Social and Personal Responsibility Scale

Abstract

The Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS), developed by Conrad and Hedin in 1981, is a Psychological scale designed to assess the degree to which youth assume personal accountability and engage in prosocial behavior. This instrument measures key dimensions of Social Responsibility, encompassing behaviors related to helping others, actively participating in solving school or community problems, and demonstrating reliability by making and keeping commitments. The scale employs a complex two-step, Forced-choice format, which necessitates careful explanation of the directions prior to administration to ensure accurate responses from the youth population.

Keywords

Social responsibility, personal responsibility, youth development, commitment, civic engagement, Adolescent development, educational outcomes, psychological assessment.

Authors

Conrad, D., Hedin, D.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SPRS is to quantify the level of personal accountability and prosocial behavior demonstrated by young people. It was specifically created for use in program evaluation—such as the Experimental Education Evaluation Project—to measure the effectiveness of interventions aimed at fostering positive civic and social outcomes in adolescents.

The scale serves to differentiate between adolescents who display active engagement in fulfilling obligations and addressing societal issues, and those who exhibit more passive, self-focused, or externally controlled orientations regarding group, school, and community responsibilities.

Construct

The SPRS operationalizes the construct of Responsibility by measuring two primary, interconnected domains: Personal Responsibility and Social Responsibility. Personal Responsibility relates to individual duties, reliability, and self-management, such as following through on promises, managing assignments, and adhering to appointments.

Social Responsibility involves a broader commitment to the welfare of others and the collective community. This includes altruistic tendencies (helping people whether known personally or not), participating in civic action, contributing constructively to group dynamics, and believing in one’s efficacy to solve community problems. Item 14, which addresses control over life events, also taps into the individual’s sense of Locus of control.

Validity

While specific statistical details regarding validity coefficients (e.g., criterion or construct validity) are typically housed within the original 1981 manual, the SPRS demonstrates strong face validity. The items are derived directly from practical behaviors associated with responsibility and civic engagement, making the scale relevant for assessing outcomes in youth development programs.

The structured, bipolar format is intended to enhance validity by minimizing social desirability bias often found in standard Likert scales, forcing respondents to choose between two behavioral extremes related to responsibility and accountability.

Reliability

The foundational reliability of the SPRS is essential for its utility as an outcome measure, particularly when assessing longitudinal changes in youth populations. Reliability assessments would typically involve measuring internal consistency (such as Cronbach’s Alpha) and test-retest reliability across appropriate time intervals.

The comprehensive nature of the 21 items, covering personal reliability, civic involvement, and altruism, suggests an instrument designed for robust measurement. For high-stakes evaluation projects, researchers are advised to confirm the scale’s reliability within their specific target population.

Factor Analysis

Although the source content does not explicitly detail the findings of a factor analysis, the construct description strongly suggests that the scale is intended to measure at least two primary factors: Personal Responsibility and Social Responsibility. A formal factor analysis would be necessary to empirically confirm whether the 21 items cluster into these theoretically distinct dimensions.

Subsequent psychometric studies utilizing the SPRS likely employed Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) or Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to verify the underlying structure and ensure that the scoring method accurately reflects the intended latent variables of accountability and civic participation.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychological scale.

Format: 21 items presented in a bipolar, forced-choice format. The response mechanism requires two steps: 1) choosing the statement (left or right) that is most like the respondent, and 2) selecting whether that chosen statement is “Always true for me” or “Sometimes true for me.”

Language Available: English (Original); Persian/Farsi translation noted in source (مقیاس پاسخگویی شخصی و اجتماعی).

Population Group: Youth (Adolescents).

Age Group: Typically utilized with secondary school age groups (Teens).

Population Details: Developed for the assessment of outcomes in child and youth programs, often used in educational, civic engagement, and non-formal Adolescent development settings.

Test Methodology: The scale uses a 4-point scoring system (1=Always true for me, 2=Sometimes true for me, 3=Always true for me [on the opposite pole], 4=Sometimes true for me [on the opposite pole]). Items 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are reverse coded. Scores are summed, with a higher total score reflecting greater social and personal responsibility.

Keywords

Prosocial behavior, commitment, accountability, youth programs, evaluation, civic responsibility, Locus of control, Conrad & Hedin.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content.

Correspondence Address: Based on the original publication: Center for Youth Development and Research, St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1981.

Permissions and Fees: The scale was published as part of the Instruments and Scoring Guide of the Experimental Education Evaluation Project. It is frequently included in publicly accessible program evaluation handbooks, suggesting it is often used for non-commercial research and evaluation purposes without proprietary fees. Users should consult the University of Minnesota for definitive licensing requirements.

The instrument can be found on pages 75-80 of Assessing Outcomes in Child and Youth Programs: A Practical Handbook. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://4h.uwex.edu/evaluation/documents/ChildYouthOutcomeHandbook2005.pdf

Reference’s

• Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (1981). Instruments and Scoring Guide of the Experimental Education Evaluation Project. Center for youth development and research. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

• Assessing Outcomes in Child and Youth Programs: A Practical Handbook (2005). Available online at: http://fyi.uwex.edu/topic/youth/

Items of the Social and Personal Responsibility Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The next set of questions give you choices about what you feel or think in different situations.

LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE SAMPLE QUESTION BEFORE ANSWERING and CAREFULLY READ THE DIRECTIONS BEFORE YOU BEGIN. There are two steps to completing this survey

First, decide whether you are most like the statement on the left or the statement on the right, but do not mark anything YET.

Second, after you have decided which side is most like you, select whether the answer is always true or sometimes true for you and place a check in that box.

FOR EACH LINE THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE BOX CHOSEN

1. Some teenagers feel bad when they let people down who depend on them. BUT Other teenagers don’t let it bother them that much.

2. Some teens think it’s the responsibility of the community to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves. BUT Other teens think that everyone should just take care of themselves.

3. Some teens are interested in doing something about school problems. BUT Other teens don’t really care to get involved in school problems.

4. In a group situation, some teens let others do most of the work. BUT Other teens help a group all they can.

5. Some teens seem to find time to work on other people’s problems. BUT Other teens find taking care of their own problems more than enough to do.

6. Some teens are interested in what other students in class have to say. BUT Other teens don’t care that much about what other students have to say.

7. Some teens are interested in doing something about the problems in the community. BUT Other teens are not that interested in working on problems in the community.

8. Some teens carefully prepare for community and school assignments. BUT Other teens usually don’t prepare that much.

9. Some teens would rather not present ideas in a group discussion. BUT Other teens feel comfortable in presenting ideas in a group discussion.

10. Some teens let others know when they can’t keep an appointment. BUT Other teens don’t call ahead when they can’t make it.

11. Some teens think that people should only help people they know –like close friends and relatives. BUT Other teens think people should help people in general, whether they know them personally or not.

12. For some teens, it seems too difficult to keep commitments. BUT Other teens somehow manage to keep commitments.

13. Some teens’ ideas are almost listened to by a group. BUT Other teens have a hard time getting a group to pay attention to their suggestions.

14. Some teens don’t think they have much to say about what happens to them. BUT Other teens feel that they can pretty much control what will happen in their lives.

15. Some teens don’t think it makes much sense to help others unless you get paid for it. BUT Other teens think you should help others even if you don’t get paid for it.

16. Some teens are good at helping people. BUT Other teens don’t see helping others as one of their strong points.

17. Some teens feel obligated to carry out tasks assigned to them by the group. BUT Other teens don’t feel bound by group decisions.

18. Some teens think when good things happen, it is because of something that they did. BUT For other teens, there seems to be no reasons for good things happening, it is just luck when things go well.

19. Some teens prefer to have someone clearly lay out their assignments. BUT Other teens prefer to make up their own lists of things to do.

20. Some teens are not that worried about finishing jobs they promised they would do. BUT Other teens would feel really bad about not finishing jobs they promised they would do.

21. Some teens think they are able to help solve problems in the community. BUT Other teens don’t think they can do anything about problems, because a few powerful people decide everything.