INDIANA UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH PAPER

MOOD DISORDERS SPRING 2005

THE MEASUREMENT OF SOCIAL SKILLS IN DEPRESSION:

SELF-REPORTS AND OBSERVER-RATING ASSESSMENTS

BY

FANNY JIMENEZ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction  3

Social Skills and Depression  3

Communication Asessments  5

Social Skills Inventory (SSI)  5

Conversation Skills Rating Scale (CSRS)  7

Social Behavior  10

Social Behavior Scale (SBS)  10

Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SAD)  11

Interpersonal Problem Solving  13

Problem Solving Inventory (PSI)  13

Interpersonal Problem Solving Questionnaire (IPSQ)  15

Summary and Conclusions  18

INTRODUCTION

There has been a lot of research concerning the problem of social skill deficits in depression. Social skill deficits are assumed to be an important factor in contributing to the development as well as the maintenance of depression. Conceptually, authors deal with the construct “social skill” quite differently. They use a wide range of self-report and observer-rating scales, assessing different traits and abilities, behavioral tendencies and self-perceptions.

The purpose of this paper is to present a comparison of those different assessment strategies used by researchers and to critically discuss their effectiveness and applicability as well as their validity and limitations. First, a short overview is given on the concept of social skills in depression to provide a framework. I will then present and discuss different operationalizations of social skills and compare measurements and basic findings to present and suggest useful components for future investigations. I will hereby concentrate on self-report and observer-rating assessment techniques. Finally, a summary and conclusion is given.

SOCIAL SKILLS IN DEPRESSION

Theoretically, there is a difference in the definition of social skills and social competence. Social skill refers to discrete, goal-directed behavior that enables a person to interact effectively (Sheridan and Walker, 1999). Social competence, in contrast, refers to the quality of a person’s interaction as perceived by others (Mc Fall, 1982). Practically, authors do not usually distinguish between those two definitions. It is rather common to target this difference in either assessing self-reports that reflect the person’s own view on his or her social skills, or assessing observer-ratings to reflect social competence. In this paper, I will be using the term social skills because social competence is hardly being used in the depression literature.

According to Goldstein (Goldstein, 1981), appropriate social skills consist of: (1) the ability to organize cognitions and behaviors into an integrated course of action directed toward culturally acceptable social and/or interpersonal goals; and (2) the ability to continuously assess and modify goal-directed behavior to maximize the likelihood of reaching particular goals. Well developed social skills, in addition to reaching one’s goals, can also contribute to the prevention of stress, elicit social support, act as a buffer and minimize interpersonal conflict.

Considering this, the lack of social skills is a potential risk factor for mental health. Joiner (2000) looked at the processes by which depressive persons’ social skill deficits perpetuate the depression in a vicious cycle. This includes provoking schema - consistent negative feedback, excessively seeking reassurance, and chronically avoiding conflict that should be dealt with. The depression literature has investigated this relation between social skill deficits and levels of depression for some decades now. In doing so many different operationalizations of social skills have been used. 

I investigated the scales that have commonly been used and searched for basic results and problems occurring in the research literature. I divided all the scales being used into three broad categories: communication, social behavior and problem-solving behavior. I will present two tests for each of the three broad categories I found. They illustrate the variety within each category and are accompanied by one study, respectively. This is done to show general findings and to get a broader basis for comparison.

[...]