View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Comparability of the Social Skills Improvement System to the Social Skills Rating System: A Norwegian Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Comparability of the Social Skills Improvement System to the Social Skills Rating System: A Norwegian Study
Language: English
Authors: Gamst-Klaussen, Thor, Rasmussen, Lene-Mari P., Svartdal, Frode, Strømgren, Børge
Source: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2016 60(1):20-31.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Comparative Analysis, Interpersonal Competence, Behavior Problems, Measures (Individuals), Foreign Countries, Translation, Norwegian, Correlation, Children, Adolescents, Elementary School Students, Secondary School Students, Teacher Attitudes, Parent Attitudes, Evaluation Methods, Questionnaires, Student Characteristics, Sample Size
Geographic Terms: Norway
DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2014.971864
ISSN: 0031-3831
Abstract: The Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales (SSIS-RS) is a multi-informant instrument assessing social skills and problem behavior in children and adolescents. It is a revised version of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). A Norwegian translation of the SSRS has been validated, but this has not yet been done for the Norwegian translation of the SSIS-RS. This study compared the Norwegian versions of the SSRS and the SSIS-RS administered to samples of children (aged 8-12 and 13-16 years) and their parents and teachers (n = 599). The results indicated moderate to strong relations between the common subscales across all forms of the two instruments and acceptable to excellent internal consistency across all common subscales. We conclude that the SSIS-RS is a good instrument for measuring social skills and problem behavior among children and adolescents in Norway.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 42
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1085137
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFVRWXrS-QjORpCbmhVqTUSAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPkUFD970grUSulSIAIBEICBm6J_RW1k4K6TtgXni5-WXSQjHVKjvKa4yRpRzDHtPRc63Qos2RksFpt-ZTJG1_VMtjisbLjdOSIi_5pfpDJ4FSDJSGXLNBME5pdgAlYLBr_SIv8rnlfK9ZnuTOT_Sw_rDmL9nZMCW2QyKNOTPcOKO-9NNcshRiElQ80G3gP0Z01T_7AM1tmFIoWRzVEFdYflVWHMQYNv8pf6HtGv
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0111869175;55b01feb.16;2019Feb13.17:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0111869175-1">Comparability of the Social Skills Improvement System to the Social Skills Rating System: A Norwegian Study. </title> <p>The Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales (SSIS-RS) is a multi-informant instrument assessing social skills and problem behavior in children and adolescents. It is a revised version of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). A Norwegian translation of the SSRS has been validated, but this has not yet been done for the Norwegian translation of the SSIS-RS. This study compared the Norwegian versions of the SSRS and the SSIS-RS administered to samples of children (aged 8–12 and 13–16 years) and their parents and teachers (n = 599). The results indicated moderate to strong relations between the common subscales across all forms of the two instruments and acceptable to excellent internal consistency across all common subscales. We conclude that the SSIS-RS is a good instrument for measuring social skills and problem behavior among children and adolescents in Norway.</p> <p>Keywords: Social Skills Rating Scales (SSRS); Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales (SSIS-RS); equivalence; validity; reliability</p> <p>Empirical studies highlight the importance of social skills and social competence among children and youths (Elliot & Gresham, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>]; Langeveld, Gundersen, & Svartdal, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]; Ogden, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref3">33</reflink>]). Children with social competence deficits often demonstrate difficulties in the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships, display a lack of pro-social behavior patterns, and poor academic achievement is often present. Research indicates that youngsters with interpersonal problems and social competence deficits are at risk of developing many damaging life-consequences, for example, school dropout, juvenile delinquency, adulthood psychopathology, depression, and suicide (Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]; Kohn & Clausen, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]; Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]; Parker & Asher, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is evident, therefore, that good measurement of social competence and problem behavior is important. Among the many available instruments claiming to measure these constructs is the multi-informant instrument Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales (SSIS-RS) (Gresham & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]). The SSIS-RS is a revised version of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) developed more than 20 years ago for the purpose of being a brief and comprehensive tool for identifying children at risk for social behavior difficulties, and selecting target behaviors for interventions (Gresham & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]). The SSRS is among the most frequently used instruments for measuring children's (age 3–18 years) pro-social behavior and problem behavior, and a number of studies have supported its validity and reliability (Frey, Elliott, & Gresham, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]; Gresham & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]; Humphrey et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]; Walthall, Konold, & Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref14">42</reflink>]). Recently the SSIS-RS was compared to the SSRS (Gresham, Elliott, Vance, & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]), and good agreement was observed on common subscales.</p> <p>The SSRS has been translated to several other languages (Gresham et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]), and many studies support the validity and reliability of these translated versions (Juardo, Cumba-Aviles, Collazo, & Matos, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]; Shahim, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref18">37</reflink>]; Van der Oord et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref19">40</reflink>]; Vasil'ová & Baumgartner, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref20">41</reflink>]). In Norway, the SSRS was translated and validated 10 years ago (Ogden, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]), and subsequently used to measure intervention effects (Gundersen & Svartdal, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]; Langeveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]), and for other research purposes (Bjørnbekk & Howard, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]; Sørlie, Hagen, & Ogden, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]). The SSIS-RS was recently translated into Norwegian (Strømgren, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref26">38</reflink>]), but has not been validated.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-2">The Present Study</hd> <p>The purpose of the present study was to perform a detailed comparison between the Norwegian translation of the SSIS-RS and the translated SSRS using the same methodology as Gresham and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]) for their SSIS-SSRS comparison. This included an examination of convergent and divergent relations between the total and common scales for the two instruments, as well as reliability estimates for each of the total scales and common subscales. Such a comparison is important because it will indicate the extent to which the SSIS-RS agrees with the SSRS in measuring social competence and problem behaviors.</p> <p>There is only one published study validating the Norwegian version of the SSRS (Ogden, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref28">32</reflink>]) and the results indicated internal consistency, a relatively good stability measure, and similar factor loadings to those reported by Gresham and Elliot ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]). Further, both convergent validity and divergent validity were indicated, and therefore Ogden ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]) concluded that SSRS teacher ratings could be used as an instrument for measuring social skills among Norwegian secondary students.</p> <p>First, the Ogden ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]) study only focused on the teacher ratings for secondary aged students. Second, it did not validate the SSRS against other behavioral rating scales besides the other forms of the SSRS (Parent and Student).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>] Third, the SSRS version used in this study had a few modifications from the original SSRS. These included an increase from a 3-point to a 4-point scale when assessing social skills; a decrease from a 5-point to a 4-point scale when assessing academic competence; and the Parent form being reduced from 40 to 23 items for practical reasons. Despite these issues, we believe that the Norwegian version of the SSRS may be considered as an acceptable foundation for a comparison study of the Norwegian versions of the SSIS-RS and SSRS. This is based on (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>) the theoretical basis and psychometrical properties of the SSRS (Demaray et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]; Gresham & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]; Gresham, Elliot, Vance, & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>) the results of the Norwegian validation study, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>) the frequent use of the SSRS in research and assessment, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>) studies reporting validity and reliability of other translated versions of the SSRS also showing equivalence, and thereby further evidencing generalized validity for the SSRS (European Federation of Psychologist Associations, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Equivalence is a fundamental methodical problem and should be considered when adopting rating scales from a different culture. From a measurement perspective, there are a number of different hierarchically linked types of equivalence that assume increasingly stronger level of measurement comparability across cultures (Kankaras & Morse, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]). In the present study, we emphasized two important steps to secure equivalence: First, linguistic (or translation) and conceptual equivalence was established by means of back-translation (Geisinger, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]; Gudykunst, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]). The procedure involves forward- and back-translations by independent bilinguals (Gudykunst, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]). Conceptual equivalence can be seen as the test measuring the same construct and meaning in both or all cultures (Geisinger, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]). Second, metric equivalence was examined by comparing psychometric properties (e.g., internal consistency estimates) between the Norwegian and original instruments in both cultures and languages (Geisinger, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]). Metric equivalence refers to psychometric properties produced by the instrument in both cultures and languages (Geisinger, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref47">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0111869175-4">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 599 pupils, parents and teachers from five elementary (3rd to 7th grade) and secondary (8th to 10th grade) schools in two towns in northern Norway (Tromsø and Hammerfest) (Table 1). Pupil ages ranged from 8–16 years.</p> <p>Table 1 Characteristics of Participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Teacher</td><td /><td>Parent</td><td /><td>Student</td></tr><tr><td>Characteristics</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Secondary</td><td /><td>Elementary</td><td>Secondary</td><td /><td>Elementary</td><td>Secondary</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total</td><td>27</td><td>155</td><td /><td>53</td><td>158</td><td /><td>53</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>11.1</td><td>14.2</td><td /><td>10.7</td><td>15.1</td><td /><td>10.6</td><td>15.2</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>1.7</td><td>1.1</td><td /><td>1.7</td><td>1.1</td><td /><td>1.6</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>16</td><td>76</td><td /><td>35</td><td>75</td><td /><td>34</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>9</td><td>76</td><td /><td>19</td><td>83</td><td /><td>19</td><td>81</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Because parents and students were asked to participate by means of a letter invitation only, we expected a low response rate from these informants. Hence, we were not surprised at the parent and student response rate of 31%. Teachers filled in forms that were returned from parents/students, with a response rate of 100%. However, the wrong questionnaires (student-version) were distributed to 14% of the teachers. Therefore these were discarded from the analysis. Additional inconsistencies between reported <emph>n</emph> across raters presented in Table 1 are due to incomplete questionnaires.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-5">Instruments</hd> <p>The Norwegian versions of the SSIS-RS and SSRS elementary and secondary forms were used. The Norwegian SSRS is identical in structure to the US version, except that it uses a 4-point scale (0 = Never, 1 = Sometimes, 2 = Often, 3 = Almost always) in all forms. The SSIS-RS was translated from English to Norwegian by means of a publisher approved back-translation procedure (Strømgren, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref48">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-6">Procedure</hd> <p>Participants were recruited by contacting principals' in different schools in Tromsø and Hammerfest with information about the project. No benefits for participation were offered<bold>.</bold></p> <p>In line with Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]), the SSRS and SSIS-RS forms were administered in counterbalanced order to cancel out any order effect. As was the case for the Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>]) study, the forms were completed in the same session.</p> <p>Either the entire class participated, or the teacher in each participating class selected the first 15 students on the class list in alphabetical order beginning with the letter A. The latter procedure was chosen to ensure a randomized distribution of the questionnaires. Pupils took the forms home from school. Parents consented on behalf of their children. Pupils and parents filled out the forms at home and returned them to school. The participating teachers were instructed to fill in forms for pupils who returned the form after participating. The maximum number of ratings for teachers was six pupils (median = 3).</p> <p>The Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics approved the project and confidentiality of the participants was secured during the project.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-7">Analysis</hd> <p>Little's ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>]) Missing Completely at Random Test was computed to investigate whether any items had significant more missing values than others. Analysis including Pearson <emph>r</emph> correlations and comparison of internal consistency estimates between the SSIS-RS and SSRS was done in accordance with Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref52">20</reflink>]). Reliability estimates (Cronbach's alpha) were computed for all scales across all raters on the SSIS-RS and SSRS, and like-named scales and subscales were compared. Comparisons were computed by <emph>z</emph>-test. These procedures used for comparisons required the use of Fisher's Z<emph>r</emph> transformation formula. They were selected in line with Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]) and performed to ensure comparability to the Gresham et al. results. Feldt ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>]) recommends a test statistic using a <emph>t</emph>-distribution for comparing alpha coefficients of two tests administered in one sample, and may be more appropriate (Feldt, Woodruff, & Salih, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>]). We present both methods of analysis. Additionally, alpha coefficients of the SSIS-RS found in the current study were compared to alpha coefficients reported by Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]) using a recommended procedure (Feldt & Seonghoon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref57">12</reflink>]; Feldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Corrected Item-Total correlations were computed for all total scales and subscales across all forms of the SSIS-RS and SSRS, and we used correlations below.20 to identify items not correlating sufficiently within the scales (Everitt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]; Field, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-8">Results</hd> <p>Little's Missing Completely at Random Test was not significant, indicating that missing data did not depend on the variables in the dataset.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-9">SSRS-SSIS Consistency</hd> <p>Table 2 summarizes the correlations between like-named scales on the two instruments. First, looking at the social skills and problem behavior total scores, moderate to very strong relations were observed across the two instruments for all informants in both the elementary and secondary groups. These correlations ranged from <emph>r</emph> =.47 (parent problem behavior secondary form) to <emph>r</emph> =.92. Second, the subscales from which these overall scores are obtained generally demonstrated moderate to very strong relations. The one exception to this pattern was the assertion subscale in the teacher elementary group (<emph>r</emph> =.11).</p> <p>Table 2 Pearson's Correlation Coefficients Between Like-Named Scales on the SSIS-RS and SSRS for Teacher, Parent, and Student Elementary and Secondary Forms</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Teacher</td><td>Parent</td><td>Student</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Elementary</td><td>Secondary</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Secondary</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Secondary</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 26)</td><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 155)</td><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 53)</td><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 156)</td><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 53)</td><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 156)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social skills</td><td>.87*</td><td>.86*</td><td>.71*</td><td>.69*</td><td>.74*</td><td>.76*</td></tr><tr><td> Cooperation</td><td>.91*</td><td>.85*</td><td>.74*</td><td>.47*</td><td>.63*</td><td>.70*</td></tr><tr><td> Assertion</td><td>.11</td><td>.72*</td><td>.42*</td><td>.40*</td><td>.44*</td><td>.54*</td></tr><tr><td> Self-control</td><td>.79*</td><td>.77*</td><td>.59*</td><td>.47*</td><td>.47*</td><td>.59*</td></tr><tr><td> Responsibility</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>.57*</td><td>.46*</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Empathy</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>.65*</td><td>.68*</td></tr><tr><td>Problem behavior</td><td>.92*</td><td>.82*</td><td>.74*</td><td>.47*</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Externalizing</td><td>.82*</td><td>.85*</td><td>.68*</td><td>.40*</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Internalizing</td><td>.93*</td><td>.83*</td><td>.71*</td><td>.45*</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Hyperactivety</td><td>.89*</td><td>–</td><td>.73*</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. SSIS-RS = Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales (Gresham & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]); SSRS = Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref62">17</reflink>]); * <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>To assess convergent and divergent validity, Tables 3–8 (available at <ulink href="http://www.uit-psyk.net/tables/">http://www.uit-psyk.net/tables/</ulink>) present correlation coefficients between all scales for all informants across the two age groups. Overall, these correlations indicate convergent and divergent validity. An exception to this was the SSIS-RS Assertion scale on the Teacher elementary form, which did not correlate positively with the social skills scales, or negatively with the problem behavior scales on the SSRS Teacher elementary form. A likely reason for this was the small sample size used for analysis of the Teacher elementary form (<emph>n</emph> = 26). Additionally, the Assertion scale on some of the other forms also showed weaker positive relations with SSRS social skills scales and weaker negative relations with SSRS problem behavior scales compared with the other social skills scales on the SSIS-RS.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-10">Internal Consistency</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0111869175-11">SSIS-RS and SSRS</hd> <p>Overall, Cronbach alpha coefficients for like-named scales were acceptable in both instruments. Teacher elementary and secondary scales ranged from α =.76 to α =.97 (median =.92) and α =.80 to α =.96 (median =.88), respectively. Parent elementary scales ranged from.64 to.94 (median =.79) and secondary scales.69 to.93 (median =.81). Student elementary scales (the only social skills scales on the SSRS student form) ranged from.64 to.96 (median =.80) and secondary scales from.77 to.94 (median =.82). To assess reliability measures, Tables 9–12 (available at <ulink href="http://www.uit-psyk.net/tables/">http://www.uit-psyk.net/tables/</ulink>) present alpha coefficients produced by all scales across all raters and age groups.</p> <p>Comparison of like-named SSIS-RS and SSRS scales were performed by <emph>z</emph>-test, and a total of 46 comparisons revealed 11 significantly different alpha estimates. Of these, 7 SSIS-RS scales showed higher estimates compared to like-named SSRS scales. Including non-significant comparisons of alpha estimates across all raters and ages, these analyses showed higher or equal alpha estimates for 16 of 28 SSIS-RS social skills scales and 13 of 14 SSIS-RS problem behavior scales.</p> <p>Using the test statistic recommended by Feldt ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]) we calculated the <emph>t</emph>-value and significance level. This method yielded the same result as the <emph>z</emph>-test in terms of direction in the two-tailed analysis, but indicated 28 instead of 11 significant differences, including 19 SSIS-RS scales showing significantly higher estimates than the SSRS.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-12">SSIS-RS New scales</hd> <p>Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all new scales and old scales now appearing on all forms on the SSIS-RS compared to SSRS, showed estimates across all forms ranging from.31 to.92. Except for a low alpha coefficient of.31 for the Bullying scale on the Student elementary form, the only alphas below.70 were the Communication (α =.68) and Bullying (α =.68) subscales on the Student secondary form.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-13">SSIS-RS Norwegian and US-version</hd> <p>Cronbach's alpha coefficients of reliability for SSIS-RS scales presented in Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref64">20</reflink>]) were compared to alpha coefficients produced in the present study to investigate metric equivalence. Comparisons of 46 total scales and subscales from all forms showed significant differences (<emph>p</emph> <.05) between 14 alpha coefficients.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-14">Corrected Item-Total correlations</hd> <p>Corrected Item-Total correlation ranged from -.25 to.92 for Subscales and Total scales across all forms on the SSIS-RS and SSRS. Investigation of Item-Subscale Correlations identified 8 items on the SSIS-RS and 10 items on the SSRS with estimates below.20, and the Item-Total scale identified 14 items on the SSIS-RS and 11 items on the SSRS below this cut-off. Nearly all the low correlations (<.20) were found on the elementary forms, including 19 of 22 items on the SSIS-RS and 20 of 21 on the SSRS. Furthermore, two items distinguished themselves with low Item-Total correlations found across both age-levels, including Item 1 and Item 41 found on the SSIS-RS Parent forms in the Assertion and Self-Control scales, respectively.</p> <p>We also compared Item-Subscale correlations on the Secondary forms found in this study with those reported in the SSIS-RS manual (Gresham & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref65">18</reflink>]) to search for items that may have been altered in the translation process, but that not necessarily had Item-Total correlations below.20 (Eremenco, Cella, & Arnold, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref66">7</reflink>]). Item-Subscale correlations were highly comparable. However, 2 items were notable: item 36 on the Parent self-control scale, "Makes a compromise during a conflict," and item 71 on the Student internalizing scale, "I feel nervous with my classmates." Comparison was computed by transformation of each Corrected Item-Subscale correlation via the Fisher Z<emph>r</emph> transformation formula. These showed large differences by a much lower estimate produced for the Norwegian items (<emph>Z</emph> = 4.45, <emph>p</emph> <.001 and <emph>Z</emph> = 6.31, <emph>p</emph> <.001, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the Norwegian versions of the SSIS-RS (Gresham & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref67">18</reflink>]) and the SSRS (Gresham & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref68">17</reflink>]), including all three forms (teacher, parent, and student) in both elementary and secondary schools.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-16">Consistency Between Instruments</hd> <p>Pearson <emph>r</emph> correlations across Total scale and Subscales of the two instruments indicated moderate to very high positive relations between common social skills scales on the SSIS-RS and SSRS and between common problem behaviors scales on the SSIS-RS and SSRS; therefore, convergent validity is indicated. In addition, Pearson <emph>r</emph> correlations across social skills scales and problem behavior scales showed weak to strong negative relations, indicating divergent validity.</p> <p>One exception to this general picture was that the Assertion scale showed weaker positive relation with the SSRS social skills scales and weaker negative relation with the SSRS problem behavior scales compared with the other social skills scales on the SSIS-RS. These overall lower correlation coefficients in the Assertion scale were also reported by Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref69">20</reflink>]). A possible explanation for this is the ambiguity that may rise when judging a child's assertiveness: On one hand, assertive behavior can be judged as a positive action (e.g., express feelings when wronged; stands up for others when treated unfairly). On the other hand, these same assertive behaviors could also be interpreted as problematic behavior in some situations or circumstances (Argyle, Furnham, & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-17">Internal Consistency</hd> <p>A criterion for use in assessment is an adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of >.70 (European Federation of Psychologist Associations, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>]). Given this criterion, the overall internal consistency was acceptable for all SSIS-RS like-named total scales and subscales on all forms, indicating that the items comprising each scale are measuring the same construct. The only like-named scale below α =.70 on the SSIS-RS was the Assertion scale on the Parent secondary form (.69). As noted, lower estimates for the Assertion scale compared to other social skills subscales is consistent with the results reported by others (Gresham & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]; Gresham et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-18">Comparison of alpha coefficients between the SSIS-RS and SSRS</hd> <p>Comparison of alpha coefficients between all like-named scales on the SSIS-RS and SSRS showed high consistency between the instruments. Only four like-named subscales showed significantly higher alpha coefficient in favor of the SSRS. Two of these scales were the Cooperation and the Assertion scale on the Teacher secondary form, and both these scales still showed high alphas. This result is also similar to that of Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]), reporting significantly lower alpha estimate for the SSIS-RS Cooperation scale and a non-significant difference between the Assertion scales.</p> <p>Seven SSIS-RS scales showed higher alpha coefficients compared to like-named scales on the SSRS. This result is also in line with that of Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref75">20</reflink>]). However, these authors reported significant differences between 35 of 46 pairs of alpha coefficients in favor of the SSIS-RS, with only two SSRS scales demonstrating significantly higher estimates. This may indicate an overall higher internal consistency for the US SSIS-RS.</p> <p>We also note that comparison by the <emph>t</emph>-test recommended by Feldt ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref76">11</reflink>]) showed additional significant differences between the instruments in our study. This again implies that the results reported by Gresham and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]) probably would demonstrate even stronger support for the SSIS-RS compared to the SSRS.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-19">New subscales</hd> <p>All new subscales on the SSIS-RS, in addition to already existing subscales now present on all forms (e.g., the Responsibility and Empathy subscales), showed mostly acceptable alpha coefficients. However, the low alpha coefficients on the Bullying scale on the Student forms may indicate that the students have difficulties reporting their own bullying behavior consistently, especially elementary school students (α =.31). Further, such low estimates were not shown for the US or the Spanish version reported by Gresham and Elliot ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). We could not identify any obvious problems with the translation, including investigation of Corrected Item-Total correlations produced for the Bullying scale, but the scale comprises of only five items and therefore may be especially vulnerable to atypical data.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-20">Cross-cultural equivalence: linguistic, conceptual, and metric equivalence</hd> <p>Corrected Item-Total scale and Item-Subscale correlations were generally moderate to strong for all items on the SSIS-RS and SSRS for the secondary forms, and nearly all low correlations (<.20) were shown for items on the elementary forms. A probable reason for this is the low sample sizes. Hence, almost all items showing low correlations on the elementary forms are also present on the same rater's secondary forms, but did not show the same result. This indicates that the items function well in their respective scales on the secondary forms. Another possible reason for more inconsistencies found on the elementary forms is that it may be harder to report younger children's behavior consistently due to more variability in development and behavioral expression (Merrell, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref79">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, we find support for linguistic equivalence for all SSIS-RS secondary forms. Because of low sample size used in the investigation of the elementary forms we found it difficult interpret evidence of linguistic equivalence. Nevertheless, considering the high similarity of the elementary and secondary forms for each rater, this indicates that low Corrected Item-Total correlations shown for the elementary forms are not due to translation errors.</p> <p>Support for conceptual equivalence was established with evidence of convergent and divergent validity, indicating that the translated construct is related to the construct it is supposed to be related to, therefore demonstrating that the meaning is preserved in the translation process. Further, 32 of 46 alpha coefficients found in the present study, when compared to those reported by Gresham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]), showed no significant difference, indicating metric equivalence. The validity assumptions in this study were further supported by showing convergent and divergent relations indicated by positive and negative correlations where expected, as well as acceptable to excellent internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's alpha.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-21">Limitations</hd> <p>Low sample size is a likely explanation for the low correlations produced between the Assertion scales on the Teacher elementary forms, and could also explain for the lower Corrected Item-Total correlations produced across all elementary forms compared to secondary forms. Therefore, compared to the results observed of the Assertion scale and the Corrected Item-Total correlations on the secondary forms, we conclude that the results observed for the elementary forms should be interpreted with some caution.</p> <p>Self-selection was a potential problem in recruitment of participants. Whether a given participant in fact took part depended on a sequence of three independent decisions. First the pupil had to bring the questionnaire home, then, both parents and pupil had to elect to participate, and, finally, the forms had to be returned to school. Finally, the teacher decided whether to participate or not. This procedure may have caused nominal response rate to be artificially low. It can be argued that the low response rate and the limited control over the respondents might threaten the representativeness of the results.</p> <p>Future studies should investigate validity of the Norwegian version of the SSIS-RS against other well-established instruments used in Norway for assessment of social behavior and school functioning. Furthermore, it is also important to validate new subscales on the SSIS-RS, for example, the Autism subscale and the Bullying scale.</p> <p>For several reasons, a future aim would be creating a norm standardization sample. First, US norms may not be representative in a Norwegian context based on cultural differences (Rescorla et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref81">36</reflink>]). For this reason there is also a need to validate a Sami version of the SSIS-RS (Javo, Rønning, Handegård, & Rudmin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref82">24</reflink>]). Second, from a large representative sample, a factor analysis would empirically investigate the structure of the scales and subscales in a more conclusive fashion than possible in the present study. Also, comparisons of factor loadings from a US study could further indicate metric equivalence. A test-retest would also be of interest in order to examine the stability of the SSIS-RS over time.</p> <hd id="AN0111869175-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>Based on the evidence from this study, researchers and practitioners looking to replace the SSRS with the newer SSIS-RS will most probably find the SSIS-RS satisfactory. Equivalence was considered carefully in the translation process. Furthermore, similar and generally better psychometric properties are produced by the SSIS-RS compared to the SSRS. Being built on the same foundation as its predecessor, and by recognizing and addressing concerns considering the SSRS, the SSIS-RS is likely to produce valid and reliable scores for social skills and problem behaviors.</p> <ref id="AN0111869175-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref32" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>1</sups>There is a consistent finding in research that multi-informant rating scales used to evaluate children and adolescents show low inter-rater agreement among informants (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, [1], Gresham, Elliot, Cook, Vance, & Kettler, [19], Renk & Phares, [35]). Therefore, this method of validation could be problematic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Thor Gamst-Klaussen, Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Lene-Mari P. Rasmussen, RKBU Nord, University of Tromsø</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Børge Strømgren, Department of Behavioural Science, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref34" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Frode Svartdal, Department of Psychology, University of Tromsø.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0111869175-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Achenbach, T., McConaughy, S., & Howell, C. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Argyle, M., Furnham, A., & Graham, J.A. (1983). Social situations. Cambridge: Press Syndicate</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bjørnebekk, G., & Howard, R. (2012). Validation of a motivation-based typology of angry aggression among antisocial youths in Norway. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 167–180. doi:10.1002/bsl.2007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowen, E., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, I., & Trost, M. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected of vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 1400–1416. doi:10.1037/h0035373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demaray, M., Ruffalo, S., Carlson, J., Busse, R., Olson, A., McManus, S., & Leventhal, A. (1995). Social skills assessment: A comparative evaluation of six published rating scales. School Psychology Review, 24, 648–671. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-13423-001">http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-13423-001</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Elliot, S.N., & Gresham, F.M. (1987). Children's social skills: Assessment and classification practices. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 96–99. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1987.tb00808.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref66" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Eremenco, S., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation & the Health Proffessions, 28, 212–232. doi:10.1177/0163278705275342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref71" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> European Federation of Psychologist Associations (2008). Test review forms and notes for reviewers. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.efpa.eu/profesionale-development">http://www.efpa.eu/profesionale-development</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref40" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> European Federation of Psychologist Associations (2009). Reviewing translated and adapted tests. Retrieved from European Federation of Psychologists Associations website: <ulink href="http://www.efpa.eu/profesionale-development">http://www.efpa.eu/profesionale-development</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Everitt, B.S. (2002). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldt, L.S. (1980). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient is the same for two tests administered to the same sample. Psychometrika, 45, 99–105. doi:10.1007/BF02293600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldt, L.S., & Seonghoon, K. (2006). Testing the difference between two alpha coefficients with small samples of subjects and raters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 589–600. doi:10.1177/0013164405282488</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldt, L.S., Woodruff, D.J., & Salih, F.A. (1987). Statistical inference for coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 93–103. doi:10.1177/014662168701100107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frey, J.R., Elliott, S.N., & Gresham, F.M. (2011). Preschoolers' social skills: Advances in assessment for intervention using social behavior ratings. School of Mental Health, 3, 179–190. doi:10.1007/s12310-011-9060-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geisinger, K.F. (2003). Testing and assessment in cross-cultural psychology. In Irving B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 95–118). NJ: John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F.M., & Elliot, S.N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (2008). Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales manual. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F.M., Elliot, S.N., Cook, C.R., Vance, M.J., & Kettler, R. (2010). Cross-informant agreement for ratings for social skill and problem behavior ratings: An investigation of the Social Skill Improvement System- Rating Scales. Psychological Assessment, 22, 157–166. doi:10.1037/a0018124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F.M., Elliot, S.N., Vance, M.J., & Cook, C.R. (2011). Comparability of the Social Skill Rating System to the Social Skills Improvement System: Content and psychometric comparisons across elementary and secondary age levels. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 27–44. doi:10.1037/a0022662</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gudykunst, W.B (2002). Issues in cross-cultural communication research. In W.B. Gudykunst, & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 165–179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gundersen, K., & Svartdal, F. (2006). Aggression replacement training in Norway: Outcome evaluation of 11 Norwegian student projects. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 63–81. doi:10.1080/00313830500372059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., Wigelsworth, M., Lendrum, A., Deighton, J., & Wolpert, M. (2011). Measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people: A systematic review. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 617–637. doi:10.1177/0013164410382896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Javo, C., Rønning, J. A., Handegård, B. H., & Rudmin, F. W. (2009). Social competence and emotional/behavioral problems in a birth cohort of Sami and Norwegian preadolescents in Arctic Norway as reported by mothers and teachers. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 63, 178–187. doi:10.1080/08039480902741752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jurado, M., Cumba-Avilés, E., Collazo, L.C., & Matos, M. (2006). Reliability and validity of a Spanish version of the Social Skills Rating System-teacher form. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 195–209. doi:10.1177/0734282906288961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kankaras, M., & Morse, G. (2010). Researching measurement equivalence in cross-cultural studies. Psihologija, 43, 121–136. doi:10.2298/PSI1002121K</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohn, M., & Clausen, J. (1955). Social isolation and schizofrenia. American Sociological Review, 20, 265–273. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2087384">http://www.jstor.org/stable/2087384</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1990). The role of poor peer relationships in the development of disorder. In S.R Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274–308). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langeveld, J.H., Gundersen, K., & Svartdal, F. (2011). Social competence as a mediating factor in reduction of behavioral problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56, 1–19. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.594614</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, R.J.A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202. doi:10.2307/2290157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrell, K.W. (2003). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogden, T. (2003). The validity of teacher ratings of adolecents' social skills. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 63–76. doi:10.1080/00313830308605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogden, T. (2011). Sosial ferdighetsopplæring for barn og ungdom. Tidskrift for Norsk Psykologiforening, 48, 64–68. Retrived from <ulink href="http://www.psykologtidsskriftet.no/index.php?seks%5fid=132793&a=2">http://www.psykologtidsskriftet.no/index.php?seks%5fid=132793&a=2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renk, K., & Phares, V. (2004). Cross-informant ratings of social competence in children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 239–254. doi:10.1037/a0018124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rescorla, L., Achenbach, T., Ivanova, M. Y., Dumenci, L., Almqvist, F., Bilenberg, N., & Verhulst, F. (2007). Behavioral and emotional problems reported by parents of children ages 6 to 16 in 31 societies. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 130–142. doi:10.1177/10634266070150030101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shahim, S. (2001). Reliability of the Social Skills Rating System in a group of Iranian children. Psychological Reports, 89, 566–570. doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.89.3.566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strømgren, B. (2012). Norwegian translation of Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales, Unpublished manuscript, Department of Behavioural Science, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sørlie, M-A., Amlund Hagen , K., & Ogden, T. (2008). Social competence and antisocial behavior: Continuity and distinctiveness across early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 121–144. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00553.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van der Oord, S., Van der Meulen, E.M., Prins, P.J.M., Oosterlaan, J., Buitelaar, J.K., & Emmelkamp, P.M.G. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the social skill rating system in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 733–746. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasil'ová, K., & Baumğartner, F. (2004). Why is social intelligence difficult to measure? Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.saske.sk/cas/archiv/4-2005/studia%5fvasilova-baumgartner.html">http://www.saske.sk/cas/archiv/4-2005/studia%5fvasilova-baumgartner.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walthall, J.C., Konold, T.R., & Pianta, R.C. (2005). Factor structure of the Social Skills Rating System across child gender and ethnicity. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 201–215. doi:10.1177/073428290502300301</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Thor Gamst-Klaussen; Lene-Mari P. Rasmussen; Frode Svartdal and Børge Strømgren</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1085137
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Comparability of the Social Skills Improvement System to the Social Skills Rating System: A Norwegian Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gamst-Klaussen%2C+Thor%22">Gamst-Klaussen, Thor</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rasmussen%2C+Lene-Mari+P%2E%22">Rasmussen, Lene-Mari P.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Svartdal%2C+Frode%22">Svartdal, Frode</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Strømgren%2C+Børge%22">Strømgren, Børge</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Scandinavian+Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2016 60(1):20-31.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Translation%22">Translation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Norwegian%22">Norwegian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sample+Size%22">Sample Size</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Norway%22">Norway</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00313831.2014.971864
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0031-3831
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales (SSIS-RS) is a multi-informant instrument assessing social skills and problem behavior in children and adolescents. It is a revised version of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). A Norwegian translation of the SSRS has been validated, but this has not yet been done for the Norwegian translation of the SSIS-RS. This study compared the Norwegian versions of the SSRS and the SSIS-RS administered to samples of children (aged 8-12 and 13-16 years) and their parents and teachers (n = 599). The results indicated moderate to strong relations between the common subscales across all forms of the two instruments and acceptable to excellent internal consistency across all common subscales. We conclude that the SSIS-RS is a good instrument for measuring social skills and problem behavior among children and adolescents in Norway.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 42
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1085137
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1085137
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00313831.2014.971864
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 20
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Translation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Norwegian
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sample Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Norway
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Comparability of the Social Skills Improvement System to the Social Skills Rating System: A Norwegian Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gamst-Klaussen, Thor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rasmussen, Lene-Mari P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Svartdal, Frode
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Strømgren, Børge
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0031-3831
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1