Social Problem Solving Measure

Abstract

The Social Problem Solving Measure (SPSM) is a specialized psychological scale originally conceptualized by Dodge, Bates, and Pettit (1990) to investigate mechanisms underlying interpersonal aggression and competence in children. This specific iteration was adapted by Aber, Brown, Jones, and Samples (1995) into a multiple-choice format suitable for large-scale evaluation of violence prevention programs. The measure assesses children’s behavioral strategies when encountering common social dilemmas, particularly those involving resource conflict, peer entry, or provocation.

Responses are categorized into five types—ranging from aggressive and passive/inept to competent behavior—allowing researchers to calculate scores on two primary dimensions: the Aggressive Strategy subscale and the Competent Strategy subscale. The measure is designed to capture differences in children’s capacity for generating adaptive interpersonal strategies in proactive social situations.

Keywords

Social Problem Solving, Interpersonal strategies, Childhood aggression, Competence, Proactive situations, Conflict resolution, Psychological assessment.

Authors

Kenneth A. Dodge, John E. Bates, Gregory S. Pettit, J. Lawrence Aber, Joy D. Brown, Stephanie Jones, F. Samples.

Purpose

The central purpose of the Social Problem Solving Measure (SPSM) is to quantitatively assess the repertoire of interpersonal strategies children employ when faced with ambiguous or challenging social situations. The instrument is designed to elicit responses across various dimensions, specifically targeting how children manage resource conflicts (e.g., sharing a swing) and situations requiring proactive social engagement (e.g., joining a game or initiating friendship).

By categorizing responses into distinct types—such as competent, aggressive, authority-seeking, and passive—the scale provides researchers with insight into individual differences in social competence. This assessment is crucial for evaluating intervention programs aimed at reducing aggressive behavior and promoting positive peer relations in early childhood and elementary school settings.

Construct

The SPSM primarily measures the construct of Social Problem Solving (SPS) skills, which involves the cognitive and behavioral processes individuals use to cope with stressful or challenging interpersonal situations. Derived from foundational models of social information processing, the scale focuses specifically on the behavioral aspect of this process: the selection of a strategy when presented with a dilemma.

The scale emphasizes proactive situations, which are those where the child must initiate interaction or assert a need, rather than merely reacting defensively. The scoring system reflects a taxonomy of response outcomes: Aggressive Strategy (coercive, hostile), Competent Strategy (assertive, prosocial), Authority-seeking (reliance on adult intervention), and Passive/Inept (avoidance or withdrawal). This framework allows for the differentiation of adaptive versus maladaptive social coping mechanisms.

Validity

Specific detailed validation evidence for the adapted multiple-choice format (Aber et al., 1995) is typically documented within the associated technical reports or academic papers. The original conceptualization by Dodge et al. (1990) demonstrated construct validity by linking poor social problem-solving skills, particularly the generation of aggressive responses, to later conduct problems and relational difficulties. The scenarios are designed to possess high ecological validity by reflecting common peer conflicts experienced by young children.

The utility of the SPSM is often established through its concurrent validity, showing significant correlations between children’s selected strategies (e.g., Aggressive Strategy scores) and independent measures of observed aggressive behavior or teacher ratings of social competence.

Reliability

Reliability estimates for the SPSM generally focus on internal consistency for the derived subscales. Although specific coefficients (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) are not provided in the excerpt, scales adapted for evaluation projects, such as this one, are expected to demonstrate adequate internal reliability across the 8 items for both the Aggressive Strategy and Competent Strategy subscales. The multiple-choice format helps standardize item administration, contributing to improved inter-rater reliability in scoring compared to open-ended response formats.

Factor Analysis

While a formal exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis structure is not explicitly detailed in the provided source, the instrument is designed to yield two primary subscales based on theoretical categorization: the Aggressive Strategy subscale and the Competent Strategy subscale. These subscales are scored by recoding responses into binary categories (1=chosen strategy, 0=not chosen strategy) and calculating an average score for each. This scoring structure suggests a conceptual framework distinguishing between maladaptive, coercive responses and adaptive, prosocial responses in social conflict.

Instrument

Test Type: Situational judgment test (SJT) / Multiple-choice psychological measure.

Format: Eight hypothetical social conflict vignettes, each followed by five multiple-choice response options (A-E).

Language Available: English (Original).

Population Group: Children and youth.

Age Group: Typically used with elementary school-aged children (e.g., 5 to 10 years old).

Population Details: The adaptation by Aber et al. (1995) specifically modified the accompanying pictures (if used in the administration) to include a representation of racial and ethnic diversity among the subjects portrayed, ensuring broader applicability across diverse youth populations.

Test Methodology: Respondents are presented with a scenario and asked what they would say or do. Responses are scored on a 0 to 4 point scale based on the category of the selected strategy (Aggressive=0, Competent=1, Authority/punish=2, Authority/intervene=3, Passive/inept=4). Subscale scores (Aggressive Strategy and Competent Strategy) are derived by averaging recoded binary responses.

Keywords

Social competence, Child development, Peer relations, Prosocial behavior, Response generation, Psychological scale, Intervention assessment, Violence prevention.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source).

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source).

Correspondence Address: Refer to primary author affiliations at the time of publication (e.g., Dodge KA at Vanderbilt University; Aber JL at Columbia University).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original conceptualization was published in 1990 (Dodge et al.) focused on mechanisms of violence. The multiple-choice adaptation, which is the version presented here, was developed in 1995 by Aber et al. The psychological scale has been widely adopted in academic research and public health evaluations, particularly those focused on violence prevention initiatives. Researchers interested in using this instrument should consult the primary sources for explicit permission requirements.

This instrument can be found on pages 252-263 of Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf

Reference’s

• Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science 1990;250:1678-1683.

• Aber JL, Brown JL, Jones S, Samples F. Adapting measures of children’s beliefs, attributions and skills for use in the evaluation of violence prevention projects. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, 1995.

Items of the Social Problem Solving Measure

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

A. say‚ “You’d better let me play?

B. ask them to share the swing?

C. ask the teacher to make him get off the swing?

D. tell the teacher to not let them play anymore?

E. just leave?

A. wait until they talked to you?

B. let them ride your bike so that they’d be your friend?

C. ask the teacher to make them play with you?

D. say‚ “You’d better play with me?

E. ask the teacher to make them sit alone?

A. ask the teacher to make them give you your place back?

B. push them back?

C. go to the back of the line?

D. ask the teacher to make them go to the back of the line?

E. say‚ Can I have my place back?

A. ask your mom or dad to make them play with you?

B. tell them they’d better play with you?

C. ask them if you could play?

D. watch them play?

E. ask your mom or dad to make them stop racing?

A. skip their turn?

B. just forget about it?

C. tell your mom or dad to let you win because they skipped your turn?

D. ask if they skipped your turn?

E. tell your mom or dad to make them give you your turn?

A. tell the teacher to make them stop playing?

B. just start playing with them?

C. ask the teacher to make them play with you?

D. go sit by yourself?

E. call them bad names?

A. cry?

B. call them names too?

C. ask them to stop?

D. tell the teacher to make them stop?

E. tell the teacher to make them sit alone?

A. offer to keep score if you could play the next game?

B. go sit with the teacher?

C. take the ball so that they couldn’t play?

D. ask the teacher to take the ball away?

E. ask the teacher to put you on a team?