Social
Competencies
Adolescent Relationships
Measures
The measures listed in this section are by no means exhaustive and
are merely a sampling of the more popular measures used by researchers
for assessing the various components believed to be important in
successful adolescent relationships. It is possible also that the often
overlooked qualitative measures such as portfolios, diaries or journals,
and personal interviews can be valuable and useful alternative sources
of data gathering when investigating the dynamics of adolescent
interpersonal relationships.
| Name: |
Assertiveness Scale for
Adolescents (ASA). |
| Author: |
Dong Yul Lee, Ernest T. Hallberg, Alan G. Slemon, &
Richard F. Haase |
| Date: |
1985 |
| Instrument
Description: |
This instrument measures
respondents on 33 items describing interpersonal situations and
providing 3 options for the respondent choose from as to what he/she
would usually do in that particular situation. The 3 options are
classified as assertive, unassertive, and aggressive or
passive-aggressive. The scale has three purposes: to obtain
children's reports of typical behavior for use in identifying
interpersonal problem areas, as a screening device for intervention
programs, and as a research tool for the study of assertiveness. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Dong Yul Lee, Dept.
of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1G7 |
| Literature Reference: |
Lee, D. Y., Hallbert, E.
T., Slemon, A. G., & Haase, R. F. (1985). An assertiveness scale
for Adolescents, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 51-57. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended
Audience: |
Children in grades 6-12 |
| Subtests: |
None indicated. |
| Psychometrics: |
Fairly good internal
consistency based on the Kuder-Richardson 20. Test-retest
reliability good, with 4 week interval of .84. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
May be used as a
screening device for intervention programs. |
| Name: |
Adolescent Coping
Orientation for Problem Experiences (A-Cope) |
| Author: |
Joan M. Patterson and Hamilton I. McCubbin |
| Date: |
1991 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The instrument is a 54-item
instrument designed to measure behaviors that adolescents find
helpful in managing problems and difficult situations. This measure
can be helpful in designing intervention programs. The instrument
compromises 12 factors, each of which are described in the primary
reference. The total score can be calculated and used as an overall
measure of coping. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Hamilton McCubbin, Dean, School
of Family Resources and Consumer Services, Madison, WI 53706-1575 |
| Literature Reference: |
McCubbin, H. I. &
Thompson, A. I. (eds.) (1991). Family Assessment Inventories for
Research and Practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents |
| Subtests: |
Not indicated |
| Psychometrics: |
Alphas for internal consistency on
the subscales range from .50 to .75. Reliability shows an overall
alpha of .82. Test-retest correlation was .83 indicating good
stability. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
May be helpful in designing
intervention programs. |
| Name: |
Assessment of
Interpersonal Relations (AIR) |
| Author: |
Bruce A. Bracken |
| Date: |
1993 |
| Instrument Description:
|
This instrument is designed to assess
15 important characteristics of children's and adolescent's
relationships in the five most important relationships to children
and adolescents: their mothers, their fathers, female peers, male
peers, and teachers. Each of the five domains contain 35 items to
which the adolescents indicate the extent to which they
agree/disagree with the item stem as it pertains to their mother,
father, male peers, female peers, and teachers. The response format
is a hierarchical four option forced choice Likert type scale
containing no neutral option. The instrument can be administered in
either group or individual format and takes approximately 15-20
minutes to complete. |
| Where Available: |
Bruce A. Bracken, University of
Memphis, Memphis, TN |
| Literature Reference: |
Bracken, B. A. &
Newman, V. L. (1994). Child and adolescent interpersonal relations
with parents, peers, and teachers: A factor analytic investigation.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 10(2), 108-122. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Children and adolescents |
| Subtests: |
Subscales consist of mothers,
fathers, female peers, male peers, and teachers protions. Each
subscale has available T scores, percentile ranks, and relationship
classifications to describe the student's relationship status for
each subscale and a Total Relationship Index (TRI). |
| Psychometrics: |
The examiner's manual reports
internal consistency coefficients ranging from .93 to .96 for all
five subscales, and .96 for the TRI. For the subscales two-week
stability ranges were .94 to .97, and .98 for the TRI. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Sample consisted of 2,501 children
and adolescents between ages 9 and 19 inclusive, and selected from
17 sites, both rural and urban, in all geographical regions of the
U.S. The sample was predominately white (n=2,010) |
| Name: |
Children's Perceived
Self-Control Scale (CPSC) |
| Author: |
Laura L. Humphrey |
| Date: |
1982 |
| Instrument Description:
|
This 11-item instrument measures
self-control from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Three
subscales measure three aspects of self-control: interpersonal
self-control (ISC), personal self-control (PSC), and self-evaluation
(SE). A similar form is available that measures the teachers'
assessment of the child's self-control. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Laura Humphrey, Dept. of
Psychiatry, Northwestern University Medical School, 320 E. Huron,
Chicago, IL 60611. |
| Literature Reference: |
Humphrey, L. L. (1982).
Childrens' and teachers' perspectives on children's self-control:
The development of two rating scales. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 50, 624-633. |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Children |
| Subtests: |
Three subscales measure three aspects
of self-control: interpersonal self-control (ISC), personal
self-control (PSC), and self evaluation (SE). |
| Psychometrics: |
Test-retest reliability correlation
over 2-3 week period was .71. Subscales were correlated with ICS and
PCS each at .63, and SE = .56. Evidence for concurrent validity has
been minimal. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Currently has only been used on
children. |
| Name: |
Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventories (CSEI) |
| Author: |
Stanley Coopersmith |
| Date: |
1967 |
| Instrument Description:
|
Designed to measure in any individual
those evaluative attitudes toward the self that one holds in social,
academic, family, and personal areas. Contains a School Form for
children with five scales: General Self, Social Self-Peers,
Home-Parents, School-Academic, Total Self, and Lie Scales. An Adult
Form is also available. |
| Where Available: |
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologist Press |
| Literature Reference: |
Coopersmith, C. (1981).
Self-esteem Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist
Press |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Children and adults |
| Subtests: |
Contains a School Form for children
with five scales: General Self, Social Self-Peers, Home-Parents,
School-Academic, Total Self, and Lie Scales. |
| Psychometrics: |
Good internal consistency noted. The
Kuder-Richardson (KR-20) reliability estimate was >.80 |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Instrument is well researched,
documented, and has been widely used. Ability to be used to estimate
individual's baseline of self-esteem before initiating a self-esteem
enhancement program; can be administered to individuals or to groups
equally well; machine or computer scoring available at The Center
for Self-esteem Development, 669 Channing Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301.
Individual or group profiles are also available through the Center. |
| Name: |
Index of Peer Relations
(IPR) |
| Author: |
Walter W. Hudson |
| Date: |
1992 |
| Instrument Description:
|
This instrument is designed to
measure problems with peers either globally or with specific peer
reference groups. The IPR has two cutting scores, one which suggests
the absence of a significant clinical problem, and the other
indicating severe stress with a clear possibility the adolescent may
use violence to deal with problems. |
| Where Available: |
WALMYR Publishing Co., P. O. Box
24779, Tempe, AZ 85285-4779 |
| Literature Reference: |
Hudson. W. W. (1992). The
WALMYR Assessment Scales Scoring Manual, Tempe, AZ : WALMYR
Publishing co. |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents |
| Subtests: |
Not Indicated |
| Psychometrics: |
Alpha for internal consistency was
.94. Test-retest alphas were not available. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Measure can be used globally or for
targeted groups. |
| Name: |
Inventory of Parent and
Peer Attachment (IPPA) |
| Author: |
Gay C. Armsden and Mark T. Greenberg |
| Date: |
1987 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The IPPA consists of three 25-item
instruments each with three subscales (trust, communication,
alienation) designed measure one's attachment to mother, father, and
close friends. Scores correlate with several measures of
psychological well-being: self-concept, positiveness, life
satisfaction, problem-solving, and locus of control. Cost: $5.00
which includes instruments and short manual. |
| Where Available: |
Mark T. Greenberg, Ph.D., Department
of Psychology, NI-25, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 |
| Literature Reference: |
Armsden, G. C. &
Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer
attachment: Individual differences and the relationship to
psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 16, 427-454. |
| Cost: |
$5.00 which includes instruments and
short manual. |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents ages 10-20 |
| Subtests: |
Three subscales: trust,
communication, alienation |
| Psychometrics: |
Test-retest reliability over three
weeks was .93 for the parent scale and .86 for the peer scale. The
peer scale had internal consistency coefficients of .91 for trust,
.87 for communication, and .72 for alienation. The trust,
communication, and alienation subscales had internal consistency
coefficients of .91, .91, and .86, respectively. The IPPA has
excellent concurrent validity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Good psychometrics. |
| Name: |
Network of Relationships
Inventory (NRI) |
| Author: |
Wyndol Furman & Duane Buhrmester |
| Date: |
1985 |
| Instrument Description:
|
Instrument consists of 30 items
designed to assess 10 relationship qualities (6 social provisions
and 4 additional qualities): reliable alliance, intimacy, affection,
relative power, conflict, enhancement of worth, instrumental help,
satisfaction of relationship, companionship, and importance of
relationship. |
| Where Available: |
Wyndol Furman, Department of
Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208 Literature
Reference |
| Literature Reference: |
Furman, W. &
Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal nature
of their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 56, 448-461. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents, children |
| Subtests: |
none indicated |
| Psychometrics: |
Cronbach's alpha = .80. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Revised by authors for implementation
to college students (see 1992, Child Development, 63, 103-115) |
| Name: |
Network Orientation Scale
(NOS) |
| Author: |
Alan Vaux, Philip Burda, and Doreen Stewart |
| Date: |
1986 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The NOS is a 20 item instrument
designed to measure negative network orientation -- measures
unwillingness to maintain, nurture, or utilize the support systems
available to them. Useful in research and for assessing individual's
potential for involvement in therapy or other community helping
resources. |
| Where Available: |
Alan C. Vaux, Dept. of Psychology,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 |
| Literature Reference: |
Vaux, A., Burda, P., &
Stewart, D. (1986). Orientation toward utilization of support
services. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 159-170. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
College students and adults |
| Subtests: |
Not Available |
| Psychometrics: |
Internal consistency is good with
mean alpha of .74. Reported to have good concurrent validity and
fair construct validity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Currently used on college students
and adults. Needs to be tested on adolescents. |
| Name: |
Nowicki-Strickland Locus
of Control Scale (N-SLCS) |
| Author: |
Stephen Nowicki, Jr. and Bonni R. Strickland |
| Date: |
1973 |
| Instrument Description:
|
A 40-item instrument designed to
measure whether or not child believe that reinforcement comes to
him/her by means of chance or fate or because of his/her own
behavior. Locus of control has been shown to be related to several
behaviors including academic achievement. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Stephen Nowicki, Jr., Dept. of
Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322. |
| Literature Reference: |
Nowicki, S. &
Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-154. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Children in 3rd through 12th grade
|
| Subtests: |
Not Available |
| Psychometrics: |
Considered to have only fair internal
consistency with split-half reliabilities increasing with age and
fair concurrent validity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Useful in evaluating academic
performance. |
| Name: |
Parent-Child Relationship
Survey (PCRS) |
| Author: |
Mark A. Fine, J. R. Moreland, & Andrew Schwebel |
| Date: |
1983 |
| Instrument Description:
|
Designed to measure the quality of
parent-child relationships. Comes in two forms: one each for
assessing relationship with mother or with father. The forms are
identical except for the changing of the word mother to father.
Factors for the father version are positive affect, father
involvement, communication, and anger. The mother version factors
are positive affect, resentment/role confusion, identification, and
communication. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Mark A. Fine, Dept. of
Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-1430. |
| Literature Reference: |
Fine, M. A. &
Schwebel, A. I. (1983). Long-term effects of divorce on parent-child
relationships, Developmental Psychology, 19, 703-713. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Originally developed to assess
effects of divorce on adult children. However, useful for assessing
the relationship of any children to their parents. |
| Subtests: |
Components for mother and father |
| Psychometrics: |
Has excellent internal consistency.
Alphas for father subscales range from .89 to .94, and for the
mother subscales range from .61 to .94. Has good known-groups and
predictive validity, significantly discriminating between children
from intact families and children from divorced families. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Primary usage has been with adults.
|
| Name: |
Perceived Social Support
-- Family Scale (PSS-Fa), Friend Scale (PSS-Fr) |
| Author: |
Mary E. Procidano and Kenneth Heller |
| Date: |
1983 |
| Instrument Description:
|
Each of the two scales have 20 items
designed to measure perceived fulfillment of his/her needs by family
and friends. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Mary Procidano, Dept. of
Psychology, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458-5198 |
| Literature Reference: |
Procidano, M. E. &
Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends
and family: Three validation studies, American Journal of Community
Psychology, 11, 1-24. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Undergraduates |
| Subtests: |
Not Available |
| Psychometrics: |
Test-retest reliability over one
month yielded a coefficient alpha of .90. Concurrent validity is
good with scores correlated with psychological distress and social
competence. Has good known-groups validity with clinical and
nonclinical samples differing on both measures. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Needs to be tested on adolescents who
may differ from undergraduates. |
| Name: |
Provision of Social
Relations |
| Author: |
R. Jay Turner, B. Gail Frankel, and Deborah M. Levin |
| Date: |
1983 |
| Instrument Description:
|
A 15 item instrument designed to
measure five components of social support (attachment, social
integration, reassurance of worth, reliable alliance, and guidance)
on two dimensions of support-- friend and family. |
| Where Available: |
Research in Community and Mental
Health, 3, (1983), 67-111. |
| Literature Reference: |
Turner, R. J., Frankel,
B. G., & Levin, D. M. (1983). Social support: Conceptualization,
measurement, and implications for mental health. Research in
Community and Mental Health, 3, 67-111. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
University students and psychiatric
patients. |
| Subtests: |
Not Available |
| Psychometrics: |
Alphas on internal consistency range
from .75 to .87. Concurrent validity is good and correlates
significantly with the Kaplan Scale of Social Support. The
instrument were found to be negatively correlated with several
measures of psychological distress, indicating that it is not
confounded by item content measuring psychological distress. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
May be useful on adolescents but
needs to be tested on adolescents who may differ from university
students and psychiatric patients. |
| Name: |
Rosenberg Self-esteem
Scale (RSE) |
| Author: |
Morris Rosenberg |
| Date: |
1962 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The RSE is a 10 item Guttman scale
with one dimension. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Morris Rosenberg, Dept. of
Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 |
| Literature Reference: |
Rosenberg, M. (1979).
Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents and adults |
| Subtests: |
None |
| Psychometrics: |
The RSE has a Guttman scale
coefficient of .92, indicating excellent reliability. Test-retest
reliability shows correlations of .85 and .88 over two weeks,
indicating excellent stability. Demonstrated concurrent,
known-groups, predictive, and construct validity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
The scales greatest strength is the
amount of research conducted over the years using a wide range of
populations. |
| Name: |
Self-efficacy Scale (SES) |
| Author: |
Mark Sherer, James E. Maddux, Blaise Mercandante, Steven
Prentice-Dunn, Beth Jacobs, and Ronald W. Rogers |
| Date: |
1982 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The SES is a 30 item instrument
designed to measure self-efficacy not tied to specific situations or
behaviors. It consists of two subscales: general self-efficacy and
social self-efficacy. |
| Where Available: |
Dr. Mark Sherer, 1874 Pleasant Ave.,
Mobile, AL 36617. |
| Literature Reference: |
Sherer, M., Maddox, J.
E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.
W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation,
Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Undergraduate populations and
inpatients at treatment facility |
| Subtests: |
Two subscales: general self-efficacy
and social self-efficacy. |
| Psychometrics: |
Alphas for the general subscale are
.86 and .71 for the social subscale. The SES has demonstrated
construct validity by correlating with other measures i.e.,
Interpersonal Competency Scale and the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale.
Test-retest data unavailable. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Used primarily on undergraduates and
inpatients who may differ from adolescents. |
| Name: |
Social Support Appraisals
Scale (SSA) |
| Author: |
Alan Vaux Jeffrey Phillips, Lori Holley, Brian Thompson,
Deirdre Williams, and Doreen Stewart. |
| Date: |
1986 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The SSA is a 23-item instrument
designed to measure the extent to which an individual believes
he/she is loved by, esteemed by, and involved with friends, family,
and others. There are two subscales: family and friend that can also
be computed into a total score. |
| Where Available: |
Alan C. Vaux, Dept. of Psychology,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 |
| Literature Reference: |
Vaux, A., Phillips, J.,
Holly, L., Thompson, B., Williams, D., & Stewart, D. (1986). The
Social Support Appraisals (SSA) Scale: Studies of Reliability and
validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(2), 195-219. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents through adult |
| Subtests: |
Two subscales: family and friend |
| Psychometrics: |
Alpha coefficients range from .81 to
.90. Concurrent validity is significantly related to a variety of
measures of social support and psychological wellbeing. Good
concurrent, predictive, known-groups, and construct validity
indicated. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Authors conclude that the SSA is a
useful brief measure of support appraisals. |
| Name: |
Tennessee Self Concept
Scale (TSCS) |
| Author: |
William H. Fitts |
| Date: |
1956/1965 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The scale is intended to summarize an
individual's feelings of self-worth, the degree to which the
self-image is realistic, and whether or not that self-image is a
deviant one. Measures five external aspects of self-concept
(moral-ethical, social, personal, physical, and family) and three
internal aspects (identity, behavior, and self-satisfaction).
Additionally, the mapping of 15 facets of self-concept crosses the
internal and external results. |
| Where Available: |
Western Psychological Services |
| Literature Reference: |
Fitts, W. H. (1965). Manuel: Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Children and adults with age indicated to be a minimum of 12 years |
| Subtests: |
Not Available |
| Psychometrics: |
Reliability is open to questions due to the types of samples on which the measure has been used. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Available data do not justify the use of this instrument as an important component when an individual is faced with a major decision. |
|
