: Modified Curriculum for
Individuals with Moderate Disabilities (Loyd & Brolin, 1997)].
General behavioural rating scales which include a section on social skills (Appendix 2
reproduces a website source of information on adaptive and maladaptive behaviour rating
scales)
1. The Adaptive Behavior Scale – (Part One) (ABS) (Nihira et al., 1993)
Adaptive behaviour refers to how well individuals cope with both the natural and
social demands of their environment (Heber, 1961). The Adaptive Behavior Scales (Part
One) are measures of such ability (Part Two covers maladaptive behaviour). There are
two versions, each covering similar areas. One is intended for children aged 3 to 19 who
are in school.. The other version is intended for adults aged 18 to 80 in residential or
community settings. Part One of the ABS - Residential and Community (2nd edition) (A
BS-RC2) consists of 73 items spanning 10 domains. The two domains relevant to social
skills are language development (10 items covering expression, verbal comprehension,
and social language development) and socialisation (7 items covering cooperatiion,
consideration of others, awareness of others, interaction with others, participation in
group activities, selfishness and social maturity). Items are structured so that the
respondent either has to select one of several possible responses, or select all statements
which apply. The ABS-RC2 is administered by interview with a person who knows the
individual well. It generally takes about 30 minutes to complete.
Domain raw scores are converted to standard scores and percentiles. Factor raw
scores are used to generate quotients and percentiles. The scale’s normative sample
consists of more than 4,000 persons with developmental disabilities residing in the
13
community or in residential settings from 43 states in the US. The assessment has been
extensively examined with respect to reliability and validity, and the evidence supporting
the scale’s technical adequacy is provided in the manual. Internal consistency reliabilities
and stability for all scores exceed 0.8. [The ABS is available from: Pro-Ed, 8700 Shoal
Creek Blvd., Austin, TX 78757-6897; Telephone: 800-897-3202; Fax: 512-451-8542; E-
mail: proedrd2@aol.com; Web: www.proedinc.com]
14
qualifications are required to administer this version, a qualified professional is needed to
interpret the scores. It is intended for children aged 3-13 and takes 20 minutes to
administer.
Domain and adaptive behaviour composite scores can be calculated, together with
conversion to percentiles. Age equivalents are also provided. The VABS was
standardized on a representative national sample (n=3000) selected to match US census
data. Supplementary norm groups of individuals with disabilities provide more data for
interpretation of the Survey Form and the Expanded Form. Computer scoring and
reporting software is available for all three versions. Details of internal, test-retest, and
inter-rater reliability are provided. All are satisfactory. [The VABS is available from
AGS Publishing, 4201 Woodland Road, Circle Pines, Minnesota, 55014-1796, USA.
Web: www.agsnet.com.]
3. The Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP) (Bruininks et al., 1986)
The ICAP has been included in this section because one of its main functions is to
measure adaptive behaviour. This is interpreted by the authors as referring to an
individual’s ability to meet effectively social and community expectations for personal
independence, maintenance of physical needs, acceptable social norms, and interpersonal
relationships. ‘Social and communication skills’ is one of the four sections into which
adaptive behaviour is divided in the ICAP. It is a 16 page booklet that also assesses
maladaptive behaviour and gathers additional information to determine the type and
amount of special assistance that people with disabilities may need. It can be completed
in about 15 minutes by a parent, teacher, or carer who is well acquainted with the person
being assessed. It is suitable for all agencies (norms are presented for the 0 to 40+ age
range). It can be used at three levels: for individualised planning, for service
management, and for national statistics. The ICAP includes an overall Service Score, a
combined measure of adaptive and maladaptive behavior that indicates overall level of
care, supervision, or training required.
The ICAP assumes that functional independence is socially defined, and that an
individual’s performance must be considered within the context of the environments and
social expectations that affect his or her functioning. It has 77 adaptive behaviour items
divided into four areas: Motor Skills; Social and Communication Skills; Personal Living
15
Skills; and Community Living Skills. Each ICAP adaptive behaviour item is a statement
of a task (for example: “Washes, rinses, and dries hair”). The respondent rates the subject
on each task, using a scale from 0 to 3. This scale assesses the quality of performance and
the individual’s motivation. That is, even though someone may be able to perform a task,
he/she may not do so independently, either because he does not realize that it is necessary
to do so, or because he refuses to do so (a behavior problem).
From infant to adult levels, the ICAP yields a range of adaptive behavior scores
that include age equivalent, percentile rank, standard scores, and others. The ICAPs
psychometric properties are well established. Computer software is available to facilitate
scoring, and there is a Spanish version of the scale. [The ICAP website provides
comprehensive information on the scale: www.cpinternet.com/~bhill/icap/index.htm. It is
available from the Riverside Publishing Company: www.riverpub.com.]
16
interview format to a respondent who is familiar with the adolescent and takes 30-45
minutes. [It is available from the Riverside Publishing Company: www.riverpub.com.]
2. Scale for the Evaluation of Social Abilities (VAS) (Nota & Soresi, undated)
There are two versions of the VAS. The Junior School Version comprises 22
items which describe childrens’ prosocial behaviour in school. The teacher rates the child
according to the accuracy of each description and its frequency of occurrence. Ratings are
based on teachers’ observations of the child’s performance of each behaviour. The adult
version uses the same format as the junior version. It comprises 16 items, all of which are
17
relevant to vocational environments. Both scales are quick and easy to administer. High
levels of internal consistency and reliability are reported by the authors of the scale. [The
VAS is available from Laura Nota at the Dept. of Developmental Psychology and
Socialization, University of Padua, Italy, laura.nota@unipd.it]
The SPSS-R is a revision of the SPSS (Lowe & Cautella, 1978) which comprised
100 items to assess adults’ positive and negative social behaviour. The revised SPSS was
designed for people with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities and contains 57 of
the original SPSS items. Family members or care staff rate the frequency with which
each behaviour is emitted using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The behaviours which are
rated include eye contact, interruption, threats, and reading social cues. Four factors
emerged from a principal components analysis on data from 207 adults with intellectual
18
disabilities (Matson et al., 1983): ‘appropriate social skills’, ‘communication skills’,
‘inappropriate assertion’, and ‘sociopathic behavior’. The original SPSS has been found
to be psychometrically robust. However, research testing the psychometric properties of
the revision is limited and normative data is unavailable (Bielecki & Swender, 2004).
[We are not certain of its current availability]
19
2. School Social Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition (SSBS-2) (Merrell, 2002)
The SSBS-2 is a revision of the original SSBS, which was first published in 1993,
and is in wide use nationally and internationally. The first edition SSBS is no longer
available. The SSBS-2 measures social competence and antisocial behavior in children
and adolescents aged 5-18 years. It takes teachers or other professionals in school settings
5-10 minutes to complete. It provides comprehensive ratings of both social skills and
antisocial problem behaviors of children and adolescents in school settings. The SSBS-2
includes two co-normed scales. The Social Competence scale includes 32 items that
measure adaptive, prosocial skills and includes three subscales: Peer Relations, Self
Management/Compliance, and Academic Behavior. The Antisocial Behavior scale
includes 32 items that measure socially-relevant problem behaviours and also includes
three subscales: Hostile/Irritable, Antisocial-Aggressive, and Defiant/Disruptive.
The SSBS-2 was standardized with a national sample of 2,280 students in grades
K-12. The norming sample closely approximates the 2000 US Census, in terms of gender,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and special education participation. Raw scores are
converted to T-scores, percentile ranks, and descriptive Social Functioning Levels.
Internal consistency reliability of the SSBS-2 is .96-.98 for the two total scale scores, and
.94-.96 for the six subscales. Test-reliability of the SSBS-2 has been documented in the
.86-.94 range at 1-week intervals, and .60-.83 at three-week intervals. Interrater reliability
coefficients for ratings provided by teachers and classroom aides has been documented at
.72-.86 for the Social Competence scores, and .53-.71 for the Antisocial Behavior scores.
Extensive evidence for the validity of the SSBS-2 is documented in the User’s Guide. It
is available from: Assessment-Intervention Resources, 2285 Elysium Avenue, Eugene,
OR 97401, USA. Web: www.assessment-intervention.com.]
3. Home & Community Social Behavior Scales (HCSBS) (Merrell & Caldarella,
2002)
The HCSBS is a counterpart to the SSBS-2 and is designed to be completed by
home- and community-based raters. It covers essentially the same ground as its
counterpart but excludes ‘academic achievement’. The HCSBS includes two co-normed
scales. The Social Competence scale includes 32 items that measure adaptive, prosocial
skills on two subscales: Peer Relations, and Self-Management/Compliance. The
20
Antisocial Behavior scale includes 32 items that measure socially linked problem
behaviours on two subscales: Defiant/Disruptive and Antisocial-Aggressive.
The HCSBS was standardized with a national sample of ratings of 1,562 children
and adolescents ages 5-18 years. The norm sample closely approximates the 2000 US
Census in terms of gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and special education
participation. Raw scores are converted to T-scores, percentile ranks, and descriptive
Social Functioning Levels. Internal consistency reliability of the HCSBS is .96-.97 for
the two total scale scores, and .94 for the four subscales. Test-reliability of the HCSBS at
1-2 week intervals has been documented at .84 for the Social Competence scale and .91
for the Antisocial Behavior scale total scores. Interrater reliability coefficients from
mother’s and father’s rating the same child have been documented at .86 for the Social
Competence total score, and .71 for the Antisocial Behavior total score. Extensive
validity evidence for the HCSBS is documented in the User’s Guide. [It is available from:
Assessment-Intervention Resources, 2285 Elysium Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, USA.
Web: www.assessment-intervention.com.]
21
SSRS was considered to be the most comprehensive because of its multi-source approach
and intervention linkage (Demaray et al., 1995)
Standard scores can be converted to percentile rank scores. The SSRS was
standardized on a national sample of over 4,000. It provides separate norms for boys and
girls and for students with and without disabilities. High levels of internal consistency,
test-retest reliability, content, construct and concurrent validity are reported by the
authors. Computer software (ASSIST) facilitates scoring and reporting and provides
behavioural objectives and suggestions for planning intervention. A scannable version of
ASSIST provides group reporting options. It sorts and arranges information by groups,
individuals, classrooms, grades, schools, districts, gender, ethnicity, and time. [It is
available from the American Guidance Service, Inc., 4201 Woodland Road, Circle Pines,
MN 55014, USA.]
22
each student rated. The 53 items of the Adolescent Scale typically require no more than
10 minutes to complete for each student. The Elementary Version consists of three,
analytically derived, sub-scales (Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior, Peer-Preferred
Social Behavior, and School Adjustment) totaling 43 items across the three sub-scales.
The Scale relies on teacher ratings of the frequency with which social skills are estimated
to occur for each student rated. The 43 items of the Elementary Scale typically require no
more than 10 minutes to complete for each student.
The psychometric properties of the scales are not reported on the publisher’s
website. However, properties of the elementary version are described by Demaray et al.
(1995). They note that the manual reports excellent internal consistency, adequate
interrater reliability, and adequate to excellent test-retest reliability. Content,
discriminant, construct and criterion-related validity are also reported. Demaray et al.
(1995) note that some of the samples used to test reliability and validity were rather
small. In addition they point out that the sample with which the elementary scale was
standardised was not representative of the U.S. population. [Web: www.wadsworth.com.]
7. The School Social Skills Rating Scale (SSSRS) (Brown et al., 1984)
The SSSRS is designed to assist school personnel, specifically classroom teachers
in identifying student deficits in school-related social behaviors. It is intended for
children in grades 1-12 (of the US school system). The 40-item scale of observable pro-
social skills has been socially validated and determined to be important for student school
success in the areas of: (i) Adult Relations (12 items), (ii) Peer Relations (16 items), (iii)
School Rules (6 items), and (iv) Classroom Behaviors (6 items). It takes 10 minutes to
administer.
The SSSRS is a criterion-referenced instrument that yields knowledge of a
student’s social strengths and deficiencies. Ratings are done on a six point Likert Scale,
over the previous months’ observations, and test-retest and the inter-rater reliability data
indicate the scale has comparable reliability with residential, special education, and
regular education students. The manual describes conditions under which the 40 skills
should be used. [It is available from Slosson Educational Publications Inc. Web:
www.slosson.com]
23
8. Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI) (Stephens & Arnold, 1992)
The SBAI measures the level of social behaviours exhibited by children and
adolescents in classroom settings. It was designed as a companion instrument to Social
Skills in the Classroom. It is appropriate for special education classes or any classroom
where behaviour problems may exist. It consists of 136 items that describe social skills
commonly observed in the classroom. A teacher or other individual (such as a parent)
who has observed a student’s behaviour rates each item on a 4-point scale describing both
the presence and level of the behaviours exhibited by the student. It takes 30-45 minutes
to administer.Results from the 4 behaviour scales (Environmental, Interpersonal, Self-
Related, and Task-Related) and 30 subscales can be used to develop social skills
instructional strategies.
In their review of the SBAI, Demaray et al. (1995) noted that whilst the manual
reported high levels of internal consistency and interrater reliability, there was no
information on test-retest reliability. They felt that the manual included evidence of
adequate content, construct and convergent validity. [It is available from Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc. 16204 N. Florida Avenue, Lutz, FL 33549, USA.
Web:www.parinc.com.]
24
of functioning. The VACG was designed to be used by classroom teachers, rehabilitation
workers, adult service providers, parents, and paraprofessionals to determine an
individual’s general skill level in relation to standards suggested as important for success
in occupations within the food service industry, janitorial work, and light industry.
Psychometric properties of the VACG were reported by Menchetti & Rusch
(1988). Test-retest coefficients ranged from .69 to .96 (mean = .79). Internal consistency,
estimated by alpha coefficients, ranged from .59 to .91 (mean = .76) for VACG domain
scores. The alpha coefficient for the total test score was .95. Empirical validation results
suggest that domain scores differentiated between subjects with intellectual disabilities
having only sheltered work experience and those who were employed successfully in the
competitive workforce. [It is published by Exceptional Education, P.O. Box 15308,
Seattle, WA 98155, USA]
2. Transition Behavior Scales (2nd ed.) (TBS-2) (McCarney & Anderson, 2000)
The TBS-2 is based on the behavioural literature on what predicts employment
and transition success. There are two versions, a student self-report version and school
version completed by one or more teachers. They are designed for any disability group,
for adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. There are 62 items which span three subscales: work-
related behaviours, interpersonal relations and social/community expectations. The
subscales are based on a factor analysis of the original item-pool. Each item is scored on
a 6-point rating scale. Scores can be converted to percentile ranks based on national
norms. The TBS-2 School Version was standardized on a total of 2,624 students from 20
states representative of the US. The TBS-2 School and Self-Report Versions provide
separate norms for male and female students. It takes 15-20 minutes to complete.
The Transition Behavior Scale IEP and Intervention Manual includes individual
education plan goals, objectives, and interventions for all 62 items on the scale. [It is
available from Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc., 800 Gray Oak Drive, Columbia,
MO 65201, USA. Web: www.hes-inc.com.]
25
the individual student’s needs, preferences, and interests. Information on transition needs
is gathered from the student, parents or guardians, and school personnel through the use
of three separate forms designed specifically for each of the target groups. The forms
contain the same 46 items which cover the following assessment areas: employment,
further education/training, daily living skills, leisure activities, community participation,
health, self—determination, communication, interpersonal relationships. The student
form also contains 15 open-ended questions. A Spanish version of the scale is available
and computer software can be used for scoring.
There are several items that relate directly or indirectly to social skills in the
workplace. Item descriptions for administrators give some examples and the intent of
each item and mention social skills related to employment when appropriate. For
example, Item 3 in the Employment domain is “Knows how to get a job.” The description
for item 3 is “Students know the basic steps for looking for a job, applying for a job, and
making a good impression in a job interview.” Table 2 lists items which have some
relevance directly or indirectly to social skills in the workplace. [The TPI is available
from: Pro-Ed, 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin, TX 78757-6897, USA. Telephone: 800-
897-3202; Fax: 512-451-8542; E-mail: proedrd2@aol.com; Web: www.proedinc.com.]
26
4. Occupational Skills Assessment Instrument (OSAI) (Mathews et al., 1980b)
The OSAI comprises 13 checklists. Ten relate to complex job-related social skills
that were identified as important by experts in the field of employment: seeking a job
lead, telephoning a potential employer, job interview situation, accepting a suggestion
from a supervisor, accepting criticism from an employer, providing constructive
criticism, explaining a problem to a supervisor, complimenting a co-worker on a job done
well, and accepting a compliment. The instrument includes role-playing scripts for each
of these social situations which specify: (a) the task to be performed, (b) a series of
situations to be acted out, and (c) scripted statements and behaviours to be performed by
the person using the instrument. For example, the performances required for ‘explaining a
problem to a supervisor’ are as follows: (i) state things aren’t going well, (ii) ask if
supervisor has time to talk, (iii) describe the problem, (iv) provide an example of the
problem, (v) state any possible solutions, (vi) ask if supervisor has any solutions or can
do something, (vii) restate the solution, (viii) ask if you should do anything else, and (ix)
thank supervisor for help. Ticks are placed next to target behaviours which are performed
correctly. Zeros are placed next to target behaviours which are not performed or are
performed incorrectly. The proportion of possible target which are performed correctly is
then converted to a percentage. The three remaining checklists are written criterion tests
covering the following areas: writing a job interview follow-up letter, writing in response
to a job advertisement, and completing a tax return.
The OSAI has been found to be valid and reliable (Mathews et al., 1980a, 1981,
1982). [It is available from the Research and Training Center on Independent Living,
University of Kansas, Room 4089 Dole Center, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence,
Kansas, 66045-7555, USA. Web: www.rtcil.org/catalog.htm.]
27
an English translation of the Italian original. [Further information is available from the
authors (laura.nota@unipd.it).]
28
References
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
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
34
SIB-R Content
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
Maladaptive Behavior 36 36 . . . .
. . . . . .
Part 1 (All children) 27 27 . . . .
Part 2 (Children with handicaps) 9 9 . . . .
Note. Maladaptive behavior scale yields raw scores with interpretative levels.
36
AAMR ABS Content
Resid/
School Age Pct Std
Cmnty
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
Descriptive Characteristics 10 . . .
age/height/weight/legal status . . . .
Primary & Additional Diagnoses 14 . . .
Special Needs 10 . . .
vision/hearing/mobility . . . .
healthcare/medication . . . .
Residential Supports 2 . . .
now & in the future . . . .
School/Vocational Supports 2 . . .
now & in the future . . . .
Other Support Services 26 . . .
now & in the future . . . .
Social/Leisure Activities 16 . . .
. . . .
Adaptive Behavior 77 X X X
Motor Skills 18 X X X
Social & Communication Skills 19 X X X
Personal Living Skills 21 X X X
Community Living Skills 19 X X X
. . . .
Maladaptive Behavior 24 . . X
Self-injury/Stereotyped/Withdrawn 9 . . X
Offensive/Uncooperative 6 . . X
Disruptive/Destructive/Hurts others 9 . . 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)
Vineland AAMR
SIB-R ICAP
Standard School
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
1,681 2,844 2,074 (c) 1,681
(Children & adults with handicaps)
Measurement technique Rasch Rasch Classic Rasch
N of items 259 261 329 77
Standard score (SD=15) error @ 8 yrs. ±2 ±4 (d) ±3 ±6
Split-half/alpha reliability @ 8-9 yrs. .98 .93 .91 .84
Test-retest reliability @ 6-13 yrs.
.98 .85 .66 (e) .94
(same interviewer 2-4 weeks apart)
Inter-rater reliability @ 6-18 yrs.
.95 .74 .74 (e) .94 (f)
(two interviewers)
Subscale intercorrelations yes yes yes yes
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
.66 -.81 .55 -.58 .53 -.61 .64 -.75
scales
Comparison scores for age matched groups of
non-handicapped students and those with yes - - yes
hearing, learning, and emotional disabilities
Discriminant analysis for school placement level
yes - - yes
and level of mental retardation
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
SIB-R Vineland AAMR
& School
ICAP Part 1 Part 2 (b)
(a)
Norm group age in yrs. 0 - 50 5 - 18 - 3 - 18
Norm group size 778 2,000 0 1,254
Supplemental standardization group
1,681 2,844 2,844 2,074
(Children & adults with handicaps)
Fac. Fac.
Development technique - -
anal. anal.
N of items 16 27 9 232
±2.5 /
Std. error of measure / SD @ 6-11 yrs. - - ±3.8 / 15
10
Split-half/alpha reliability @ 8-9 yrs. (c) .87 - .94
Test-retest reliability @ 6-13 yrs.
.86 .88 - .83 (d)
(same interviewer 2-4 weeks apart)
Inter-rater reliability @ 6-18 yrs.
.83 .74 - .57 (d)
(two interviewers)
Maladaptive subscale intercorrelations yes - - yes
Criterion validity - correlation with other .09 to
- - -
maladaptive scales .58
Comparison scores for age matched groups of
non-handicapped students and those with yes - - -
hearing, learning, and emotional disabilities
Discriminant analysis for school placement level
yes - - -
and level of mental retardation
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
possible.
Worker: ________________________________________
Date: ________________________________________
Supervisor: ________________________________________
41
13. Today has said ‘hello’ to other workers. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
14. Today has paid compliments to other workers. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
15. Today has accepted the supervisor’s compliments. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
16. Today has accepted other workers’ compliments. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
17. Today has used forms of politeness (“please”, “thank ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
you”, etc.)with the supervisor.
18. Today has used forms of politeness (“please”, “thank ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
you”, etc.)with other workers.
19. Today has joked in a positive way with the supervisor. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
20. Today has joked in a positive way with other workers. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
21. Today has followed the supervisor’s working instructions. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
22. Today has asked the supervisor for information on how to ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
continue his/her work.
23. Today has helped other workers. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
24. Today has asked other workers for help. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
25. Today has given other workers the necessary material ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
for their work.
26. Today has told other workers in an adequate way (without ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
shouting, offending, etc.) that they had done something
wrong.
27. Today has told other workers in an adequate way that they ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
must work harder.
28. Today has accepted the supervisor’s observations on a job ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
done wrongly.
29. Today has accepted other workers’ observations on a job ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
done wrongly.
30. Today has accepted the supervisor’s help. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
31. Today has accepted other workers’ help. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
32. Today has looked the supervisor in the face when he/she ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
was talking with him/her.
33. Today has looked the other workers in the face when he/she ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
42
was talking with them.
34. Today has used an adequate tone of voice when speaking ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
with the supervisor.
35. Today has used an adequate tone of voice when speaking ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
with other workers.
36. Today has not followed instructions, has done other things. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
37. Today has not asked for help when it was necessary. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
38. Today has mocked other workers about their performance. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
39. Today has distracted other workers while they were ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
working.
40. Today, during work time, has tried to speak to the ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
supervisor about topics that had nothing to do with work.
41. Today has had longer breaks than allowed. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
42. Today has not accepted observations, has replied impolitely. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑YN
43. Today has told other workers in an inadequate way ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
(offending,shouting, etc.) that they had made a mistake. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
44. Today has often asked what to do, has not been .❑ YES ❑ NO ❑YN
autonomous
45. Today has used obscene language when speaking with the ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
supervisor.
46. Today has used obscene language when speaking with ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
other workers.
47. Today has used trivial excuses not to work. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
48. Today has shown little care in his/her clothing. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
49. Today was not very clean, hygienically speaking. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
50. Today has not kept to the rules. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
51. Today has got bored. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
52. Today has shown depression. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
53. Today was “absent”. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
54. Today has got cross very easily. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
55. Today has got tired straight away. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
43
56. Today has been physically aggressive toward other ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
workers.
57. Today has been physically aggressive toward the ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
supervisor.
58. Today has been physically aggressive toward the work ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN
setting (furniture, materials, etc.).
44