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,

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.

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

ABS AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scales Nihira, Leland, Lambert ProEd proedrd2@aol.com www.proedinc.com

VABS Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Sparrow, Balla, Cicchetti AGS customerservice@agsnet.com www.agsnet.com

ICAP Inventory for Client and Agency Planning

Bruininks, Hill, Weatherman, Woodcock

Riverside rpcsupport@hmco.com www.riverpub.com

RISA Responsibility and Independence Scale for Adolescents

Salvia, Niesworth, Schmidt Riverside rpcsupport@hmco.com www.riverpub.com

MESSIER Matson Evaluation of Social Skills in Individuals with Severe Retardation

Matson, LeBlanc Weinheimer Scientific Publishers johnmatson@aol.com N.A.

VAS Scale for the Evaluation of Social Abilities

Nota & Soresi Dept. of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padua, Italy

laura.nota@unipd.it N.A.

ASC Assessment of social competence for children and young adults with developmental disabilities

Meyer, Reichle, McQuarter, Evans, Neel, Kishi

Syracuse University (details to follow) (details to follow) (details to follow)

SPSS-R Social Performance Survey Schedule-Revised

Matson, Helsel, Bellack, Senatore

? ? ?

MESSY Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters

Matson, Rotatori, Helsel IDS sales@idspublishing.com www.idspublishing.com

SSBS School Social Behavior Scales Merrell Assessment Intervention Resources info@assessment-intervention.com www.assessment-intervention.com

HCSBS Home & Community Social Behavior Scales

Merrell, Calderella Assessment Intervention Resources info@assessment-intervention.com www.assessment-intervention.com

SSRS Social Skills Rating System Gresham, Elliott American Guidance Service, Inc. agsmail@agsnet.com www.agsnet.com

WSSRS Waksman Social Skills Rating System Waksman M.D. Angus & Associates Ltd. mdangus@psychtest.com www.psychtest.com

WSSCSA Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment

Walker, McConnell Wadsworth Publishing www.thomson.com/learning/learning_email_us.jsp

www.wadsworth.com

SSSRS School Social Skills Rating Scale Brown, Black, Downs Slosson Educational Publications Inc. slosson@webt.com www.slosson.com

SBAI Social Behavior Assessment Inventory Stephens, Arnold Psychological Assessment Resources,

Inc. Custserv@parinc.com www.parinc.com

VACG Vocational Assessment and Curriculum Guide

Rusch, Schutz, Mithaug, Stewart

Exceptional Education Telephone: 206-262-9538

TBS-2 Transition Behavior Scales Mc Carney & Anderson Hawthorne Educational Services, Inc. info@hes-inc.com. www.hes-inc.com

TPI Transition Planning Inventory Clark, Patton PRO-ED proedrd2@aol.com www.proed.com

OSAI Occupational Skills Assessment Instrument

Mathews, Whang, Fawcett Research and Training Center on Independent Living, University of Kansas, USA

RTCIL@ku.edu www.rtcil.org/catalog.htm

SCW Social Competence in the Workplace Nota, Soresi Dept. of Developmental Psychology and

Socialization, University of Padua, Italy laura.nota@unipd.it N.A.

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]

2. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) (Sparrow et al., 1984)

The VABS were developed from the Vineland Social Maturity Scales and

measure personal and social skills. There are three versions: the Interview Edition -

Survey Form, the Interview Edition - Expanded Form, and the Classroom Edition. All

three versions cover the same domains in more or less detail: communication, daily living

skills, socialization and motor skills. The communication domain (receptive, expressive

and written) and the socialization domain (interpersonal relationships, play & leisure

time, coping skills) are relevant to social skills.

The Interview Edition - Survey Form is most similar in content to the original

Vineland, it includes 297 items of which 67 relate to communication and 66 relate to

socialization. It is administered to a parent or caregiver in a semi structured interview

format. It is intended for children aged 0-19 and adults with intellectual disabilities. It

takes 20-60 minutes to administer.

The Interview Edition - Expanded Form includes 577 items of which 133 relate to

communication and 134 relate to socialization. This form yields a more comprehensive

assessment of adaptive behaviour and provides a systematic basis for preparing

individual educational or treatment programmes. Also administered as a semi-structured

interview, the Expanded Form includes a Score Summary and Profile Booklet, as well as

a Program Planning Report for preparing individual programmes. The Expanded Form

can be used by itself, or as a follow-up to obtain more information about deficits

suggested by the Survey Form. It is intended for children aged 0-19 and adults with

intellectual disabilities. It takes 60-90 minutes to administer.

The Classroom Edition includes 244 items that assess adaptive behaviour in the

classroom, of which 63 relate to communication and 53 socialization. This edition is

administered in the form of a questionnaire completed by a teacher. Although no

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.]

4. Responsibility and Independence Scale for Adolescents (RISA) (Sabourin et al.,

1989)

The RISA is a norm-referenced, individually administered instrument specifically

designed to measure adolescents' adaptive behaviour in terms of responsibility and

independence. It can be used with adolescents aged 12 to 20 years. Whereas most

measures of adaptive behaviour target low-level skills, the RISA assesses higher level

behaviours. The RISA measures adaptive behaviour in nine functional areas: domestic

skills, money management, citizenship, personal planning, transportation skills, career

development, self-management, social maturity, and social communication.

It is the ‘Responsibility’ domain which is most relevant to this inventory. It refers

to a broad class of adaptive behaviors that meet social expectations and standards of

reciprocity, accountability, and fairness and that enable personal development through

self- and social management, age-appropriate behavior, and social communication. The

RISA assumes that an individual who is responsible will be dependable, trustworthy, and

able to shape, as well as comply with, social rules.

According to the manual, the RISA correlates well with the Scales of Independent

Behavior and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, it has acceptable content validity,

and high levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. It has been standardised

on an American sample of 2,400 people. The RISA is administered in a standardized

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.]

Social skills assessments - Adults

1. Matson Evaluation of Social Skills in Individuals with Severe Retardation

(MESSIER) (Matson, 1995)

The MESSIER is an 85-item questionnaire designed to asses social strengths and

weaknesses in people with severe intellectual disability. The items are grouped into six

subscales: (i) positive verbal (e.g.: “Responds to voice of caregiver or another person”,

“Says ‘please’ when asking for something”, “Labels own emotional state – e.g. ‘I’m

sad’”, “Responds appropriately when introduced to strangers”); (ii) positive non verbal

(e.g.: “Looks at face of caregiver when spoken to”, “Extends hand toward familiar

people”, “Has appropriate posture”); (iii) positive general (e.g.: “Shows affection toward

familiar people”; “Participates in a game or activity with others without prompting”;

“Shares without being told to do so”; “Follows facility rules”), (iv) negative verbal (e.g.:

“Exhibits inappropriate repetitive vocalizations”; “Talks with food in mouth”), (v)

negative non verbal (e.g.: “Engages in self-injury or other inappropriate behavior to avoid

social contact”; “Pushes, hits, kicks, etc., peers or caregivers”), and (vi) negative general

(e.g.: “Follows caregivers around excessively”; “Disrupts activities of others”). The

factor analysis of the MESSIER yielded two dimensions: one factor describing positive

social behaviors and the other describing negative social behaviors.

The scale's authors report high stability across raters and good stability over time

and good internal consistency (Matson et al., 1999). High convergent validity with

equivalent domains of the VABS has also been reported (Matson, 1998). [The MESSIER

is available from Scientific Publishers via its main author: johnmatson@aol.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]

3. Assessment of social competence for children and young adults with

developmental disabilities (ASC) (Meyer et al., 1985)

The ASC can be used with children and adults, with or without intellectual

disabilities. It consists of 252 discrete behaviours that have been organised into 11

functions: initiate, self-regulate, follow rules, provide positive reinforcement, provide

negative feedback, obtain cues, offer assistance, accept assistance, indicate preference,

cope with negatives, and terminate. The items within each of the functions are grouped

into eight levels representing a hierarchy of increasing social sophistication. Thus,

assessment progresses from the earliest manifestation of each function to mastery levels

of performance as displayed by adults. The ASC categorises behaviours according to

their apparent function for the individual. The initial list of items was based on existing

assessments of social and adaptive behaviour and a review of the literature citing discrete

social skills which were targets of interventions. The ASC was designed to measure

social competence at all levels of social and intellectual functioning. The ASC has been

used in schools, community settings and workplaces. It takes about 45 minutes to

complete. The authors report acceptable levels of reliability and validity with adults and

children (Meyer et al., 1990). [The ASC can be obtained from Syracuse University,

Syracuse, New York, USA.]

4. Social Performance Survey Schedule-Revised (SPSS-R) (Matson et al., 1983)

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]

Social skills assessments - Children & adolescents

1. Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters (MESSY) (Matson et al.,

1983)

The MESSY can be used for children aged 4 - 18 years. Items were selected to

include a wide range of verbal and nonverbal behaviour. The instrument consists of a 62-

item Self-Rating version and a 64-item Teacher Rating scale. The items refer to discrete,

observable behaviours rather than to global personality traits. For example, the MESSY

has items like, “Makes other people laugh” rather than, “Has a good sense of humor.”

The MESSY provides scales for both appropriate and inappropriate social skills

so that users do not focus exclusively on the negative aspects of a child’s behaviour but

also take into account positive aspects. Examples of appropriate skills are, “Helps a

friend who is hurt” and “Walks up to people to start a conversation.” Examples of

inappropriate skills are, “Gives other children dirty looks” and “Wants to get even with

someone who hurt him/her.” It takes about 15 minutes to complete.

The MESSY is an established instrument that has been reviewed favourably and

is frequently used. The norms, based on 1,164 children, are broken down by age and

gender. Alpha coefficient of internal reliability is .93 (Teacher Form) and .80 (Self-

Report Form). Two studies (total n=744) have investigated the factor validity, concurrent

validity, and construct validity of the MESSY. Scores on the Messy were shown to

correlate (a) positively with the results of teacher ratings’, popularity in the classroom,

and with children’s proposed solutions to social dilemmas, and (b) negatively with

symptoms of psychopathology, such as anxiety and depression, and with the Child

Behavior Checklist, and the Pier-Harris Self-Concept scale. Hearing and vision

disabilities were shown to be associated with low scores. [The MESSY is available from

IDS Publishing Corporation. P.O. Box 389. Worthington, Ohio, 43085, USA. Web:

www.idspublishing.com.]

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.]

4. Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (Gresham & Elliott, 1990)

The SSRS is a nationally standardised series of questionnaires that obtain

information on the social behaviours of children and adolescents (aged 3-18 years) from

teachers, parents, and the students themselves. Each questionnaire takes 10-25 minutes to

complete. Items on each scale are rated according to perceived frequency and importance.

There are three scales. The Social Skills Scale measures positive social behaviours:

cooperation, empathy, assertion, self-control and responsibility. The Problem Behaviors

Scale measures behaviours that can interfere with the development of positive social

skills: externalizing problems (e.g., aggressive acts and poor temper control),

internalizing problems (e.g., sadness and anxiety) and hyperactivity (e.g., fidgeting and

impulsive acts). The Academic Competence Scale provides a quick estimate of academic

functioning. Teachers rate reading and mathematics performance, general cognitive

functioning, as well as motivation and parental support. Although the SSRS can be

administered by a range of personnel, it must be interpreted by professionals trained in

psychological testing. In a review of 6 scales which measure children’s social skills, the

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.]

5. Waksman Social Skills Rating Scale (WSSRS) (Waksman, 1985)

The WSSRS is intended for children and adolescents (years K to 12 of the

American school system). It can be used to identify social skills deficits, to select skills to

be targeted in training, and to evaluate the success of social skills training. It comprises

21 norm-referenced items to which responses are made on 4-point Likert scales. The

major scale concerns social skills. Two subscales relate to aggression and passivity.

There are separate forms for boys and girls. It is completed by teachers and takes 15-20

minutes. The authors of the scale report high internal consistency. However, Demaray et

al. (1995) report deficiencies in other psychometric properties. These authors also

suggested that in spite of the scale’s brevity and ease of administration, its utility is

undermined by its focus on skill deficits rather than prosocial behaviour. [It is available

from M.D. Angus and Associates Limited. Web: www.psychtest.com.]

6. Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment

(WSSCSA) (Walker & McConnel, 1995)

There are two versions of the Walker-McConnell Scale. The Adolescent Version

contains four, analytically derived, sub-scales (Self Control, Peer Relations, School

Adjustment, and Empathy) totaling 53 items across the four sub-scales. The Scale relies

on teacher ratings of the frequency with which social skills are estimated to occur for

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.]

Vocational assessment scales which include a section on social skills

1. Vocational Assessment and Curriculum Guide (VACG) (Rusch et al., 1982)

The VACG is an evaluation instrument based on an ecological analysis of

employment opportunities. It includes a variety of general work and social skills based on

an empirical analysis of job demands. Rusch et al. (1982) surveyed employers in service

and light industries to determine the skill demands of their entry-level jobs. The results of

this survey provided the item pool for the VACG.

The VACG has been designed as a behaviour rating scale that provides a measure

of the vocational and social skills of persons with disabilities. It comprises the domains:

attendance/endurance, independence, social skills, grooming/eating, reading/writing, and

mathematics. There are 66 items on the VACG, each beginning with the phrase, “Does

the worker,” followed by a description of the behaviour being assessed. Several possible

responses are provided that indicate levels of performance displayed by the worker, and

raters are instructed to select the phrase that best describes the individual’s current level

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.]

3. Transition Planning Inventory (TPI) (Clark & Patton, 1997)

The TPI is an instrument for identifying and planning the comprehensive

transitional needs of students aged 14-25 years. It is designed to provide school personnel

with a systematic way to address critical transition planning areas that take into account

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.]

Table 2 Items of the TPI relevant to social skills

Employment 3. Knows how to get a job

4. Demonstrates general job skills and work attitudes preferred by employers for keeping a job and advancing—may include supported employment

Self-Determination 33. Expresses feelings and ideas to others appropriately

34. Expresses feelings and ideas to others confidently

Communication 37. Has needed speaking skills

38. Has needed listening skills

Interpersonal

Relationships

43. Establishes and maintains close and/or casual friendships in a variety of settings

44. Displays appropriate behaviors in a variety of settings

45. Demonstrates skills for getting along well with coworkers

46. Demonstrates skills for getting along well with supervisor

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.]

Dedicated vocational social skills assessments

1. Social Competence in the Workplace (SCW) – experimental version (Nota &

Soresi, undated)

The SCW is a behaviour checklist which has been designed specifically for

assessing workplace-related social skills. It comprises 58 items which are rated ‘yes’,

‘no’, or ‘yes/no’ according to whether or not the behaviors are emitted in the workplace.

This is a new scale which has yet to be psychometrically validated. See Appendix 3 for

27

an English translation of the Italian original. [Further information is available from the

authors (laura.nota@unipd.it).]

28

References

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

259 .

38 19 19 56 18 18 20 88 19 17 18 16 18 77 19 20 20 18

40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 . . . .

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

356 . 103 76 27 177 57 28 47 15 27 3 76 9 26 12 29 . 256 . 108 45 33 30 90 40 24 26 . 23 35

329 . 103 76 27 150 57 28 47 15 . 3 76 9 26 12 29 . 232 . 108 45 33 30 66 40 . 26 . 23 35

.

. 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

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. (same interviewer 2-4 weeks apart) .98 .85 .66 (e) .94

Inter-rater reliability @ 6-18 yrs. (two interviewers) .95 .74 .74 (e) .94 (f)

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 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

Development technique Fac. anal. - - Fac.

anal.

N of items 16 27 9 232

Std. error of measure / SD @ 6-11 yrs. ±2.5 / 10 - - ±3.8 / 15

Split-half/alpha reliability @ 8-9 yrs. (c) .87 - .94

Test-retest reliability @ 6-13 yrs. (same interviewer 2-4 weeks apart) .86 .88 - .83 (d)

Inter-rater reliability @ 6-18 yrs. (two interviewers) .83 .74 - .57 (d)

Maladaptive subscale intercorrelations yes - - yes

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

possible.

Worker: ________________________________________

Date: ________________________________________

Supervisor: ________________________________________

1. Today has arrived at work on time. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

2. Today has worked continuously in working hours. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

3. Today has worked autonomously. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

4. Today has taken the breaks at the right times. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

5. Today has left his/her place before due time giving a reason. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

6. Today has been productive. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

7. Today has worked quickly. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

8. Today has done his/her work accurately. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

9. Today has done all the work requested of him/her. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

10. Today has talked with the supervisor about topics not ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

inherent in the job (weather, health, etc.).

11. Today has talked with other workers about topics not ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

inherent in the job (weather, health, etc.).

12. Today ha said ‘hello’ to the supervisor. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YN

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

44

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.).