Role-play tests for assessing social skills: are they valid? Are they useful?

Abstract

A correlational study was conducted in an effort to examine the validity of brief role-play tests for assessing social skills. Thirty-nine male and 39 female undergraduate students responded to 20 role-played scenarios involving heterosocial interactions. One week later they were surreptitiuously observed while they interacted with an opposite-sex student who, in actuality, was an experimental confederate. Videotapes of the role-play test and a naturalistic interaction were subsequently rated for a variety of component responses. Correlations of responses in the two situations provided equivocal results. Role-play behavior was moderately correlated with behavior in the naturalistic situation for females, but there were few significant relationships for males. Results are discussed in terms of the validity and utility of roleplay tests, and several unresolved issues are identified. Naturalistic observation is the mode of data collection most strongly advocated by behavior therapists. However, economic and pragmatic restrictions frequently preclude the use of this approach. This is especially the case with adult outpatient clients, who typically cannot be followed and observed in vivo. As an alternative second-best approach, numerous analogue procedures have been developed. In general, these techniques entail replication in the laboratory or clinic of some critical part of the natural environment, with the expectation that behavior in this fabricated setting will accurately reflect in vivo functioning. Prototypic examples include the Behavioral Avoidance Test (Lang & Lazovik, 1963), in which the client confronts a phobic stimulus, and the Behavioral Assertiveness Test (Eisler, Miller, & Hersen, 1973), in which the client role plays