SOCIAL
SKILLS TRAINING FOR DELINQUENTS THOMAS
Department
of Psychology.
Indiana
JUVENILE
H. OLLEYDDICK* State Univzersity. Terre Haute.
IN 17809. U S.4.
and MICHEL HERSEN Department
of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. University Pittsburgh. School of Medicine. Pittsburgh. PA. 15261. U.S.A. (,Rrcriced
3 rlpril
of
1979)
Summary-Twenty-seven incarcerated juvenile delinquents matched on the number of prevtous offenses. age. WISC-R IQ. and locus of control were assigned to a Social Skills. Discussion or Control group. Social skills traintng consisted of instruction. feedback. modeling, behavior rehearsal. social reinforcement and graduated homework assignments. All subjects were assessed before and after treatment on a variety of self-report. role-play and behavioral measures, Analyses of variance for difference scores indicated that the Social Skills group improved significantly more than the Discussion and Control groups, which did not differ. Appropriate interpersonal skills were learned, state anxiety was reduced. internal locus of control was increased. and significant shifts in adjustment to the institutional program were evidenced for the Social Skills group.
While behavior modification programs have been effective in the treatment of juvenile delinquents (see Braukmann and Fixsen, 1975; Braukmann, Fixsen, Phillips and Wolf, 197.5; Burchard and Harig, 1976; Davidson and Seidman, 1974), Oliendick and Elliott (1978) reported that the effectiveness of such programs may be related to ‘person’ variables like locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Locus of control, determined by previous reinforcement history, is a generalized expectancy regarding the effectiveness of one’s behavior. Internally-oriented individuals report that effort and skill lead to successful outcome while externally-oriented individuals report that outcome is related to luck, fate or chance. In their study, Ollendick and Elliott (1978) reported that internally oriented delinquents exhibited more compliant and less aggressive behavior in a behavior modification program and were discharged in a shorter period of time than their externally-oriented counterparts. Further, at 1 yr follow-up, the internally-oriented delinquents evidenced a 26% recidivism rate while the externally-oriented delinquents evidenced a 58% recidivism rate. While no clear reason was evident for the relative ‘failure’ of the program with the externally-oriented delinquents, subsequent observation revealed a near absence of basic interpersonal skills in these youths. Sarason (1968) and Sarason and Ganzer (1973) demonstrated that modeling and group discussion were effective treatments for such interpersonal deficits in juvenile delinquents. In a well-designed study, Sarason and Ganzer (1973) compared the relative effectiveness of modeling, structured discussion and control groups on a variety of self-report and behavioral measures. Delinquents in the modeling groups showed significantly less emotional reactivity and received significantly more favorable placements upon discharge than subjects in the discussion or control groups. Furthermore, delinquents in both the modeling and discussion groups showed greater shifts toward internalization on the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and lower recidivism rates 3 yr following discharge l Requests for reprints should be addressed to Thomas H. Ollendick. State University. Terre Haute. IN 47809. Special thanks to the staff at assistance in data collection. Portions of this research were completed leave at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Pittsburgh, PA 15261.
517
Department of Psychology, Indiana Rockville Training Center for their while the author was on sabbatical U.S.A.
than did control group delinquents. While the mode:lin g groups clearly evidenced the most change. discussion groups were partially effective also. Modeling procedures have also been emplo)cd as one component in the development. and subsequent application. of social skills training (Bellack and Hersen. 1977). Social skills training consists of a number of strategies includin, 0 instruction. feedback. modeling, behavior rehearsal. social reinforcement and graduated homework assignments. These strategies are employed at times in sequence and at other times concurrently. Severai studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of social skills training in improving the interpersonal behavior of unassertive college students (Curran. 1975). withdrawn and shy children (Borstein. Bellack and Hersen, 1977) and chronic psychiatric patients (Goldsmith and McFall. 1975; Hersen and Bellack, 1976: Williams, Turner. Watts. Bellack and Hersen, 1976). The purpose of the present study rvas to examine the effectiveness of social skills training in the treatment of incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Specifically. c\ternally-oriented delinquents in a social skills group Lvere compared lsith matched delinquents in a discussion group and a control group. A variety of self-report, role-play and behavioral measures were employed to assess differential effectiveness.
METHOD Subjects
urd sertitzg
The subjects were I? black and I5 white male adolescents who had been adjudicated delinquent and who were incarcerated at Rockville Training Center, Rockville. Indiana. Mean age was 14.3 yr (range = 13%16.0) and the mean number of arrests prior to commitment was 4.4 (range = 3-8). All previous arrests were for offenses against property or person and included vandalism. burglary, robbery. rape and assault and battery. Eighty-nine per cent of the subjects were from divorced families. with 62% being from one-parent families at the time of the present incarceration. Average grade level placement as assessed by the Peabody Individual Achievement Test was 4.50 for reading recognition, 4.25 for spelling, and 5.10 for mathematics. Average Verbal, Performance. and Full Scale IQs as assessed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised were 80, 86 and 83, respectively. All 27 subjects were selected from the total resident population of 73 delinquents on the basis of external scores (Mean = 23.8, range = 21-17) on the Nowicki--Strickland Locus of Control Scale (1973). This scale, based on Rotter’s definition of the internalexternal control of reinforcement dimension, has been found to be psychometricalIy reliable and valid with juvenile delinquents (Beck and Ollendick, 1976; Kendall rr af. 1978; Ollendick and Ollendick, 1976). The 27 external-oriented subjects were matched on the basis of age, Full Scale IQ, and mean number of previous arrests and randomly assigned to the Social Skills, and Discussion and Control groups. One way analyses of variance revealed that the groups were properly matched. All subjects were incarcerated in a residential treatment facility which utilized a fixed token economy and a flexible behavioral contracting system to effect behavior change (Lynch and Ollendick, 1977). A fixed number of points could be earned each day in the areas of social behavior, academic behavior, and ‘convenience’ behavior. Behaviors included in the latter category were those deemed necessary for the functioning of the program (such as doing as instructed and being in the proper area). Back-up privileges included off-ground visits, recreational activities, select dormitory room assignments and advancement through four status levels. The earnin, 0 of a predetermined. fixed number of points was required for parole consideration. In addition, completion of a predetermined number of behavioral contracts was required for parole consideration. These contracts were highly flexible and individualized and were based upon prescriptive information obtained from diagnostic test data and staff observations (Ollendick and Lynch, 1977).
Soaal
skills
tralnlng
for Juvrnlls
At the time of this study, all subjects had been The average length of incarceration was 8 months.
dehnqurnts
incarcerated
5-N
for at least 3 months.
Groups Social skills training was conducted in group sessions which were led by a behaviorally-oriented staff psychologist with 3 yr of group experience with juvenile delinquents. Another staff psychologist, also with 3 yr experience but of an eclectic orientation, served as co-therapist. Both therapists were males. Sessions were held once per week for IO weeks, and lasted approximately 75 min. During the initial session, subjects were informed that the goal of the group was to help each member acquire the skills necessary to get along with each other and the staff. Subjects were instructed to bring to the group problems they were having with each other and the staff so that they could learn new ways of dealing with them. Hence, the problems dealt with in the group were of an interpersonal nature and determined by the subjects to ensure their relevance. The role-play scenes (see below) used in pre- and post-assessment were not employed for training purposes. Throughout each session, all of the components of the social skills package were used concurrently. Subjects received instructions concerning alternate ways of responding, rehearsed the situation with other group members, observed the therapist and other group members modeling appropriate behavior, received feedback from both the group and the therapist on their performance, were given social reinforcement contingent on the appropriateness of their behavior. and were instructed to practice the newly-learned behaviors during the week. The first part of each group session was used to review and to reinforce appropriate utilization of newly-learned behaviors during the preceding week. Subjects in the Discussion group also met for 10 weekly 75-min sessions. Discussion group sessions were led by the same staff psychologist with an eclectic orientation who served as co-therapist for the Social Skills group. The behaviorally-oriented psychologist who led the Social Skills group served as co-therapist for this group. As with the Social Skills group, subjects were informed that the goal of the group was to help the members get along better with each other and the staff. Subjects were instructed to bring to the group problems they were having with each other and the staff so they could learn new ways of dealing with them. The focus of the group centered on a discussion of these problems and possible ways to circumvent them. The behavioral procedures used in the Social Skills group were not employed. Subjects in the Control group did not meet for weekly sessions. Throughout the study, subjects in this group were involved in the institutional behavior modification program only.
Assessment
instruments
Selfrreport. In addition to the Now.icki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale, the Spielberger A-State for Children (1973) was employed. This scale is a paper-and-pencil measure of state anxiety which requires the individual to report how anxious he feels at a particular time. This scale has been found to be psychometrically reliable and valid (Finch and Kendall, 1978) and was included because of its possible relevance to social skills deficiency (Bellack and Hersen, 1977). Role play. Eight role-played situations that required assertive responding in simulated real-life encounters were used. These scenes were modeled after those used in previous research (Bornstein et al., 1977; Eisler, Hersen, Miller and Blanchard, 1975) but modified for use with juvenile delinquents. Four of the eight scenes required the subject to respond to positive, commendatory situations, while the remaining four required the subject to respond to negative situations. Listed below are two sample scenes from each category.
SW
THOMAS H. OLLESDICK an3 MICHFL H~WSD
POsitice scenes. I. :Varrafor: You have bsen working
on cleaning up your room during the evening. Your dorm of&x comes over with a smile on his fa~rtcr. Prompr: “That’s a very good job you have done; I’m going to tell the Evaiuation Team about your good work.” 3. :Varrator: Your are in school and you have just completed a very ditlicult assignment. Your teacher smiles and is very pleased with you. Prompt: “That was a very good job. You have worked hard and got it on your own.‘. iVegative
scenes.
1. Xarrator: You are walking to the school building and someone pushes another student into a staff member. The staff member turns around, looks directly at you. and thinks you did it. Prompt: “Alright, you failed to earn your point For pushing him into me.” 2. Narrator: Your counselor has just counted the points y-ou earned the past week and has made a mistake in counting them. He is goin g to tell you that you earned 180 points when you really made 200. Pronrpt: “You didn’t do very well this week, You made only IYU points.” Proyrirm
beilavior
Two indices of adjustment to the behavior modification program were employed: the number of points earned in the token economy and the number of instances of disruptive behavior (insubordination and fighting), Insubordination was dtsfined as total refusal to comply with institutional demands (e.g. refusal to go to an assigned area or to complete an assigned project) and fightin g was defined as physical assault on it was possibie for each subject to a peer or staff member. In the token economy, earn 210 points per week. Thirty points could be earned each day in the areas of social behavior, academic behavior and ‘canvenience’ behavior. Points were assigned and monitored by educational and correctional staff who were not familiar with the group assignment of the subjects. Procedure
The two self-report scales and the role-play interview were individually administered 2 weeks prior to treatment and again 2 weeks following treatment. Additionally, the number of points earned and the number of instances of acting-out behavior were recorded and averaged for the 2 weeks preceding and following treatment. Throughout the study, subjects in all groups remained involved in the ~nstjtutional behavior modification program. As in previous studies (e.g. Bornstein et ui., 1977; Eislcr c*f II/., 1975). each subject was escorted into a studio for the videotaping of the role-play interview. The subject, along with a male role model, sat in the videotape studio while a female research assistant provided instructions. Both the male roie model and the female research assistant were graduate students in psychology. In general, the subject was instructed to respond as realistically as possible to the role play situations. The following instructions were used with each subject: “Today we want to find out how you react in certain situations at Rockville Training Center. The idea is for you to act just like you would in the real situation and to pretend that you are really there. I will describe situations that you might be in with staff here a: Rockville. To help make these situations srem resl, {role model’s name) will play the role of the staff in these situations. For example, after I have described a situation, (role model’s name) will say something to you. After he speaks, I want you to say what you would say if this really happened to you. ft is wry irnportarrt tier r_‘ouacr the way you would irr the reai situation, f will be videotaping your response with this camera.
Soaal
skills traming
for pvenlle
delinquents
551
“O.K.. let’s try a situation. Let’s imagine you are with a friend at a commisary line. He wants to know if you would like a treat since you did something nice for him.” Role .tlodel Prompt: ‘That was nice of you to help me, would you like a treat?” Subject responds. Narrator: “Can you picture yourself there‘? What kind of treat would you get?. O.K.. now remember you pretend that (role model’s name) is the other person in the situation that I describe. When he is done talking, you say to him what you would say if you were really there in that situation. Any questions? O.K.. let’s begin.” The subject’s responses to the eight scenes were videotaped and retrospectively rated. Scoring of role-play
behavior
Listed below are the operational definitions of the target behaviors observed during the role-play situation and rated retrospectively from videotape by two judges. These definitions were adapted from previous research (Eisler et al., 1975) and were categorized in terms of nonverbal behavior, positive content and negative content. Sorl-verbal hehacior. (a) Duration ofreply: Length of time (in seconds) that the subject spoke to his partner was recorded for each scene. (b) Latency of response: The subject’s latancy of response (in seconds).from the time that the partner delivered his prompt to the beginning of the subject’s speech was recorded for each scene. If no response was made within IOsec the scene was terminated. (c) Eye contact: Eye contact was scored on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis for each scene. Eye contact was scored if the subject looked at the role model at least once during his reply. Negative content. (a) Aggression: Aggressive verbal content was rated on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis for each negative scene. It was scored if the subject’s response reflected aggressive non-compliance (e.g. verbally threatening the staff or using abusive language). (b) Compliance was rated on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis and was scored if the subject did not resist the role model’s request (e.g. if he agreed with what the staff member said). (c) Request for new behavior: Rated on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis and scored if the subject specifically requested the role model to alter his behavior (e.g. asks the staff for clarification or to alter their behavior). Positive content. (a) Denial: This consisted of verbal content indicating that the subject did not accept the positive compliment (e.g. the subject responds that it was nothing to clean up his room or that someone else did it). It was scored on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis for each positive scene. (b) Acceptance: This was verbal content indicating that the subject expressed appreciation or gratitude for the compliment and was scored on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis (e.g. the subject responds in a matter-of-fact way by limiting his response to ‘thanks’). (c) Sponraneous positive behmior: This was verbal content indicating that the subject not only accepted the compliment but also ‘owned’ it (e.g. the subject thanks the person and adds that he has worked hard at it). Spontaneous positive behavior was also scored on an occurrence or nonoccurrence basis. Scoring and reliability
of role-play
measure
For all content measures (aggression, compliance, request for new behavior, denial, acceptance and spontaneous positive behavior) and eye contact, presence of the response was tallied. For duration of reply and latancy of response, the subject’s score was obtained by taking the mean value averaged over the four scenes in the positive and negative categories. The positive and negative scenes were evaluated separately, as suggested by Eisler et al. (1975) and Bellack, Hersen and Turner (1978), resulting in three nonverbal and three verbal measures for both the positive and negative scenes. Two psychology graduate students, different from those who assisted in the role play interview and blind to group assignment, assessed inter-judge reliability. Both judges individually rated all 27 subjects on the behavioral measures across all scenes. For the dichotomous variables, inter-judge agreement was computed by dividing the total number of agreements (occurrences only) by the total number of judgments (agreements plus disagreements for each measure) multiplied by 100. For all of these measures,
THOU.AS
552 Table
H. OLLE\DICK
and S~ICHEL Ht-REX
I. Pre-test and post-resr mean scores for so+xal skllls. dIscussIon and control cance lerrls based on change score analjsss Social skills Pre Post
Self-report Locus of Control State Anxiety Role-play Behavior Negative Latency of response Durarlon of response Eye contact Aggressive contrnt Compliance Requests for new behavior Positive Latency of response Duration of response Eye contact Denial Acceptance Spontaneous positive Program behavior Points earned Disruptive behavior
DiscussIon Prs Post
COnlrOl Port Prr
groups and rhslr slgnlti-
F
73.85 34.1 I
0 05 0 OS
2.71 2.86 1.29 2.45 I.li 0.38
1.80 3.3-l 3.92 0.57 0.79 7.64
2.57 2.14 I.57 2.3 I I.77 0 12
3 60 257 2.20 2.13 1.1-l 0.7?
2.bC 2.53 I.51 7.53 I .0-I 0.43
1 Id 235 ?.(I! 0 31 7.32 l2.W 2.63 5.39 n.79 0.98 I) 5’: 7.?5
7.40 1.12 0.98 2.27 I .03 0.70
0.77 7.05 3 s7 0.84 I.16 2.00
2.38 I.18 I .07 7.43 0.97 0.60
2.69 I.59 2.30 1.18 0.97 0.85
7.45 I .74 I.23 2.19 I.24 0.5i
2.76 I 59 7.3s I -li I 3-I I.19
205.89 0.92
I SJ.30
19J.j I I.17
135.06 I.35
Signlticance
I .JO
I85 -12
I 32
lY1.76 I 07
8.89 2.01 5.59
I s3 0 OY 411 6.23 2.07
NS
KS 0.0 I
0 OS NS
0.05 0 01 SS
0.05 NS NS 0.o.i
OS NS
0
percentages of agreement exceeded 92%. For the two continuous measures, Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between the two sets of ratings; both were greater than 0.90. RESULTS
Mean pre-treatment scores on the two self-report, twelve role-play. and two program behavior measures for the Social Skills, Discussion and Control groups were examined through single factor analyses of variance. None of the resulting F ratios was significant (p > 0.15) indicating initial comparability between the groups on all measures (see Table I for pre-test and post-test scores). Mean difference for the Social Skills. Discussion and Control groups were then computed (constants were added for minus scores to facilitate analyses) and examined through single factor analyses of variance, as suggested by Huck and McLean (1975). Table I shows that significant F ratios were obtained for both self-report measures; eye contact, aggressive content, and requests for new behavior on the negative role-play scenes; latency of response, eye contact, and spontaneous positive behavior on the positive role-play scenes; and the number of points earned in the program. In all cases, post lzoc analyses revealed that the Social Skills group differed significantly (p < 0.05) from the Discussion and Control groups which did not differ from one another (p > 0.10). While other measures did not show significantly different changes, the mean difference scores were in the expected directions and favored the Social Skills group. The only exception to the expected direction of change was the latency of response measure for negative scenes. For this measure, all groups evidenced an increase in latency to response. DISCUSSION
Results of this investigation extend the effectiveness of social skills training (Bellack and Hersen, 1977; Bornstein er al.. 1977; Curran, 1975; Goldsmith and McFall, 1975; Hersen and Bellack, 1976; Williams et al., 1976) to juvenile delinquents, Specific changes in role-play measures such as increased eye contact and more assertive verbal responses
Soaal
skills
training
Tar Juvenile delinquents
to negative and positive situations. demonstrate that appropriate social skills can be learned by juvenile delinquents. These specific changes were associated with more generalized changes. including a reduction in state anxiety. an increase in internal IONS of control, and a greater number of points earned in the token economy. These latter findings are of significance since they suggest that the effects of the social skills training generalized to more global self-report and behavioral measures. While the present results do not reelect significant change in certain role-play and program measures, it should be noted that most changes were in the expected direction and favored social skills training. For example, while the incidence of disruptive behavior was not differentially reduced to a statistically significant degree, the social skills group evidenced a greater reduction than the discussion and control groups (See Table 1). Furthermore, while previous research has indicated that a shorter response latency is associated with increased social skills (e.g. Bellack and Hersen, 1977; Eisler et al., I975), this was not found in the present study for response to the negative scenes. While not significant. an increase in latency of response was observed in these delinquents. It is possible that the significant shift from aggressive responses to more socially appropriate ones account for this discrepancy. That is, as the delinquent began to request a change in the role model’s behavior rather than to demand a change in an impulsive and aggressive manner, his tempo of response also changed. This possibility is supported by a modest positive correlation between the latency and the assertive quality of the response (r = 0.57). In comparison to the findings reported by Sarason and Ganzer (1973). the present results more clearly affirm the superiority of a social skills approach over a structured discussion approach. While both groups in the present study were structured and were led by therapists of similar expertise, they differed in the utilization of specific behavioral strategies. Instructions, feedback, modeling, behavior rehearsal, social reinforcement and graduated homework assignments were employed as part of social skills training. The use of these additional strategies, along with the modeling employed by Sarason and Ganzer (1973). might account for the clear superiority of the Social Skills group. Further research might systematically address the importance of these additional components and isolate the necessary ingredients in social skills training. While social skills training was more effective than the discussion procedure, mention should be made of the response of the delinquents to the two groups. Initially, several of the delinquents reacted negatively to the role-playing and behavior-rehearsal exercises used in the social skills group. They either refused to participate or participated reluctantly. Through the use of positive reinforcement, these negative reactions appeared to diminish as the sessions progressed. The delinquents became more actively involved and upon completion of training reported enjoying the group. Delinquents in the discussion group did not exhibit these negative reactions and, in general, reported liking their group. The present results are noteworthy since the delinquents employed were similar to those who evidenced the poorest response to the token economy program and the higher recidivism rate in previous research (Otlendick and Elliott, 1978). AS with this previous research, subjects in the present study evidenced a chronic history of delinquent behavior, were deficient in social skills, and were external in their locus of control orientation. The importance of modifying such deficiencies is underscored by Robbins’ (1966) 30-yr follow-up of children and adolescents referred for antisocial behavior. Most of the youths in the Robbins study became antisocial adults and, more often than ‘normal’ adults. had children who were also antisocial. While the present study does not report on the long-term effectiveness of social skills training, it does attest to its short-term effectiveness in altering delinquent behavior patterns. Long-term follow-up within the institution was not feasible since many of the subjects were released shortly after the completion of the study. The delinquents are currently being followed to determine the maintenance of these skills and to assess the long-term effectiveness of such training for community adjustment.
THOMAS H OLLENDICK and
jj-l
X~ICHEL HERSEY
REFERENCES BECK S. J. and OLLE~DICI; T. H (1975)Personal space. sex of experimenter. and locus of control in normal and dehnquent adolescents. Psychol. Rrp. 38. 383-387. BELLNX .A. S. and HERSE~ XI. (1977) Brhar~or Jfodificurwn: A~I ft~trodrrcror) Tr\ibook. Wllllams 9i Wllklns. Baltimore. BELLACK .A. S.. HERSEN M. and TKRUER S. M. (1975) Role-pIa> tests for assessing social skills’ .Are the) vahd” Brhac. BORUTEIS
Thu. 9. US-461. IV. R, BELLACR A. S. and HERSES X1. (1977) Social skills trainmg for unassertlbe chlldrsn: A multiple-basehne analysis. J. appi. B&at Anal. 10. 193-195. BRACIMA\IN C. J. and FIXSEN D. L. (1975) Behavior modification with delinquents. In Progress in Brhac~ur Modijcarlon. Vol. I. (Edlted bv M. HERSES. R. M. E~SLERand P. M. MILLER). .Acudrmic Prrss. Ne% ‘fork.
BRAUL;&SS C. J.. FIXSES D. L.. P;~LLN E. L. and WOLF M M. (1975) Behavioral approaches to trratment In the crime and delinquency field. Crirnr 13. 299-33 I BURCHARD J. D. and H-RIG P. T. (lY76) Behavior moditicatlon with juvenile delinquency. In Haldhook o!/ Behauor Modrjication arId Behu~.ior Therapy. (Edited by H. LEITENBERG). Prentice-Hall. Englewood Chtfs. N.J. CLRRA~ J. P. (1975) Social skills training and systematic desensitization in reducing dating anxiet). Brhur Rtix. 7’her 13. 65-68 DAVIDSOS W. S. III and rebww. methodological
SEIDMAN E. (197-1) Studies of behavior modification and Juvenile delmquenck: A critique, and social perspective. Psychol. Bull. 81, 99S-IO1 I. E~SLER R. M.. HERSES M.. MILLER P. M. and BLA~CHARD E. G. (1975) Situational determmants of assertive behaviors. J. consult. c/in. Ps,L&o/. 43. 330-310. FISC~I A..J. Jr. and KENDALL P. C. (1978) Anxiety in children: TheoretIcal VISWS and research FindIngs. In Sprcrol Prohlrms IU Child u)td Adolrsceut Beha~?or (Edrted by L. E. BESTL~R and R. CREFSE). Technomic. Westport. CT. GOLDSMITH J. B. and MCFALL R. M. (lY75) Development and evaluation of an Interpersonal skill-training program for psychiatric inpatlents. J. ahnornt. Psvchol. 84. 51-N HERSEN M. and BELLACR A. S. (1976) Social skills training for chronic psychiatric patients: RatIonale. research findings. and future directions. Cornp. Psychiar. 17, 559-580. Hcc~ S W. and MCLEAN R. A. (1975) Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the data from a pretest-posttest design : A potentially confwng task. Psycho/. Bull. 82. 5 I I-5 I Y. KENDALL P. C.. FIXH A. J. Jr.. L~rrre V. L., CHIRICO B. M. and OLLENDICL; T. H. (197s) Variations in a construct: Quantitative and quahtatlve dlfferrnces in children’s locus of control. J. cowtrlt c/w. P.sychoi. 46. 59&591.
LYS~H K. R. and OLLESDIC~: T. H. (1977) Juvenile corrections: A model program. .Im. J. Corr 39, k-7. NOWICKI S. Jr and STRICRLAND B. R. (lY73) A locus of con;rol scale for children. J. con.su/t. cirn. P.sychoi. 40. I-t-15-1. OLLESDICX D G. and OLLENDICX T. H. (lY76) The interrelationship of locus of control. academic achlrvemrnt, and intelligence In juvenile delinquents. Ed. Psycho/. Mras. 36, I I l-l 13. OLLESIXCK T. H. and ELLIOTT W. R. (197X) Locus of control as related to effectiveness in a behavior morhfication program for Juvenile delinquents. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana State University. Terre Haute. IN. OLLEUDICK T. H. and LYSC~I K. R. (1977) ADAPT: A diagnostic and prescriptive treatment. J. Corr. Ed 28. j-6. ROBINS L. N. (1966) Drrruf~t childrert grow up. Williams & Wilkins. Baltimore. ROTTER J. B. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Ps,vchof. .tfono. 80, (I. whole No. 609). SARASO\; I. G. (1968) Vsrbal IearnIng. modelin g. and Juvenile delinquency. Am. Psych. 23. 2%‘66. SPIELR~RGER C. D. (1972) Prrhmlnary M~m~~ljbr [he Srart-Trait .&I.Yw~~ It~renrory jbr Chrldw (“How I Feel Quusriomrarrr”). Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Aito, CA. WILLIAMS M. T.. TL’RUER S. M.. WATTS J. G.. BELLACI; A. S. and HERSEN M. (1976) Group social skills tralnlng for chronic psychiatric patients. Ew. J. Brh. Awl. Mod. 4, 223-229.
SKILLS TRAINING FOR DELINQUENTS THOMAS
Department
of Psychology.
Indiana
JUVENILE
H. OLLEYDDICK* State Univzersity. Terre Haute.
IN 17809. U S.4.
and MICHEL HERSEN Department
of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. University Pittsburgh. School of Medicine. Pittsburgh. PA. 15261. U.S.A. (,Rrcriced
3 rlpril
of
1979)
Summary-Twenty-seven incarcerated juvenile delinquents matched on the number of prevtous offenses. age. WISC-R IQ. and locus of control were assigned to a Social Skills. Discussion or Control group. Social skills traintng consisted of instruction. feedback. modeling, behavior rehearsal. social reinforcement and graduated homework assignments. All subjects were assessed before and after treatment on a variety of self-report. role-play and behavioral measures, Analyses of variance for difference scores indicated that the Social Skills group improved significantly more than the Discussion and Control groups, which did not differ. Appropriate interpersonal skills were learned, state anxiety was reduced. internal locus of control was increased. and significant shifts in adjustment to the institutional program were evidenced for the Social Skills group.
While behavior modification programs have been effective in the treatment of juvenile delinquents (see Braukmann and Fixsen, 1975; Braukmann, Fixsen, Phillips and Wolf, 197.5; Burchard and Harig, 1976; Davidson and Seidman, 1974), Oliendick and Elliott (1978) reported that the effectiveness of such programs may be related to ‘person’ variables like locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Locus of control, determined by previous reinforcement history, is a generalized expectancy regarding the effectiveness of one’s behavior. Internally-oriented individuals report that effort and skill lead to successful outcome while externally-oriented individuals report that outcome is related to luck, fate or chance. In their study, Ollendick and Elliott (1978) reported that internally oriented delinquents exhibited more compliant and less aggressive behavior in a behavior modification program and were discharged in a shorter period of time than their externally-oriented counterparts. Further, at 1 yr follow-up, the internally-oriented delinquents evidenced a 26% recidivism rate while the externally-oriented delinquents evidenced a 58% recidivism rate. While no clear reason was evident for the relative ‘failure’ of the program with the externally-oriented delinquents, subsequent observation revealed a near absence of basic interpersonal skills in these youths. Sarason (1968) and Sarason and Ganzer (1973) demonstrated that modeling and group discussion were effective treatments for such interpersonal deficits in juvenile delinquents. In a well-designed study, Sarason and Ganzer (1973) compared the relative effectiveness of modeling, structured discussion and control groups on a variety of self-report and behavioral measures. Delinquents in the modeling groups showed significantly less emotional reactivity and received significantly more favorable placements upon discharge than subjects in the discussion or control groups. Furthermore, delinquents in both the modeling and discussion groups showed greater shifts toward internalization on the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and lower recidivism rates 3 yr following discharge l Requests for reprints should be addressed to Thomas H. Ollendick. State University. Terre Haute. IN 47809. Special thanks to the staff at assistance in data collection. Portions of this research were completed leave at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Pittsburgh, PA 15261.
517
Department of Psychology, Indiana Rockville Training Center for their while the author was on sabbatical U.S.A.
than did control group delinquents. While the mode:lin g groups clearly evidenced the most change. discussion groups were partially effective also. Modeling procedures have also been emplo)cd as one component in the development. and subsequent application. of social skills training (Bellack and Hersen. 1977). Social skills training consists of a number of strategies includin, 0 instruction. feedback. modeling, behavior rehearsal. social reinforcement and graduated homework assignments. These strategies are employed at times in sequence and at other times concurrently. Severai studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of social skills training in improving the interpersonal behavior of unassertive college students (Curran. 1975). withdrawn and shy children (Borstein. Bellack and Hersen, 1977) and chronic psychiatric patients (Goldsmith and McFall. 1975; Hersen and Bellack, 1976: Williams, Turner. Watts. Bellack and Hersen, 1976). The purpose of the present study rvas to examine the effectiveness of social skills training in the treatment of incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Specifically. c\ternally-oriented delinquents in a social skills group Lvere compared lsith matched delinquents in a discussion group and a control group. A variety of self-report, role-play and behavioral measures were employed to assess differential effectiveness.
METHOD Subjects
urd sertitzg
The subjects were I? black and I5 white male adolescents who had been adjudicated delinquent and who were incarcerated at Rockville Training Center, Rockville. Indiana. Mean age was 14.3 yr (range = 13%16.0) and the mean number of arrests prior to commitment was 4.4 (range = 3-8). All previous arrests were for offenses against property or person and included vandalism. burglary, robbery. rape and assault and battery. Eighty-nine per cent of the subjects were from divorced families. with 62% being from one-parent families at the time of the present incarceration. Average grade level placement as assessed by the Peabody Individual Achievement Test was 4.50 for reading recognition, 4.25 for spelling, and 5.10 for mathematics. Average Verbal, Performance. and Full Scale IQs as assessed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised were 80, 86 and 83, respectively. All 27 subjects were selected from the total resident population of 73 delinquents on the basis of external scores (Mean = 23.8, range = 21-17) on the Nowicki--Strickland Locus of Control Scale (1973). This scale, based on Rotter’s definition of the internalexternal control of reinforcement dimension, has been found to be psychometricalIy reliable and valid with juvenile delinquents (Beck and Ollendick, 1976; Kendall rr af. 1978; Ollendick and Ollendick, 1976). The 27 external-oriented subjects were matched on the basis of age, Full Scale IQ, and mean number of previous arrests and randomly assigned to the Social Skills, and Discussion and Control groups. One way analyses of variance revealed that the groups were properly matched. All subjects were incarcerated in a residential treatment facility which utilized a fixed token economy and a flexible behavioral contracting system to effect behavior change (Lynch and Ollendick, 1977). A fixed number of points could be earned each day in the areas of social behavior, academic behavior, and ‘convenience’ behavior. Behaviors included in the latter category were those deemed necessary for the functioning of the program (such as doing as instructed and being in the proper area). Back-up privileges included off-ground visits, recreational activities, select dormitory room assignments and advancement through four status levels. The earnin, 0 of a predetermined. fixed number of points was required for parole consideration. In addition, completion of a predetermined number of behavioral contracts was required for parole consideration. These contracts were highly flexible and individualized and were based upon prescriptive information obtained from diagnostic test data and staff observations (Ollendick and Lynch, 1977).
Soaal
skills
tralnlng
for Juvrnlls
At the time of this study, all subjects had been The average length of incarceration was 8 months.
dehnqurnts
incarcerated
5-N
for at least 3 months.
Groups Social skills training was conducted in group sessions which were led by a behaviorally-oriented staff psychologist with 3 yr of group experience with juvenile delinquents. Another staff psychologist, also with 3 yr experience but of an eclectic orientation, served as co-therapist. Both therapists were males. Sessions were held once per week for IO weeks, and lasted approximately 75 min. During the initial session, subjects were informed that the goal of the group was to help each member acquire the skills necessary to get along with each other and the staff. Subjects were instructed to bring to the group problems they were having with each other and the staff so that they could learn new ways of dealing with them. Hence, the problems dealt with in the group were of an interpersonal nature and determined by the subjects to ensure their relevance. The role-play scenes (see below) used in pre- and post-assessment were not employed for training purposes. Throughout each session, all of the components of the social skills package were used concurrently. Subjects received instructions concerning alternate ways of responding, rehearsed the situation with other group members, observed the therapist and other group members modeling appropriate behavior, received feedback from both the group and the therapist on their performance, were given social reinforcement contingent on the appropriateness of their behavior. and were instructed to practice the newly-learned behaviors during the week. The first part of each group session was used to review and to reinforce appropriate utilization of newly-learned behaviors during the preceding week. Subjects in the Discussion group also met for 10 weekly 75-min sessions. Discussion group sessions were led by the same staff psychologist with an eclectic orientation who served as co-therapist for the Social Skills group. The behaviorally-oriented psychologist who led the Social Skills group served as co-therapist for this group. As with the Social Skills group, subjects were informed that the goal of the group was to help the members get along better with each other and the staff. Subjects were instructed to bring to the group problems they were having with each other and the staff so they could learn new ways of dealing with them. The focus of the group centered on a discussion of these problems and possible ways to circumvent them. The behavioral procedures used in the Social Skills group were not employed. Subjects in the Control group did not meet for weekly sessions. Throughout the study, subjects in this group were involved in the institutional behavior modification program only.
Assessment
instruments
Selfrreport. In addition to the Now.icki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale, the Spielberger A-State for Children (1973) was employed. This scale is a paper-and-pencil measure of state anxiety which requires the individual to report how anxious he feels at a particular time. This scale has been found to be psychometrically reliable and valid (Finch and Kendall, 1978) and was included because of its possible relevance to social skills deficiency (Bellack and Hersen, 1977). Role play. Eight role-played situations that required assertive responding in simulated real-life encounters were used. These scenes were modeled after those used in previous research (Bornstein et al., 1977; Eisler, Hersen, Miller and Blanchard, 1975) but modified for use with juvenile delinquents. Four of the eight scenes required the subject to respond to positive, commendatory situations, while the remaining four required the subject to respond to negative situations. Listed below are two sample scenes from each category.
SW
THOMAS H. OLLESDICK an3 MICHFL H~WSD
POsitice scenes. I. :Varrafor: You have bsen working
on cleaning up your room during the evening. Your dorm of&x comes over with a smile on his fa~rtcr. Prompr: “That’s a very good job you have done; I’m going to tell the Evaiuation Team about your good work.” 3. :Varrator: Your are in school and you have just completed a very ditlicult assignment. Your teacher smiles and is very pleased with you. Prompt: “That was a very good job. You have worked hard and got it on your own.‘. iVegative
scenes.
1. Xarrator: You are walking to the school building and someone pushes another student into a staff member. The staff member turns around, looks directly at you. and thinks you did it. Prompt: “Alright, you failed to earn your point For pushing him into me.” 2. Narrator: Your counselor has just counted the points y-ou earned the past week and has made a mistake in counting them. He is goin g to tell you that you earned 180 points when you really made 200. Pronrpt: “You didn’t do very well this week, You made only IYU points.” Proyrirm
beilavior
Two indices of adjustment to the behavior modification program were employed: the number of points earned in the token economy and the number of instances of disruptive behavior (insubordination and fighting), Insubordination was dtsfined as total refusal to comply with institutional demands (e.g. refusal to go to an assigned area or to complete an assigned project) and fightin g was defined as physical assault on it was possibie for each subject to a peer or staff member. In the token economy, earn 210 points per week. Thirty points could be earned each day in the areas of social behavior, academic behavior and ‘canvenience’ behavior. Points were assigned and monitored by educational and correctional staff who were not familiar with the group assignment of the subjects. Procedure
The two self-report scales and the role-play interview were individually administered 2 weeks prior to treatment and again 2 weeks following treatment. Additionally, the number of points earned and the number of instances of acting-out behavior were recorded and averaged for the 2 weeks preceding and following treatment. Throughout the study, subjects in all groups remained involved in the ~nstjtutional behavior modification program. As in previous studies (e.g. Bornstein et ui., 1977; Eislcr c*f II/., 1975). each subject was escorted into a studio for the videotaping of the role-play interview. The subject, along with a male role model, sat in the videotape studio while a female research assistant provided instructions. Both the male roie model and the female research assistant were graduate students in psychology. In general, the subject was instructed to respond as realistically as possible to the role play situations. The following instructions were used with each subject: “Today we want to find out how you react in certain situations at Rockville Training Center. The idea is for you to act just like you would in the real situation and to pretend that you are really there. I will describe situations that you might be in with staff here a: Rockville. To help make these situations srem resl, {role model’s name) will play the role of the staff in these situations. For example, after I have described a situation, (role model’s name) will say something to you. After he speaks, I want you to say what you would say if this really happened to you. ft is wry irnportarrt tier r_‘ouacr the way you would irr the reai situation, f will be videotaping your response with this camera.
Soaal
skills traming
for pvenlle
delinquents
551
“O.K.. let’s try a situation. Let’s imagine you are with a friend at a commisary line. He wants to know if you would like a treat since you did something nice for him.” Role .tlodel Prompt: ‘That was nice of you to help me, would you like a treat?” Subject responds. Narrator: “Can you picture yourself there‘? What kind of treat would you get?. O.K.. now remember you pretend that (role model’s name) is the other person in the situation that I describe. When he is done talking, you say to him what you would say if you were really there in that situation. Any questions? O.K.. let’s begin.” The subject’s responses to the eight scenes were videotaped and retrospectively rated. Scoring of role-play
behavior
Listed below are the operational definitions of the target behaviors observed during the role-play situation and rated retrospectively from videotape by two judges. These definitions were adapted from previous research (Eisler et al., 1975) and were categorized in terms of nonverbal behavior, positive content and negative content. Sorl-verbal hehacior. (a) Duration ofreply: Length of time (in seconds) that the subject spoke to his partner was recorded for each scene. (b) Latency of response: The subject’s latancy of response (in seconds).from the time that the partner delivered his prompt to the beginning of the subject’s speech was recorded for each scene. If no response was made within IOsec the scene was terminated. (c) Eye contact: Eye contact was scored on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis for each scene. Eye contact was scored if the subject looked at the role model at least once during his reply. Negative content. (a) Aggression: Aggressive verbal content was rated on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis for each negative scene. It was scored if the subject’s response reflected aggressive non-compliance (e.g. verbally threatening the staff or using abusive language). (b) Compliance was rated on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis and was scored if the subject did not resist the role model’s request (e.g. if he agreed with what the staff member said). (c) Request for new behavior: Rated on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis and scored if the subject specifically requested the role model to alter his behavior (e.g. asks the staff for clarification or to alter their behavior). Positive content. (a) Denial: This consisted of verbal content indicating that the subject did not accept the positive compliment (e.g. the subject responds that it was nothing to clean up his room or that someone else did it). It was scored on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis for each positive scene. (b) Acceptance: This was verbal content indicating that the subject expressed appreciation or gratitude for the compliment and was scored on an occurrence or non-occurrence basis (e.g. the subject responds in a matter-of-fact way by limiting his response to ‘thanks’). (c) Sponraneous positive behmior: This was verbal content indicating that the subject not only accepted the compliment but also ‘owned’ it (e.g. the subject thanks the person and adds that he has worked hard at it). Spontaneous positive behavior was also scored on an occurrence or nonoccurrence basis. Scoring and reliability
of role-play
measure
For all content measures (aggression, compliance, request for new behavior, denial, acceptance and spontaneous positive behavior) and eye contact, presence of the response was tallied. For duration of reply and latancy of response, the subject’s score was obtained by taking the mean value averaged over the four scenes in the positive and negative categories. The positive and negative scenes were evaluated separately, as suggested by Eisler et al. (1975) and Bellack, Hersen and Turner (1978), resulting in three nonverbal and three verbal measures for both the positive and negative scenes. Two psychology graduate students, different from those who assisted in the role play interview and blind to group assignment, assessed inter-judge reliability. Both judges individually rated all 27 subjects on the behavioral measures across all scenes. For the dichotomous variables, inter-judge agreement was computed by dividing the total number of agreements (occurrences only) by the total number of judgments (agreements plus disagreements for each measure) multiplied by 100. For all of these measures,
THOU.AS
552 Table
H. OLLE\DICK
and S~ICHEL Ht-REX
I. Pre-test and post-resr mean scores for so+xal skllls. dIscussIon and control cance lerrls based on change score analjsss Social skills Pre Post
Self-report Locus of Control State Anxiety Role-play Behavior Negative Latency of response Durarlon of response Eye contact Aggressive contrnt Compliance Requests for new behavior Positive Latency of response Duration of response Eye contact Denial Acceptance Spontaneous positive Program behavior Points earned Disruptive behavior
DiscussIon Prs Post
COnlrOl Port Prr
groups and rhslr slgnlti-
F
73.85 34.1 I
0 05 0 OS
2.71 2.86 1.29 2.45 I.li 0.38
1.80 3.3-l 3.92 0.57 0.79 7.64
2.57 2.14 I.57 2.3 I I.77 0 12
3 60 257 2.20 2.13 1.1-l 0.7?
2.bC 2.53 I.51 7.53 I .0-I 0.43
1 Id 235 ?.(I! 0 31 7.32 l2.W 2.63 5.39 n.79 0.98 I) 5’: 7.?5
7.40 1.12 0.98 2.27 I .03 0.70
0.77 7.05 3 s7 0.84 I.16 2.00
2.38 I.18 I .07 7.43 0.97 0.60
2.69 I.59 2.30 1.18 0.97 0.85
7.45 I .74 I.23 2.19 I.24 0.5i
2.76 I 59 7.3s I -li I 3-I I.19
205.89 0.92
I SJ.30
19J.j I I.17
135.06 I.35
Signlticance
I .JO
I85 -12
I 32
lY1.76 I 07
8.89 2.01 5.59
I s3 0 OY 411 6.23 2.07
NS
KS 0.0 I
0 OS NS
0.05 0 01 SS
0.05 NS NS 0.o.i
OS NS
0
percentages of agreement exceeded 92%. For the two continuous measures, Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between the two sets of ratings; both were greater than 0.90. RESULTS
Mean pre-treatment scores on the two self-report, twelve role-play. and two program behavior measures for the Social Skills, Discussion and Control groups were examined through single factor analyses of variance. None of the resulting F ratios was significant (p > 0.15) indicating initial comparability between the groups on all measures (see Table I for pre-test and post-test scores). Mean difference for the Social Skills. Discussion and Control groups were then computed (constants were added for minus scores to facilitate analyses) and examined through single factor analyses of variance, as suggested by Huck and McLean (1975). Table I shows that significant F ratios were obtained for both self-report measures; eye contact, aggressive content, and requests for new behavior on the negative role-play scenes; latency of response, eye contact, and spontaneous positive behavior on the positive role-play scenes; and the number of points earned in the program. In all cases, post lzoc analyses revealed that the Social Skills group differed significantly (p < 0.05) from the Discussion and Control groups which did not differ from one another (p > 0.10). While other measures did not show significantly different changes, the mean difference scores were in the expected directions and favored the Social Skills group. The only exception to the expected direction of change was the latency of response measure for negative scenes. For this measure, all groups evidenced an increase in latency to response. DISCUSSION
Results of this investigation extend the effectiveness of social skills training (Bellack and Hersen, 1977; Bornstein er al.. 1977; Curran, 1975; Goldsmith and McFall, 1975; Hersen and Bellack, 1976; Williams et al., 1976) to juvenile delinquents, Specific changes in role-play measures such as increased eye contact and more assertive verbal responses
Soaal
skills
training
Tar Juvenile delinquents
to negative and positive situations. demonstrate that appropriate social skills can be learned by juvenile delinquents. These specific changes were associated with more generalized changes. including a reduction in state anxiety. an increase in internal IONS of control, and a greater number of points earned in the token economy. These latter findings are of significance since they suggest that the effects of the social skills training generalized to more global self-report and behavioral measures. While the present results do not reelect significant change in certain role-play and program measures, it should be noted that most changes were in the expected direction and favored social skills training. For example, while the incidence of disruptive behavior was not differentially reduced to a statistically significant degree, the social skills group evidenced a greater reduction than the discussion and control groups (See Table 1). Furthermore, while previous research has indicated that a shorter response latency is associated with increased social skills (e.g. Bellack and Hersen, 1977; Eisler et al., I975), this was not found in the present study for response to the negative scenes. While not significant. an increase in latency of response was observed in these delinquents. It is possible that the significant shift from aggressive responses to more socially appropriate ones account for this discrepancy. That is, as the delinquent began to request a change in the role model’s behavior rather than to demand a change in an impulsive and aggressive manner, his tempo of response also changed. This possibility is supported by a modest positive correlation between the latency and the assertive quality of the response (r = 0.57). In comparison to the findings reported by Sarason and Ganzer (1973). the present results more clearly affirm the superiority of a social skills approach over a structured discussion approach. While both groups in the present study were structured and were led by therapists of similar expertise, they differed in the utilization of specific behavioral strategies. Instructions, feedback, modeling, behavior rehearsal, social reinforcement and graduated homework assignments were employed as part of social skills training. The use of these additional strategies, along with the modeling employed by Sarason and Ganzer (1973). might account for the clear superiority of the Social Skills group. Further research might systematically address the importance of these additional components and isolate the necessary ingredients in social skills training. While social skills training was more effective than the discussion procedure, mention should be made of the response of the delinquents to the two groups. Initially, several of the delinquents reacted negatively to the role-playing and behavior-rehearsal exercises used in the social skills group. They either refused to participate or participated reluctantly. Through the use of positive reinforcement, these negative reactions appeared to diminish as the sessions progressed. The delinquents became more actively involved and upon completion of training reported enjoying the group. Delinquents in the discussion group did not exhibit these negative reactions and, in general, reported liking their group. The present results are noteworthy since the delinquents employed were similar to those who evidenced the poorest response to the token economy program and the higher recidivism rate in previous research (Otlendick and Elliott, 1978). AS with this previous research, subjects in the present study evidenced a chronic history of delinquent behavior, were deficient in social skills, and were external in their locus of control orientation. The importance of modifying such deficiencies is underscored by Robbins’ (1966) 30-yr follow-up of children and adolescents referred for antisocial behavior. Most of the youths in the Robbins study became antisocial adults and, more often than ‘normal’ adults. had children who were also antisocial. While the present study does not report on the long-term effectiveness of social skills training, it does attest to its short-term effectiveness in altering delinquent behavior patterns. Long-term follow-up within the institution was not feasible since many of the subjects were released shortly after the completion of the study. The delinquents are currently being followed to determine the maintenance of these skills and to assess the long-term effectiveness of such training for community adjustment.
THOMAS H OLLENDICK and
jj-l
X~ICHEL HERSEY
REFERENCES BECK S. J. and OLLE~DICI; T. H (1975)Personal space. sex of experimenter. and locus of control in normal and dehnquent adolescents. Psychol. Rrp. 38. 383-387. BELLNX .A. S. and HERSE~ XI. (1977) Brhar~or Jfodificurwn: A~I ft~trodrrcror) Tr\ibook. Wllllams 9i Wllklns. Baltimore. BELLACK .A. S.. HERSEN M. and TKRUER S. M. (1975) Role-pIa> tests for assessing social skills’ .Are the) vahd” Brhac. BORUTEIS
Thu. 9. US-461. IV. R, BELLACR A. S. and HERSES X1. (1977) Social skills trainmg for unassertlbe chlldrsn: A multiple-basehne analysis. J. appi. B&at Anal. 10. 193-195. BRACIMA\IN C. J. and FIXSEN D. L. (1975) Behavior modification with delinquents. In Progress in Brhac~ur Modijcarlon. Vol. I. (Edlted bv M. HERSES. R. M. E~SLERand P. M. MILLER). .Acudrmic Prrss. Ne% ‘fork.
BRAUL;&SS C. J.. FIXSES D. L.. P;~LLN E. L. and WOLF M M. (1975) Behavioral approaches to trratment In the crime and delinquency field. Crirnr 13. 299-33 I BURCHARD J. D. and H-RIG P. T. (lY76) Behavior moditicatlon with juvenile delinquency. In Haldhook o!/ Behauor Modrjication arId Behu~.ior Therapy. (Edited by H. LEITENBERG). Prentice-Hall. Englewood Chtfs. N.J. CLRRA~ J. P. (1975) Social skills training and systematic desensitization in reducing dating anxiet). Brhur Rtix. 7’her 13. 65-68 DAVIDSOS W. S. III and rebww. methodological
SEIDMAN E. (197-1) Studies of behavior modification and Juvenile delmquenck: A critique, and social perspective. Psychol. Bull. 81, 99S-IO1 I. E~SLER R. M.. HERSES M.. MILLER P. M. and BLA~CHARD E. G. (1975) Situational determmants of assertive behaviors. J. consult. c/in. Ps,L&o/. 43. 330-310. FISC~I A..J. Jr. and KENDALL P. C. (1978) Anxiety in children: TheoretIcal VISWS and research FindIngs. In Sprcrol Prohlrms IU Child u)td Adolrsceut Beha~?or (Edrted by L. E. BESTL~R and R. CREFSE). Technomic. Westport. CT. GOLDSMITH J. B. and MCFALL R. M. (lY75) Development and evaluation of an Interpersonal skill-training program for psychiatric inpatlents. J. ahnornt. Psvchol. 84. 51-N HERSEN M. and BELLACR A. S. (1976) Social skills training for chronic psychiatric patients: RatIonale. research findings. and future directions. Cornp. Psychiar. 17, 559-580. Hcc~ S W. and MCLEAN R. A. (1975) Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the data from a pretest-posttest design : A potentially confwng task. Psycho/. Bull. 82. 5 I I-5 I Y. KENDALL P. C.. FIXH A. J. Jr.. L~rrre V. L., CHIRICO B. M. and OLLENDICL; T. H. (197s) Variations in a construct: Quantitative and quahtatlve dlfferrnces in children’s locus of control. J. cowtrlt c/w. P.sychoi. 46. 59&591.
LYS~H K. R. and OLLESDIC~: T. H. (1977) Juvenile corrections: A model program. .Im. J. Corr 39, k-7. NOWICKI S. Jr and STRICRLAND B. R. (lY73) A locus of con;rol scale for children. J. con.su/t. cirn. P.sychoi. 40. I-t-15-1. OLLESDICX D G. and OLLENDICX T. H. (lY76) The interrelationship of locus of control. academic achlrvemrnt, and intelligence In juvenile delinquents. Ed. Psycho/. Mras. 36, I I l-l 13. OLLESIXCK T. H. and ELLIOTT W. R. (197X) Locus of control as related to effectiveness in a behavior morhfication program for Juvenile delinquents. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana State University. Terre Haute. IN. OLLEUDICK T. H. and LYSC~I K. R. (1977) ADAPT: A diagnostic and prescriptive treatment. J. Corr. Ed 28. j-6. ROBINS L. N. (1966) Drrruf~t childrert grow up. Williams & Wilkins. Baltimore. ROTTER J. B. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Ps,vchof. .tfono. 80, (I. whole No. 609). SARASO\; I. G. (1968) Vsrbal IearnIng. modelin g. and Juvenile delinquency. Am. Psych. 23. 2%‘66. SPIELR~RGER C. D. (1972) Prrhmlnary M~m~~ljbr [he Srart-Trait .&I.Yw~~ It~renrory jbr Chrldw (“How I Feel Quusriomrarrr”). Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Aito, CA. WILLIAMS M. T.. TL’RUER S. M.. WATTS J. G.. BELLACI; A. S. and HERSEN M. (1976) Group social skills tralnlng for chronic psychiatric patients. Ew. J. Brh. Awl. Mod. 4, 223-229.
