Reliability of seven measures of social intelligence in a sample of adolescents with mental retardation

Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 13, pp. 131-143. 1992

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0891-4222/92 $5.00 + 03 Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.

Reliability of Seven Measures of Social Intelligence in a Sample of Adolescents With Mental Retardation Jane L. Mathias and Ted Nettelbeck Department

of Psychology, University of Adelaide

This study evaluates the reliability of seven measures. selected to assess the social-cognitive variables hypothesized by Greenspan to define social intelligence. Responsesfrom 75.30, and 20 adolescents with mental retardation were used to assess each test’s internal, interrater, and test-retest reliabilities, respectively. Interrater reliability coefficients were high to very high (.76 to .98), internal reliabilities were moderate to very high (66 to .90), and test-retest reliabilities were moderate to high (.54 to .74). Internal and lest-retest reliability coeficients compared favourably with those reported for the subtests of the Revised Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children.

During the past three decades, social competence has reemerged as a defining feature of mental retardation (Grossman, 1973, 1977, 1983; Heber, 1959, 1961), with measures of adaptive behaviour having been developed as a means of operationalizing this construct. Although adaptive behavior scales have met the immediate needs of practitioners, Greenspan (1981b) has expressed concern that the term “adaptive behavior” has come to be

This research forms part of a doctoral dissertation completed by the first author under the supervision of the second author. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the Apex Foundation for Research into Mental Retardation and the Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation: the cooperation of the staff and students of Gepps Cross and Kensington Senior Special Schools; and the assistance of Dr. C. Wilson, Dr. J. McConaghy, and Mr. E. Heijka when rcscoring the measures of social intelligence. Copies of the unpublished modified measures described herein can bc obtained from the first author or can be found in the Appendices of Math& (1988). Rcquest_s for reprints should be sent to Jane L. Math&, Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide, G.P.0 Box 498, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001.

131

132

J. L. Mathias and T. Nettelbeck

synonymous with practical living skills, largely to the exclusion of interpersonal skills. In an attempt to provide a clearer distinction between these two areas of competence, Greenspan (1979, 1981a, 1981b) has introduced the concept of social intelligence, which, while not new to the psychological literature, has not been investigated systematically in the context of theories about mental retardation (Mathias, 1990). Social intelligence (also termed “social awareness”) is defined as “..,a person’s ability to understand people, social events, and the processes involved in regulating social events” (Greenspan, 1981a, p. 18). A tentative model of social intelligence, based upon existing research into social intelligence, and social and interpersonal competence, has been outlined by Greenspan (1979, 1981a) with the intention of providing a framework for the systematic investigation of the factorial structure of social intelligence. Greenspan’s (1979, 1981 a) model defines social intelligence in terms of seven social-cognitive variables, grouped into three categories on the basis of common underlying psychological processes. The first of these categories is social sensitivity, which is described as an ability to “read” the social cues provided by other individuals when interacting in a social situation. Two variables, role-taking and social inference, define this construct. The second category is labelled social insight and refers to an individual’s understanding of the covert processes that underlie social interactions. Three variables - social comprehension, psychological insight, and moral judgment - collectively define this construct. The third category, social communication, is described as an ability to communicate effectively in interpersonal interactions and to influence the behaviour of others. Referential communication and social problem-solving are the two variables used to define social communication. Greenspan (1979, 1981a) discusses a range of measures that potentially assess the variables included within his model, but few of these have been designed specifically for use with persons with mental retardation. To date, little has been published about the reliability of measures that might be used with mentally retarded populations to validate Greenspan’s model of social intelligence. Test reliability is important primarily because (1) it provides an estimate of true, as opposed to error, variance (Anastasi, 1982). and (2) the square root of the reliability coefficient represents an upper bound to any correlation calculated between that measure and any other variable (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Where measures have poor reliability, low correlation coefficients may reflect either a poor relationship between these variables, or an artificial ceiling resulting from unreliable measures. The evaluation of test reliability is, therefore, an important precursor to an investigation of validity. The present study was designed to document the internal, interrater, and test-retest reliabilities of seven instruments that were chosen explicitly to

133

Social Intelligence and Reliability

measure the social-cognitive variables described in Greenspan’s model of social intelligence. This assessment is important because (1) many of the measures have not been published formally and, consequently, lack a complete reliability profile; (2) most of the measures have been developed for use with nonretarded children and/or adults, so that their suitability for use with mentally retarded populations is largely unknown; (3) all of the measures have been developed in the United States and need to be assessed in other English-speaking countries; and (4) establishing a battery of reliable measures will provide a basis for other researchers who want to evaluate Greenspan’s model. METHOD

Subjects

Seventy-five adolescents with mental retardation were drawn from two metropolitan nonintegrated secondary schools. Subjects’ ages ranged from approximately 14 years to 20 years (M = 17 years 2 months), with IQ scores (Slosson, 1983) varying between 31 and 76 (M = 52, SD = 8). Estimates of internal reliability were based on data from this entire sample, while interrater reliabilities were calculated from a subset of 30 subjects, and test-retest reliabilities were calculated from a subset of 20 subjects. Descriptive details for these three samples are summarized in Table 1.

Internal, Interrater

TABLE 1 and Test-Retest Reliability Sample Characteristics

Internal Reliability N

Interrater Reliability

Test-Retest Reliability

30

20

IS

Age Range

14 years 1 month 19 years 7 months

14 years 10 months 19 years 2 months

15 years 2 months 19 years 2 months

Mean

17 years 2 months

17 years 2 months

17 years 1 month

SD

16 months

16 months

18 months

45 males 30 females

15 males 15 females

12 males 8 females

Range

31-76

42-16

39-60

Mean

52

54

51

SD

8

8

5

Sex

IQ

134

J. L. Mathias and T. Nettelbeck

Tests I. Role-tuking. Feffer’s Projective Role-Taking Task (Feffer, 1959; Schnall & Feffer, 1968) uses stimulus figures (e.g., man, woman, boy, and girl) and sketches of everyday scenes (e.g., lounge-room and street setting) selected from Schneidman’s Make-A-Picture Story. The subject is requested to choose a scene and three stimulus figures that are to form the basis of a story, which the subject then recounts. The subject is required to take the roles of two of the three figures (selected by the experimenter because they are in a role-reciprocal relationship) by retelling the initial story from the point of view of each of those actors. This procedure is subsequently repeated using a second scene and a different selection of figures. Performance on this task is evaluated according to the degree to which the subject is able to move from the orientation given in the initial story, to refocus on the different perspectives of each figure, while maintaining continuity between successive versions of the story. The scoring procedures described by Schnall and Feffer (1968) include four different classes of response, which are subdivided further to extend the range of possible scores. The higher the score, the more sophisticated a person’s role-taking abilities. 2. Social inference. The Test of Social Inference (Edmonson, de Jung, Leland, & Leach, 1974) was designed for use with adolescents and adults with mental retardation, in order to provide an objective measure of the effectiveness with which individuals can interpret social cues (de Jung, Holen, & Edmonson, 1973). Thirty pictures varying in familiarity and complexity are accompanied by a series of standard questions that are designed to elicit a person’s interpretation of the pictures. Responses are scored as inferences or errors. An inference requires the use of available cues to extrapolate the meaning of a situation, while errors include responses that contradict available cues, overgeneralize from a particular cue, or fail to integrate information from a range of cues. 3. Social comprehension. Selman’s (1979) Interpersonal Understanding Interview (Close Friendships domain) involves the presentation of a dilemma, followed by a structured interview that examines a range of issues, including friendship formation, closeness and intimacy, trust, jealousy, resolution of conflicts, and the termination of friendships. The story is intended to provide the means by which to explore systematically (1) an individual’s reasoning about a given problem, (2) the individual’s understanding of a particular issue, and (3) the individual’s own experiences relevant to that issue (Selman, Jacquette, & Lavin, 1977). Responses are scored in terms of the level of sophistication demonstrated, with stage 4 being the highest

Social Intelligence and Reliability

score and stage 0 the lowest. scores are eventually combined

135

Each issue is scored separately, but these in order to compute an average issue score.

4. Psychological insight. Whiteman’s

(1967a, 1967b, 1970a, 1970b, 1976) Test of Psychological Causality was designed to assess a child’s awareness of the causes underlying a person’s behaviour. Subjects are read seven stories that incorporate a variety of adjustment mechanisms, including displacement, wishful dreaming, projection, regression, repression, rationalization, and denial. The stories describe either a male or a female actor who exhibits overt behaviour that masks his or her covert intention; it is the subject’s task to discriminate between the behaviour and the underlying motivation of the actor (Whiteman, 1970b). Subjects are asked a set of standard questions that focus on key elements, following the presentation of each story. If a subject fails to identify the particular mechanism of adjustment when presented with the initial set of indirect probes, the subject is given increasingly more direct probes. The scoring procedures (Whiteman, 1970a) divide each story into a series of elements, with the number of elements varying between stories. Responses to each element are given a score of 0 to 3, reflecting both the accuracy of a response and the amount of prompting required. A total of 14 issues are included within the seven stories.

5. Moral judgment. Porter and Taylor’s (1972) Test of Moral Reasoning

is based on the work of Kohlberg but uses a simplified scoring procedure. Subjects are presented with up to five stories that confront them with a moral dilemma. Every story is then followed by a series of questions designed to uncover the reasoning used in resolving that dilemma. Separate stage scores are assigned to a person’s responses to each story. These scores are then combined to provide an overall “moral maturity” score.

6. Referential communication. The Matrix Test of Referential Communication (Greenspan & Barenboim, 1975) was designed to provide an objectively scored measure of referential communication skills. This task uses a set of 18 objects that differ along three dimensions (shape, colour, and size) and a 45 cm x 36 cm board, which is partitioned into nine squares (i.e., a three by three matrix). Each of the columns on the board is a different colour, to assist with the naming of vertical positions. The geometric shapes are either large (10 cm in height) or small (6.5 cm in height) and come in three different colours (red, blue, and green) and shapes (circle, square, and triangle). Thus, the 18 objects provide different combinations of these dimensions. Nine stimuli are selected randomly and placed on the board. Subjects are instructed to imagine that someone will be given a board just like theirs, and that it is their task to help this person choose

136

J. L. Mathias and T. Nettelbeck

the same nine shapes and to arrange them in the same configuration. Descriptions of the nine stimuli are then given a score out of five, based on the number of dimensions that are described accurately (i.e., shape, colour, size, column, row). 7. Social problem-solving. The Means-Ends Problem-Solving Procedure (Platt & Spivack, 1975; Spivack, Shure, & Platt, 1981) requires the subject to formulate a solution to a series of hypothetical interpersonal problems. This task utilizes a number of story stems portraying situations in which there is an interpersonal problem at the beginning, while also giving a resolution at the end. It is the subject’s task to provide a story that will connect the beginning of the story with the end. This “open-middle” technique emphasizes the steps involved in attaining a goal, rather than working out the goal itself. Responses are scored for the number of relevant means, obstacles, and references to time, resulting in a composite score. For the purposes of scoring, a “mean” is described as a discrete step in an overall plan, a purposeful action, or a description of personality qualities that are relevant to the achievement of a stated goal. Alternately, “obstacles” refer to either potential or actual circumstances that may interfere with the attainment of a goal. Finally, an individual will receive credit for references to time, provided that these are specific and not simply vernacular expressions (Spivack et al., 1981). Procedure Subjects were tested individually and administered only one measure during any testing session, with a maximum of two sessions on any given day. Six of the seven measures (the exception being the Matrix Test of Referential Communication) involved an open-ended interview format and so were tape-recorded to assist with later scoring. Minor modifications were made to a number of the measures prior to their use in this study. These alterations were based on the findings of a preliminary investigation (reported in Mathias, 1988) which assessed the suitability of the seven social-cognitive measures for use with adolescents with mental retardation in an Australian special school setting.* The Projective Role-Taking Task underwent two simple changes from the procedure described by Feffer (1959) and Schnall and Feffer (1968). First, the suggested use of a range of stimulus settings from which subjects would choose a scene for their story seemed unnecessary and distracting, so only 11tis also worth noting that this investigation found two commonly used measures of moral judgment and rcfcrential communication to have inadequate reliability when used with a sample of adolescents with mcnlal retardation.

Social Intelligence and Reliability

137

the “living room” and “street” scenes were used. Second, the range of stimulus figures was restricted to four figures having blank facial expressions in order to simplify the choice of characters and to overcome problems of response bias that arose from the use of figures that adopted highly specific postures and expressions. The Test of Social Inference was reduced in length from 30 items to 20 items by removing inappropriate and nondiscriminating stimuli. Items that correlated least with the Total Inference score and reduced the Cronbach’s alpha for this measure were removed. Thus, the removal of items 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 26, 28, 29, and 30 improved the internal reiability of this measure. The Interpersonal Understanding Interview is a time-consuming measure that is relatively difficult to administer and score. Of the three domains (Persons, Close Friendships, and Peer Groups) that were assessed by Mathias (1988), the “Close Friendships” domain was by far the most reliably scored and appeared to provide the best measure of social comprehension based on alternate-form reliability coefficients. For this reason, the Close Friendships Domain was assessed using both the mandatory and optional questions supplied by Selman (1979). In addition, the verbal presentation of the story was accompanied by pictures of the three characters described in the story, with the name of each character given at the base of the sketches. The purpose of this was to assist the experimenter in explaining the relationship between the story characters. Finally, the story was simplified by reducing unnecessary and distracting detail, although the main theme of the story remained unchanged. The Means-Ends Problem-Solving Procedure used the seven test items described by Spivack, Shure, and Platt (1981). An additional item was drawn from the original stimuli used by Platt and Spivack (1975) in order to provide a practice trial, where the experimenter would comment upon the subject’s performance in order to ensure that the requirements of the task were understood by the subject. The Test of Psychological Causality, Test of Moral Reasoning, and Matrix Test of Referential Communication were not changed from the original procedures described by the authors. RESULTS Internal

Reliability

The internal consistency of six measures (yielding seven scores) of social intelligence was assessed by comparing subjects’ performance on individual test items. It was not possible to examine the Interpersonal Understanding Interview in this way because subjects’ overall scores were

138

J. L. Mathias and T. Nettelheck

Summary

TABLE 2 Reliability Data for the Seven Measures of Social Intelligence

Measure Projective

role-taking

task

Test of social inference Inferences Errors Interpersonal

understanding

Test of psychological

interview

causality

Test of moral reasoning Matrix test of referential Mean-ends

communication

problem-solving

procedure

Internal Reliability (N = 75)

Interrater Reliability (N = 30)

Test-Retest Reliability (N = 20)

.88

.98

.63

.84 .70

.96 .78

_

.86

.57

.67

.94

.74

.66

.76

.71

90

_

.54

.74

.96

.69

calculated on the basis of creditable responses to differing numbers of items. Inter-item reliability was assessed in all but one case using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), which provides a lower bound to the reliability of an unweighted scale (Novick & Lewis, 1967). For the Matrix Test of Referential Communication, subjects were given different combinations of stimulus items, making it more appropriate to evaluate the consistency between two halves of the test using a Spearmat-Brown split-half reliability coefficient. Internal reliability coefficients are summarized in Table 2. For the Projective Role-Taking Task, Test of Social Inference, Test of Moral Reasoning, and Means-Ends Problem-Solving Procedure, internal reliability could not be improved by individually removing one or more items. The reliability coefficient for the Test of Psychological Causality did, however, improve from .63 to .67 when the final test item relating to “denial” was removed.

lnterrater

Reliuhility

Interrater reliabilities were calculated for the six measures (yielding seven scores) that have subjective scoring procedures, using experienced scorers trained by the first author. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; Bartko, 1966, 1976; Bartko & Carpenter, 1976) was used, which measures the degree of association between raters, while correcting for any additive or multiplicative bias to the ratings. The resulting coefficients are summarized in Table 2.

Social Intelligence and Reliability

139

With respect to the Test of Social Inference, Inferences were more reliably scored than Errors. The difference between these two coefficients was significant when tested using Fisher’s Z transformation (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; 2 = 3.38, p < .OOl). The corresponding Pearson coefficient for Error scores was higher (r = .88) than the ICC coefficent, suggesting that the scoring procedures for the error component of this measure provided a reliable means by which to rank order subjects but that there were systematic differences in the absolute values assigned by independent raters, A similar effect was noted for the Test of Moral Reasoning (ICC = .76 compared to Pearson r = X7).

Test-Retest

Reliability

Test-retest reliabilities were calculated for the six tests for which there were no published test-retest data for mentally retarded samples, by having subjects complete the same task on a second occasion. Average retest intervals ranged between 72 and 94 days. As shown in Table 2, all Pearson coefficients fell within the moderate range (.54 to .74). Significant gains to the performance of subjects on the second testing were only noted for the Test of Moral Reasoning (t = 2.67, df= 19, p < .Ol) and the Matrix Test of Referential Communication (t = 3.76, df=19,p < .OOl).

Overall Reliability Where complete reliability profiles are documented for a measure, it is possible to partition total score variance into its different components (Anastasi, 1982). Subtracting the error variance attributable to content sampling (derived from internal reliability) from the error variance arising from both content and time sampling (derived from test-retest reliability) isolates the variance attributable only to time. When this figure is added to the error variance arising from content sampling and different scorers (derived from interrater reliability), it provides an estimate of total error variance, which, when subtracted from 1, provides an overall estimate of true variance. The estimation of an “overall” reliability coefficient is important because the square root of this figure provides an estimate of the maximum possible correlation between a given measure and any other variable. Five measures for which complete reliability data were available were assessed in the above manner. For the Matrix Test of Referential Communication, the “overall” coefficient was calculated using only internal and test-retest data because objective scoring procedures eliminate the need to measure interscorer variance. The resulting overall reliability coefficients and the consequent ceilings to correlations with other measures are

J. L. Mathias and T. Nettelbeck

140

Overall

TABLE 3 Reliability Coefficients Overall Reliability

Measure Project&

role-taking

Maximum Possible Correlationa

task

.61

.78

causality

.61

.78

Test of moral reasoning

.42

.65

Matrix test of referential communication

.54

.73

Means-ends

.65

.81

Test of psychological

problem-solving

procedure

%quare root of the reliability coefficient

(Carmines & Zcllcr, 1979).

given in Table 3. It is clear from this analysis that an investigation of validity using these measures will, at best, uncover correlations that are within the moderate range (.65 to .81).

DISCUSSION The reliability coefficients for the measures of social intelligence used in this investigation were encouraging. Even with open-ended interview formats and subjective scoring procedures, these measures achieved reliabilities that were in the moderate to high range, with the majority being over .7, and many above 2. To this is added the likelihood that these estimates represent a conservative evaluation of test reliability. With respect to interrater reliability, an intraclass correlation (ICC) provides a more cautious estimate than the more commonly used Pearson r coefficient, because it measures not only the degree of association between the scores of two raters, but also any systematic bias (additive or multiplicative) to these scores. The effect of this bias is to lower the final reliability coefficient (Bartko & Carpenter, 1976). Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha, which was used to estimate internal consistency for five of the six measures, provides a lower bound to the reliability of a scale (Novick & Lewis, 1967). Finally, test-retest reliabilities were calculated after relatively long intervals and are, therefore, likely to have provided a conservative assessment of this form of reliability. Although measures of social competence are often criticized for their poor reliability properties, especially when compared to highly standardized IQ tests, the findings of this investigation suggest that such criticisms may not be warranted. Indeed, it is interesting to compare the reliability coefficients reported for the Revised Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Social Intelligence and Reliability

141

Children (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974) with the measures used here. The WISC-R manual does not provide documentation of interrater reliability for its nonobjectively scored measures, but does report internal and test-retest coefficients. Spearman-Brown split-half coefficients for the WISC-R subtests range between .70 and .86, compared to estimates of between .66 and .90 for the current measures. The test-retest coefficients for the WISC-R subtests varied from .50 to .92 after an interval of about 1 month, while the reliability estimates for the social intelligence measures after approximately 2 l/2 to 3 months, varied from .54 to .74. Certainly, the differences between the estimates of reliability for the WISC-R subtests and those for the social intelligence measures are much less than might have been expected. To conclude, the seven tests of social intelligence have good reliability when used with adolescents with mental retardation, and thereby provide a sound basis for assessing the construct validity of Greenspan’s model of social intelligence. Based on the “overall” reliabilities of the test instruments, it is anticipated that the maximum correlations between these measures and other variables will be of moderate proportions. One investigation of the validity of Greenspan’s model of social intelligence, which uses these measures, is described by Mathias and Nettelbeck (1992; pp. 113-129, this issue). In this investigation, Mathias and Nettelbeck not only examine the construct validity of Greenspan’s model of social intelligence, but they also explore the extent to which these verbally demanding measures of social intelligence assess something over and above verbal intelligence. REFERENCES Anastasi, A. (1982). Psycholo#cai resting (5th cd.). New York: Macmillan. Bartko, J. J. (1966). The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psycholo@cal Reports, 19.3-11. Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bullefin, 83,762-765. Bartko, J. J., & Carpenter, W. T. (1976). On the methods and theory of reliability. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 163,307-317. Carmines, E. G., & Zellcr, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Quantitative Applicarions in the Social Sciences, 17, l-71. Cohen, J., & Cohen, I’. (1983). Applied mulriple regressionlcorrelafion analysisfor fhe behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. de Jung, J. E., Holen, M. C., & Edmonson, B. (1973). Test of Social Inference for retarded adolescents: Measuring social-cue perception. Psychological Reports, 32.603-618. Edmonson, B., de Jung. J. E., Leland. H., & Leach, E. M. (1974). The Tesr of Social Inference: Demographic and validily data. Adminiwarion and scoring guide. New York: Educational Activities Inc.

142

J. L. Mathias and T. Nettelbeck

Feffer M. (1959). The cognitive implications of role-taking behavior. Journal of Personality, 27, 152-168. Greenspan, S. (1979). Social intelligence in the retarded. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 483-531). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenspan, S. (1981a). Defining childhood social competence: A proposed working model. In B. K. Keogh (Ed.), Advances in special education: Vol. 3. A research annual (pp. l-39). Greenwich, CT.: Jai Press. Greenspan, S. (1981b). Social competence and handicapped individuals: Practical implications of a proposed model. In B. K. Keogh (Ed.), Advances in special education: Vol. 3. A research annual (pp. 41-83). Greenwich, CT.: Jai Press. Greenspan, S., & Barcnboim, C. (1975). A matrix test of referential communication. Paper pmsented at the 5th Annual Symposium of the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia, June, 1975. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 125 784). Grossman, H. J. (Ed.). (1973). Manual on terminology and classification in mentul retardution. Washington, DC.: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Grossman, H. J. (Ed.). (1977). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC.: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Grossman, H. J. (Ed.). (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC.: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Heber, R. (Ed.) (1959). A manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. Monograph Supplement to the American Journal of Mental Deficiency. Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Hcber, R. (Ed.) (1961). A manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. Monograph Supplement to the American Journal of Mental Dcficicncy. Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Mathias, J. L. (1988). Social intelligence and personal competence in mentally retarded adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Adelaide, South Australia. Math&, J. L. (1990). Social intelligence, social competence, and interpersonal competence. In N. W. Bray (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (pp. 125-160): Vol. 16. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mat&as, J. L., & Ncttclbeck, T. (1992). Construct and criterion validity of Greenspan’s model of adaptive intclligcnce. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 1133129. Novick, M., & Lewis, C. (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite mcasuremcnts. Psychometrika, 32, 1-13. Platt, J. J., & Spivack, G. (1975). The means ends problem solving procedure manual. Pennsylvania: Department of Mental Health Sciences, Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital. Porter, N., & Taylor, N. (1972). Ilow to assess the moral reasoning of students: A teachers guide to the use of Lawrence Kohlberg’s stage-developmental method. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Schnall, M., & Fcffcr, M. (1968). Role-taking task scoring criteria. American Documentation Institute Document No. 9010. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress Photoduplication Service. Selman, R. L. (Ed.) (1979). Assessing interpersonal understanding: An interview and scoring manual. Massachusetts: Harvard-Judge Baker Social Reasoning Project. Sclman, R. L., Jacqucttc, D., & Lavin, D. R. (1977). Interpersonal awareness in children: Toward an integration of developmental and clinical child psychology. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47, 264-274. Slosson, R. L. (1983). Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) and Oral Reading Test (SORT) for children and adults. New York: Slosson Educational Publications Inc. Spivack, G., Shurc, M., & Platt, J. 1. (1981). Means-ends problem solving: Sfimuli and scoring procedures supplement. Philadelphia: Department of Mental Health Sciences, Hahnemann Medical College and hospital.

Social Intelligence and Reliability

143

Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Whiteman, M. (1967a). Children’s conceptions of psychological causality. Child Developmenl, 38,143-155. Whiteman, M. (1967b). Scoring criteria; inferview guide; item analyses and test parameters of motivation indices. For Children’s conceptions of psychological causality. American Documentation Institute Document No. 9148. Washington, DC.: Library of Congress Photoduplication Service. Whiteman, M. (1970a). Development of conceptions of psychological causality. Final Report (PHS Grant No. HD-02574-02). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service. Whiteman, M. (1970b). The development of conceptions of psychological causality. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Cognitive srudies: Vol. I. (pp. 339-360). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Whiteman, M. (1976). Children’s conceptions of psychological causality as related to subjective responsibility, conservation, and language. The Journal ofGenelicPsychology, 128.215-226.