Psychometric properties of the Dutch translation of the Social Skills Inventory

1. 1 8/27/2012 Psychometric properties of the Dutch translation of the Social Skills Inventory Frans Nederhof Netherlands Defence Selection Agency Senior researcher

2. 8/27/2012 2 Overview Introduction Purpose of study Method Reliability Validity Conclusions Future research

3. 8/27/2012 3 Introduction: Social Skills inventory (Riggio, 1986) Behaviour questionnaire 90-item self-report 17 minutes Promising psychometric properties with US sample Selection, training and performance predicting of e.g. MBA students, hospice nurses, hostage negotiators Non-military items Available in English

4. 8/27/2012 4 Introduction: Social Skills (Riggio, 1986, 1989)

5. 8/27/2012 5 Introduction: Emotional domain Expressivity �I have been told that I have expressive eyes�. �Quite often I tend to be the life of the party�. Sensitivity �It is nearly impossible for people to hide their true feelings from me�. �At parties I can instantly tell when someone is interested in me�. Control �I am very good at maintaining a calm exterior, even when upset�. �When I am really not enjoying myself at some social function, I can still make myself look as if I am having a good time�.

6. 8/27/2012 6 Introduction: Social domain Expressivity �At parties I enjoy speaking to a great number of persons�. �When in discussions I find myself doing a large share of the talking�. Sensitivity �I often worry that people will misinterpret something that I have said to them�. �While growing up, my parents were always stressing the importance of good manners�. Control �I find it very easy to play different roles at different times�. �When in a group of friends, I am often the spokesperson for the group�.

7. 8/27/2012 7 Purpose of present study Assessment of the potential usefullness of the Social Skills Inventory (Riggio, 1986) in a Dutch military selection setting. Reliability scale properties Validity personality influence behaviour social desirability

8. 8/27/2012 8 Translation process Iterative approach Response groups Three iterations

9. 8/27/2012 9 Participants 147 applicants for the military as non-commissioned officer (N = 80) commissioned officer (N = 67) soldier (N=10) 15 females mean age 20 years

10. 8/27/2012 10 Reliability 1: scale properties M std a Emotional expressivity * 44 5.6 .52 Emotional sensitivity 51.8 6.9 .72 Emotional control 51.1 7.2 .70 Social expressivity 53.8 7.5 .77 Social sensitivity * 32 6.3 .73 Social control 55.6 7.4 .76 SSI-total score 288.5 22.1 .85

11. 8/27/2012 11 Reliability 2: scale intercorrelations EE ES EC SE SS SC ES .17 EC -.20 .23 SE .32 .52 .22 SS .05 -.04 -.29 -.20 SC .23 .42 .23 .69 -.45 SSI .44 .74 .44 .83 -.01 .71

12. 8/27/2012 12 Reliability 2: scale intercorrelations EE ES EC SE SS SC ES EC -.20 .23 SE .32 .52 .22 SS -.29 -.20 SC .23 .42 .23 .69 -.45 SSI .44 .74 .44 .83 .71

13. 8/27/2012 13 Validity: concurrent measures NEO PI-R five factor personality questionnaire (240 items) WIMAS Influence Behaviour Scale (64-items) Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale (10 items)

14. 8/27/2012 14 Validity 1: personality (NEO-PI R) NEU EXT OPEN ALT CONS EE .38 .31 ES .33 .43 .24 EC -.24 .28 SE -.35 .58 .32 .22 .42 SS .57 -.32 SC -.50 .44 .28 .49 SSI -.24 .54 .43 .39

15. 8/27/2012 15 Validity 1: personality (NEO PI-R) EE ES EC SE SS SC SSI NEURO -.24 -.35 .57 -.50 -.24 EXTRA .38 .33 .58 .44 .54 OPENN .31 .43 .32 .28 .43 ALTR .22 CONSC .24 .28 .42 -.32 .49 .39

16. 8/27/2012 16 Validity 2: Influence behaviour (WIMAS) EE ES EC SE SS SC SSI MANIPU ASSRT .37 -.35 .44 .31 DIRECT .29 .40 -.43 .39 .33 DIPLOM .30 .25 .25 .31 .31

17. 8/27/2012 17 Validity 3: social desirability (Marlowe-Crown) 50 % of participants scored 37 or higher on a scale of 10-50 EE ES EC SE SS SC SSI MCSD .21 -.30 .25

18. 8/27/2012 18 Conclusions 1 Convergent and discriminant validity of the social sensitivity scale is little encouraging. Internal consistency of emotional expressivity scale is shown to be inadequate. The social sensitivity scale and the emotional expressivity scale are as yet inadequate for selection purposes. Both scales may prove to be usefull on a Dutch sample if some items are to be replaced.

19. 8/27/2012 19 Conclusions 2 Indication is found that the emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expressivity and social control scales discriminate between high and low scores. General support for convergent and discriminant validity of the emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expressivity and social control scales. An indication is found that the emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expressivity and social control scale may be adequate for selection purposes.

20. 8/27/2012 20 Conclusions 3 The scales in the social domain prove to be vulnerable to social desirable answersing. However, indication is found that not all participants are prone to social desirable answering, potentially cousing false negatives. As a model, screening of the tendency to socially desirable answering in the selection process, and assessment of different norm groups may help to overcome this problem.

21. 8/27/2012 21 Future directions of research 2 Assessment of predictive validity of emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expressivity and social control scales in a military training environment. If the predicitive validity turns out to be promising, an effort may be done to further develop the emotional expressivity and social sensitivity scale for use in a Dutch military selection setting.

22. 8/27/2012 22 Questions and / or reactions

23. 8/27/2012 23 Thank you for your attention!

24. 8/27/2012 24

25. 8/27/2012 25 Defence Selection Agency Selection of new military personnel for Navy, Army, Airforce and Military Police Selection for Management Development Selection of specialists e.g. navy divers, bomb squad personnel Selection of personnel for other gouvernmental agencies Vocational choice and study choice