This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA. Home current Explore. Words: Pages: 3. Preview Full text.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||20 August 2018|
|PDF File Size:||8.63 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Isabel Salazar. Assessing social skills: the factorial structure and other psychometric properties of four self-report measures. Caballo1, Isabel C. The study reported here involved university students The factorial solutions obtained were 6, 8, 11 and 12 factors, respectively.
The study concluded by recognizing certain common problems affecting the self-report measures of social skills, as well as certain advantages of the new CHASO-I. Correspondence: Vicente E. E-mail: vcaballo ugr. Las soluciones factoriales obtenidas fueron de 6, 8, 11 y 12 factores respectivamente. La fiabilidad dos mitades de Guttman y alfa de Cronbach de todos los cuestionarios fue alta y las correlaciones entre el CHASO-I y el resto de los cuestionarios fueron moderadas.
Furthermore, the assessment of social skills is, still today as it was then see Caballo, , , a controversial issue pending general consensus among experts in the field.
If we focus on self-report measures assessing social skills, we find that most of the questionnaires used today were developed in those years. In fact, as opposed to other areas, we do not have a self-report assessment measure that acts as a gold standard for comparing or validating other measures.
This may be due, at least partially, to the fact that many of the questionnaires were developed with a clinical application in mind e. The fact is that we are currently facing several important issues in regard to the psychometric nature of the social skills self-report measures. One such issue involves factorial validity. Social skills assessment questionnaires should include such dimensions. The problem is that there is no consensus over their number and nature.
As many as 14 possible different dimensions or response classes have been proposed see Caballo, , for a review , but they are not included in any self-report assessment measures, especially not as non-overlapping independent entities. There are no stable factorial structures using the same questionnaire. The inconsistency of the factorial structures of the self-report measures of social skills may be due to a variety of reasons.
One could be that too many factors are often extracted and retained, in spite of having very few items one or two , as was the case, for example, with the AI. Another reason is that there are no consistent standards for retaining specific items for each factor, that is, no attempt is made to retain only those items with loadings above a particular score on a factor e.
A further problem with social skills questionnaires is that identical names are often given to two separate factors in spite of their different composition.
For instance, Hersen et al. The items in the male sample were 12, 14, 16, 17, 28, and 29; and 5, 11, 16 and 28 in the female sample. Additionally, three out of the six items that formed the factor in the males sample loaded also on another factor. In sum, although both studies found the same factorial solution, the items included in each factor do not match, and the variance explained by the main factors differs significantly. This can also be seen with the AI in the research by Gambrill and Richey , and Henderson and Furnham , in which the solution was 11 factors in each one, but only three factors have a major concordance, some concordance in four, and none at all in five of the factors.
Recently developed questionnaires share the same problems. Only in one factor did most items coincide, with partial coincidence in three of the factors fewer than half of the items , while the fifth factor is completely different in both studies.
Method Participants The sample consisted of participants with a mean age of They were mostly university students Of these, were Psychology students, and were students in other subjects. As regards the rest of the sample 6. There were no data on four of the participants. However, not all the subjects completed all the questionnaires. In fact, the AI was answered by subjects with a mean age of No item was negatively formulated, so the total score and the dimensions score are the sum of all or part of the items, and the higher the score, the greater the social skill.
This item instrument was designed to measure assertiveness. A high positive score means high social skills, while a high negative score means the opposite. The test-retest reliability found was between. The RAS has been criticized by Galassi and Galassi for not distinguishing between assertiveness and aggressiveness. The AI was developed to gather three kinds of information regarding assertive behavior: a degree of discomfort or anxiety when handling a variety of social situations, b response probability of engaging in assertive behavior in these same social situations, and c identification of situations in which the respondent would like to be more assertive.
This study considered only the second type of information regarding assertive behavior b. The authors of the questionnaire found a test-retest reliability of. Twenty-nine items are worded so that they require reverse scoring. Scores on the 50 items are summed to yield a total score, with higher total scores indicating more assertion. Its psychometric properties have been considered as appropriate.
The test-retest reliability found varies between. The test- retest reliability found with a Spanish university sample was. Procedure The questionnaires were collectively administered in classrooms at the universities of Granada, Murcia and Valladolid, and in groups for non-students. The questionnaires were answered anonymously to respect personal privacy.
For technical reasons, the number of questionnaires administered varied throughout the study, so the time required to fill out the questionnaires also varied accordingly. Statistical analysis An exploratory factor analysis EFA with a hierarchical analysis of oblique factors was performed by means of Statistica v.
The hypothesis behind this type of factor analysis assumes a general factor secondary of social skill that probably affects all the social skills dimensions assessed by each questionnaire. Furthermore, the factorial solutions obtained with this kind of analysis are neater and clearer, favoring the items loading on only one factor.
Furthermore, the eigenvalues and explained variance of each factor are included. Performing or acting out a scene in. Participating in a meeting with people. Expressing positive feelings eigenvalue: 7. Expressing affection kiss, hug,. Expressing support hug, caress to a close -. Refusing requests eigenvalue: 5. Refusing to do something I do not. Refusing what I consider to be an. Interacting with persons I am attracted to eigenvalue: 3. Asking someone I find attractive for a.
Asking someone I. Dancing or singing in public eigenvalue: 2. Dancing in front of -. Singing in public -. Disclosing information about myself to close persons eigenvalue: 2. Talking about personal matters with. Disclosing personal. Asking an attendant or a stranger for something eigenvalue: 2. Asking an. Asking someone on the street for the. Expressing annoyance, disgust, or displeasure eigenvalue: 2. Telling someone to stop being annoying.
Telling someone. Disagreeing with others when I think I. Clarifying my opinion in a group. Apologizing if my behavior has upset. Apologizing when. Interacting with strangers eigenvalue: 1. Talking to people I do not know at parties. Behaving in a extroverted way in. Thanking for well- wishes received on my. Arguing about the price with salespeople -. The remaining items did not load above. Table 2 shows these six factors, each including two of the most representative items of the corresponding factor fulfilling the same criteria as with the SSQ-I.
Test Asertividad De Rathus (manual)
Risk and protective factors of dissocial behavior in a probability sample