~’HOBLElI

The iniportancc’ of interpersonal skills i i i helping relationships is :L continuing concern of c1iiiie:iI psychologists. There is considerable evidence tha t interpersonal sensitivity is ;i ncww:iry ingredient i n professional psychotherapy ( I 1 ) as well as in the perforninnrc~ of iioni)rofcssion:ils, part icuhrly college students ( 9 ’. However, there is :it prcsc>nt little systematic study of methods for the :issessment of inter- perso1i:il skills, Since the purpose of such :isscssment’ is the prediction of inter- personal b(bh:ivior, :I method of :isstwment that studies actual interpersonal be- havior is most likcly to have prcdictivv :iccur:icy f 4 , l‘’’. This s tudy reports data on such :in :tssessnirrit procedure.

The 1)rocetlurcS u s c d i n this study is the Group Assessment of Interpersonal Traits (GAIT) , Originally developed by ( ; ~ o d m a n ( ~ . 6 ) , the GAIT is designed t o measure srwxxl iriterpersond qualities, t hc most important’ of which are empathic understanding, cmotional honesty, and warmth-acceptance. The revision of the GAIT employcd i n this study allow for thc study of int,erpersonal skills from several perspc>ctivcs. S s pnrticipate II :t small group after which ratings of the above mentioncd :ind other interpersolid clualities are made by trained observers,

s of the group, and by c:ich participant of his own performance. g J have found that observers :tnd group members show considerable

agreement i r i the rating of interpersorul performance with the GAIT. This study is the first to cx:imine the :igreenient of self ratings of interpersonal skills with observer :md peer ratings.

~ I E T H O I I

Sut)jjects. l ( i h S s participated in this study. There were 83 males and 85 females, all undergraduate psychology students at The University of Connecticut who were participating to meet a course requirement

I’i-ocediiw. S s met in groups of 8. Uectiuse of subject at’trition, there was some variability iri t h c riumbcr present a t wch group. Of the 22 groups held, 16 had 8 members, 1 had 7 members, and 2 had fi nit.mbers. The groups were attended by E and a trained advanced undergraduate psychology major. After initial introductions, Ss were given riame tags. They then participated in the GAIT.

Each of the group members individually reveals a personal concern, problem, or dissatisfaction t o the other group members. Then, another group member, by his own choice, engages the first person in a timed, 4-minute interaction. I n this dyadic interaction, the “discloser” is told to be honest and open about his feelings; the “understander” is told to be empathic and accepting. After all members have played both roles, ratings are made of the following inter- personal qualitiw : 1. Empathic Understanding. ‘1. Blue, Sad, Discontent. 3.

The GAIT procedure is as follow.

*This article in tmsed on portions of the authof’s doctoral dissertation submitted to The University of Connecticut under the direction of Herbert (tetter, Jack RI. Chinsky, and Kenneth I h g . The research was supported t)y The University of Connecticut Research Foundation and computations were perfornied a t the University’s Coniputer Center. Copies of the (;AIT procedure and rating f o r m are availat)le from the author. Requests should he submitted to: .4nthony lt. D’Augelli, Indi- vidual and Family Consultation Center, Catharine Beecher House. The Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, University Park, Pn. 16x0’2.

177

178 ANTHONY R. D'AUGELLI

Honest, Frank, Emotionally Open. 4. Mild, Reserved, Quiet. 5. Warm, Patient, Accepting. 6. Set In His Ways. 7. Relaxed And Easy-Going. 8. Talks About Per- sonally Meaningful Material.

The ratings performed by group members or peers are done on all the above variables, as are the self ratings. The observer ratings are performed on variables 1, 3, 5 and 8 only. It should be noted that the observers employed a more precise behavioral rating form than the group members. All ratings are based on a &point scale.

RESULTS Interrater Reliability of G A I T Scales. Observer. To examine the interrater re-

liability of the two trained observers, their scores for all Ss were compared using product-moment correlations. The correlations were as follows : Understanding, r = .78, Honest, r = .69, Warm, r = .64, Personally Meaningful, r = .72.

Peer. Interrater relability of peer judgments were studied using a subsample of the 22 groups. Ten groups, totalling 75 Ss, were randomly chosen for this purpose. The agreement of group members on the behavior of each participant was obtained using a split-half technique, comparing the scores given by one half of the group with those of the other half. Product-moment correlations were computed and then correlated with the Spearman-Brown Formula''). These are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1. INTERRATER RELIABILITY OF PEER GAIT RATINQS

Variable r ~~~ ~

Understanding .57 Blue .61 Honest .56 Mild .82 Warm .66 Set .47 Relaxed .71 Personally Meaningful .52

Intercorrelations between Rating Modalities. Table 2 presents the intercorrela- tions of observer, peer, and self GAIT ratings. Inspection of these correlations re- veals significant correlations between observer and peer ratings on the variables for

TABLE 2. INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN SETS OF RATINQS

Variable Observer/Peer Peer/Self 0 bserver /Self

Understanding ,208 Blue Honest .30** Mild Warm ,358. Set RelaXed Personally Meaningful .32*+

.12 - .02

.23**

.20* .04

.45-

.10 .15

.14

.32** ,208 .16

Note: Observer ratings were performed for Understanding, Honest, Warm, and Personally Meaning-

*p < .05;**p C .01. ful only

THE ASSESSMENT OF IXTERPERSONAL SKILLS 179

which observer data were available. The correlation between observers and peers on the quality warm-accepting is particularly interesting, as this is a difficult charac- teristic to rate. The above correlations call into question the meaningfulness of the self ratings. Most importantly, while peer and self ratings show some convergence (for honest and personally meaningful), the correlations are low. This lack of agree- ment between self ratings and ratings done by others (trained or not) suggest tha t accurate self assessment of interpersonal skills is difficult.

SUMMARY The correlations between sets of ratings found in this study yield valuable

information about the usefulness of different rating methods in interpersonal skills assessment. On the major variables, there is significant agreement between trained observers and peers. However, no significant agreement is found between observers’ and self ratings. In addition, only for the variables Honest and Personally Meaning- ful were peer and self ratings related, and these correlations were low. While the con- vergence of peer and observer ratings suggests that the former may be accurate indices of interpersonal behavior, the same cannot be said for self ratings. As several studies“. 2 , 3 , demonstrate the predictive validity of observer judgments, i t is ques- tionable whether self ratings can be seen as useful predictors of actual interpersonal behavior. The major implication of this conclusion is that studies concerned with interpersonal behavior had best not rely on self judgments alone. Peer ratings and, most preferably, the ratings of trained observers should be employed. Therefore, while self-reports may be more accurate than elaborate “indirect” personality assessment ( ” ) , it appears that the ratings of actual behavior by trained judges would better serve the purposes of behavioral assessment than would simple self ratings. In sum, behavioral assessment of interpersonal skills should be seen as a critical part of any training program, whether the “helpers” be professional or non- professional.

REFERENCES 1 . CHINSKY, J . hl. and I~APPAPORT, J. Evaluation of a technique for the behavioral assessment of nonprofessional mental health workers. J . d i n . Psychol., 1971, 27, 400402.

2. D’AUGELLI, A . It . The effects of group composition and individual differences on sensitivity training. Unpublished Masters thesis, The University of Connecticut, 1970.

3. D’AUOELLI, A. I t . The effects of interpersonal skills and pre-training on group interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1972.

4. GOLDSTEIN, A. P., HELLKK, K., and StxHItEsT, L. H. Psychotherapy and the Psychology of Behavior Change. New York: John Wiley, 1966.

5. GOODM.*N, (;. .4n experiment with companionshi therapy: College students and troubled boys- m u m tions, selection, and design. In: Guerney, Pr., B. G. (Ed.) Psychotherapeutic Agents: New Roles $r ~Vaprofessionuls, Parents, and Teachers. New York: Holt, itinehart & Winston, 1969.

6. GOODMAN, G. Systematic selection of rychothera eutic talent: The group assessment of interpersonal traits. In Golann, S. and Eis orfer, L. (As.) Handbook of Community Psychology. ChicSgo: Aldine, 1970.

7. 8. MISCHEL. W . Direct versus indirect personality assessment: Evidence and implications. J.

MCNEMAR, Q. PsychologicalSlatistics. New York: Wiley, 1962.

m l t . clin.’Psychol., 1972, 38, 319-324.

ColkgeStudats in a Mental Institution. New York: Academic Press, 1971.

behavior from test procedures. Psychol. Rev., 196,) 67, 301-316.

Aldine, 1967

9.

10.

11 .

RAPPAPOKT, J., CHINSKY, J. M., and COW%N, E. L. Innovatias in Helping Chronic Patients:

RO’ITER, J. B. Some implications of a social learning theory for the prediction of goaldirected

TRUAX, C. B. and CARKHUFF, I t . H. Toward hec t ive Counseling and Psychotherapy. Chicago: