The effects of confederate prompt delivery style in a standardized social simulation test

Abstract

Role plays or social simulations are presently one of the most common methods for assessing social skills. Although social simulation techniques have become quite popular, little is known about the psychometric adequacy of many of the role-play instruments which have been developed. This investigation was an attempt to determine certain properties of one particular social skills assessment instrument: the Simulated Social Interaction Test. The effects of various confederate prompt delivery styles on the judged social competency level of subjects in the Simulated Social Interaction Test were examined. Two confederates, one male and one female, were trained to portray three confederate prompt delivery styles: (a) unreceptive, (b) neutral, and (c) receptive. In order to determine if judges would compensate for the different confederate prompt delivery styles, two sets of trained judges rated the levels of skill and anxiety generated by the 30 subjects tested. One set of judges was screened from the confererate delivery while observing the simulation; the other set of judges followed the more common rating procedure (i.e., they were not screened from the confederates' deliveries). Data analysis examined variation in subject performance under each condition and according to each set of judges for both overall social skills and anxiety ratings. Confederate prompt delivery style was found to affect subjects' rated performance. There was also suggestive evidence that judges were sometimes able to compensate for different confederate delivery styles. The practical and theoretical implications of the results are discussed.