Assessing Social Intelligence with System of Assessment of Interpersonal Problem Solving Test (SIP)...

Assessing Social Intelligence with System of Assessment of Interpersonal Problem Solving Test (SIP)

A. A. Candeias*, M. Oliveira*, F. Koich Miguel**, A. Rocha* & G. Franco***

*University of Évora: CIEP & CIMA (Portugal)**University of S. Francisco (SP, Brazil)

***University of Madeira (Portugal)

Dynamic Assessment of Functioning and Oriented at Development and Inclusive Learning

A Comenius multilateral project - 142084-2008-LLP-BE-COMENIUS-CMP

Adelinda Candeias [email protected] 2

Introduction

This study presents the SIP.

This test results from one adaptation of the test developed by Candeias in 2007 – PCIS.


Theorectical foundations

Structural approach focuses on qualitative description of the structures of social understanding during the successive stages of development. This approach is rooted in the work on the construction of the knowledge level of ontogenetic J. Piaget, and extends to the study of various areas, such as moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1976), the rules and social conventions (Turiel, 1980, 1983), and the social perspective taking (Selman, 1980).

Functional approach is focused on the study of various features of the thought process during the social interaction. There is a concern to identify skills and thought processes used by individuals during social interaction (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Spivak et al., 1976).


Theorectical foundations Social knowledge – specific domainThrough interaction with the social environment, the subject builds different

forms of knowledge that underlie the existence of different domains of social knowledge, independent of non-social cognitive structures and based on the nature of the object of social knowledge and relationships that the individual has with the object (Flavell et al., 1993):

(i) people, while cognitive objects are different because they can act spontaneously and deliberately, that is, they perceive, represent, know, think, try, want, experience emotion and learn,

(ii) the relationships that people develop with each other are different from those that refer to physical objects because is a "static relation of similarity. This similarity justifies the use of cognitive processes specific to that cognitive domain, including metacognition,

(iii) social interactions are dynamic and our thinking and our behavior on social objects can be guided by our representations of social roles, relationships and behaviors or the mutual representations that other people have on our thoughts and intentions.


Theorectical foundations Social knowledge – specific domainUnderlying the hypothesis of partial structures is the idea that the

construction of knowledge takes place by the subject's interaction with the environment. The nature of conceptual structures is influenced by the environment as such in the construction of various concepts, and in order to understand the concepts the construction of various concepts, and in order to understand the concepts constructed by the subjects due will distinguish the different social fields, in structural and processual terms.


Theorectical foundations Components of SIPI. Components of problem solving processes

The decoding of social information and understanding of the problem, the design of a resolution plan and its implementation and evaluation. These components were organized on the model of problem solving by Pretz, Naples, and Sternberg (2003) which takes into account the following phases:

Recognize or identify the problem, Define and mentally represent the problem, Develop a strategy for resolution, Organize knowledge about the problem, Consign mental and physical resources to solve the problem, Monitor progress towards the goal and assess the correctness of the solution

These stages are organized (Polya, 1945, 2003, Almeida, 2004) in 4 major steps: (i) understanding the problem, (ii) development of a resolution plan, (iii) (implementation of the plan, (iv) verification of resolution.


Theorectical foundations Components of SIPII. Components related to levels of knowledgeInvolve the type of contents seized for the understanding of the interpersonal and

the interpersonal perspective taken to understanding, planning and implementation of the response.

Type of contents - organized according to the models proposed by Perception of contents expressed and latent social situation (Argyle, 1994): Type of traits and more important tracks (Barnes & Sternberg, 1989)

Interpersonal perspective or the level of reflective thinking involved in the justification of the assessment or decision , organized in: Unilateral and simplistic stage; Instrumental stage; Mutual and pro-social stage; Systemic and standardized stage(Selman, 1980).


Social intelligence construct

Social intelligence construct can be understood through two main dimensions: cognitive and behavioral (e.g., Jones, & Day, 1997) that involve: Interpersonal Problem Solving, Familiarity with Interpersonal Situations, Motivation and Self-confidence to cope with Interpersonal Situations (Candeias, 2007).


This test is based on the assumption that social intelligence could be assessed through the quality of cognitive processes and the quality ok knowledge used in interpersonal problem solving.

Interpersonal Problem Solving Test


Interpersonal Problem Solving Test The participants are expected to analyse an

interpersonal problem-situation (in a pictorial format), in three major dimensions: Interpersonal Problem Solving, which is evaluated

through a questionnaire in which the participants are requested to request a verbal protocol based of cognitive process and knowledge assumptions,

Experience in similar situations, to evaluate on a 1-to-5 Likert scale,

Motivation toward this kind of interpersonal situation, evaluating on a 1-to-5 Likert scale. →


Method - Participants

All participants were Portuguese children and youngsters:

441 children from regular class (248 girls and 240 boys, with the average age of 8.64 years, SD = 1.03);

326 youngsters from regular class (168 girls and 158 boys, with the average age of 14.70 years, SD = 1.80);


ResultsStudy of the itens

Table 1 – Descriptive analysis of the itens: PRP-I Alpha if….

Item M DP Min. Máx. PD Alpha se..

1.1 1,301 0,708 0 3 ,421 ,844

1.2 1,295 0,668 0 3 ,407 ,844

1.3 0,985 0,757 0 3 ,567 ,839

1.4c 1,100 0,539 0 3 ,524 ,842

1.4p 0,913 0,545 0 3 ,602 ,840

1.5c 1,037 0,535 0 3 ,514 ,843

1.5p 0,958 0,557 0 3 ,584 ,841

1.6ac 3,762 1,046 1 5 ,185 ,854

1.7m 3,808 0,789 1 5 ,194 ,851

1.8f 2,071 0,857 1 5 ,078 ,855

2.1 1,271 1,069 0 3 ,240 ,852

2.2 1,097 0,656 0 3 ,571 ,840

2.3 0,886 0,754 0 3 ,593 ,838

2.4c 1,007 0,620 0 3 ,610 ,839

2.4p 0,827 0,602 0 3 ,632 ,839

2.5c 0,980 0,608 0 3 ,598 ,840

2.5p 0,837 0,595 0 3 ,577 ,840

2.6ac 3,575 1,053 1 5 ,134 ,856

2.7m 3,745 0,791 1 5 ,211 ,850

2.8f 2,237 0,891 1 5 ,071 ,856

3.1 1,369 0,605 0 3 ,430 ,844

3.2 1,228 0,570 0 3 ,529 ,842

3.3 0,972 0,662 0 3 ,539 ,841

3.4c 1,067 0,600 0 3 ,512 ,842

3.4p 0,845 0,542 0 3 ,567 ,841

3.5c 1,003 0,599 0 3 ,505 ,842

3.5p 0,851 0,529 0 3 ,575 ,841

3.6ac 3,644 1,115 1 5 ,243 ,852

3.7m 3,762 0,792 1 5 ,249 ,849

3.8f 1,816 0,858 1 5 -,016 ,858

Childrens (N=441)

Alpha: . 85


ResultsStudy of the itens Youngsters (N=326)

Alpha: .89

Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the itens: PCIS

Itens N Mínimo Máximo Média Desvio-Padrão Assimetria Curtose PD

S1-Processo: Compreensão do problema 326 0 3 1,49 0,66 -0,314 -0,226 0,586 S1-Processo: Concepção de um plano 326 0 3 1,24 0,72 -0,003 -0,451 0,621 S1-Processo: Resolução do problema 326 0 3 1,52 0,64 0,002 -0,235 0,613 S1- Processo: Verificação da solução 326 0 3 1,23 0,79 0,249 -0,333 0,668 S1-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Percepção 326 0 3 1,70 0,57 -0,073 -0,317 0,550 S1-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Traços 326 0 3 1,34 0,74 -0,007 -0,376 0,472 S1-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano 326 0 3 1,50 0,73 0,011 -0,274 0,643 S1-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema 326 0 3 1,56 0,73 0,160 -0,336 0,679 S1-Auto-confiança: Nível de confiança 320 1 5 3,62 0,84 -0,267 -0,012 0,179 S1-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade 326 1 5 3,45 0,86 -0,284 0,248 0,265 S1-Familiaridade: Experiência 322 1 5 3,73 1,86 -0,791 -1,382 0,168 S1-Familiaridade: Conhecimento 324 1 5 3,23 1,18 -0,223 -0,718 0,318 S1-Interesse: Nível de interesse 324 1 5 3,04 0,87 -0,390 0,693 0,307 S1-Interesse: Nível de agrado 324 1 5 2,68 0,97 0,039 -0,099 0,241 S2-Processo: Compreensão do problema 326 0 3 1,44 0,61 -0,368 -0,462 0,641 S2-Processo: Concepção de um plano 326 0 3 1,07 0,71 0,219 -0,210 0,690 S2-Processo: Resolução do problema 326 0 3 1,26 0,66 -0,066 -0,357 0,645 S2- Processo: Verificação da solução 326 0 3 0,95 0,77 0,324 -0,599 0,652 S2-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Percepção 326 0 3 1,60 0,60 -0,068 -0,300 0,648 S2-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Traços 326 0 3 1,38 0,74 -0,054 -0,361 0,607 S2-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano 326 0 3 1,24 0,73 0,172 -0,197 0,657 S2-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema 326 0 3 1,27 0,77 0,099 -0,415 0,680 S2-Auto-confiança: Nível de confiança 317 1 5 3,43 0,97 -0,191 -0,192 0,044 S2-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade 326 1 5 3,38 1,04 -0,287 0,029 0,063 S2-Familiaridade: Experiência 317 1 5 2,39 1,91 0,639 -1,599 0,190 S2-Familiaridade: Conhecimento 322 1 5 2,67 1,16 0,225 -0,624 0,354 S2-Interesse: Nível de interesse 320 1 5 2,97 1,04 -0,100 -0,331 0,290 S2-Interesse: Nível de agrado 319 1 5 2,56 1,03 0,144 -0,396 0,300 S3-Processo: Compreensão do problema 325 0 3 1,18 0,65 0,153 0,023 0,636 S3-Processo: Concepção de um plano 324 0 3 0,93 0,69 0,325 -0,135 0,640 S3-Processo: Resolução do problema 324 0 3 1,13 0,69 0,113 -0,273 0,646 S3- Processo: Verificação da solução 326 0 3 0,80 0,74 0,520 -0,446 0,652 S3-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Percepção 325 0 3 1,34 0,62 0,147 -0,094 0,626 S3-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Traços 326 0 3 1,25 0,73 0,105 -0,295 0,591 S3-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano 325 0 3 1,10 0,66 0,153 -0,063 0,619 S3-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema 326 0 3 1,10 0,76 0,260 -0,311 0,669 S3-Auto-confiança: Nível de confiança 311 1 5 3,27 1,08 -0,067 -0,576 0,171 S3-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade 326 1 5 3,31 1,01 -0,161 -0,159 -0,019 S3-Familiaridade: Experiência 309 1 5 2,77 1,99 0,236 -1,954 0,221 S3-Familiaridade: Conhecimento 318 1 5 2,66 1,22 0,181 -0,794 0,360 S3-Interesse: Nível de interesse 319 1 5 2,91 1,11 0,089 -0,483 0,227 S3-Interesse: Nível de agrado 319 0 3 1,18 0,65 0,153 0,023 0,636


ResultsValidity Childrens (N=441)

Factorial analysis: principal components, Varimax rotation, 3 components (explained

47% of global variance).

Quadro 2 Análise em componentes principais com rotação varimax da PRP-I (N=488) Componentes

Item 1 2 3 h2

1.1 ,561 -,064 -,195 ,357

1.2 ,501 -,014 ,019 ,252 1.3 ,703 -,022 ,000 ,494

1.4c ,609 ,127 -,345 ,506

1.4p ,712 ,100 -,249 ,579

1.5c ,612 ,119 -,450 ,592

1.5p ,687 ,126 -,328 ,595

1.6ac -,036 ,671 ,152 ,474

1.7m ,002 ,659 -,064 ,439

1.8f ,041 ,069 ,650 ,428

2.1 ,332 -,051 -,052 ,116

2.2 ,686 ,012 ,139 ,490 2.3 ,706 ,017 ,198 ,538

2.4c ,733 ,081 ,018 ,545 2.4p ,767 ,060 ,007 ,592

2.5c ,728 ,075 -,082 ,542 2.5p ,711 ,052 -,037 ,509

2.6ac -,080 ,697 ,061 ,496

2.7m -,001 ,705 -,094 ,506

2.8f -,002 ,145 ,573 ,349

3.1 ,539 -,026 ,019 ,291

3.2 ,655 -,055 ,161 ,458

3.3 ,661 -,010 ,164 ,464

3.4c ,683 -,112 -,054 ,482

3.4p ,738 -,087 -,082 ,559

3.5c ,669 -,091 -,142 ,476 3.5p ,720 -,047 -,134 ,539

3.6ac ,042 ,652 ,201 ,468 3.7m ,033 ,683 ,090 ,475

3.8f -,088 ,086 ,694 ,498

Valores próprios 9,3 3,0 1,8 14,1 % de variância total 31,1 10,0 6,1 47,0

A rotação convergiu em 5 interacções, as saturações >.30 (a negro) foram consideradas fundamentais para a interpretação dos factores.


ResultsValidity of construct Youngsters (N=326)

Factorial analysis: principal components, Varimax rotation, 4 components

(explained 54% of global variance).

VariáveisComponentes

1 2 3 4S1-Processo: Compreensão do problema 0,726 -0,154 -0,111 0,237S1-Processo: Concepção de um plano 0,762 -0,113 -0,055 0,215S1-Processo: Resolução do problema 0,753 -0,083 -0,137 0,235S1- Processo: Verificação da solução 0,742 -0,042 0,128 0,257S1-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Percepção 0,681 -0,124 -0,105 0,245S1-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Traços 0,579 -0,122 -0,025 0,186S1-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano 0,758 -0,058 -0,104 0,272S1-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema 0,771 -0,073 -0,049 0,301S1-Auto-confiança:Nível de confiança 0,059 -0,058 0,595 0,233S1-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade 0,170 -0,129 0,670 0,192S1-Familiaridade:Experiência 0,100 -0,067 -0,112 0,467S1-Familiaridade:Conhecimento 0,150 0,017 0,040 0,643S1-Interesse: Nível de interesse 0,118 0,697 -0,117 0,113S1-Interesse: Nível de agrado 0,007 0,725 -0,006 0,145S2-Processo: Compreensão do problema 0,769 0,015 -0,106 0,134S2-Processo: Concepção de um plano 0,781 0,056 0,094 0,124S2-Processo: Resolução do problema 0,747 0,121 0,051 0,051S2- Processo: Verificação da solução 0,744 0,048 0,154 0,078S2-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Percepção 0,750 0,038 -0,081 0,190S2-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Traços 0,695 -0,018 -0,007 0,207S2-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano 0,729 0,093 0,123 0,102S2-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema 0,786 0,089 0,032 0,107S2-Auto-confiança:Nível de confiança -0,057 0,032 0,594 0,031S2-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade -0,003 -0,038 0,703 -0,114S2-Familiaridade:Experiência 0,054 0,051 0,111 0,468S2-Familiaridade:Conhecimento 0,107 0,249 0,129 0,595S2-Interesse: Nível de interesse 0,090 0,758 0,007 0,059S2-Interesse: Nível de agrado 0,075 0,800 0,045 0,054S3-Processo: Compreensão do problema 0,770 0,065 -0,046 0,005S3-Processo: Concepção de um plano 0,796 0,105 0,034 -0,118S3-Processo: Resolução do problema 0,721 0,208 0,079 -0,039S3- Processo: Verificação da solução 0,698 0,201 0,144 -0,002S3-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Percepção 0,732 0,108 -0,059 0,063S3-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-Traços 0,684 0,168 0,015 -0,030S3-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano 0,753 0,106 0,084 -0,097S3-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema 0,760 0,175 0,118 -0,034S3-Auto-confiança:Nível de confiança 0,073 0,142 0,661 -0,117S3-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade -0,086 -0,074 0,695 -0,133S3-Familiaridade: Experiência 0,150 0,019 -0,153 0,372S3-Familiaridade: Conhecimento 0,128 0,273 0,030 0,499S3-Interesse: Nível de interesse 0,050 0,757 -0,089 0,025S3-Interesse: Nível de agrado -0,026 0,806 0,048 -0,037Valores próprios (Eigenvalues) 13,850 3,860 2,870 1,900Variância explicada acumulada (%) 32,970 42,170 48,990 53,520


SocialCompetence

,03

Socialfactor3

e4

,08

Socialfactor1

e6

,18

AcademicPerformance

,87

NotaEstudoMeio

e7

,83

NotaMatematica

e8

,73

NotaPortugues

e9

,93,91,15

mpcrnotat

e10

,79

SAfactor1

e11

,89,61

SAfactor2

e12

,78

,52

SAfactor3

e13

,84

SAfactor5

e14

Social Intelligence

,10

IRPS

e1

,05

IMotivação

e3

,48

,81

,85 ,39 ,28 ,72 ,92,32 ,22

,71

Chi-Square =172,974 [51] prob =,000GFI = ,930 AGFI= ,893 CFI=,947 NFI =,927

PCFI=,732 RMSEA =,081ECVI = ,617

Results – Convergent vs Divergent Validity

Social intelligence – Social competence - Academic Intelligence


Qui-Quadrado = 135,290Df =47

Probabilidade =,000

SI

,37

Ce1

,61

,03

SMe2

,53

SPSe5,73

CS

,08

SPSCG

e6

,66

PPSC

e7

,53

SSCF

e8

,22

TSCD

e9

,03

SPSC

e10

,28,82,73-,47,16

AI

,86

M e11,93 ,99

LP e121,00,18

VR e13,43

,14

AR e14

,37

,47 ,23

,82

,51

,23

-,57

,14

,17

Results – Convergent vs Divergent Validity

Social intelligence – Social competence - Academic Intelligence


Conclusions Portuguese studies with Children (7-10) (N=441), and Youth (12-17) (N=326), indicated that SIP is one assessment tool with great validity of construct, proved by factorial analyses, in which the multidimensionality of the questionnaire is shown. Such dimensions present great internal consistency. Such psychometric results points out to a reliable and valid tool to do traditional and dynamic assessment that supports psychological intervention. Next steps: Study the quality of itens with a pretest-mediation-postest (Samples: Childrens and adolescents (Casa Pia, Lisbon); adults (Porto)).


Thanks for your attention!

[email protected]

Assessing Social Intelligence with System of Assessment of Interpersonal Problem Solving Test (SIP)...

Documents

Transcript of Assessing Social Intelligence with System of Assessment of Interpersonal Problem Solving Test (SIP)...