1995 Social Skills Assessment A Comparative Evaluation of Six Published Rating Scales

School Psychology Review
Volume 24, No. 4, 1995, pp. C,-1S-c>71

SOCIAL SKILLS ASSESSMENT: A COMPARATIVE
EVALUATION OF SIX PUBLISHED
RATING SCALES
Michelle K. Demaray, Stacey L. Ruffalo, John Carlson, R. T. Busse,
Amy E. Olson, Susan M. McManus, and Amy Leventhal
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Abstract: A comparative and integrative review was conducted of six published rat-
ing scales commonly used to assess the social skills of preschool and school-aged
children. Four norm-referenced instruments are reviewed: School Social Behavior
Scales (SSBS; Merrell, 1993), Social SkiUs Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott,
1990), Waksman Social Skills Rating Scale (WSSRS; Waksman, 1985), and Walker-MC-
Connell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (WMS; Walker & Mc-
Connell, 1988). The School Social Skills Rating Scale (S3; Brown, Black, & Downs,
1984) and Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI; Stephens & Arnold, 1992)
are included as criterion-referenced rating scales. Content and use, standardization
sample and norms, scores and interpretation, and psychometric properties were re-
viewed. We concluded that the most comprehensive instrument is the SSRS because
of its multi-source approach and intervention linkage. The SSBS and the WMS are use-
ful tools for a more limited school scope. The remaining norm-referenced scale,
WSSRS, is not recommended. Following initial screening, the S3 and SBAI are useful
for a more specific examination of particular behaviors to target for change.
The assessment of social skills is an im-
portant issue in school settings. Research
has indicated that children who persistently
exhibit social skills deficits often experi-
ence short- and long-term negative conse-
quences (Elliott, Sheridan, & Gresham,
1989). For example, peer relationship diffi-
culties have been found to remain stable
over time (Coie & Dodge, 1983), and to be
predictive of adult psychopathology
(Parker & Asher, 1987). Further, social skills
deficits have been related to poor academic
adjustment for children with (McKinney &
Speece, 1983) and without disabilities
(Hoge & Lute, 1979), and poor peer accep-
tance of students with disabilities (Gre-
sham, 1988; Hazel & Schumaker, 1988;
Stumme, Gresham, & Scott, 1982).
Recognition of the importance of as-
sessing social skills has given rise to a num-
ber of rating scales specifically focused on
childrens and adolescents social behav-
iors. Social skills rating scales have been de-
veloped for use by parents, teachers, and
other adults associated with the individual
being rated. These measures can range in
composition from scales with two or more
subscales assessing different areas of a con-
struct, to single scales measuring narrowly
defined constructs. Rating scales can pro-
vide valuable information regarding chil-
drens social skills; however, best practices
assessment calls for gathering information
from multiple sources, settings, and meth-
ods. Elliott and colleagues (1989) provided
a useful heuristic for the assessment of so-
cial skills that includes: (a) teacher, parent,
and student ratings; (b) teacher, parent, and
student interviews; (c) observations; (d) be-
havioral role-plays; and (e) sociometrics.
Social behavior rating scales can facili-
tate a variety of assessment decisions (Wil-
son & Bullock, 1989) and can be used (a) as
part of the screening, referral, and identifi-
cation process; (b) to compare behaviors
across settings; (c) to monitor behavior
over time; and (d) in research. An important
advantage of rating scales over other as-
sessment methods is the ability to obtain
judgments about a variety of traits or be-
haviors from many sources in a time effi-
cient manner. Elliott, Busse, and Gresham
(1993) suggested some additional advan-
tages of rating scales. For example, rating
scales can be used to demonstrate a prompt
reaction to a teacher or parent referral,
Address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to Michelle K. Danaray, The University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Educational Sciences Building, 1025 W. Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706.
648
Social Skills Assessment 649
which helps communicate concern for the
referred child and respect for the adult who
refers the child, and reflects good organiza-
tion skills. Also, having a completed rating
scale prior to meeting with a teacher or par-
ent can facilitate precise, behavior-specific
communications and more efficient use of
time during interviews. Further, well-con-
structed social skill scales include polls of
items representing the domain of interest
(i.e., possess content validity). Thus, rating
scales can cover a broad range of poten-
tially relevant problems which may extend
beyond a specific referral complaint (Mc-
Conaughy, 1993).
McConaughy (1993) summarized the
limitations of rating scales thereby requir-
ing multiple methods of assessment. For ex-
ample, rating scales measure current levels
of functioning, but do not assess etiology.
Further, rating scales do not assess ecologi-
cal conditions surrounding behavior (e.g.,
antecedents, consequences), and do not
dictate intervention strategies. Finally, rat-
ing scales involve perceptions that may vary
with informants and context/settings.
Therefore, although the focus of this article
is on social skills rating scales, one should
realize that rating scales should not be used
in isolation to make decisions regarding
classification or intervention.
Social skills rating scales can be poten-
tially useful components in the assessment
process and, as such, consumers should be
aware of the relative merits of a given in-
strument. To that end, this article provides
critical reviews and comparative evalua-
tions of six social skills rating scales. Before
engaging in the reviews and comparisons, a
brief discussion is offered of guidelines for
evaluating social skills rating scales and is
followed by the procedures used for inclu-
sion and for critical review of the scales.
Guidelines for Evaluating
Social Skills Rating Scales
Evaluating social skills rating scales (in-
deed, any rating scale) is a multifactored
process. We drew upon several sources (for
further discussions see American Psycho-
logical Association [APA], 1985; Edelbrock,
1983; Elliott et al., 1993; McCloskey, 1990;
Wilson & Bullock, 1989) to construct guided
criteria from which to judge an instruments
merits. We have condensed the information
gleaned into four evaluative dimensions:
1. Content and use of a scale. Impor-
tant aspects to be considered for this di-
mension are completeness and user friend-
liness of material and manuals, and appro-
priate format (e.g., anchor points, instruc-
tions), and scoring procedures.
2. Standardization sample and
norms. Norm-referenced rating scales are
used throughout the country and for appro-
priate interpretation must be developed
with representative standardization sam-
ples (standardized norming procedures are
not a prerequisite for criterion-referenced
scales). Norming procedures should be
clearly delineated, including information on
the year norming transpired, descriptive
statistics, and the sampling procedure used.
3. Scores/interpretation. Important as-
pects on this dimension are detailed de-
scriptions of scores, and appropriateness of
scores for the purposes of the scale. Inter-
pretation of scores also should be de1i.n
eated and not extend beyond the purposes
of the scale.
4. Psychometric properties, involves a
scales reliability and validity. Interrater,
test-retest, and internal consistency are im-
portant reliability considerations for most
rating scales. Evaluating scale validation in-
cludes consideration of a scales internal va-
lidity (i.e., content validity, construct valid-
ity) and external validity (i.e., criterion-re-
lated validity, convergent/divergent validity,
predictive validity).
Procedural Guidelines
The first four scales chosen for review
are norm-referenced, whereas the last two
scales are criterion-based (see Table 1 for
scale summaries). The norm-referenced
scales are: (a) School Social Behavior
Scales (SSBS; Merrell, 1993); (b) SociaZ
SFcills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & El-
liott, 1990); (c) WaFcsman Social SMls Rat-
ing Scale (WSSRS; Waksman, 1985); and (d)
Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Compe-
tence and School Adjustment (WMS;
Walker & McConnell, 1988). The criterion-
650 School Psychology Review, 1995, Vol. 24, No.4
based scales are: (a) SchooZ Social Scales
Rating ScaZe(S3; Brown et al., 1984); and (b)
Social Behavior Assessment Inventory
(SBAI; Stephens & Arnold, 1992).
Selection criteria for inclusion of the
scales were: (a) a specific focus on
child/adolescent social skills; (b) a focus on
use in schools; and (c) whether the scale
was published at the time of this review?
We focused on published scales because we
deemed it important to present readily
available scales. The six scales are pre-
sented in alphabetical order, with the norm-
referenced scales arbitrarily presented first.
The reviews begin with brief descriptions of
each instrument, followed by evaluations
based on the four dimensions discussed
above as well as the authors critical re-
views and judgments of the quantity and
quality of summary information/data. The
criteria of limited, adequate, and excellent
are used to characterize data concerning
the technical properties of each scale (see
Tables 2 and 3 for reliability and validity
summaries). Because there is no algorithm
for determining the technical acceptability
of a given scale or test (APA, 19S5), these
criteria and evaluations were guided by our
judgments of converging evidence for each
measure. In general, the criterion of exceZ-
Lent indicates strong converging evidence
within a given dimension (e.g., internal con-
sistency > .90, 2-week test-retest 2 .SO). The
criterion of adequate is used to indicate the
evidence is acceptable for scale use
whereas Limited is used to characterize an
unacceptable level of evidence.
SCHOOL SOCIAL
BEHAVIOR SCALES
The SchooZ Social Behavior Scales
(SSBS; Merrell, 1993) is a 65-item, norm-ref-
erenced rating scale designed specifically
for school-based use. Ratings of students
(Grades K-12) are obtained from teachers
or other school personnel. Responses are
made on a 5-point Like&type scale. Two
major scales make up this instrument: so-
cial competence (Scale A) and antisocial
behavior (Scale B). Each scale consists of
three subscales (A = interpersonal skills,
self-management, and academic skills; B =
hostile-irritable. antisocial-aggressive. and
disruptive-demanding). The SSBS was de-
veloped as: (a) a screening tool for identify-
ing students who are behaviorally at-risk;
(b) part of a multi-method, multi-source as-
sessment battery for determining program
eligibility and designing appropriate inter-
vention programs; and (c) a research instru-
ment for studying social competence and
antisocial behavior.
Content and Use
Completion of the SSBS is easy and can
be done by most teachers in 5 to 10 min. The
components of this instrument include an
easy to follow technical manual and a two-
page rating booklet. The instructions are
concise and easy to follow. However, a po-
tential problem is that the rater is instructed
to circle 1, which indicates Never, if the
student does not exhibit a specified behav-
ior or if the rater has not had the opportu-
nity to observe the behavior. Consequently,
lower scores may misrepresent a students
skills. Thus, scale use could be enhanced by
providing a rating method to distinguish
whether the rater has had the opportunity
to observe the behavior. Scoring the SSBS is
a simple process; however, a disadvantage
is that all items must be completed to inter-
pret the data.
Standardization Sample and Norms
The standardization sample consisted
of 1,858 children from Grades K through 12.
A number of limitations exist in the stan-
dardization sample. A large part of the sam-
ple (40%) came from Washington and Ore-
gon, limiting representativeness. Also, the
ethnic distribution is not representative of
the U.S. population. The author noted, how-
ever, that the ethnicity of subjects is not a
critical factor in influencing scores on be-
havior rating scales once the effects of so-
cial class have been controlled (Achen-
bath & Edelbrock, 1981 cited in Merrell,
1993, p. IS). The representativeness of SES
is questionable because: (a) teachers pro-
vided information about parents occupa-
tions; (b) parent occupation was gathered
for only one-half of the sample; and (c) only
primary wage earners occupations were re-
ported, which does not represent other
household income. The regular education to
T
A
B
L
E

1

S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

R
e
v
i
e
w
e
d

S
o
c
i
a
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

R
a
t
i
n
g

S
c
a
l
e
s

G
r
a
d
e

L
e
v
e
l

a
n
d

T
e
s
t

N
a
m
e

I
t
e
m
s

N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e

S
a
m
p
l
e

F
o
r
m
s

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

F
o
r
m
a
t

S
S
B
S

(
M
e
r
r
e
l
l
,

1
9
9
3
)

-
s
-
w
-
-
w
-
-

S
S
R
S
-
T

(
G
r
e
s
h
a
m

&

E
l
l
i
o
t
t
,

1
9
9
0
)

6
5

G
r
a
d
e
s

K

t
o

1
2

N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e

s
a
m
p
l
e

(
n

=

1
8
5
8
)
:

R
e
g
u
l
a
r

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
8
8
%
)

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
2
%
)

R
a
c
e
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y

(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
)
:

W
h
i
t
e

8
7
%

B
l
a
c
k

8
%

H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c

3
%

O
t
h
e
r

2
%

M
a
l
e

(
5
5
%
)

F
e
m
a
l
e

(
4
5
%
)

5
7

G
r
a
d
e
s

P
r
e
-
K

t
o

1
2

N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e

s
a
m
p
l
e

(
n

=

4
,
1
7
0
)
:

R
e
g
u
l
a
r

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
8
3
%
)

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
7
%
)

R
a
c
e
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y

(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
)
:

W
h
i
t
e

7
3
%

B
l
a
c
k

1
8
%

H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c

6
%

O
t
h
e
r

3
%

M
a
l
e

(
5
1
%
)

F
e
m
a
l
e

(
4
9
%
)

1

f
o
r
m

2

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
s
:

S
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

3

s
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

S
e
l
f
-
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

s
k
i
l
l
s

3

a
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

H
o
s
t
i
l
e
-
i
r
r
i
t
a
b
l
e

A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l
-
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

D
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
v
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
g

m
-s
--
3

f
o
r
m
s

3

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
s
:

P
e
r

a
w
l

S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

g
r
a
d
e

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

3

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

S
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l

3

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

H
y
p
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

5
-
p
o
i
n
t

L
i
k
e
r
t
-
t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
-

q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.

-
I
-
-
-
I
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
I
-
.
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-

E

-
.

S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s
:

3
-
p
t
.

L
i
k
e
r
t
-
t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

z

c
n

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
:

3
-
p
t
.

L
i
k
e
r
t
-
t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
-

i
o
r
.

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e
:

5
-
p
t
.

L
i
k
e
r
t

t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

c
l
u
s
t
e
r
s
.

(
T
a
b
l
e

1

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

.
.
.
)

(
T
a
b
l
e

1
,

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

G
r
a
d
e

L
e
v
e
l

a
n
d

T
e
s
t

N
a
m
e

I
t
e
m
s

N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e

S
a
m
p
l
e

F
o
r
m
s

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

F
o
r
m
a
t

S
S
R
S
P

(
G
r
e
s
h
a
m

&

E
l
l
i
o
t
t
,

1
9
9
0
)

5
2

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T

3

f
o
r
m
s

2

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
s
:

P
e
r

a
g
e
/

S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

g
r
a
d
e

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

(
P
B
)

4

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

S
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

3

P
B

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

(
s
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T
)

S
S
R
S
-
s

(
G
r
e
s
h
a
m

&

E
l
l
i
o
t
t
,

1
9
9
0
)

3
9

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T

2

f
o
r
m
s

1

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
:

P
e
r

a
g
e
/

S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

g
r
a
d
e

4

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l

E
m
p
a
t
h
y

A
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

W
S
S
R
S

w
a
k
s
m
a
n

1
9
8
5
)

2
1

G
r
a
d
e
s

K

t
o

1
2

2

f
o
r
m
s

1

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
:

N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e

s
a
m
p
l
e

(
n

=

3
3
1
)
:

m
a
l
e
/

S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

R
e
g
u
l
a
r

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
0
0
%
)

f
e
m
a
l
e

2

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
0
%
)

A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

d
o
m
a
i
n

R
a
c
e
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
:

p
a
s
s
i
v
e

d
o
m
a
i
n

N
o

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
T

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

p
r
o
b
-

l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
s
.

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

s
c
a
l
e
.

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

r
a
t
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d

o
n
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

f
o
r
m

(
g
r
a
d
e
s

7
-
1
2
)
.

-
.
-
_
-
_
-
.
-
.
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
.
-
-
-
-
-

4
-
p
o
i
n
t

L
i
k
e
r
t
-
t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
-

q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.

(
T
a
b
l
e

1

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

.
.
.
)

(
T
a
b
l
e

1
,

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

G
r
a
d
e

L
e
v
e
l

a
n
d

T
e
s
t

N
a
m
e

I
t
e
m
s

N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e

S
a
m
p
l
e

F
o
r
m
s

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

F
o
r
m
a
t

W
M
S

(
W
a
l
k
e
r

&

M
c
C
o
n
n
e
l
l
,

1
9
8
8
)

4
3

G
r
a
d
e
s

K

t
o

6

1

f
o
r
m

1

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
:

5
-
p
o
i
n
t

L
i
k
e
r
t
-
t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
-

N
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e

s
a
m
p
l
e

(
n

=

1
,
8
1
2
)

S
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.

R
e
g
u
l
a
r

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
0
0
%
)

3

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
:

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
0
%
)

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
-
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

R
a
c
e
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y

(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
)
:

P
e
e
r
-
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

W
h
i
t
e

8
0
%

S
c
h
o
o
l

a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

B
l
a
c
k

1
1
%

H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c

1
%

O
t
h
e
r

8
%

M
a
l
e

(
5
1
%
)

F
e
m
a
l
e

(
4
9
%
)

-
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
_
-
-
-

S
3

4
0

G
r
a
d
e
s

K

t
o

1
2

1

f
o
r
m

4

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
s
:

(
B
r
o
w
n
,

A
d
u
l
t

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

B
l
a
c
k
,

&

P
e
e
r

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

D
o
w
n
s
,

S
c
h
o
o
l

r
u
l
e
s

1
9
8
4
)

C
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

-
_
-
.
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
.
-
_
-
_
-
.
-
.
-
_
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
-

S
B
A
I

1
3
5

G
r
a
d
e
s

K

t
o

9

1

f
o
r
m

4

m
a
j
o
r

s
c
a
l
e
s
:

(
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

&

A
r
n
o
l
d
,

I
n
t
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

1
9
9
2
)

S
e
l
f
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

T
a
s
k
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

3
0

s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s

6
-
p
o
i
n
t

L
i
k
e
r
t
-
t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
-

q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.

4
-
p
o
i
n
t

L
i
k
e
r
t
-
t
y
p
e

s
c
a
l
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
-

q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.

TABLE 2
Reliability Information for Commonly Used Social Behavior Rating Scales
Internal
Test Name Consistency Test-Retest Interrater
School Social Behavior Scales .94-.96a .76-.82a (3 wks.) .72-.83a
(SSBS; Merrell, 1993) .9 1-.96b .60-.73b (3 wks.) .53-.71
Social Skills Rating Scales
(SSRS; Cresham & Elliott, 1990)
l SSRS-Teacher .93-.94c .85c .84d .93e (4 wks.) .32 (teacher-student)c
.82-.88d
l SSRS-Parent
.87-.90c .87c .65d (4 wks.) .31 @arent-teacher)c
.73-.87d
l SSRS-Student
83
C
. .68c (4 wks.) .24 (parent-student)c
Waksman Social Skills .92
.73f .64g (4 wks.) .57-.72f
Rating Scale -.09-.8Og
(WSSRS; Waksman, 1985)
Walker-McConnell Scale
of Social Competence and
School Adjustment
x90 .61-.97 (2 wks.-6 mos.) .53-.77
(WMS;Walker & McConnell,
1988)
School Social Skills
Rating Scale
(S3; Brown, Black, & Downs,
1984)
.81-.93h (10-21 days) .70-,78h
Social Behavior Assessment
Inventory
(SBAI; Stephens &
Arnold, 1992)
.90-.94
.91-.9gh
(9 of 30 subscales)
aSSBS - Social Competence Scale
bSSBS - Antisocial Behavior Scale
CSSRS - Social Skills Scale
dSSRS - Problem Behavior Scale
eSSRs - Academic Competence Scale
Aggressive Domain subscale (no information provided for total score)
gPassive Domain subscale (no information provided for total score)
hAgreement p ercentages = agreements / (agreements + disagreements)
**Data unless noted are based on total scores.
special education ratio of the sample ade-
quately represented the general population.
Despite statistically significant mean score
differences between male and female sub-
jects, separate norms for males and females
are not provided. The author chose not to
separate norms by sex because of weak cor-
relations between sex and SSBS scores, and
overall scores more often are compared to
school rules than gender norms. Unfortu-
nately, background information was not
given on the 688 teachers who completed
ratings on students. In addition, it would be
beneficial to have information about the
range and average number of children rated
by each teacher.
Scores &nd Interpretation
The manual presents raw scores, stan-
dard scores (M = 100, SD = 15 for total scale
scores), percentiles, and social functioning
levels. Social functioning levels indicate
T
A
B
L
E

3

V
a
l
i
d
i
t
y

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

C
o
m
m
o
n
l
y

U
s
e
d

S
o
c
i
a
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

R
a
t
i
n
g

S
c
a
l
e
s

T
e
s
t

N
a
m
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

R
e
l
a
t
e
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

S
S
B
S

(
M
e
r
r
e
l
l
,

1
9
9
3
)

C
a
r
e
f
u
l

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

W
a
k
s
m
a
n

S
o
c
i
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

S
c
a
l
e

(
W
a
k
s
m
a
n
,

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
s

b
y

e
x
-

1
9
8
5
:

p
e
r
t
s
.

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

r

=

.
7
8

S
t
r
o
n
g

i
t
e
m
-
t
o
t
a
l

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

l
A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

r

=

8
7

C
o
n
n
e
r
s

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
a
t
i
n
g

S
c
a
l
e
s

(
C
o
n
n
e
r
s
,

1
9
9
0
)
:

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

r

=

.
6
1

t
o

-
8
7

l
A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

r

=

.
3
7

t
o

.
9
1

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
u
-

d
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

a
n
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
/
e
m
o
-

t
i
o
n
a
l

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
u
-

d
e
n
t
s

w
h
o

w
e
r
e

g
i
f
t
e
d

a
n
d

t
h
o
s
e

c
o
n
-

s
i
d
e
r
e
d

t
o

b
e

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
g

a
t

a
n

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

l
e
v
e
l
.

S
S
R
S
-
T

(
G
r
e
s
h
a
m

&

E
l
l
i
o
t
t
,

1
9
9
0
)

--
W
a
l
k
e
r
-
M
c
C
o
n
n
e
l
l

S
c
a
l
e

o
f

S
o
c
i
a
l

C
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

(
M
c
C
o
n
n
e
l
l
,

1
9
8
8
)
:

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

r

=

.
9
4

l
A
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

r

=

.
7
0

C
a
r
e
f
u
l

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

S
o
c
i
a
l

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

(
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
,

1
9
8
1
)
:

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
s

b
y

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

r

=

.
6
8

e
x
p
e
r
t
s
.

l
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

r

=

.
5
5

U
s
e

o
f

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

r
a
t
i
n
g
s

l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

r

=

.
6
7

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

s
o
c
i
a
l

v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
.

C
h
i
l
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
T
R
F

(
A
c
h
e
n
b
a
c
h

&

S
t
r
o
n
g

i
t
e
m
-
t
o
t
a
l

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

E
d
e
l
b
r
o
c
k
,

1
9
8
3
)
:

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

r

=

.
6
4

l
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

r

=

.
8
1

l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

r

=

.
5
9

H
a
r
t
e
r

T
e
a
c
h
e
r

R
a
t
i
n
g

S
c
a
l
e

(
H
a
r
t
e
r
,

1
9
8
5
)
:

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

r

=

.
7
0

l
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

r

=

.
6
6

l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

r

=

.
6
3

S
e
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

W
M
S

L
i
t
t
l
e

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

c
h
a
n
g
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

s
u
b
-

s
c
a
l
e
s
.

L
a
r
g
e

s
i
x

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:

f
e
m
a
l
e
s

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
i
n
g

m
o
r
e

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
,

m
a
l
e
s

e
x
-

h
i
b
i
t
i
n
g

m
o
r
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
.

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
u
-

d
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

a
n
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

d
i
s
-

a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.

(
T
a
b
l
e

3

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

.
.
.
)

(
T
a
b
l
e

3

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

T
e
s
t

N
a
m
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

R
e
l
a
t
e
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

S
S
R
S
-
P

(
C
r
e
s
h
a
m

&

E
l
l
i
o
t
t
,

1
9
9
0
)

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T

C
h
i
l
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
P
R
F
(
A
c
h
e
n
b
a
c
h

&

E
d
e
l
b
r
o
c
k
,

1
9
8
3
)
:

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

(
S
S
R
S
)
w
i
t
h

s
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

(
C
B
C
L
)

r

=

.
5
8

0

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

(
S
S
R
S
)
w
i
t
h

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
C
B
C
L
)

r

=

J
O

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T
,

S
S
R
S
-
s

(
G
r
e
s
h
a
m

&

E
l
l
i
o
t
t
,

1
9
9
0
)

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

C
h
i
l
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
Y
S
R

(
A
c
h
e
n
b
a
c
h

&

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

i
m
p
o
r
-

E
d
e
l
b
r
o
c
k
,

1
9
8
3
)
:

t
a
n
c
e

r
a
t
i
n
g
s

b
e
i
n
g

u
s
e
d

o
n
l
y

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

(
C
B
C
L
)

w
i
t
h

s
o
c
i
a
l

o
n

t
h
e

h
i
g
h

s
c
h
o
o
l

f
o
r
m
.

s
k
i
l
l
s

(
S
S
R
S
)
r

=

.
2
3

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e

(
C
B
C
L
)

w
i
t
h

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

(
S
S
R
S
)
r

=

.
3
3

P
i
e
r
s
-
H
a
r
r
i
s

C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

s
S
e
K
o
n
c
e
p
t

S
c
a
l
e

(
P
i
e
r
s
,

1
9
8
4
)
:

l
S
o
c
i
a
l

s
k
i
l
l
s

r

=

.
3
0

S
a
m
e

a
s

S
S
R
S
-
T
.

W
S
S
R
S

C
a
r
e
f
u
l

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
R
e
v
i
s
e
d

(
W
a
k
s
m
a
n
,

1
9
8
5
)

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
s

b
y

(
W
a
k
s
m
a
n
,

1
9
8
0
)
:

r

=

.
6
5

j
u
d
g
e
s
.

S
e
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

S
S
B
S
.

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
u
-

d
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

a
n
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
i
s
-

a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.

S
e
x

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:

h
i
g
h
e
r

a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

d
o
-

m
a
i
n

s
c
o
r
e
s

f
o
r

m
a
l
e
s

a
n
d

h
i
g
h
e
r

p
a
s
-

s
i
v
e

d
o
m
a
i
n

s
c
o
r
e
s

f
o
r

g
i
r
l
s
.

(
T
a
b
l
e

3

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

.
*
.
)

(
T
a
b
l
e

3

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

T
e
s
t

N
a
m
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

R
e
l
a
t
e
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

W
M
S

(
W
a
l
k
e
r

&

M
c
C
o
n
n
e
l
l
,

1
9
8
8
)

C
a
r
e
f
u
l

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

S
o
c
i
a
l

S
k
i
l
l
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

S
y
s
t
e
m
-
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

(
G
r
e
s
h
a
m

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
u
-

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
s

b
y

&

E
l
l
i
o
t
t
,

1
9
9
0
)
:

r

=

.
7
5

d
e
n
t
s

a
t
-
r
i
s
k

f
o
r

a
n
t
i
s
o
c
i
a
l

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

e
x
p
e
r
t
s
.

H
u
m
p
h
r
e
y

C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
s

S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

S
c
a
l
e

a
n
d

n
o
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.

(
H
u
m
p
h
r
e
y
,

1
9
8
2
)
:

r

=

.
7
3

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

n
o
n
-

S
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c

S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

f
o
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

D
i
s
o
r
d
e
r
s

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

a
n
d

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.

(
W
a
l
k
e
r

&

S
e
v
e
r
s
o
n
,

1
9
9
2
)
:

A
d
a
p
t
i
v
e

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
u
-

c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

s
c
a
l
e

r

=

.
7
9

d
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

a
n
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.

W
a
l
k
e
r

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t

(
W
a
l
k
e
r
,

1
9
8
3
)
:

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
a
t
i
n
g
s

r

=

.
8
8

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

S
e
l
f

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

R
a
t
i
n
g

S
c
a
l
e

(
H
u
m
p
h
r
e
y
,

1
9
8
2
)
:

r

=

.
7
5
a

S
e
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

S
S
B
S
.

-
.
~
.
~
-
~
.
-
-
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
-
.
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.

-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-

S
3

(
B
r
o
w
n
,

C
a
r
e
f
u
l

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

N
o

d
a
t
a

a
r
e

s
u
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
-

N
o

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

o
n

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

B
l
a
c
k
,

&

D
o
w
n
s
,

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
s

b
y

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
i
s

i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
.

v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y

1
9
8
4
)

e
x
p
e
r
t
s
.

L
a
c
k

o
f

n
o
r
m
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

p
r
e
v
e
n
t
s

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.

-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
~
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
-
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
-
.
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
~
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
-
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
~

S
B
A
I

(
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s

C
a
r
e
f
u
l

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
n
-
t
a
s
k

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
u
-

&

A
r
n
o
l
d
,

1
9
9
2
)

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
s

b
y

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
:

r

=

.
4
6

d
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

a
n
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

o
r

e
x
p
e
r
t
s
.

S
e
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

S
S
R
S
-
T

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.

L
a
c
k

o
f

n
o
r
m
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

p
r
e
v
e
n
t
s

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.

N
o
t
e
:

A
l
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

m
a
n
u
a
l

u
n
l
e
s
s

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

n
o
t
e
d
.

a
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

f
r
o
m

M
e
r
r
e
l
l
,

1
9
8
9
.

general levels of social-behavioral compe-
tence. There are two social functioning lev-
els which indicate the need for further eval-
uation (i.e., moderate problem and signifi-
cant problem). For further interpretation,
the manual provides means and standard
deviations by grade and sex for the major
scales and respective subscales.
Psychometric Properties
The manual presents internal consis-
tency, test-retest, and interrater reliability
evidence for the two major scales and re-
spective subscales. Internal consistency is
excellent for all scales and subscales. Ade-
quate to excellent test-retest reliabilities in-
dicate the SSBS has adequate short-term
stability over a 3-week interval. Evidence
for interrater reliability indicates agreement
generally is adequate. This result is limited,
however, in that the sample used in the reli-
ability study only included 40 elementary-
aged students with learning disabilities.
The validity of the SSBS was explored
in several ways. Content validity was pro-
vided through an examination of the devel-
opment of the instrument. Behavioral de-
scriptors in each of the two areas were ex-
amined and reviewed by teachers, graduate
students, and parents of children in the
K-12 grade range. Adequate item-total cor-
relations provided further evidence for con-
tent validity. Three criterion-related validity
studies were conducted, all of which
demonstrated adequate to excellent corre-
lations between the two major scales of the
SSBS and criterion measures. Two studies
on construct validity provided evidence for
the ability of the SSBS to distinguish social-
behavioral differences between students.
Factor analysis (further evidence of con-
struct validity) also provided justification
for the use of the subscales on each of the
two major SSBS scales.
Limitations of the reliability and validity
research include inadequate information
about test-retest reliability over longer time
intervals, poor description of item selection
which limits conclusions about content va-
lidity, and a lack of reliability and validity
research conducted by independent re-
searchers.
Summary
The SSBS has the potential to be a use-
ful measure of social competence and anti-
social behavior patterns of school-aged chil-
dren. Due to its recent development, addi-
tional research is needed to further sub-
stantiate the reliability and validity of this
scale. Presently, positive features include
the comprehensiveness of the manual, the
ease with which the instrument can be
used, and the simplicity of the interpretative
framework. Evidence provided in the man-
ual indicates the SSBS has adequate to ex-
cellent reliability, a solid factor structure,
and adequate content, construct, and dis-
criminant validity. Presently, the SSBS can
be used as a screening instrument to iden-
tify problem behaviors which may warrant
further evaluation.
SOCIAL SKILLS RATING SYSTEM
The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS;
Gresham & Elliott, 1990) is a norm-refer-
enced rating scale comprised of three sepa-
rate rating forms for teachers, parents, and
students. Instrument length varies depend-
ing upon the rater and grade level of the stu-
dent. The SSRS is intended for use with
preschool (age 3-5), elementary (Grades
K-6), and secondary (Grades 7-12) stu-
dents. The number of items ranges from
40-57 for the teacher form, 49-55 for the
parent form, and 34-39 for the student form.
Responses are completed on a 3-point Lik-
e&-type scale. Three main scales make up
this instrument: social skills (teacher, par-
ent, and student forms), problem behaviors
(teacher and parent forms), and academic
competence (teacher form). The social
skills scale includes a separate 3-point im-
portance rating (teacher and parent forms
only). All SSRS forms consist of three sub-
scales: cooperation, assertion, and self-con-
trol. The parent version includes an addi-
tional responsibility subscale, whereas an
empathy subscale is unique to the student
version. The purpose of the SSRS is to as-
sist professionals in screening and classify-
ing children suspected of having significant
social behavior problems and aid in the de-
velopment of appropriate interventions for
identified children (Gresham & Elliott,
1990, p. 1).
Content and Use
The SSRS can be completed in 20 min.
Materials are user friendly thus facilitating
accurate completion of the instrument by
nonprofessional rates. Particular strengths
include layout of the rating form, readabil-
ity, clear and comprehensive examples in
the manual, and clearly phrased items. The
manual recommends that all SSRS forms be
completed in coordination with each other
to achieve the most thorough picture of a
childs behavior. However, any SSRS form
can be administered and scored separately.
The SSRS is easily scored by hand in about
5 minutes. The manual includes all neces-
sary information regarding scoring, and
helpful step-by-step cases demonstrating
the scoring and interpretation process. A
microcomputer scoring program also is
available.
The Assessment Intervention Record
(AIR), an eight-page integrative form, is a
beneficial feature of the SSRS that provides
a means to assist in the coordination of the
multi-rater information. The AIR provides a
method to document background inforrna-
tion and aids in analyzing and synthesizing
multi-rater assessment data that includes
social behavior strengths and weaknesses.
Standardization Sample
and Norms
The standardization sample included
4,170 children from Grades 3 to 10, who
were rated by their teachers and parents.
This sample is large and includes nearly
equal numbers of girls and boys. The
preschool norms were developed from a
smaller national try-out sample of children
ages 3 to 5 (N = 200). A limited number of
students were included in the 11th (N = 44)
and 12th grade levels (N = SO). A weakness
of the standardization is an overrepresenta-
tion of Whites and African Americans, and
an underrepresentation of Hispanic Ameri-
cans and other minorities. Norms are avail-
able for broad age or grade level groupings
(preschool, Grades K-6 and Grades 7-12),
sex, and disability status (for Grades K-6).
The inclusion of norms for elementary stu-
dents with disabilities is a noteworthy fea-
ture and may be helpful in facilitating clas-
sification decisions. In addition, the manual
provides information about the parents and
teachers who completed ratings on stu-
dents.
Scores and Interpretation
The manual presents raw scores, star+
dard scores (M = 100, SD = 15), percentile
ranks, confidence bands, and behavior lev-
els. Behavior levels (i.e., fewer, average,
more> are descriptive methods for inter-
preting social skills and problem behaviors
in comparison to the standardization sam-
ple. The importance ratings are useful when
developing intervention plans. Designation
of a social skills behavior level as fewer
necessitates consideration of importance
ratings in conjunction with frequency rat-
ings. At this point, the authors recommend
an item-level analysis be undertaken to de-
termine if behaviors constitute social skills
acquisition deficits (lack of a skill) or per-
formance deficits (skill exhibited inconsis-
tently).
The SSRS manual provides detailed in-
formation about the psychometric qualities
of all three forms of the instrument. The in-
ternal consistency of the teacher form is ex-
cellent. With regard to the parent and stu-
dent forms, the internal consistencies are
adequate overall; however, the reliability es-
timate for the preschool problem behavior
scale is limited. Test-retest reliabilities are
excellent for the teacher form. Stability rat-
ings also are excellent on the SSRS-parent
social skills scale and limited for the prob-
lem behaviors scale. Test-retest reliability
for the SSRS-student-social skiIls scale is
limited.
Interrater reliability coefficients for the
total social skills subscales collapsed
across the three levels (preschool, elemen-
tary, and secondary) are relatively low. It is
important to note that childrens behavior
may vary from one setting to another, thus
increasing the likelihood that the reliability
between raters will be lower. Although low,
the SSRS interrater reliability coefficients
are slightly better than most cross-infor-
mant ratings (e.g., Achenbach, Mc-
Conaughy, & Howell, 1987).
Evidence is presented in the manual for
the content, criterion, and construct validity
of the SSRS. The content validation stems
from item development based on empirical
literature and childrens social behaviors. A
major source of content validity involved
the use of importance ratings to provide
meaningful content validation in terms of
the social significance for items included in
the scale. Criterion-related validity studies
for the SSRS-Teacher and SSRS-Parent
yielded adequate reliability coefficients.
The SSRS-P currently is the only formal par-
ent measure of childrens social skills. Thus,
there is a lack of directly appropriate in-
struments with which to compare. Crite-
rion-related validity evidence for the stu-
dent form is limited to adequate.
The authors presented several types of
evidence for construct validity, focusing on
developmental changes, sex differences,
and group separation. The validity of the
SSRS has been examined in other studies, in
addition to those reported in the manual
(e.g., Chewning, 1992; Stinnett, Oehler-Stin-
nett, & Stout, 1989). Specifically, these stud-
ies investigated the construct validity of the
SSRS-T, and found it able to discriminate
among groups of children. Construct valid-
ity also is supported through moderate to
high correlations regarding developmental
changes with the Walker-McConnell Scale of
Social Competence and School Adjustment
(Walker & McConnell, 1988) and the Mat-
sons Evaluation of Social Skills with
Youngsters (Matson, Rotatori, & Helsel,
1983).
Summary
The SSRS is a helpful tool for assess-
ment and intervention planning, and should
be considered by those looking for a
method to understand a childs behavior
from multiple perspectives. The SSRS sys-
tem is user friendly; the materials and man-
ual are clear and well-designed. A defining
feature of the SSRS is its capability for ob-
taining multi-rater comparisons. However,
due to the nature of item reduction there
are only a modest number of common so-
cial skills items for comparison. Item reduc-
tion completed on the SSRS consistently re-
flects the unique and specific nature of so-
cial skills across settings, as well as behav-
iors that are valued by those making ratings.
In fact, the items were derived from those
that were considered important to specific
raters (i.e., parents and teachers). Nonethe-
less, caution must be used when comparing
social skills ratings because fewer than 40%
of the items are common across the three
forms of the system. Hence, consumers
must be aware of the lack of complete item
consistency and make appropriate compar-
isons as recommended by the authors of the
SSRS.
The standardization sample is of excel-
lent size and fairly representative, although
11th and 12th grade norms are based on a
limited sample size, which limits use of the
scale with these grade levels. Overall, the
psychometric properties of the SSRS are ex-
cellent. A few exceptions include somewhat
limited test-retest reliability for the student
form, relatively limited reliabilities on the
parent form problem behavior scale, and
lower criterion-related validity on the stu-
dent form. Thus, the problem behavior
scale should be used primarily as a
screener.
WMMAN SOCIAL SKILLS
RATING SCALE
The Waksman So&at SkiZZs Rating
ScaZe (WSSRS; Waksman, 1985) is a brief,
2 l-item norm-referenced scale designed for
ratings by teachers on students in Grades
K-12. Responses are made on a 4-point Lik-
ert-type scale. One major scale (social
skills) and two subscales (aggressive and
passive) comprise the measure. Separate
forms exist for male and female students.
The WSSRS was developed to assist psy-
chologists, educators, and other clinicians
to identify specific and clinically important
social skill deficits in children and adoles-
cents (Waksman, 1985, p. 1). The author
suggested the scale has several uses which
include screening, identification and classi-
fication, selecting students for social skills
training or counseling programs, and pro-
gram evaluation.
Content and Use
Administration of the WSSRS is easy
and can be completed quickly. Brief instruc-
tions ask teachers to base ratings on first-
hand knowledge of a student, and to use the
average student in the regular education
class as a basis for comparison. Potential
difficulties exist with some aspects of the
protocol. For example, the aggressive and
passive domains are clearly titled on the
protocol, which may lead the witness by
creating a response bias. The author appro-
priately suggested that multiple ratings
should be obtained to assess cross-situa-
tional behaviors. The manual is well laid
out, although the brevity of the manual re-
sults in the failure to include more informa-
tion helpful to the consumer, specifically in
the areas of scale development. Hand scor-
ing is easily accomplished on a single sheet
protocol.
Kindergarten through high school stu-
dents (N = 331) from 10 schools in Portland,
Oregon were rated by their teachers. Nei-
ther ethnicity nor SES were reported for the
standardization sample. A further limitation
is that demographic information is not pro-
vided for the teachers who performed the
ratings, nor is information provided about
the date or year in which the scale was
normed.
The interpretive framework of the
WSSRS rests primarily with percentile
scores for combined grade levels (i.e., K-5,
6-8,9-12). No rationale was offered for the
use of the different grade level combina-
tions. A major oversight in the manual is the
lack of standard scores and standard errors
of measurement. Also, although separate fe-
male and male protocols often are used
with rating scales because of differing re-
sponse patterns, a clear rationale was not
provided in the manual for the use of the
separate forms.
The reported internal reliability esti-
mate is evidence for high internal consis-
tency. Test-retest reliabilities were reported
for the WSSRS on a l-week and l-month in-
terval. One month reliabilities were ade-
quate for both the aggressive and passive
domains, with no information provided for
reliability of the total score. One week test-
retest reliabilities appear to be high, how-
ever, the calculations are limited due to the
use of a sample of 30 seventh and eighth
graders. The manual presents three studies
investigating the interrater reliability of the
WSSRS. These studies contained very small
samples (N = 7 for two studies and N = 39
for one study). They yielded adequate inter-
rater reliability for the aggressive domain
and inconsistent reliability coefficients for
the passive domain. Interrater reliabilities
for the total score were not reported. It is
noted in the manual that one teachers in-
consistent ratings were responsible for rad-
ically affecting the coefficient (p. 3). It
would have been helpful and appropriate,
however, if the author also had provided co-
efficients that did not use those inconsis-
tent ratings. Taken together, the inconsis-
tent results and restricted samples limit
conclusions about the reliability of the
WSSRS.
Content validation of the WSSRS con-
sisted of importance ratings of scale items
from 0 (low importance) to 5 (high impor-
tance) of scale items. Judges were asked to
rate if the behaviors were important for a
childs development (Waksman, 1985, p. 2).
It was not stated whether the raters had any
expertise in the areas of social skills, child
development, and/or child behavior. Also, it
is unclear how the items were perceived by
the judges, since the items describe nega-
tive behaviors that should not be demon-
strated. Concurrent and construct validity
coefficients provided in the manual are ade-
quate. However, inconsistent fmdings indi-
cate the need for further concurrent validity
studies. The construct validity of the
WSSRS is supported by higher aggressive
domain scores for males and significantly
higher scores for adolescents with emo-
tional disabilities as compared to the nor-
mative sample.
Summary
The WSSRS has several features that
users may find attractive. The measure evi-
dences excellent internal consistency, it can
be completed quickly, and the single-sheet
protocol provides for simple scoring and
quick processing. The manual provides sev-
eral tables with thoughtful item and sum-
mary information. Several aspects of the
scale and development, however, mitigate
against its use. Specifically, the protocol has
some questionable properties, and the un-
representative nature of the sample limits
the generalizability of the scale. Further-
more, test-retest reliability and interrater re-
liability are not sufficiently demonstrated,
and validity information is lacking, espe-
cially with regard to concurrent validity. l?i-
nally, the scale measures social skills
deficits rather than social skills per se,
which we feel undermines the utility of the
scale by focusing on negative rather than
prosocial behaviors.
WALKER-MCCONNELL SCALE OF
SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND
SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
The Walker-McConnell Scale of Social
Competence and School Adjustment (WMS;
Walker & McConnell, 1988) is a brief, 43-
item norm-referenced rating scale designed
primarily for completion by teachers. Re-
sponses are made on a &point Like&type
scale. The WMS is intended for use with el-
ementary students (Grades K-6). One major
scale (social competence) and three sub-
scales (teacher-preferred social behavior,
peer-preferred social behavior, and school
adjustment) comprise this instrument. The
purpose of the WMS is the screening and
identification of social skills deficits among
elementary aged children in school
(Walker & McConnell, 1988, p. 1). The WMS
recently was revised to extend its use to
adolescents in Grades 7 to 12. (See Walker,
Stieber, & Eisert [ 19911 for a comprehensive
discussion of the revision procedures.)
However, this revision has yet to result in
the publication of a revised manual or new
rating forms. Thus, the present review will
focus exclusively on the elementary version
of the WMS, which currently is a more es-
tablished instrument.
Content and Use
The authors estimate that administra-
tion takes 5 minutes, which is an appealing
aspect of this scale. The items are ordered
randomly and are identified by a number of
representing one of the subscales, thus pre-
venting a possible labeling bias. A problem
with this format, however, is that it is not
easy to differentiate items when deriving
subscale raw scores. Some organizational
device could have been included on the pro-
tocol to avoid this inconvenience and possi-
ble score aggregation errors. The WMS
manual is comprehensive and generally
well-written, although a section addressing
the technical adequacy of the scale is some-
what disjointed and lacks clarity. The tables
in this section are not labeled adequately
and use descriptions that are, at times, dif-
ferent from what is described in the narra-
tive. For example, the authors reported
there were significant mean differences fa-
voring regular first graders over entering
transition students on two of the three sub-
scales and total scale score (p. 18). Within
the manual, a table contradicts this report
by showing all three subscales to be signify-
cant at p c .05.
The WMS was standardized during 1985
and 1986 on 1,812 children adequately dis-
tributed by sex and grade. The sample was
representative of children from four major
U.S. census zones, however, the norms
were not representative of the U.S. popula-
tion. States from the Northwest represented
49% of the sample, with a disproportionate
percentage coming from Alaska (18%).
Within the sample, Whites were slightly
overrepresented, whereas African Ameri-
cans and Hispanic Americans were slightly
underrepresented. Also, the norm group
had a substantial percentage of children in
the unspecified ethnic/racial category of
Other.
Standard scores (2M = 100, SD = 15 for
total scale; m = 10, SD = 3 for subscales)
and percentile ranks are provided for the
total scale and the three subscales. The au-
thors suggest that all items with a low rating
of 1 or 2 may be indicative of poor social
skills and potentially should be targeted for
remediation. In addition, one of the pre-
scribed uses of the WMS is for developing
Social Skills Assessment
individualized educational programming
(IEP) goals by looking at item means and
standard deviations. These item level inter-
pretations should be considered with cau-
tion.
The manual provides test-retest, inter-
nal consistency, and interrater reliability ev-
idence for the total scale and subscales. Ex-
cellent internal consistency and adequate to
excellent test-retest reliabilities are re-
ported. Interrater reliability is in the ade-
quate range. Evidence for interrater reliabil-
ity was based on only two studies, each of
which involved a small number of teachers
and their instructional aides. Overall, the
WMS appears to possess adequate reliabil-
ity, but further studies with larger samples
are necessary to build a strong case for the
reliability of the scale.
The WMS appears to possess adequate
content validity as demonstrated by item re-
views by the authors for content relevance
and item clarity. Construct validity was
demonstrated by a second order factor
analysis with varimax rotation, which ade-
quately specified a three-factor solution. All
items exhibited high commonality values
and typically loaded more strongly on one
of the three factors. To demonstrate dis-
criminant validity, numerous studies are
presented in the manual as support for the
scales ability to differentiate between iden-
tified groups. Many of these studies had
small sample sizes, used only a portion of
the WMS, were described inadequately and,
more critically, were not reported in a clear,
integrated fashion. Thus, it is difficult to
draw conclusions about the discriminant
validity of the WMS. In a recent study by
Merrell, Johnson, Merz, and Ring (1992),
however, students with mild disabilities re-
ceived significantly lower ratings overall on
the WMS as compared to average, general
education students. The authors provided
comparisons of the WMS to other measures
as support for criterion-related validity The
findings also provided support for construct
validity by comparing the WMS to other
scales measuring similar or divergent con-
structs
663
Summary
The WMS is a quick and easy to use
measure that is appropriate for screening
children for social skills deficits. The sub-
scales are highly intercorrelated, thus the
differentiation is questionable between
teacher-preferred and student-preferred so-
cial behavior. The WMS possesses adequate
to excellent overall reliability and appears
to have a substantial theoretical basis. The
authors provide an array of data as evi-
dence for validity, yet much of the evidence
is difficult to interpret given the manner in
which the studies are presented in the man-
ual. However, the WMS does appear to pos-
sess adequate content and criterion-related
validity.
SCHOOL SOCIAL SKILLS
@a RATING SCALE
The School Social SIXls Rating Scale
(S3; Brown et al., 1984) is a 40-item, crite-
rion-referenced rating scale. Responses are
made on a 6-point Likert-type scale. The
scale is intended for use with children from
Grades K to 12. The S3 consists of four sub-
scales: adult relations, peer relations,
school rules, and classroom behaviors. It is
designed to identify strengths and deficits
in school-related social behaviors of stu-
dents. Sweetland and Keyser (1991) stated
that the S3 scale can be used for social skills
instruction, discussion of student behavior
with parents and other school personnel,
and development and monitoring of social
behavior goals and objectives for individual
education plans (IEPs). In addition, an ac-
companying curriculum can be used to im-
prove identified social skills deficits.
Content and Use
It takes approximately 10 minutes for
school personnel to complete the scale for
one student. The authors recommended
multiple administrations of the S3 to iden-
tify childrens specific social skills deficits
and to monitor progress. The authors stated
that a rater should be thoroughly familiar
with the scale and accompanying S3 cur-
riculum before completing the scale This
requirement could involve a considerable
amount of the raters time which is a draw-
back of this measure. The manual and ma-
terials are clear and specific regarding di-
rections for administration and scoring. In
addition, the manual provides useful exam-
ples that demonstrate scoring procedures.
Ratings on the S3 do not result in total
scores or summation of area scores. Since
the scale was not standardized on a norma-
tive sample, there are no standard scores
nor percentile ranks. The instrument is sim-
ply a list of well-written, objective items.
The scale does not allow for classification
or diagnostic decisions. However, it does fa-
cilitate problem conceptualization and may
be useful in planning and/or selecting inter-
ventions.
Evidence for the reliability of the S3
scale was provided in the form of test-retest
and interrater reliability. The interrater reli-
abilities ranged from adequate to excellent,
and were based on the level of agreement
between ratings conducted by independent
observers. The authors did not specify
whether these raters were parents, teach-
ers, or other school personnel. Test-retest
reliability ranged from adequate to excel-
lent. A limitation of the test-retest and inter-
rater reliabilities is that they were calcu-
lated using a percentage agreement rather
than correlational approach. The authors
presented adequate evidence for content
validity, but did not provide data to support
their claim for criterion-related or construct
validity. The content validity of the instru-
ment consisted of three steps: (a) creating
an item pool from several behavior rating
and social skills instruments; (b) a review of
the scale by the authors, whose back-
grounds consist of regular and special edu-
cation training, teaching, and administra-
tion; and (c) surveying teachers about the
clarity and importance of the items.
Summary
The S3 is a simple to use measure, with clear
directions and useful examples provided in
the manual. It is relatively quick and easy to
use, however, it can take extensive time to
study the S3 curriculum before using the
scale. The S3 has adequate to excellent
overall reliability; however, no evidence
was provided for internal consistency. The
validity of the instrument was not clearly
demonstrated by the data presented in the
manual. The instrument is not appropriate
for classification purposes, however, users
might consider using it if the primary goal is
to identify target behaviors for classroom-
based interventions.
THE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
ASSESSMENT INVENTORY @BAI)
The Social Behavior Assessment In-
ventory (SBAI; Stephens & Arnold, 1992) is
a 135-item criterion-referenced rating scale.
The SBAI is a revision of Stephens (1979)
original Social Behavior Assessment (SBA).
Responses are made on a 5-point Likert-
type scale. The SBAI is intended for use
with students from Grades K to 9. The SBAI
yields four areas of social behaviors: envi-
ronmental, interpersonal, self-related, and
task-related. There are 30 subscales that
comprise each of these areas. The authors
identified four uses of the SBAI: (a) as a cur-
riculum-based assessment for children ex-
periencing social behavior problems; (b) as
a screening tool to identify potential behav-
ior problems; (c) to differentiate between
students with and students without learning
disabilities, and between students with and
without emotional disturbances; and (d) to
measure success of an intervention over
time when repeated measurements are ob-
tained. In addition, the SBAI was designed
to be used in conjunction with Stephens
(1992) Social SMlls in the Classroom inter-
vention guide.
Content and Use
Time required to complete the SBAI
record form is 3045 minutes per student.
The SBAI can be administered in two ways.
A teacher or other school personnel can
complete the record form based on either
cumulative, retrospective knowledge of a
target students behavior, or while directly
observing the target child. The record form
allows the rater to compare behavior rat-
ings across scales and within scales to de-
termine the problem area(s).
The SBAI essentially measures discrep-
ancies between observed and reported be-
havior and a teachers expectations for the
behavior. Item scores are summed within
subscales to allow for visual analysis of stu-
dents needs. The SBAI is not a norm-refer-
enced scale, therefore, whether a students
behavior falls within expectation or ele-
vated for any of the subscales will be based
solely on the opinion of a single rater. If a
discrepancy is obtained, teachers or other
school personnel can intervene by using the
companion book, SociaZ SkiUs in the CZass-
room (Stephens, 1992) to implement a so-
cial skills curriculum. Thus, the use of the
SBAI is limited primarily to selecting target
behaviors for individual corrective training.
The manual presents evidence concern-
ing the internal consistency and interrater
reliability of the SBAI. Overall, studies cited
in the manual indicate high internal consis-
tency of item content. However, internal re-
liabilities were not reported separately by
content area or by subscale which limits
claims for the reliability of the scale. Data
regarding interrater agreement for the SBAI
are excellent, however the study sample
was small (n = 40) and only investigated
nine of the subscales. In addition, there is
no report in the manual of test-retest relia-
bility. Thus, more research is needed to es-
tablish the reliability of the SBAI.
Content validity was demonstrated
through the development of the SBAI items
which included classroom observations, re-
view of the social skills literature, and a
content analysis of behavior rating scales.
Items were included on the SBAI if the spe-
cific social skills correlated highly with
school success, were rated by teachers as
important for school success, or appeared
frequently in published behavior rating
scales. Special education teachers (N = 200)
and general education teachers (N = 200)
rated the remaining 136 items on a 6-point
scale of importance for success in the class-
room. The authors state that .a11 136 items
were found to be sufficiently important and
were retained on the final version of the
SBAI. In actuality, there are 135 items on the
SBAI. The fact that one item was dropped.
from the original SBA is not addressed. We
can have confidence in the content validity
of the SBAI given that a large number of
teachers of students with emotional distur-
bances, learning disabilities, and cognitive
disabilities, as well as regular education
teachers rated the importance of items
(Drabman, 1985). Convergent validity is ad-
equate and was calculated to determine the
extent to which the purported constructs
measured by the SBAI are related to similar
constructs. The authors inappropriately
concluded that a correlation coefficient of
.46 between frequency of on-task behaviors
and SBAI teacher ratings indicates moder-
ately high convergent validity for the instru-
ment with Hispanic populations. Although
the authors do not formally address the is-
sue of construct validity, the information
presented regarding sensitivity and speci-
ficity of the SBAI provided some evidence
that the instrument was able to discriminate
among groups. However, the lack of con-
struct validation information is a serious
omission. In addition, although an attempt
was made to test for bias (against Hispan-
ics), the results were ambiguous. Thus,
there is a clear need for more research to
validate the constructs assumed to be mea-
sured by the SBAI and to determine
whether it is culturally biased.
Summary
It appears the data used to develop and
support the SBAI in the 1990s are the same
data used to support the SBA in the late
1970s. Although the two measures are very
similar, the manual does not clearly differ-
entiate the SBAI from the SBA. Finally, be-
cause the information that supports the
technical properties of the SBAI apparently
is the same information used to support the
SBA, there has been no reported improve-
ment in psychometric properties of the in-
strument.
The SBAI does appear to serve its
stated purpose of identifying target behav-
iors for intervention. Teachers who rate tar-
get children as displaying specific social
skills at an unacceptable level are able to
act upon their concerns by implementing
the instructional or training process out-
lined in the companion book entitled SociaZ
Sh%Us in the Classroom (Stephens, 1992).
The manual reported excellent internal con-
sistency, however, the data are not pre-
sented separately for the content areas or
subscales. Another study of limited size
demonstrated excellent interrater reliability
on nine of the subscales. Adequate content
and convergent validity were demonstrated.
No data are presented for test-retest relia-
bility or construct validity. A literature
search resulted in no additional evidence
supporting the psychometric properties of
the SBAI. Additional research therefore is
needed to establish the reliability and con-
struct validity of the SBAI.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the social skill scales it
is apparent that many similarities and sev-
eral significant differences exist among
them. Although the scales seem to have a
common purpose - assessing social skills
in children - they demonstrate differences
in the way they attempt to achieve their
goal. The distinguishing characteristics and
similarities can be highlighted by consider-
ing the construct being assessed, appropri-
ate use, user-friendliness issues, and techni-
cal properties.
Construct of Social Skills
The construct of social skills has been
considered from many different perspec-
tives as demonstrated with the scales re-
viewed in this article. For example, the So-
cial SkiUs Rating System (SSRS; Gresham
& Elliott, 1990) includes a measure of prob-
lem behaviors and academic competence
because of their interplay with a students
effective social interactions. The School So-
cial Behavior Scales (SSBS; Merrell, 1993)
also includes problem behaviors as a major
scale to cover both positive and negative so-
cial behavior. Both the SSBS and the SSRS
highlight social skills as an integral compo-
nent in evaluating the social functioning of
children at school. The Social Behavior As-
sessment Inventory (SBAI; Stephens &
Arnold, 1992) and the Walker-McConnell
Scale of Social Competence and School Ad-
justment (WMS; Walker & McConnell,
1988) focus on Dotential skills that demon-
strate social competence, with the SBAIs
emphasis on target behaviors for training
and the WMSs emphasis on adtjustments
necessary for school success. The Wahs-
man Social SiMls Rating Scale (WSSRS;
Waksman, 1985) approaches the construct
of social skills in terms of deficits and con-
tains negatively worded items. The SchooZ
Social Skills Rating Scale (S3; Brown et al.,
1984) concentrates on social skills deficits,
as well as strengths.
Appropriate Use
The authors of the four norm-refer-
enced scales (i.e., SSBS, SSRS, WSSRS, and
WMS) claim their instruments can be used
for assisting the process of screening and
identifying children with social behavior
difficulties. The criterion referenced scales
(S3 and SBAI) have an intervention focus,
and are useful for a more specific examina-
tion of particular behaviors to change. The
SSBS and SSRS are comprised of objective,
specific items and also are well-suited for
identifying target behaviors.
User Friendliness
In determining the user friendliness of
the measures, administration time, types of
scores, and clarity of the manual were con-
sidered. Most scales take between 5 to 10
minutes to complete, although the SSRS-T
takes about 20 minutes due to the addition
of problem behavior and academic compe-
tence scales, and the SBAI takes about 35 to
40 minutes because of the large number of
items. The scales all were consistent in their
ease of administration and scoring, which is
an advantage of using rating scales. How-
ever, the S3 was more difficult to administer
initially due to the amount of time it takes to
learn the S3 curriculum.
The four norm-referenced scales varied
in the interpretive data they provided. The
WSSRS provided the least; only presenting
percentile information. An advantage of the
SSBS, WMS, and the SSRS is their use of
standard scores. Inclusion of standard
scores is helpful because they provide a
method for interpretation in relation to
peers and other instruments. The WMS also
provided percentiles and standard errors of
measurement. The SSBS and the SSRS in-
eluded the most interpretive information,
with the inclusion of social functioning lev-
els and behavior levels, respectively. The S3
and SBAI as criterion referenced scales do
not provide standardized scores or per-
centile ranks. These two instruments re-
quire evaluating raw scores in relation to
satisfactory acquisition levels.
The manual also is an important part of
the user friendliness and comprehensive-
ness of an instrument. It is a users guide
and the primary, if not only, information re-
garding development and use of the instru-
ment. We found the most comprehensive
manual was the SSRS because of the com-
plete coverage concerning the development
and technical information, as well as the
guided scoring examples for all forms. The
SSBS also included a useful, well-written
manual. The WSSRS and WMS manuals
were lacking in some areas. Specifically, the
WSSRS did not include important scale de-
velopment information that would be bene-
ficial for the user. The WMS manual also
was not adequate because of the inconsis-
tencies between the narrative and tables
when discussing technical information. We
found the manual for the S3 to be useful,
and the inclusion of examples was helpful.
The SBAI manual was very clear and user
friendly. However, it did not provide an ex-
planation of the differences between the
original Social Behavior Assessment (SBA;
Stephens, 1979) and the SBAI, or a rationale
for the revision.
Technical Properties
The technical properties we evaluated
included standardization samples, reliabil-
ity, and validity. Often a scale may be ap-
pealing because of attractive protocols,
ease of use, or familiarity. However, the in-
strument also needs to be based upon
sound psychometric properties to yield the
most reliable and valid information.
Sample size, demographics, and re-
gional representation are factors to con-
sider when evaluating standardization sam-
ples. The standardization sample was excel-
lent for the SSRS. The SSBS and WMS also
were based on large, diverse samples; how-
ever, both were limited in regional repre-
sentativeness. The WSSRS is based on an in-
adequate standardization sample from only
one city in Oregon.
With regard to the reviewed instru-
ments reliabilities, we evaluated internal
consistency, test-retest, and interrater relia-
bilities. All scales reported excellent inter-
nal consistency, with two exceptions being
the SSRS-Student and the S3. The SSRS-Stu-
dent did evidence adequate internal consis-
tency, however, it was not as strong as the
teacher and parent versions. It also must be
noted that the internal consistency informa-
tion for the SBAI was not reported for con-
tent area or subscale which limits its inter-
pretation. Unfortunately, no internal consis-
tency information was provided for the S3.
It is necessary to evaluate test-retest re-
liabilities very carefully because sample
size for this evidence often is quite small
and the time from the first administration to
the second is not consistent across the
scales. The SSRS evidenced excellent sta-
bility ratings on its teacher and parent ver-
sion but the student version was limited.
Adequate to excellent test-retest reliabili-
ties were reported for the WMS. The high
reliabilities were from a relatively short Z-
week time interval, whereas the lower relia-
bilities were those derived from a 6-month
interval. Adequate test-retest reliability was
reported for Scale A of the SSBS, whereas
Scale B reliability was limited. The WSSRS
demonstrated limited reliability Moderate
to high test-retest reliabilities also were re-
ported for the S3. Technically, however,
these are not reliability coefficients, but
rather agreement percentages. Unfortu-
nately, no test-retest information was re-
ported for the SBAI.
Adequate interrater reliability was re-
ported for both the WMS and SSBS Scale A,
however, Scale B of the SSBS evidenced
limited to adequate interrater reliability Ex-
cellent interrater reliability was reported
for the SBAI, and those for the S3 were ade-
quate to excellent. Yet, both are agreement
percentages and not technically interrater
reliabilities. In addition, only a limited num-
ber of subscales were used as evidence for
the SBAIs reliability. Only limited conclu-
sions can be drawn concerning the inter-
rater reliability of the WSSRS because of in-
consistent results and restricted samples.
The interrater agreement for the SSRS ap-
pears low when compared to the other re-
viewed scales. One must realize that these
reliabilities are based upon cross-informant
ratings (teacher-parent, student-parent,
student-teacher) and, as such, the inter-
rater reliabilities reported for the SSRS are
adequate and consistent with research find-
ings on interrater reliabilities between dis-
similar raters (see Achenbach et al., 1987).
Validity evidence was provided for the
reviewed scales through content, criterion,
and construct validity. Overall validity eval-
uations take into account these three areas.
Substantial validity evidence was provided
to support the use of the SSRS and SSBS. A
strong feature of the SSRS is its use of im-
portance ratings as a meaningful social val-
idation. One exception to the overall ample
validity evidence for the SSRS is the low cri-
terion related validity for the student ver-
sion of the scale. Further research is needed
to substantiate validity evidence for the re-
cently developed SSBS. The WMS reported
good content and criterion related validity
However, much of the validity evidence for
the WMS was difficult to interpret which
limits its usefulness. Adequate validity evi-
dence is reported for the WSSRS, however
validity information is lacking and inconsis-
tent in comparison to the other measures.
The criterion referenced instruments (S3
and SBAI) provided only limited validity ev-
idence.
A final and important aspect for consid-
eration rests within the construct of treat-
ment validity. Treatment validity of an as-
sessment measure is demonstrated when
the measure enhances treatment outcome
(Nelson & Hayes, 1979). Linking social
skills assessment to intervention through
the use of specific target behaviors and
treatment guides/curricula potentially adds
to the validity and usefulness of a scale. The
question remains, however, whether a given
social skills instrument serves to improve
treatment outcomes. Although the topic of
treatment validity is beyond the scope of
this article, future reviews and research on
social skills rating scales are warranted
which focus specifically on this issue.
Conclusions
Consumers of rating scales that assess
social skills need to identify the type of in-
formation they require, as well as the valid-
ity of the instrument. Thus, potential social
skills rating scale users need to be informed
consumers. Through evaluating the areas
on which we chose to focus (content and
use, standardization sample and norms,
scores and interpretation, and reliability
and validity) the following recommenda-
tions are offered.
The most comprehensive instrument is
the SSRS. We recommend using the SSRS
because of its multi-source approach, inter-
vention linkage, and overall strong reliabil-
ity and validity. For a more limited school
scope, the SSBS and the WMS are recom-
mended. These instruments are primarily
designed for use in the school setting by
teachers. Concentration on social skills as
perceived only by school based personnel,
however, is a limitation of both scales con-
sidering best practices necessitates evaluat-
ing behaviors in multiple settings using mul-
tiple sources. Good technical evidence is
demonstrated by both the SSBS and the
WMS scales. However, we must add a cau-
tionary note to the WMS because of the un-
clear presentation in the manual of its valid-
ity evidence. The remaining norm refer-
enced scale, the WSSRS, offers some attrac-
tive features (e.g., brevity and good internal
consistency). This scale is not recom-
mended, though, because there are more
psychometrically sound alternative rating
scales.
Finally, the two criterion-referenced
scales (S3 and SBAI) are useful for identify-
ing specific target behaviors for interven-
tion. These two instruments, as with all cri-
terion-referenced scales, are not appropri-
ate for making screening or classification
decisions. This is a limitation for profes-
sionals who need to make a range of deci-
sions. The SBAI and S3 also have limited
psychometric support. A weakness of the S3
versus the SBAI is the extensive time ini-
tially required to study the S3 curriculum. A
strength of the SBAI is the availability of a
companion intervention guidebook, Social
Sh%ZZs in the CZassroom (Stephens, 1992)
which outlines step-by-step procedures for
teaching social skills found to be lacking ac-
cording to ratings on the SBAI.
In conclusion, many important aspects
must be considered when evaluating the
quality and usefulness of rating scales.
Users must be knowledgeable about the
qualities of the instrument for appropriate
use and interpretation. Overall, rating
scales provide a means to evaluate the so-
cial skills of a specific child in a short pe-
riod of time. Because assessment of chil-
drens social skills requires a multi-method
approach, rating scales are an effective
means of information gathering to be used
in conjunction with other types of assess-
ment such as observations, interviews, self-
reports, and sociometric techniques.
FOOTNOTE
&ice the initial writing of this article the original
research version of the Matson Evaluation of Social
Skills with Youngsters (MESSY; Matson et al., 1983)
was published. Space constrains precluded its inclu-
sion for review.
Edelbrock, C. (1983). Problems and issues in using rat-
ing scales to assess child personality and psy-
chopathology. School Psychology Review, 12,
293-299.
Elliott, S. N., Busse, R. T., & Gresham, F. M. (1993). Be-
havior rating scales: Issues of use and development.
School Psychology Review, 22,313-321.
Elliott, S. N., Sheridan, S. M., & Gresham, E M. (1989).
Assessing and treating social skills deficits: A case
study for the scientist-practitioner. Journal of
School PsychoLogy, 27, 197-222.
Gresham, E M. (1988). Social competence and motiva-
tional characteristics of learning disabled students.
In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Walberg (Eds.),
Handbook of special education: Research and
practice (Vol. 2; pp. 283-302). Oxford, England:
Pergamon Press.
Gresham, E M., &Elliott, S. N. (1990). Z%e Social SkiUs
Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-
ance Service.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the SewPerception Pro-
file for chi&&~. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Hazel, S., & Schumaker, J. (1988). Social skills deficits.
In J. Kavanagh & T. Truss (Eds.), Learning disabil-
ities: Proceedings of the national conference (pp.
293-366). Parkton, MD: York Press.
REFERENCES Hoge, R. D., & Lute, S. (1979). Predicting academic
Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the
Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Be-
havior Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. T., & Howell, C. T.
(1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional
problems: Implications of cross-informant correla-
tions for situational specificity. Psychological Bul-
letin, 101, 213-232.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Stan-
dards for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: Author.
Brown, L. J., Black, D. D., & Downs, J. C. (1984). School
Social Skills Rating Scale. New York: Slosson Edu-
cational Publications.
Chewning, T. G. (1992). An investigation of the dis-
criminant and concurrent validity of the Social
Skills Rating System-Teacher form. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53, 1843A.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and
changes in childrens social status: A five-year lon-
gitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29,
261-282.
Conners, C. K. (1990). Manual for the Canners Rating
ScaZes. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Drabman, R. S. (1985). [Review of Social Behavior As-
sessment.] In J. V Mitchel (Ed.), T%e ninth mental
measurements yearbook (p. 1410). Lincoln, NE:
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements
achievement from classroom behavior.
Educational Research, 49,479496.
ReVieW
of
Humphrey, L. L. (1982). Childrens and teachers per-
spectives on childrens self-control: The develop-
ment of two rating scales. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 50, 624-633.
Matson, J., Rotatori, A. F., & Helsel, W. J. (1983). De-
velopment of a rating scale to measure social skills
in children: The Matson Evaluation of Social Skills
in Youngsters (MESSY). Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 21,335-340.
McCloskey, G. (1990). Selecting and using early child-
hood rating scales. Topics in Early Childhood Spe-
cial Education, 10, 39-64.
McConaughy, S. H. (1993). Advances in empirically
based assessment of childrens behavioral and
emotional problems. School Psychology Review,
Z&285-307.
McKinney, J. D., & Speece, D. C. (1983). Classroom be-
havior ad the academic progress of learning dis-
abled students. Journal of Applied Developmental
PsychoLogy, 4, 149-161.
Merrell, K. W. (1989). Concurrent relationships be-
tween two behavioral rating scales for teachers: An
examination of self-control, social competence,
and school behavioral adjustment. Psychology in
the Schools, 26(3), 267-271.
Merrell, K. W. (1993). School Social Behavior Scales.
Bradon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Com-
Pany.
Merrell, K. W., Johnson, E. R., Merz, J. M., &Ring, E. N.
(1992). Social competence of students with mild
handicaps and low achievement: A comparative
study. School Psychology Review, 21(l), 125-137.
Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Some current di-
mensions of behavi0ra.I assessment. Behavioral As-
sessment, 1, 1-16.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and
later personal adjustment. Are low-accepted chiI-
dren at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Piers, E. V. (1984). Piers-Harris Childrens Self-Con-
cept Scale (revised manual>. Los Angeles, CA: West-
ern Psychological Services.
Stephens, T. (1992). Social skiUs in the classroom.
Columbus, OH: Cedars Press.
Stephens, T. (1981). Technical manual: Social Behav-
ior Assessment. Columbus, OH: Cedars Press.
Stephens, T. M., & Arnold, K. D. (1992). Social Behuv-
ior Assessment Inventory: Professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources,
Inc.
Stinnett, T. A., Oehler-Stinnett, J., & Stout, L. J. (1989).
Ability of the Social SkiUs Rating System-Teacher
version to discriminate behavior disordered, emo-
tionally disturbed, and nonhandicapped students.
School Psychology Review, 18(4), 526-535.
Stumme, I?, Gresharn, F. M., & Scott, N. (1982). Validity
of Social Behavior Assessment in discriminating
emotionally disabled from nonhandicapped stu-
dents. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 4,
327-342.
Sweetland, R. C., & Keyser, D. J. (Eds.).(1991). Tests: A
comprehensive reference for assessments in psy-
chology, education, and business (3rd ed.). Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Waksman, S. A. (1985). % Waksman Social Skills
Rating Scale. Portland, OR: ASIEP Education.
Waksman, S. A. (1980). The portland problem behavior
checklist preliminary manual. Portland, OR: En-
richment Press.
Walker, H. (1983). Walker problem behavior ickmtifi-
cation checklist. Los Angeles: Western Psychologi-
cal Services.
Walker, H. M., & McConnell, S. R. (1988). The Walker-
McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School
Adjustment. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Walker, H., & Severson, H. (1992). Systematic screen-
ing for behavior disorders. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West, Inc.
Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., & Eisert, D. (1991). Teacher
ratings of adolescent social skills: Psychometric
characteristics and factorial replicabUy across
age-grade ranges. School Psychology Review,
20(2), 301-314.
Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, MS, is a doctoral student in the School Psy-
~ chology Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is currently
on internship at Meyer Rehabilitation Institute at the University of Ne-
~
braska Medical Center. Her interests include Attention Deficit Hyperactiv-
ity Disorder and assessment issues.
Stacey L. Ruffalo, MS, is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Pro-
gram at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests in-
clude performance-based assessment and rating scale development.
John Carlson, MS, is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Program
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is on internship at Primary
Childrens Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. His research interests include in-
ternalizing and externalizing disorders of childhood.
R. T. Busse, MS, is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Program at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the senior project associate on a
consultation research project. Research interests include the effectiveness
of consultation, verbal interactions, and consultee/client readiness for
change.
Amy E. Olson, MS, received her degree from the School Psychology Pro-
gram at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is currently working as a
school psychologist in Milwaukee, WI. Her interests include working with
bilingual children.
Susan M. McManus, MS, received her degree from the School Psychology
Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is currently working
as a school psychologist for the West Aurora School District in Illinois. Her
interests include development of intervention assistance teams and con-
sultation.
Amy Leventhal, MS, is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Pro-
gram at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests are in
adolescent peer relations.

1995 Social Skills Assessment A Comparative Evaluation of Six Published Rating Scales

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1995 Social Skills Assessment A Comparative Evaluation of Six Published Rating Scales

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

School Psychology Review

Volume 24, No. 4, 1995, pp. C,-1S-c>71

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi