Social Skills: Conceptual and Applied Aspects of Assessment, Training, and Social Validation

CHAPTER 20

Social Skills Conceptual and Applied Aspects of Assessment, Training, and Social Validation Frank M. Gresham

Schools represent perhaps the most important setting in which children develop skills in initiating and maintaining interpersonal relationships as well as developing skills that are crucial for peer acceptance. The ability to interact successfully with one's peers and significant adults is one of the most important aspects of a child's development (Gresham & Lemanek, 1983). Prominent developmental theorists (e.g., Erikson, 1963; Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1952) have delineated theories of social and moral development in which social competence evolves in a series of interrelated stages that closely parallel chronological and/or mental age. Apparent in practically all developmental theories is the emphasis each places on the social development of schoolage children (see Salkind, 1981, for a review). Social skills in school settings are important for several reasons. Children and youth who Frank M. Gresham • Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

are deficient in social skills and/or who are poorly accepted by peers have a high incidence of school maladjustment, school suspensions/expulsions, dropping out of school, delinquency, childhood psychopathology, and adult mental health difficulties (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Asher, Oden, & Gottman, 1977; Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, lzzo, & Trost, 1973; Gresham, 1981a,b; Gronlund & Anderson, 1963; Hartup, 1983; Kohn & Clausen, 1955; Roff, 1970; Roff, Sells, & Golden, 1972; Ullman, 1957). Difficulties in peer relationships and social skills have also been related to the social outcomes of mainstreaming. Mainstreamed mildly handicapped children are often poorly accepted, neglected, or socially rejected by nonhandicapped peers and the social interactions between main streamed handicapped children and nonhandicapped peers often are negative in nature (Allen, Benning, & Drummond, 1972; Ballard, Corman, Gottlieb, & Kaufman, 1977; Bryan, 1974, 1976, 1978; Gottlieb, 1975, 1981; Gottlieb & Budoff, 1973; Gott-

523 J. C. Witt et al. (eds.), Handbook of Behavior Therapy in Education © Plenum Press, New York 1988

524

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

lieb & Leyser, 1981; Gresham, 1981a, 1982a,b, 1985a). Social skills have been related to other measures of classroom functioning, such as academic achievement, attending behavior, and question asking (Carledge & Milburn, 1978; Walker & Hops, 1976). Several social skills differentiate mainstreamed handicapped children from nonhandicapped peers (Stumme, Gresham, & Scott, 1982) and other social skills are related to positive interactions and acceptance by teachers (Brophy, 1981). The preceding discussion suggests that social skills and peer acceptance are extremely important for school-age children and youth. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a conceptualization of social skills that places socially skilled behaviors within the domain of social competence. Several definitions of social skills will be presented and critically evaluated along with classification models for social skill deficiencies. Social skills assessment and training procedures will be reviewed as well as procedures for establishing the social significance of target behaviors, the social acceptability of social skills interventions, and evaluating the social importance of the effects of social skills training.

Personal Competence Personal competence can be described globally as being comprised of three subdomains: (a) academic competence, (b) social competence, and (c) physical competence (Greenspan, 1981). Academic and social competence are most germane to this chapter and will be emphasized. The domain of physical competence will not be addressed. Figure 1 graphically depicts the relationship of academic and social competence to the construct of personal competence. It should be noted that there are at least moderate relationships between the domains of academic and social competence (Reschly, Gresham, & GrahamClay, 1984). Figure 1 is presented to depict the domains of academic and social competence

Academic Competence • • • •

General Intelligence Academic Achievement Perceptual Motor Skills Language Skills

Social Competence • Adaptive Behavior • Social Skills

Figure 1. Domains and subdomains of personal competence.

(and their subcomponents) as they relate to the superordinate domain of personal competence. Academic Competence

The construct of academic competence includes skill areas that can be labeled as intellectual/cognitive skills, academic skills, perceptual-motor skills, and language skills. Each of these skill areas can be further subdivided into specific content areas. Figure 1 shows the relationship of these global skill areas to academic competence. Mildly handicapped (MH) students (e.g., learning disabled and mildly mentally retarded) are placed into special education programs primarily on the basis of academic incompetence. Few, if any, MH students get into the special education system primarily on the basis of social incompetence (Reschly et ai., 1984). As mentioned earlier, we know a great deal about the assessment and remediation of academic incompetencies of MH learners. School psychologists, by their training and job description, spend the majority of their time assessing the academic incompetencies of students referred to them for evaluation (Keogh, Kukic, Becker, McLoughlin, & Kukic, 1975; Reynolds, Gutkin, Elliott, & Witt, 1984). Social Competence

Social competence has long been regarded as a fundamental aspect of human ca-

525

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

pabilities. In an early formulation, Thorndike (1927) suggested three types of intelligence, one of which was social intelligence or social competence. Social competence also has been a fundamental notion associated with the conception of definition and classification criteria with exceptional individuals. This is particularly apparent in the modern classification criteria in the area of mental retardation, which have consistently, through several revisions, emphasized equally the importance of cognitive/academic and social competence (Grossman, 1983). Various approaches to measuring and defining social competence have been attempted in the past. Social competence is a multidimensional construct that includes demographic (e.g., age, SES, etc.), adaptive behavioral, and social skill variables. Individuals who are high in social competence are considered to be able to meet the demands of everyday functioning and to be equipped to handle participation and responsibility for their own welfare and the welfare of others. Conversely, persons low in social competence are not able to meet such environmental demands nor are they able to assume responsibility for their own as well as others' welfare. Figure 2 depicts a conceptualization of social competence that is comprised of two subdomains: (a) adaptive behavior and (b) social skills. The general features of the construct of adaptive behavior are widely agreed upon; however, there is widespread disagreement on the emphasis each of these features receive in the assessment of adaptive behavior. Reschly (1982) identified a number of important differences in adaptive behavior conceptions and adaptive behavior instruments. These differences include: (a) the amount of emphasis placed on cognitive competencies, (b) the purpose of the underlying adaptive behavior scale (i.e., program planning/intervention versus classification/placement), (c) the social setting of primary import (e.g., inschool versus out-of-school adaptive behavior), (d) the method of measurement used (e.g., use of third-party informants versus di-

Social Skills

• • • • •

Independent Functioning Physical Development Self-Direction Personal Responsibility Economic-Vocational Activity • Functional Academic Skills

• Academic Performance ("Classroom Survival Skills") • Cooperative Behaviors • Social Initiation Behaviors • Assertive Behaviors • Peer Reinforcement Behaviors • Communication Skills • Problem-Solving Skills • Social Self-Efficacy

Fig.ure 2. Domains and subdomains of social competence.

rect administration to the child), and (e) the preferred respondent (e.g., parent versus teacher). These differences in adaptive behavior conceptions exert a great deal of influence on the kind of measure used and subsequent classification and programming decisions. I do not suggest by Figure 2 that adaptive behavior and social skills are unrelated, particularly given recent research indicating at least moderate relations between adaptive behavior and social skill domains (Gresham & Elliott, 1987; Gresham & Reschly, 1987). Figure 2 is intended as a heuristic for conceptualizing the domains of adaptive behavior and social skills.

Definitions of Social Skills

Social skills have traditionally received much less emphasis in the classification of and interventions with exceptional children than adaptive behavior (Gresham, 1981a). At least three general definitions of social skills can be found in the literature. One definition can be termed the peer acceptance definition in that researchers use indexes of peer acceptance or popularity to define social skill. Thus, chil-

526 dren who are accepted by or who are popular with their peers in school and/or community settings can be considered socially skilled. The major drawback of this definition is that it does not identify those specific behaviors that lead to peer acceptance. A second definition can be termed the behavioral definition in which social skills are defined as those situation-specific behaviors that maximize the probability of securing or maintaining reinforcement or decreasing the likelihood of punishment or extinction contingent on one's social behavior. The behavioral definition of social skills has the advantage over the peer acceptance definition in that antecedents and consequences of particular social behaviors can be identified, specified, and operationalized for assessment and intervention purposes. However, this definition does not ensure that the particular social behaviors identified for interventions are in fact socially skilled or socially important behaviors. Merely increasing the frequency or quality of certain behaviors that are defined a priori as social skills may not impact on the goals or outcomes valued by schools and teachers (Gresham, 1983a, 1985b). A final and less frequently discussed definition may be called the social validity definitIon (Gresham, 1983a). According to this definition, social skills are those behaviors that, within given situations, predict important social outcomes for children and youth. In school settings, important social outcomes may include: (a) peer acceptance/popularity, (b) significant others' judgment of social skill (e.g., teachers), (c) academic achievement and (d) other social behaviors known to consistently correlate with (a) through (c). This definition has the advantage of not only specifying behaviors in which a child is deficient, but also can define these behaviors as socially skilled based on their relationship to socially important outcomes in school settings. A more detailed description of specific social skills and important social outcomes are discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter under the rubric of social validity.

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

Behavioral Classification of Social Skill Deficiencies Social skill deficiencies can be delineated into four basic types depending on the child's knowledge of how to perform the social skill in question and the presence or absence of interfering cognitive, emotional, or behavioral responses (Gresham, 1981a, 1985a). This conceptualization represents a modification and extension of Bandura's (1977a) distinction between acquisition versus performance deficits. The four types of social skill deficiencies are: (a) skill deficits, (b) performance deficits, (c) self-control skill deficits, and (d) self-control performance deficits. Figure 3 depicts this four-fold classification system. It should be noted that this classification system is primarily a heuristic framework from which to conceptualize social skill deficits. As such, this classification model requires further empirical investigation The notion of interfering responses is crucial to understanding self-control skill and performance deficits because it is assumed that these responses interfere with or block the acquisition and/or performance of social skills. The term self-control is used here to refer to the higher probability of an interfering response than a socially skilled response. This is consistent with Skinner's (1953) distinction between "controlling response" and "controlled response" as well as Catania's (1975) theoretical analysis of self-reinforcement. In this sense, an interfering response can be viewed as a controlling response that controls Acquisition Deficit

Performance Deficit

Interfering Response Absent

Social Skills Deficit

Self-Control Skills Deficit

Interfering Response Present

Social Performance Deficit

Self-Control Performance Deficit

Figure 3. Classification of social skills problems.

527

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

or prevents the acquisition or performance of a social skill response (i.e., the controlled response). Interfering responses are perhaps best conceptualized from the perspective of the triple response mode system in behavioral assessment. Nelson and Hayes (1979) indicated that behavior includes the response systems or response modes of cognitive-verbal behaviors, physiological-emotional behaviors, and overtmotoric behaviors. Behaviors expressed through one or any combination of these response systems can interfere with the acquisition or performance of a social skill. For example, anxiety (an emotional response) can either prevent the learning or the perf~r­ mance of a social skill. Similarly, aggressIve behavior (an overt-motoric response) can prevent the acquisition or enactment of social skills. The identification of interfering behaviors is critical in the assessment of social skill deficiencies because these competing responses must be eliminated before one can adequately teach social behaviors. Thus,. the presence of interfering re~p~nses ha~ dIre~t implications for the remedIation of SOCIal s~Ill deficiencies (Gresham, 1986). The followmg sections will describe the four types of social

Table 1. Interfering Responses under the Cognitive-Verbal, Overt-Motoric, and Physiological-Emotional Response Modes Cognitive-verbal Depressive thoughts Poor problem-solving ability Inadequate role-taking skills Low self-efficacy Overt-motoric Disruptive behavior Aggressive behavior Excessive motor movement Impulsive behavior Physiological-emotional Anxiety Anger Depression Fear

skill deficiencies. Table 1 presents several examples of interfering responses under each response mode. Skill Deficits

Children with social skill deficits do not have the necessary social skills in their repertoires or they may not know a critical step in the performance of a behavioral sequence. A social skill deficit is similar to what Bandura (1977a) refers to as an acquisition or learning deficit. Several examples can be cited to elucidate social skill deficits. For example, a child may not know how to cooperate with peers, give a compliment, or initiate a conversation. The barometer to use in determining whether or not a skill deficit exists is based on knowledge or past performance of the behavior. If the child does not know how to perform the behavior or never has been observed to perform the behavior, it is probably a skill deficit. Social skill deficits are most likely the result of an absence of opportunities to learn the skill in question or of deficits in ~ttentio~al or ~eten­ tional processes involved m learmng SOCial behaviors through vicarious means (Bandura, 1986). Performance Deficits

A social performance deficit describes an individual who knows how to perform a given behavior, but does not perform the behavior at an acceptable level. Performance deficits can be thought of as a deficiency in the number of times a behavior is emitted and may be related to a lack of motivation (i.e., reinforcement contingencies) or an absence of opportunities to perform the behavior (i.e., a stimulus control problem). The key in determining whether. a so~i~l skill deficiency is a performance or skIll defiCIt is whether or not the individual can perform the target behavior in question. Thus, if an individual does not perform the behavior in a

528

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

classroom situation, but can perform the behavior outside the classroom, it is a performance deficit. Similarly, if the individual has been observed to perform the behavior in the past, it is a performance rather than a skill deficit. Self-Control Skill Deficits

The self-control skill deficit applies to individauls who have not learned a particular social skill because some type of interfering response (cognitive-verbal, p.hysiologicalemotional, and/or overt-motonc) has prevented acquisition of the skill. One way of viewing these deficits is that they are a combination of a behavioral excess (interfering response) and a behavioral deficit (absence of a socially skilled behavior). This conceptualization would suggest that social skills are not learned because interfering behaviors have prevented social skill acquisition. . One interfereing response that Impedes learning is anxiety. Anxiety has been shown to prevent the acquisition of appropriate coping responses, particularly in the literature concerning fears and phobias (Bandura, 1977b). Children may not learn appropriate peer interaction skills because ~ocial anxiety prevents social approach behaVIOrs. I~ tum, avoidance of or escape from threatenmg social situations reduces anxiety, thereby negatively reinforcing social withdrawal or social isolation. Another interfering response that may prevent social skill acquisition is aggressive behavior. Children who exhibit aggressive behavior toward peers are often socially rejected and avoided by the peer group (Asher & Hymel, 1981). Peers avoid the aggressive child that results in the child not being exposed to models of appropriate social behavior or being placed on an extinction schedule for his or her social responses. In short, the aggressive child may become a discriminative stimulus for avoidance behavior on the part of the peer group.

Self-Control Performance Deficits

Children with self-control performance deficits have specific social skills in their repertoires, but do not perform these skills at acceptable levels because of the presence of interfering responses (i.e., behavioral excesses) and problems in antecedent and/or consequent control. Two criteria are use~ ~o determine a self-control performance defICIt: (a) the presence of interfering responses and (b) the inconsistent/infrequent performance of the skill. An example of a self-control performance deficit would be a child who is extremely impulsive. Impulsivity or the tendency toward short response latencies can be considered an interfering behavior. An impulsive child may know how to interact appropriately with peers and teachers, but may do so infrequently because his or her impulsive style of responding is typically inappropriate. Thus, the child's response to another child accidently bumping into him or her may be to scream at and push the offending child rather than to simply ignore the incident. Perhaps the most understandable way of conceptualizing self-control performance deficits is through the operant learning notion of concurrent schedules. Concurrent schedules refer to the reinforcement of two or more responses according to two or more schedules at the same time. Thus, interfering responses may be on a relatively thicker schedule of reinforcement than socially skilled responses. As such, interfering responses will occur more frequently than socially skilled responses. This is known as the Matching Law and has received recent attention in the applied behavior change literature (see McDowell, 1982).

Sociometric Classification Model

Some researchers classify children as deficient in social skills on the basis of their sociometric status. Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli

529

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

(1982) developed a classification system that identifies five sociometric status groups: (a) popular, (b) neglected, (c) rejected, (d) controversial, and (e) average. These sociometric groups are based on standard scores derived from a peer nomination assessment that utilizes positive and negatiye peer nominations. Coie et al. (1982) used a peer nomination in which children in each class are asked to select from a list of classmates the three peers they like most and the three peers they like least. For each student, all peer nominations are summed to yield like most (LM) and liked least (LL) scores. These scores are then used to calculate social preference or SP scores and social impact or SI scores. Social preference is found by subtracting the liked least score from the liked most score (SP == LM - LL). Social impact is derived by adding the liked most score to the liked least score (SI == LM + LL). All scores are standardized (M == 0, s == 1) within each class and the sociometric status groups are categorized according to the fol-

lowing criteria: (a) the popular group includes students receiving a social preference (SP) score greater than 1.00, a liked most (LM) score greater than 0, and a liked least (LL) score less than 0; (b) the controversial group consists of students who receive social impact (SI) scores greater than 1.0, and liked least (LL) and liked most (LM) scores greater than 0; (c) the neglected group consists of students who receive a social impact (SI) score of less than -1.00 and an absolute liked most (LM) score of 0; (d) the rejected group includes students receiving a social preference (SP) score less than -1.00, a liked least (LL) score greater than 0, and a liked most (LM) score less than 0; and (e) the average group falls at the mean of the social preference and social impact dimensions. Figure 4 presents a visual model of the Coie et al. (1982) sociometric classification model. Correlates

0/ Sociometric Status

The correlates of sociometric status can be categorized under three headings: (a) behavioral correlates; (b) cognitive correlates; and, (c) emotional correlates. Each of these areas will be reviewed separately. Behavioral Correlates Controversial

Social Impact

-1.00 sz Rejected

I

liked least

Figure 4. Relations between social impact and social preference. Adapted from "Dimensions and Types of Social Status: A Cross-Age Perspective" by J. D. Coie, K. A. Dodge, and H. Coppotelli, 1982, Developmental Psychology, 18, pp. 557-570.

Several researchers have found that popular children, as defined by sociometric assessment, engage in more prosocial interactions than unpopular children. Direct observations of popular and unpopular children have demonstrated that the former group is more likely to contribute relevant conversation during play (Putallaz, 1983), engage in parallel functional play (Rubin & Daniels-Bierness, 1983), receive and initiate more prosocial behavior judged to have positive affect (Dodge, 1983), and use effective group entry strategies (Dodge, Schlundt, Schocker, & Delugach, 1983). Furthermore, peer assessment data have shown that popular children are viewed

530

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

as leaders and more cooperative than un- lated (Dodge et al., 1982). Direct observation popular children when in familiar groups studies of children in familiar peer groups support this description (Coie & Kupersmidt, (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983). Although it has been the general finding 1983; Dodge, 1983; Dodge et al., 1982; Dodge et that popular children emit more socially ap- al., 1983). The neglected child tends to appropriate behavior when compared to un- proach and interact with peers infrequently. popular children, exceptions may be expected Dodge et al. (1983) found that neglected chilwhen more specific sociometric groups are dren used a low-risk group entry strategy of compared. For example, Dodge (1983) found "waiting and hovering." Gottman (1977) that controversial children displayed more co- described these children as "tuned out," shy, operative play and social conversation than anxious, and fearful. Evidence exists, however, that is inconsistent with a socially withother groups including popular children. One of the most consistent findings in this drawn description of neglected children. For area of research is that unpopular groups dis- example, Coie and Kupersmidt (1983) found play higher levels of aggressive behavior that when neglected children were in an un(Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; familiar group of peers they demonstrated Ladd, 1981; Rubin, 1982). Distinctions among more supportive behavior than other status more specific sociometric groups appear to be groups and were labeled as leaders by peers. important when evaluating aggressive behav- Dodge (1983) reported that neglected children ior. Whereas rejected and controversial chil- initially received a high rate of positive peer dren have been found to exhibit excessive responses when entering a new group; howamounts of aggression (Coie & Kupersmidt, ever, within a short time after sociometric sta1983; Dodge, 1983), neglected children have tus was established in the group most of the not been observed to be aggressive (Coie & peer responses received by neglected children Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, were neutral rather than positive. 1982). Low sociometric status children have been In studies using teacher ratings and direct reported also to be poor academic achievers observations, rejected children also have been (Green et al., 1981; MacMillan, Morrison, & reported to display more inattentive, Silverstein, 1980; Vosk et al., 1982). In a recent hyperactive, and disruptive behavior than review, however, Coie (1985) pointed out that other sociometric groups (Dodge et al., 1983; the correlations between academic perforGreen, Vosk, Forehand, & Beck, 1981; Rubin mance and social standing have been as low & Daniels-Biemess, 1983; Vosk, Forehand, as .20 and as high as only .40. This suggests Parker, & Rickard, 1982). Additionally, there that many children with social skills problems is evidence to suggest that peers view rejected do not necessarily exhibit academic problems. children as least cooperative, most disruptive, Green et al. (1981) found that whereas their and most likely to start fights (Coie & rejected group of children obtained standardKupersmidt, 1983). Rejected children receive ized achievement scores significantly below more negative responses from peers than accepted children, neglected children did not. other children (Dodge, 1983; Gresham, Three studies have investigated behavioral 1982b). The chance for receiving negative re- differences between low-achieving and highsponses from peers is greater for the rejected achieving rejected children (Bursuck & Asher, children even when they emit the same be- 1986; Coie & Krehbiel, 1984; Krehbiel, 1983). haviors as popular children (Coie, 1983). Generally, these researchers found that chilAs noted by Coie (1985), neglected children dren rated low both in social and academic most closely resemble socially withdrawn areas were more disruptive, more aggressive, children in behavioral characteristics. These and displayed more inappropriate social bechildren are labeled by peers as shy and iso- havior than higher achievers.

531

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

Cognitive Correlates

Researchers employing a cognitively oriented approach to assessing social competence have focused on identifying covert responses that may influence social behavior. As noted earlier, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that cognitive variables, such as role-taking ability, self-efficacy, problemsolving, and social goal generation may interfere with the performance of socially skilled behavior. Regarding role-taking ability, Deysach, Keller, Ross, and Hiers (1975) found that social decentering on a role-taking task was significantly related to social competence in a group of 10- to 13-year-olds. Dodge, Murphy, & Buschsbaum (1984) reported that higher sociometric status children performed significantly better on tasks that assessed their ability to identify correctly others' social intentions. These researchers had subjects view videotapes of children exhibiting aggressive behavior. The tapes were designed to express a variety of intentions. Popular and average children were able to identify correctly intentions more frequently than neglected and rejected children. The latter groups tended to associate hostile intentions with the behavior even when pro social intentions were implied. In a sample of third through eighth graders, Kurdek and Krile (1983) found a significant correlation between parents' ratings of social skills and three measures of social cognition (i.e., interpersonal understanding, perceived social self-competence, and public selfawareness). Other studies have provided evidence supporting these results. Children's self-report of competence has been found to be associated with sociometric status (Harter, 1982; Wheeler & Ladd, 1982). Pelligrini (1985) found that interpersonal understanding along with problem-solving ability were significant predictors of social competence even when intelligence level was controlled. Problem-solving ability has been linked to socially competent behavior by other authors (e.g., Richard

& Dodge, 1982; Spivak & Shure, 1974). Richard and Dodge (1982) reported that the number and variety of solutions generated on a problem-solving task discriminated popular from unpopular children. . Consistent with the hypothesis that problem-solving deficits may interfere with social responding, some authors have proposed that children who have difficulty generating socially appropriate goals may exhibit social skills deficits (Renshaw & Asher, 1983). These researchers found that low status children were less able to generate positive and outgoing social goals in comparison to high status children. Evidence exists to suggest that the goals which predict sociometric status may vary with age. Specifically, Taylor and Asher (1984) found that whereas relationship goals were significantly correlated with sociometric status among third and fourth graders, performance-oriented goals predicted status among fifth and sixth graders.

Emotional Correlates

Few researchers have investigaged emotional correlates of social competence in children. It has been reported that social anxiety is associated with social skills problems (Buhrmester, 1982; Wheeler & Ladd, 1982). The Children's Concern Inventory (CCI) (Buhrmester, 1982) is a self-report measure designed to assess children's anxiety in specific social areas, including peer acceptance. Buhrmester (1982) reported significant negative correlations between sociometric status level and children's anxiety regarding peer acceptance as measured by the CCI. Depression also is an emotional response implicated as interfering with social interactions. Helsel and Matson (1984) reported a negative correlation between depression as measured by the Child Depression Inventory and social skills level. Integration 0/ the Behavioral and Sociometric Models

To date, various researchers have operated out of either the behavioral or sociometric

532 models in classifying children's social skills deficits. The emphasis in the behavioral model is to classify social skills problems as being the result of acquisition or skill deficits or performance deficits. In addition, the behavioral model specifies the presence or absence of interfering behaviors that prevent either the acquisition or performance of social skills. In contrast, the sociometric model classifies children according to different dimensions of social status, using the degree of social preference and social impact as anchors. As reviewed earlier, research has demonstrated that different sociometric status groups (e.g., popular, rejected, controversial, and neglected) show different behavioral, cognitive, and emotional correlates. The advantage of the behavioral classification model is that it is molecular enough to prescribe intervention for specific deficits. However, this model does not adequately associate behavioral deficits with indexes of socially valid outcomes, such as peer acceptance. The sociometric classification model reflects the socially valid outcome of peer acceptance, but does not adequately relate sociometric status to intervention strategies. An integration of these two models is needed in order to provide a more comprehensive and SOcially valid classification system. Frentz (1986) suggested that rejected and controversial children are likely to display interfering responses, such as aggressive behavior, poor anger control, impulsive behavior, and the like. In contrast, neglected children are likely to demonstrate behaviors that are more reflective of internalizing interfering responses, such as fear, anxiety, or depression. Based on the research literature, it might be hypothesized that the various sociometric groups differ with respect to acquisition and performance deficits as well as the presence or absence of interfering responses. For example, neglected children might be characterized as having performance deficits (Dodge, 1983) whereas rejected children may be typified as having acquisition deficits (Coie & Dodge, 1983). Controversial children are

PART IV • DEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES Acquisition Deficit

Performance Deficit

Interfering Response Absent

Neglected

Neglected

Interfering Response Present

Neglected Rejected

Neglected Rejected Controversial

Figure 5. Proposed integration of the behavioral and sociometric models.

likely to have a large repertoire of interpersonal skills that are not displayed consistently across persons and settings (Dodge, 1983). As such, controversial children can be said to have performance rather than acquisition deficits. Currently, there is no research that has directly tested the validity of the integration of the behavioral and sociometric classification models. It would be unreasonable to assume that the various sociometric groups would fit neatly into the categories specified in the behavioral model. Figure 5 shows that the various sociometric groups could have either acquisition or performance deficits and the presence or absence of interfering responses. Future research should investigate the proportions of each sociometric group that have acquisition and performance deficits and the presence and types of interfering responses.

Assessment of Social Skills Methods for assessing social skills can vary along several dimensions. For example, methods can rely on different sources of information, such as teachers, parents, peers, trained observers, or the child him- or herself. Information produced by assessment procedures can vary in specificity, ranging from global descriptions to quantification of molecular behaviors (McFall, 1982). Methods of assessment can also differ with respect to temporal proximity of performance to assessment. Thus, assessment information may stem from

533

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

observations of ongoing behavior, ratings of recent behavior in certain situations, or recall of temporally distant social functioning. These three dimensions of source, specificity, and temporal proximity of observation to performance also impact the reliability, validity, accuracy, and practicality of assessment procedures. Our preference for classifying assessment procedures is decided according to the purpose of assessment: (a) identification/ classification and (b) intervention/programming planning. Some assessment procedures are more useful for identification or classification of social skill deficiencies than for intervention purposes. Most norm-referenced tests (e.g., teacher rating scales) are used primarily for identification and classification purposes. In contrast, other assessment methods are useful for intervention purposes. Direct observations of behavior, behavioral interviews, and self-monitoring are examples of this class of procedures. Table 2 provides an outline of social skills assessment procedures. Table 2. Assessment of Social Skills A. Classification/diagnosis 1. Sociometries a. Nominations b. Ratings c. Rankings 2. Rating by others a. Teacher b. Parent c. Peer 3. Self-report 4. Behavioral role play a. Analogue b. Naturalistic B. Intervention/therapy 1. Behavioral interviews a. Teacher b. Parent c. Target child d. Peers 2. Direct observations a. Classroom b. Playground c. Lunchroom 3. Self-monitoring with functional analysis

The distinguishing feature of any assessment method that classifies it as either an identification or intervention method is based on the extent to which it allows for a functional analysis of behavior. That is, the extent to which an assessment procedure provides data concerning the antecedent, sequential, and consequent conditions surrounding behavior determines its classification as an intervention assessment method. Process and Targets of Social Skills Assessment

Process As with the psychological assessment of any problem, the process of social skills assessment can be characterized by a series of hypothesis-testing sequences. Hypotheses are generated in an attempt to answer questions related to the following stages of assessment: (a) identification/classification, (b) intervention/program planning, and (c) evaluation of intervention effects. Hypotheses may be generated based on whatever information is available at a given point in the assessment process and then tested at subsequent points through the gathering of additional information. Comprehensive social skills assessments allow one to draw conclusions regarding problem severity, the role of contributory factors, intervention strategies needed, and the degree of intervention success. A standard procedure for assessing social skills does not exist. Instead, hypotheses are generated that dictate the direction and scope of assessment, questions to be answered, and methods to be used. Assessment should proceed in a manner such that specific information needed for intervention planning is eventually gathered. In contrast, assessment of the effects of social skills training typically proceeds in an opposite direction, moving from examination of immediate and targetspecific outcomes toward global analyses of the intervention's impact on important social outcomes (i.e., social validation).

534 Targets

Social skills assessment focuses on multiple targets. During the identification/ classification stage of assessment, children and youth in need of social skills intervention are the focus. After such individuals have beeen identified, more specific foci serve as targets. Subsequent assessment targets are primarily a reflection of one's conceptualization of human behavior, those factors capable of producing ineffective performance, and the type of intervention strategies adopted. The bias here is against personality structures and underlying intrapsychic conflict as useful assessment targets. Instead, observable behaviors occurring in specific situations and influenced by one's learning history as well as current environmental events are seen as the proper focus of assessment. My bias was reflected in the discussion earlier concerning conceptualizations of social skill problems. Comprehensive social skill assessments should include such targets as performance x situation interactions resulting in judgments of social competency plus any measurable factors contributing to poor social skill performance. Based on the four-category classification outlined previously, specific skill deficits, inadequate reinforcement or opportunity for skilled performance, and interfering behaviors are all important considerations in social skills assessment. The following sections will review specific methods for social skills assessment.

Assessment for Identification/Classification

Several assessment procedures generate information that allows for a determination of the existence of a social skills problem. The most frequently used assessment procedures of this type are sociometrics, rankings or ratings by others (e.g., teachers and parents), self-report, and behavioral role play tasks (Gresham & Elliott, 1984). Hops and Greenwood (1981) consider sociometrics and rankings by others (e.g., teachers) to be selection

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

measures, whereas they consider behavior ratings and checklists to be useful for intervention program planning. According to Hops and Greenwood (1981), the extent to which the assessment procedure yields information about specific behavioral excesses or deficits determines its utility as a screening/identification versus an intervention assessment procedure. I use a slightly different conceptualization and classification of the various assessment procedures, based on the extent to which the assessment yields information for a functional analysis of behavior. In this view, the extent to which the assessment procedure provides data concerning the antecedent, sequential, and consequent conditions surrounding social behavior determines its classification as an identification/ classification or intervention assessment method. As such, behavior ratings would not be an intervention assessment procedure because they do not provide data for functional analyses. Behavioral interviews, on the other hand, would be considered an intervention assessment procedure because they yield data concerning the antecedents and consequences of behavioral excesses or deficits. Similarly, naturalistic observations and self-monitoring yield functional analysis information and, as such, would be classified as intervention assessment procedures.

Assessment for Intervention/Program Planning Some assessment techniques are better suited than others for obtaining information that is useful in designing social skills training programs. As noted, the extent to which an assessment technique allows for a functional analysis of behavior determines its utility as a behavioral assessment method that yields information for intervention or therapy. Two techniques that allow for such a functional analysis are discussed in the following: (a) behavioral interviews and (b) naturalistic observations.

535

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

Behavioral interviews are extremely useful in conducting a functional analysis of social behavior. Research demonstrates that behavioral interviews are effective in defining behaviors in observable terms, identifying the antecedent, sequential, and consequent conditions surrounding target behaviors, and designing observational systems to measure target behaviors (Bergan, 1977; Bergan & Tombari, 1975, 1976; Tombari & Bergan, 1978). Behavioral observations have been used frequently as selection and outcome measures in social skills training research (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Foster & Ritchey, 1979; Green & Forehand, 1980; Gresham & Elliott, 1984). Observations of social behaviors in naturalistic settings (e. g., classrooms, playground, etc.) have several advantages over other social skills assessment methods. First, naturalistic observations represent the most direct form of behavioral assessment because they measure behavior at the time and place of its actual occurrence. Second, behavioral observations are sensitive to the effects of social skills training interventions (Strain, Cooke, & Apolloni, 1976). Observational data are conducive to repeated measurements, which allow for the monitoring of within-subject variability in social behavior (Gresham, 1981a). This, in turn, allows for a fine-grained functional analysis of behavior in which the antecedent, sequential, and consequent conditions surrounding social behavior can be analyzed. Third, observational data require operational definitions of the social skill being assessed rather than relying on global, nebulous trait descriptions (e.g., friendly, cooperative, etc.).

Conceptualization of Social Skills Training Social skills training (SST) may be conceptualized as a four-step process: (a) promoting skill acquisition, (b) enhancing skill performance, (c) removing interfering behaviors, and (d) facilitating generalization. These steps are related to the type of social skill deficiency

(e.g., skill versus performance deficit), the presence or absence of interfering behaviors, and the functional control of social behaviors in specific situations. As can be seen in Table 3, modeling and coaching represent the major ways in which social skill acquisition is facilitated. These procedures are typically used to remediate social skill deficits that refer to the child not having the social skill in his or her repertoire or the child not knowing a particular step in the performance of a behavioral sequence. Modeling represents one of the most effective and efficient ways of teaching social behavior (Gresham, 1981b, 1985a,b). Modeling is efficient in the sense that component behaviors of a particular social skill do not have to be taught using a time-consuming shaping process. Modeling instruction presents the entire sequence of behaviors involved in a particular social skill and teaches how specific behaviors in this sequence can be integrated into a composite behavior. Table 3. Conceptualization of Teaching Social Skills 1. Promoting Skill Acquisition A. Modeling (live and!or symbolic) B. Coaching C. Instructions! explanations II. Enhancing Skill Performance A. Behavior rehearsal B. Reinforcement-based techniques C. Peer initiation strategies (antecedents) D. Cooperation learning strategies (antecedents and consequences) III. Removing interfering behaviors A. Response cost B. Group contingencies C. DROIDRL (Differential reinforcement of other! low rates) D. Overcorrection (positive practice and!or restitutional) E. Self-instructional procedures! consequential thinking IV. Facilitating generalization A. Take advantage of natural communities of reinforcement B. Train diversely C. Incorporate functional mediators

536 Modeling has been used in a variety of formats including videotape/film modeling, live modeling, and verbal modeling (via books, stories, etc.). The crucial aspects of learning through modeling are the observer's attention to the modeling stimulus, the observer's retention of the modeling sequence, the observer's behavioral reproduction of the modeling sequence, and the environment's reinforcement (Le., motivation) of the modeled behaviors. Coaching is a direct verbal instruction technique that is comprised of three steps: (a) presentation of rules or standards for behavior, (b) behavioral rehearsal of the social skill, and (c) feedback on behavioral performance (Oden & Asher, 1977). A number of procedures are designed to enhance the behavioral performance of social skills that are already in the child's repertoire. These procedures are most appropriate for remediation of performance deficits that refer to a deficiency in the number of times a behavior is exhibited (Le., the behavior is not performed at an acceptable level). Table 3 shows that a variety of antecedent and consequent events have been used to facilitate the performance of social behavior. The third step in SST is one that is often overlooked in discussions of teaching positive social behaviors. That is, it is often assumed that the child has no interfering behaviors that prevent/block the acquisition or performance of socially skilled behaviors. This is highly unlikely for many children and, as such, one must apply contingencies for the interfering behaviors as well as teach and/ or reinforce appropriate social behaviors. As previously mentioned, interfering behaviors are perhaps best conceptualized using the notion of concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Concurrent schedules describe the situation in which two or more behaviors are renforced according to two or more schedules at the same time. If interfering behaviors are on a relatively thicker schedule of reinforcement than the appropriate social skill behaviors, the interfering behaviors will be performed more frequently than the SOcially skilled behaviors (i.e., they

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

will block the performance of appropriate social skill behaviors). Finally, generalization of social skills represents a critical component of SST. Generalization refers to the occurrence of relevant behaviors under different nontraining conditions (i.e., across settings, subjects, people, behaviors, and times) without the scheduling of these same conditions as had been scheduled in the training conditions (Stokes & Baer, 1977). Stokes and Osnes (1986) provide an indepth discussion of the technology involved in programming for the generalization of children's social behavior.

Review of the SST Literature A large number of studies have been published over the past several years that has documented the efficacy of SST in altering the frequency of social behavior and in changing a child's sociometric status (see Cartledge & Milburn, 1983; Gresham, 1981b, 1985a; Gresham & Lemanek, 1983; Ladd & Mize, 1983; Schneider & Byrne, 1985; Strain & Fox, 1981, for comprehensive reviews). Gresham (1985b) reviewed 33 studies that used cognitive-behavioral SST procedures (i.e., modeling, coaching, treatment packages, and social problem solving) and found that modeling and coaching had the strongest base of empirical support when evaluated on the seven dimensions of subject characteristics, treatment specification, appropriateness of statistical analysis, experimental design, social validity of outcome measures, generalization, and cost-effectiveness. Gresham (1985b) concluded that it is unclear whether the addition of cognitive elements (e.g., self-instruction, problem solving, etc.) enhances the effectiveness of procedures such as modeling, coaching, behavior rehearsal, and operant techniques in teaching social behavior. The most in-depth review of the SST literature was conducted by Schneider and Byrne (1985), who used a meta-analysis of 51 studies investigating the following seven attributes:

537

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

(a) treatment technique, (b) duration of treatent, (c) age and sex of subjects, (d) subject population, (e) therapist characteristics, (f) outcome variable, and (g) reliability of outcome measure. Because of the comprehensiveness and informative nature of the Schneider and Byrne (1985) review, it is discussed in detail in the following sections. Treatment Technique

Intervention techniques were classified according to four major SST strategies, including modeling, operant procedures, coaching, and social-cognitive techniques. According to Schneider and Byrne (1985), operant procedures had the largest effect size (ES) of .85 followed by modeling (ES = .75), coaching (ES = .65), and social-cognitive techniques (ES = .55). There was a significant difference between the ESs for operant and social-cognitive techniques; however, the differences between operant, modeling, and coaching techniques were not significant. These ESs cannot be taken as equivalent, however, because of the differences in outcome measure, durations of treatment, and other methodological differences. Outcome Measure and Reliability

respectively). This may suggest that SST is more effective when conducted by individuals who have more knowledge in the area of learning theory. The meta-analysis also showed that SST was more effective for preschoolers (ES = .97) and adolescents (ES = .87) than for elementary-age children (ES = .56). No sex differences in the ESs were noted although few studies treated sex as an independent variable. SST was more effective for withdrawn than for aggressive subjects (ES = 1.04 versus .69, respectively). Schneider and Byrne (1985) hypothesized that problems of social withdrawal may be more related to social skill deficits whereas aggressive behaviors are more related to performance deficits. As such, the use of modeling and coaching (procedures designed to remediate skill deficits) demonstrate greater changes in social skills for withdrawn subjects. This hypothesis, however, requires further investigation because no studies have been conducted in which subjects have been classified as having a skill versus performance deficit. Duration of Treatment

Opposite to what one might expect, the duration of treatment was negatively related to the outcome of SST. The ES for treatments of less than 5 days was .89 whereas the ES for treatments of more than 50 days was .59. Schneider and Byrne (1985) interpreted this finding by noting that some treatments (e.g., modeling) are always shorter than other treatments (e.g., social-cognitive treatments).

Considerable variability can be found in the type of outcome measure used in SST studies. Schneider and Byrne (1985) found the largest ESs for studies using rates of social interaction measured by either naturalistic observation or behavioral role-play tests (M = .86). In addition, the more reliable the outcome measure, the larger the ES (1.01 versus .64). Few studSummary and Implications ies used self-report and blind teacher ratings as outcome measures in the 51 studies Basing my conclusion on the 51 studies rereviewed. viewed by Schneider and Byrne (1985), it appears that operant procedures and modeling appear to be the most effective SST proTherapist and Child Characteristics cedures. This finding is consistent with reSchneider and Byrne's (1985) meta-analysis views by Gresham (1981a, 1985b) and Carrevealed that SST conducted by classroom tledge and Milburn (1983). Social-cognitive teachers was less effective than SST con- procedures were the least effective SST producted by research staff (ESs = .63 versus .80, cedures, partially because of the difference in

538

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

focus of these procedures (i.e., cognitive changes versus behavioral changes). Gresham (1985b) noted that one of the biggest problems with social-cognitive SST procedures is their failure to demonstrate changes on socially valid outcome measures, such as naturalistically observed social behavior and sociometric status. One problem with the SST literature has been the failure of researchers to classify subjects according to the specific types of social skill deficits prior to the initiation of training. Future research should attempt to classify subjects according to the system mentioned earlier in this chapter (e.g., skill, performance, and self-control deficits) and relate SST strategies to each of these classifications.

Social Validation and Social Skills Social validity has become an important concept in the behavioral assessment and intervention literature over the past several years (Kazdin, 1977; VanHouten, 1979; Witt & Elliott, 1985; Wolf, 1978). Social validity refers to establishing the social significance of the goals for interventions, creating interventions that are socially acceptable to treatment consumers, and evaluating the social importance of the effects of interventions (Wolf, 1978). Social Significance

Establishing the social significance of the behavioral goals for social skills interventions is most relevant during the classification/ diagnosis phase of the assessment process. The purpose is to target those social skills deficits that are viewed as being most important in the schools. The social significance of behavioral goals is usually based on subjective judgments by teachers (Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978). Subjective evaluations are judgments made by persons who interact with or who are in a special position to judge behavior.

Determining the social significance of the goals of a social skills intervention is vital. One would not want to teach behaviors that are not considered valuable or important. The likely result of teaching socially insignificant behaviors is extinction (i.e., the behaviors Simply do not get reinforced). Some years ago, Baer and Wolf (1970) stressed the importance of teaching only those behaviors that have a high probability of being trapped into natural communities of reinforcement. An interesting study by Black (1985) sheds light on the value of assessing what teachers consider to be socially significant behaviors in their classrooms. Black (1985) asked 125 teachers (43 black and 82 white) to rate the importance of each of the 50 behaviors on the Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS) (Clark, Gresham, & Elliott, 1985; Gresham & Elliott, in preparation). Importance was rated on the following three-point scale: (a) 2-This behavior is critical for success in my classroom, (b) I-This behavior is important for success in my classroom, or (c) O-This behavior is unimportant for success in my classroom. Table 4 shows the 10 highest rated and 10 lowest rated behaviors in terms of importance. As can be seen in Table 4, the 10 most important behaviors deal primarily with classroom order and control. These behaviors, although important, have little to do with the development of peer relationship skills or the ability to cope effectively with peers. These behaviors are what Hersh and Walker (1983) refer to as the model behavioral profile expected by teachers. Many, if not most, MH children were originally referred for assessment and placement in special education because of their divergence from this model behavioral profile (Gresham, 1985a). Conversely, Table 4 shows that the 10 lowest rated behaviors deal primarily with positive peerto-peer social interactions or social skills, suggesting that teachers view these behaviors as relatively unimportant for classroom success. Interestingly, there was high agreement of this rank ordering for black and white teachers (r = .96), black and white children (r

539

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

Table 4. 10 Most Important Social Skills and 10 Least Important Social Skills as Rated By Classroom Teachers on the Social Skills Rating Scales (SSRS)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Top 10: SSRS Importance dimension classroom survival skills Completes classroom assignments in required time Looks at teacher when instructed Follow teacher's verbal directions Requests assistance, explanations, or instructions from teacher Uses time productively while waiting for teacher assistance Asks questions of teacher when unsure of what to do in school work at appropriate times and in an appropriate manner Produces correct academic work Controls temper in conflict situations Attends to class speakers Ignores peer distractions when doing class work The bottom 10: SSRS Importance dimension

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Invites peers to play Introduces self to new people on own initiative Praises peers Makes positive statements to other children Presents academic work before class Cooperates with peers without being told Appropriately expresses opinions or beliefs on some issue by giving reasons for expressed opinion or belief 8. Appropriately expresses anger or annoyance when a classmate takes a belonging without asking 9. Attempts classroom tasks before asking for teacher assistance 10. Tolerates peers whose characteristics are different from one's one's own (e.g., ethnic group, handicapped, etc.)

= .96), males and females (r = .93), and MH and nonhandicapped children (r = .98). What implications does this study have for social skills interventions in regular classrooms? The data would suggest that teachers do not view interpersonal or social competence skills as being important for classroom success. In this sense, these behaviors are socially insignificant and would not be likely candidates for intervention. However, these data may point up the fact that interventions must include task-related as well as interpersonal behaviors. In fact, the 10 highest rated

behaviors in Table 4 often are referred to as task-related or academic-related social skills (Gresham, 1984, 1985a; Hersh & Walker, 1983; Stephens, 1978; Walker & Rankin, 1983). The relatively lowest ratings for interpersonal behaviors also may reflect teachers' perceived lack of knowledge and skills in the area of children's social development. More research is needed in order to identify the bases for these ratings. Social Acceptability

The social acceptability of an intervention procedure forces one to ask the question: Do the ends justify the means? Do the participants, caregivers, and consumers consider the intervention procedure acceptable? Witt and Elliott (1985) indicated that acceptability is a broad term encompassing whether an intervention is appropriate for a given problem, whether it is fair, reasonable, or intrusive, and whether the intervention is consistent with conventional notions of what an intervention should be. In short, acceptability consists of judgments from intervention consumers as to whether or not they like the intervention procedure. Why should psychologists and educators be concerned with the acceptability of their interventions? One reason is that unacceptable interventions are less likely to be implemented or implemented as planned (Witt & Elliott, 1985). Thus, an unimplemented or poorly implemented intervention has little chance for effectively modifying problem behaviors in classrooms. Variables that relate to the acceptability of interventions are the amount of teacher time involved, effort, and resources. There are currently no data regarding the acceptability of social skills interventions with classroom teachers. However, there is nothing to suggest that the acceptability of these procedures is not related to the same variables (e.g., time, resources, effort, etc.) as other interventions. Future research should address the acceptability issue with social skills interventions with both regular edu-

540

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

cation and special education teachers. It may be that the type of behavior (i.e., social skill deficit versus academic deficit) interacts with the type of intervention producing differences in teachers' acceptability levels. Social Importance The final component of social validation is social importance. In other words, does the quantity and quality of behavior change make an educationally significant difference in the individual's functioning. Interventions that produce socially important effects move the individual into normative ranges of functioning on the behaviors of interest and/or are judged by treatment consumers to have produced socially important effects. Two methods have been discussed as means of establishing the social importance of effects produced by interventions. (a) subjective evaluation and (b) social comparison (Kazdin, 1977; Kazdin & Matson, 1981). Subjective evaluation requires asking persons who are in special position to judge the importance of effects produced by a given intervention. This might entail having teachers rate the magnitude or importance of intervention effects immediately after an intervention and at some future time (e.g., 2 weeks, 4 weeks, etc.) on a Likert-type scale. This procedure would assess the importance of intervention effects as well as the maintenance of these effects over time. Social comparison consists of comparing the level of behavior of children after intervention to nonreferred peers (i.e., a norm-referenced comparison). Thus, if MH children's behavior rates after intervention are comparable to the rates of nonhandicapped children, the intervention can be said to have produced socially important effects. Social comparisons need not necessarily involve rates or frequencies of behavior. For example, one could use standardized social skills scales to assess behavior change subsequent to an intervention. Similarly, one could use sociometrics to assess changes in sociometric status after intervention. Comparisons could also be made to non-

handicapped or to children not referred for social skills interventions. Perhaps the best way of socially validating an intervention is to use what Van Houten (1979) calls combined social validation procedures. Combined procedures would use subjective judgments by consumers and social comparisons to assess the social importance of effects produced by interventions. This is important because judgments and empirical comparisons do not necessarily produce the same results (Kazdin & Matson, 1981).

Future Research Directions Although SST has been shown to facilitate positive social interaction and to increase peer acceptance, much is not known about key issues in this area. Three major areas of knowledge in the social skills area appear to be in need of future research: (a) generalizations; (b) methods of social skill selection, and (c) motivational! affective variables. Each of these areas will be discussed briefly in the following sections pointing toward directions for future research. Facilitation of Generalization Generalization represents a key consideration in SST. Obviously, social skills that do not occur outside of the training setting or do not maintain over time would not be functional in obtaining environmental reinforcers for individuals. Moreover, an efficient means of teaching social skills would be to identify pivotal or key response class members, train these pivotal behaviors, and observe generalization to untrained members of these response classes (see Voeltz & Evans, 1982). Hence, generalization across settings, time, and behaviors is crucial to the outcomes of SST. Stokes and Baer (1977) indicated that specific programming tactics must be implemented in order to ensure that generalized behavior change is accomplished. These authors out-

541

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

lined a number of generalization-programming techniques including (a) the introduction of newly trained behaviors to natural contingencies, (b) the training of multiple stimulus and response exemplars, (c) the use of indiscriminable contingencies, and (d) the use of loose training strategies. More recently, Stokes and Osnes (1986) outlined a number of procedures for facilitating generalization of trained social skills. Table 5 presents an outline of these generalization procedures. Future SST studies should focus on specific procedures to facilitate generalization of trained social skills.

dren and youth (Gresham, 1983b, 1986). Hughes (1986) reviewed 32 SST investigations published between 1980 and 1984 and found that 56.5% (18 studies) used nonempirical methods to select social skills for training and 62.5% (20 studies) did not attempt to verify that subjects were in fact deficient on the targeted social skills to be trained. The fact that relatively few SST studies have used a social validity approach to skill selection is perplexing. It appears that many studies have selected social skills for training on the basis of researchers' a priori notions of what represents socially significant target behaviors rather than selecting skills on the basis of empirical criteria. Gresham (1986) sugSocial Skill Selection gested that a number of empirical criteria Surprisingly, a number of SST studies have could be used to select socially significant tarfailed to select skills for training on the basis of get behaviors for SST. First, researchers could social validity. That is, targeted social skills compare the rates of observed social behavhave been selected without reference to their iors for referred and nonreferred children and relation to important social outcomes for chil- select those social skills on which the greatest discrepancy between the two groups existed. Second, targeted social skills could be selected Table 5. Functional Control of Generalization on the basis of teacher ratings of the imporl. Take advantage of natural communities of reinforce- tance of social skills for classroom success or ment adjustment. This approach has been taken by A. Teach relevant behaviors (i.e., those that are Gresham and Elliott (in preparation) in their functional in a variety of settings) B. Modify enviroments supporting maladaptive be- development of teacher, parent, and self-report versions of the Social Skills Rating Scales. haviors C. Recruit "natural communities" of reinforcement Finally, targeted social skills could be selected (i.e., teach child to ask for reinforcement when on the basis of their relation to socially impordeserved) tant criteria, such as sociometric status, acaII. Train diversely A. Use sufficient stimulus exemplars (i.e., vary demic performance, or self-esteem. Future research should focus on empirical ways of teaching the same response/behavior) B. Use sufficient response exemplars (i.e., teach methods for selecting social skills for SST various ways of responding to the same situa- studies. An efficient approach would be to tion) identify social skill response clusters and seC. Train loosely (antecedents: similarity to real-life lect targeted social skills on the basis of their environments) D. Use indiscriminable contingencies (consequences: relation to socially valid indexes of outcome variable schedules) and generalization to other members of the E. Reinforce unprompted generalization (i.e., teach response class.

"to generalize") III. Incorporate functional mediators A. Use common physical stimuli (things = discrimination) B. Use common social stimuli (people = discrimination) C. Use self-mediated stimuli (language as a prompt to promote generalization)

Motivation/Affective Variables There has been a paucity of attention directed toward the role of motivational! affective variables in SST. It may well be the case that certain motivational variables (e.g.,

542 learned helplessness, effectance motivation, self-attribution, etc.) and affective varibles (e.g., self-concept, self-esteem, etc.) interact with SST strategies to produce differential effects on measures of social skills and sociometric status. If we were to view motivational and affective variables as dependent measures, it could well be the case that certain SST techniques differentially affect these motivational and affective outcomes. The theoretical notions of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975), self-attribution (Weiner, 1979), effectance motivation (Harter, 1982; White, 1959), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977b, 1986) all seem relevant to SST. Although there are several differences between these theories of motivation, they all seem to be describing a similar phenomenon in slightly different words. Learned helplessness, self-attribution, effectance motivation, and self-efficacy all share the common theme regarding an individual's expectancy or belief concerning behavior and its outcomes. For example, learned helplessness describes a situation in which an individual comes to believe that behavior and its outcomes are independent. Similarly, self-attribution theory hypothesizes that there is a relation between an individual's attribution for success or failure (outcomes) on specific tasks and the individual's beliefs (attributions) about the causes of success and failure. Effectance motivation describes an individual's need to be successful or deal effectively with the environment. Harter (1982) suggested that effectance motivation is multidimensional and describes the effects of success and failure on effectance motivation. Perhaps a more comprehensive and relevant theory of motivation than those discussed earlier is Bandura's (l977b, 1986) theoretical notion of self-efficacy. The basic premise in self-efficacy, as in learned helplessness and effectance motivation, centers on an individual's sense of personal efficacy to produce and regulate events in their lives. Perceived self-efficacy is concerned with judgments of how well one can execute behaviors required to deal with prospective situations.

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES

Perceived self-efficacy affects behavioral functioning by influencing an individual's choice of activities, effort expenditure, and persistence in the face of difficulties. Self-percepts of efficacy can predict not only behavioral choice, but also variations in coping behavior and even specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy appears to have direct relevance for SST because the level and strength of self-efficacy are based on four major sources of information: (a) performance accomplishments, (b) vicarious experience, (c) verbal persuasion, and (d) emotional arousal. Performance accomplishments represent the strongest basis for efficacy because they are based on personal mastery experiences. That is, repeated success in any setting and/or situation heightens self-efficacy, whereas repeated failure, particularly early on, lowers efficacy (Bandura, 1977b). Several SST strategies are based on performance accomplishments such as participant modeling, behavior rehearsal, and direct reinforcement for behavioral performance (see Gresham, 1984). Other Table 6. Classification of Social Skills Training Strategies according to Strength of Self-Efficacy Production 1. Performance accomplishments A. Participant modeling B. Behavior rehearsal C. Direct reinforcement for performance D. Peer initiation strategies E. In vivo flooding F. Cooperative learning strategies II. Vicarious experience A. Symbolic modeling B. Modeling without participation C. Coaching D. Covert modeling III. Verbal persuasion A. Suggestions B. Instructions C. Self-instruction D. Interpretive treatments IV. Emotional arousal A. Relaxation B. Desensitization C. Imaginal flooding D. Attribution retraining

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS

543

SST techniques rely on vicarious experiences A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. (a weaker basis for self-efficacy), including Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, symbolic modeling, modeling without parOH: Merrill. ticipation, and coaching. Verbal persuasion Bergan, J., & Tombari, M. (1975). The analysis of verbal SST strategies, a still weaker basis for efficacy, interactions occurring during consultation. Journal of include self-instruction, suggestion, and inSchool Psychology, 13, 209-226. terpretative treatments. Finally, emotional Bergan, J., & Tombari, M. (1976). Consultant skill and efficiency and the implementation and outcomes of arousal (the weakest basis of self-efficacy) inconsultation. Journal of School Psychology, 14, 3-14. cludes techniques such as attribution retrain- Black, F. (1985). Social skills assessment for mainstreamed ing, imaginal flooding, and desensitization. handicapped students: The discriminative efficiency of the Table 6 provides an outline of various SST Teacher Ratings of Social Skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University. strategies categorized according to the basis of Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32. Future SST research should focus on Bryan, T. S. (1974). Peer popularity of learning disabled changes in levels of self-efficacy as a function children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 621-625. of specific training strategies. It may well be Bryan, T. S. (1976). Peer popularity of learning disabled children: A replication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, the case that there is a relation between the 307-31l. level of self-efficacy an individual possesses in Bryan, T. S. (1978). Social relationships and verbal interacspecific social behaviors and the degree of tions of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning generalization of these behaviors across setDisabilities, 11, 107-115. tings, situations, and time. This hypothesis, Buhrmester, D. (1982). Children's Concern Inventory Manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver. however, awaits empirical investigation.

References Allen, K, Benning, P., & Drummond, T. (1972). Integration of normal and handicapped children in a behavior modification preschool: A case study. In G. Semb (Ed.), Behavioral analysis and education. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J. D. Wine & M. A. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 125-157). New York: Guilford Press. Asher, S., Oden, S., & Gottman, J. (1977). Children's friendship in school settings. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum. Baer, D., & Wolf, M. (1970). The entry into natural communities of reinforcement. In R. Ulrich, T. Stachnik, & J. Mabry (Eds.), Control of human behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 319-324). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Ballard, M., Corman, L., Gottlieb, J., & Kaufman, M. (1977). Improving the social status of mainstreamed retarded ~hildren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 605-61l. Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:

Bursuck, W. D., & Asher, S. R. (1986). The relationship between social competence and achievement in elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15,41-49. Cartledge, G., & Milburn, J. (1983). Social skill assessment and teaching in the schools. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 175-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum. Catania, C. (1975). The myth of self-reinforcement. Behaviorism, 3, 192-199. Clark, L., Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Development and validation of a social skills assessment measure: The TROSS-C. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 347-356. Coie, J. D. (1985). Fitting social skills intervention to the target group. In B. H. Schneider, K H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention. New York: Springer. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K A. (1983). Continuity of children's social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-282. Coie, J. D., & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the social status of low-achieving, sociallyrejected children. Child Development, 55, 1465-1478. Coie, j. D., & Kupersmidt, j. B. (1983). Behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child development, 54, 1400-1416. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. Cowen, E., Pederson, A., Babigian, L., & Trost, M. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnera-

544 ble children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 438-446. Deysach, R E., Keller, H. R., Ross, A. W., & Hiers, T. G. (1975). Social decentering and locus of control in children. The Journal of Psychology, 90, 229-235. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Bradde, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 389410. Dodge, K. A., Schlundt, D. c., Schocken, I., & Delugach, J. D. (1983). Social competence and children's sociometric status: The role of peer group entry strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 309-336. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Foster, S., & Ritchey, W. (1979). Issues in the assessment of social competence in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 625-638. Frentz, C. (1986). Behavioral correlates of children's social competence: An investigation of two social skills classification models. Unpublished manuscript, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Gottlieb, J. (1975). Attitudes toward retarded children: Effects of labeling and behavioral aggressiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 581-585. Gottlieb, J., & Budoff, M. (1973). Social acceptability of retarded children in nongraded schools differing in architecture. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 1519. Gottlieb, J. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the promise. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 115-126. Gottlieb, L & Leyser, Y. (1981). Facilitating the social mainstreaming of retarded children. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1, 57-70. Gottman, J. M. (1977). The effects of a modeling film on social isolation in preschool children: A methodological investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 69-78. Green, K. D., & Forehand, R (1980). Assessment of children's social skills: A review of methods. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 2, 143-159. Green, K. D., Vosk, B., Forehand, R, & Beck, S. (1981). An examination of differences among sociometrically identified accepted, rejected, and neglected children. Child Study Journal, 11, 117-124. Greenspan, S. (1981). Social competence and handicapped individuals: Practical implications and a proposed model. Advances in Special Education, 3, 41-82. Gresham, F. M. (1981a). Assessment of children's social skills. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 120-133. Gresham, F. M. (1981b). Social skills training with handicapped children: A review. Review of Educational Research, 51, 139-176. Gresham, F. M. (1982a). MisgUided mainstreaming: The

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES case for social skills training with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, 420-433. Gresham, F. M. (1982b). Social skills instruction for exceptional children. Theory Into Practice, 20, 129-133. Gresham, F. M. (1983a). Social skills assessment as a component of mainstreaming placement decisions. Exceptional Children, 49,331-336. Gresham, F. M. (1983b). Social validity in the assessment of children's social skills: Establishing standards for social competency. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 297-307. Gresham, F. M. (1984). Social skills and self-efficacy for exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 51, 253-261. Gresham, F. M. (1985a). Best practices in social skills training. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices manual (pp. 181-192). Cuyahoga Falls, OH: National Association of School Psychologists. Gresham, F. M. (1985b). Utility of cognitive-behavioral procedures for social skills training with children: A review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 411423. Gresham, F. M. (1986). Conceptual and definitional issues in the assessment of children's social skills: Implications for classification and training. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 16-25. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1984). Assessment and classification of children's social skills: A review of methods and issues. School Psychology Review, 13,292301. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1987). The relationship between adaptive behavior and social skills. Journal of Special Education, 21, 167-182. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (in preparation). Social Skills Rating Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Gresham, F. M., & Lemanek, K. L. (1983). Social skills: A review of cognitive-behavioral training procedures with children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 439-461. Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1987). Dimensions of social competence: Method factors in the assessment of adaptive behavior, social skills, and peer acceptance. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 367-387. Gronlund, H., & Anderson, L. (1963). Personality characteristics of socially accepted, socially neglected, and socially rejected junior high school pupils. InJ. Seiderman (Ed.), Educating for mental health. New York: Crowell. Grossman, H. J. (Ed.). (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97. Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations: In P. Mussen (Series Ed.), & E. Heterington (Vol Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 103-196). New York: Wiley. Helsel, W. J., & Matson, J. L. (1984). The assessment of

CHAPTER 20 • SOCIAL SKILLS depression in children: The internal structure of the Child Depression Inventory (COl). Behavior Therapy and Research, 22, 289-298. Hersh, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (1983). Great expectations: Making schools effective for all students. Policy Studies Review, 2, 147-188. Hops, H., & Greenwood, C R. (1981). Social skills deficits. In E. J. Mash & L. G. Ierdal (Eds.), Behavioral assessment of childhood disorders (pp. 347-394). New York: Guilford Press. Hughes, J. (1986). Methods of skill selection in social skills training: A Review. Professional School Psychology, 1, 235-248. Kazdin, A. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427-45l. Kazdin, A., & Matson, J. (1981). Social validation in mental retardation. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 39-53. Keogh, B., Kukic, S., Becker, L., McLoughlin, R., & Kukic, M. (1975). School psychologists' services in special education programs. Journal of School Psychology, 13, 142-146. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: Ihe cognitivedevelopmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Kohn, M., & Clausen, J. (1955). Social isolation and schizophrenia. American Sociological Review, 20, 265273. Krehbiel, G. (1983). Sociometric status and academic achievement-based differences in behavior and peer-assessed reputation. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University. Kurdek, L. A., & Krile, D. (1983). Ihe relation between third- through eighth-grade children's social cognition and parents' ratings of social skills and general adjustment. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143, 201206. Ladd, G. W. (1981). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283-307. Ladd, G. W., & Mize, J. A. (1983). A cognitive-social learning model of social skill training. Psychological Review, 2, 127-157. MacMillan, D., Morrison, G., & Silverstein, A. (1980). Convergent and discriminant validity of Project PRIME's Guess Who? American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 78-8l. McDowell, J. J. (1982). Ihe importance of Herrnstein's mathematical statement of the Law of Effect for behavior therapy. American Psychologist, 37, 771-779. McFall, R. M. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-33. Nelson, R., & Hayes, S. (1979). Some current dimensions of behavioral assessment. Behavioral Assessment, 1, 116. Oden, S. L., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Coaching children in

545 social skills for friendship making. Child Development, 48, 496-506. Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). Social cognition and competence in middle childhood. Child Development, 56, 253-264. Piaget, J. (1952). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Collier. Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children's sociometric status from their behavior. Child Development, 54, 14171426. Renshaw, P. D., & Asher, S. R. (1983). Children's goals and strategies for social interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 353-374. Reschly, D. J. (1982). Assessing mild mental retardation: Ihe influence of adaptive behavior, sociocultural status, and prospects for nonbiased assessment. In C R. Reynolds & I. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (pp. 209-242). New York: Wiley Interscience. Reschly, D. J., Gresham, F. M., & Graham-Clay, S. (1984). Multi-factored nonbiased assessment: Convergent and discriminant validity of social and cognitive measures with black and white regular and special education students. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Grant No. G0081101156, Assistance Catalog No. CFDA: 84-023E. Reynolds, C, Gutkin, I., Elliott, S., & Witt, J. (1984). School psychology: Essentials of theory and practice. New York: Wiley. Richard, B. A., & Dodge, K. A. (1982). Social maladjustment and problem-solving in school-aged children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 226233. Rof£, M. (1970). Some life history factors in relation to various types of adult maladjustment. In M. Ross & D. Ricks (Eds.), Life history research in psychopathology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Roff, M., Sells, B., & Golden, M. (1972). Social adjustment and personality adjustment in children. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Rubin, K. H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessary evil? Child Development, 53, 651-657. Rubin, K. H., & Daniels-Bierness, T. (1983). Concurrent and predictive correlates of sociometric status in kindergarten and grade 1 children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 337-351. Salkind, N. (1981). Theories of human development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Schneider, B. H., & Byrne, B. M. (1985). Children's social skills training: A meta-analysis. In B. Schneider, K. Rubin, & J. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 175-192). New York: Springer. Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press. Spivack, G., & Shure, M. (1974). Social adjustment of young children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

546 Stephens, T. M. (1978). Social skills in the classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Cedars Press. Stokes, T., & Baer, D. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 349-367.

Stokes, T., & Osnes, P. (1986). Programming the generalization of children's social behavior. In P. Strain, M. Guralnick, & H. Walker (Eds.), Children's social behavior: Development, assessment, and modification (pp. 407-443). New York: Academic Press. Strain, P. S., & Fox, J. (1981). Peers as behavior change agents for withdrawn classmates. InB. B. Lahey&A E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 167-198). New York: Plenum Press. Strain, P. S., Cooke, R P., & Apolloni, T. (1976). Teaching

exceptional children: Assessing and modifying social behavior. New York: Academic Press. Stumme, V. S., Gresham, F. M., & Scott, N. A (1982). Validity of Social Behavior Assessment in discriminating emotionally disabled from nonhandicapped students.

Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 4, 327-342. Taylor, A., & Asher, S. (1984). Children's interpersonal goals in game situations. In G. Laud (Chair), From pre-

school to high school: Are children's interpersonal goals and strategies predictive of their social competence? Symposium

presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Thorndike, E. L. (1927). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227-235. Tombari, M., & Bergan, J. (1978). Consultant cues and teacher verbalizations, judgments, and expectancies concerning children's adjustment problems. Journal of

School Psychology, 16, 217-229.

Ullman, C. (1957). Teachers, peers, and tests as predictors

PART IV • BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES of adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 257267.

Van Houten, R (1979). Social validation: The evolution of standards for competency for target behaviors. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 581-591.

Voeltz, L., & Evans, I. (1982). The assessment of behavioral interrelationships in child behavior therapy. Be-

havioral Assessment, 4, 131-166.

Vosk, B., Forehand, R, Parker, J. B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A multimethod comparison of popular and unpopular children. Developmental Psychology, 18, 795-805. Walker, H. M., & Hops, H. (1976). Use of normative peer data as a standard for evaluating classroom treatment effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 159-168. Walker, H., & Rankin, R (1983). Assessing the behavioral expectations and demands of less restrictive settings.

School Psychology Review, 12,274-284. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.

Wheeler, V. A, & Ladd, G. W. (1982). Assessment of children's self-efficacy for social interactions with peers. Developmental Psychology, 18, 795-805. White, R (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 287-333. Witt, J. c., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. R Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251-288). Hillsdale; NJ: Erlbaum. Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203214.