Journal of Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 4, No.

1, 1982

Development and Psychometric Properties

of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale I
Larry Michelson 2'3 and Randy W o o d 4
Accepted for publication: June 12, 1981

The purpose o f this paper is to present the psychometric properties and

individual items comprising the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale
(CABS). The CABS is a behaviorally designed self-report instrument f o r
children which measures general and specific social skills and covers many
socially relevant situations which are problematic f o r children. Acceptable
psychometric properties o f the 27-item test were obtained in several
independent investigations across both geographical regions and grade
levels. The CABS showed significant concurrent validity with peer, parent,
and teacher measures o f social competency. The CABS also discriminated
trained versus untrained children participating in social skills versus a
placebo discussion group. The instrument is presented, along with
recommendations f o r future applications and research.

KEY WORDS: Children's Assertive Behavior Scale; social skills; self-report; assertiveness.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose o f this paper is to present a preliminary review of the

Children's Assertive Behavior Scale (CABS) and make test items available
for clinicians and researchers interested in assessment and training of social
skills. At the present time there is a paucity of self-report instruments
designed for children with report reliability or validity indices. This is in
contrast to the 20 or more existing scales currently in use with adults. As

~Both authors share equal responsibility for the development and evaluation of the Children's
Assertive Behavior Scale.
2Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh,
School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261.
3To whom correspondence should be addressed at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic,
University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261.
4Camarillo State Hospital, Camarillo, California.
3
01644)305/82/0300-0003503.00/0© 1982PlenumPublishingCorporation
 4 Michelson and Wood

assertivetraining is becoming more widespread and social skills training

programs are being developed for children (Beck et al., 1978; H o p s e t al.,
1978; Michelson and Wood, 1980; Walker etal., 1978), an instrument
which can reliably and accurately assess assertive behavior would be useful.
If effective training programs are going to be developed and implemented,
it is essential that accurate and reliable measurement devices be applied
(Hersen and Bellack, 1976; Michelson and Wood, 1980; Wood et al., 1978).
Wood et al. (1978) and Michelson et al. (1979) investigated the
psychometric properties of the CABS. In the former study Wood et al.
(1978) administered the CABS to 149 fourth-grade elementary-school
children in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Additionally, the children's CABS
scores were compared with behavioral observations and teachers' ratings of
social skills. Behavioral observations correlated 0.38 with the CABS total
score, while teachers' ratings showed significant, though highly variable,
correlations. Test-retest reliability over a 4-week period of time was 0.87.
Factor analyses, using both principal components and varimax rotations,
yielded a homogeneous factor structure. The use of factor subscales neither
increased correlations between other measures nor accounted for a greater
proportion of the variance accounted for than the unitary factor. No
significant correlations were obtained between the CABS and potential
moderator variables such as sex, intelligence, and social desirability.
Michelson et al. (1979) investigated the stability and generality of the
original findings using 90 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade Pittsburgh school
children. Employing a comprehensive assessment strategy, Michelson et al.
(1979) compared CABS responses with peer, parent, and teacher ratings of
social competence, popularity, and overall social skills. Significant
correlations were obtained between these measures, the details of which will
be presented in a subsequent publication after more extensive analyses are
performed. The CABS also demonstrated both discriminant and convergent
validity. No significant correlations were obtained between the CABS
and sex, intelligence, or social desirability. Factor analyses revealed a
homogeneous factor structure. Test-retest reliability of 0.66 was obtained
over a 4-week period. The results from both studies are presented in Table I.
Michelson and Wood (1980) found that CABS possessed discriminant
validity (P _ 0.01) and could accurately differentiate among 80 fourth-
grade school children those who had received social skills training from
those receiving only ecology discussions. Moreover, teachers, who were
blind as to treatment conditions, rated children in the social skills group
significantly more socially competent, using the teachers' version of the
CABS. The teachers' CABS ratings significantly (P ~ 0.01) identified
children receiving 16 versus 8 hr of social skills training. Thus, the CABS
not only was able to discriminate trained versus untrained children, but also
was capable of separating children receiving 8 versus 16 contact hr of social
Children's Assertive BehaviorScale

Table I. Psychometric Properties of the Children's Asssertiveness Behavior Scalea

Investigation

Wood e t al. (1978) Michelson et al. (1979)

N 149 90
Sample 4thgraders/Ft. Lauderdale 4th, 5th, & 6th graders/Pittsburgh
Internal consistency KR20 = 0.78 KR20 = 0.80
Test-retest (4 weeks) 0.86 0.66
Factor analytic structure Homogeneous test Homogeneous test
Mean CABS score 12.74 12.98
SD 8.48 6.47
Correlation with sex
(1 = male; 2 -- female) r = -0.16 r = -0.08
Correlation with IQ r = -0.11 r = 0.15
Correlation with social
desirability
(Marlowe-Crown) r = 0.11 r = 0.04

aHigher CAB S scores represent greater unassertiveness.

skills t r a i n i n g . In a d d i t i o n , the C A B S s h o w e d consistent pre versus p o s t dif-

ferences ( P _ 0.01) o n b o t h s e l f - r e p o r t a n d t e a c h e r s ' C A B S , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t
it is sensitive to clinical i n t e r v e n t i o n s a n d t r e a t m e n t effects.

METHOD

Instrument Development: Children's Assertive Behavior Scale (CABS)

F r o m a survey o f existing scales r e l a t e d to assertive b e h a v i o r , v a r i o u s

c o n t e n t a r e a s o f assertive b e h a v i o r were i d e n t i f i e d b y W o o d e t al. (1978).
I t e m c a t e g o r i e s consisted o f assertive c o n t e n t areas d e a l i n g with a v a r i e t y o f
basic assertive b e h a v i o r s such as giving a n d receiving c o m p l i m e n t s ,
c o m p l a i n t s , e m p a t h y , a n d requests a n d initiating c o n v e r s a t i o n s . D e v e l o p e d
items d e s c r i b e d s i t u a t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s e s which were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f each
p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e n t area. F o r e x a m p l e , in the c o n t e n t a r e a o f c o m p l i m e n t s
there were items which p o r t r a y e d b o t h giving a n d receiving o f personal a n d
impersonal compliments.
T o d e t e r m i n e the a d e q u a c y o f the items r e p r e s e n t i n g the v a r i o u s
c o n t e n t areas, each c o n t e n t a r e a was critically e x a m i n e d b y g r a d u a t e
students. F e e d b a c k ]'rom reviewer's suggestions i n d i c a t e d t h a t the m a j o r i t y
o f the c o n t e n t areas was r e p r e s e n t e d b y the items, t h o u g h s o m e a r e a s were
c o v e r e d m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y t h a n others.
R a t i n g s p r o v i d e d b y " b l i n d " j u d g e s assessed the v a l i d i t y o f the
c o n t i n u u m o f responses f o r each item. T h e results f r o m such " b l i n d " ratings
6 Michelson and Wood

demonstrated the interrater reliability among six judges to be consistently

high on all items, as the percentage of agreement ranged from 89 to 96% with a
mean of 94 %.
To pretest and socially validate the instrument, the CABS was
administered, then explained and discussed with an independent group
of fourth graders. Only two words were reported difficult, and the
instructions were considered easy to understand and follow. In addition,
each content area and its related items were discussed as to their relevancy
to a 9-year-old child's environment. The majority of the children considered
the area as problem areas or situations in which some skill deficiency or
anxiety existed. Further questioning, aimed at extending the content areas
or adding new items, produced no additional problem areas to be included
in the CABS.
Response categories for each CABS item were designed to vary
along a scrambled continuum of passive-assertive-aggressive responses.
For each item there were five possible answers, of which one was selected by
the subject which best represents the general behavior of the subject to the
specific situation. O f the five given responses, one was very passive, one was
passive, one was assertive, one was aggressive, and one was very aggressive.
This continuum provided information as to the type of nonassertive
behaviors, i.e., passive or aggressive, used for various content areas.
It should be noted that the initial answer format for the CABS
consisted of having the child decide responses to two different stimulus
persons. The child was required to respond as if the situation involved (a)
another child and (b) an adult. F r o m the pretesting of the CABS and
interviews with the children, it was determined that if a person was "another
child" or "an adult," the children answered with the same response. U p o n
questioning they indicated that in some cases they might actually respond
differently to the two stimuli but that their answering strategy consisted of
determining their "usual" response over a variety of similar situations and
stimuli. Therefore, the response f o r m a t was reduced to having the child
indicate one response to an item situation and the format of including
different specific stimuli was removed. See the Appendix for CABS items
and administration instructions.

Scoring o f the C A B S

Scoring for each item was determined by the extent to which the
chosen response was appropriate or inappropriate. A very passive response
was scored - 2 , a partially passive response was scored - 1 , an assertive
response was scored 0, a partially aggressive response was scored + 1, and a
very aggressive response was scored + 2. An initial assertiveness score was
calculated by summing the absolute value of the items of the scale. The
Children's Assertive BehaviOr Scale 7

greater the score (maximum = 54), the greater the person's level of
unassertiveness, and conversely, the lower the score, the greater the person's
assertiveness. In addition, separate passive (PACABS) and assertive
(AGCABS) scores were determined by totaling the absolute value of minus
scores and plus scores independently. These two scores represent the
severity and directionality of the subject's nonassertive responses. This
provides information as to whether the subject is deficient in assertive
responses due to a passive or an aggressive repertoire. The scoring key is
provided in Table II.

T a b l e II. A n s w e r K e y to C h i l d r e n ' s A s s e r t i v e B e h a v i o r Scale a

1. a =-2, b-- +2, c= 0, d =-1, e = +1

2. a = -1, b = +1, c =-2, d = +2, e = 0
3. a = +2, b = 0, c =-2, d = +1, e =-1
4. a = +1, b =-2, c = +2, d = 0, e =-1
5. a = 0, b =-1, c = +1, d =-2, e= +2
6. a =-2, b = +2, c = 0, d =-1, e = +1
7. a = -1, b = +1, c = -2, d = +2, e = 0
8. a = +2, b = 0, c =-1, d= +1, e =-2
9. a = +1, b = -2, c = +2, d = 0, e = -1
10. a = 0, b =-1, c = +1, d =-2, e = +2
11. a =-2, b = +2, c = 0, d =-1, e = +1
12. a = +2, b = O, c =-1, d= +1, e =-2
13. a = +1, b =-2, c = +2, d = 0, e=-I
14. a = +1, b =-2, c = +2, d = 0, e =-1
15. a = 0, b = -1, c = +1, d =-2, e = +2
16. a =-2, b = +2, c = 0, d =-1, e = +1
17. a =-1, b = +1, c = -2, d = +2, e = 0
18. a = +2, b = O, c =-1, d = +1, e =-2
19. a = +1, b =-2, c= +2, d= O, e=-I
20. a = O, b = -1, c = +1, d = -2, e = +2
21. a =-2, b= +2, c = 0, d--=-l, e = +1
22. a = -1, b = +1, c = -2, d = +2, e = 0
23. a = +2, b= 0, c=-l, d = +1, e=-2
24. a = +1, b =-2, c= +2, d = 0, e=-I
25. a = -2, b = +2, c = 0, d =-1, e = +1
26. a = -2, b = +1, c = -1, d = +2, e = 0
27. a = 0, b =-1, c = +1, d =-2, e= +2

a T h e C A B S g e n e r a t e s t h r e e scores: apassive s c o r e , w h i c h is t h e s u m
t o t a l o f t h e m i n u s a n s w e r s ; a n aggressive s c o r e , w h i c h is t h e t o t a l
o f t h e p o s i t i v e s c o r e s ; a n d a total s c o r e , w h i c h is t h e a b s o l u t e v a l u e
o f t h e passive ( n e g a t i v e ) a n d aggressive ( p o s i t i v e ) values. T h e t o t a l
s c o r e c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e d e g r e e o f u n a s s e r t i v e n e s s p r e s e n t in
the respondent's behavioral repertoire. Normative data indicate an
a v e r a g e s c o r e o f 13 f o r m a l e s a n d f e m a l e s , w i t h m o s t c h i l d r e n falling
in t h e passive c a t e g o r y . T h e C A B S c a n b e a d m i n i s t e r e d t o p a r e n t s
a n d t e a c h e r s b y r e w o r d i n g i t e m s in t h e t h i r d p e r s o n , i.e., " s o m e o n e
says to the youth .... "
8 Michelson and Wood

DISCUSSION

Overall, the CABS shows acceptable psychometric properties for

clinical and research utility. Internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and
item-total correlations suggest that the instrument possesses internal
consistency and stability. The significant, through occasionally moderate
correlations with teacher, parent, and peer ratings suggest that the scale is
both socially and clinically relevant. The CABS's discriminant and
concurrent validity has, in part, been documented. Further research will be
needed to ascertain the relationship between the CABS and external
covariants. The absence of significant associations between the CABS and
potentially powerful moderator variables is of some importance. The
independence of the CABS from such variables as sex, intelligence, and
social desirability adds strong support for its construct and discriminant
validity.
Subsequent investigations will subject the CABS to further behavioral
and psychometric assessment in order to improve its clinical and research
utility. In the meantime, it does not appear that the CABS is biased by sex,
IQ, or social desirability factors. Clinicians and researchers interested in
utilizing the CABS might wish to explore and identify the presence of
alternative moderator variables in an effort to explore the relationship
between it and other constructs. Research examining the CABS with regard
to anxiety, locus of control, self-esteem, and related constructs could yield
important clinical information. In addition, the association between the
CABS and behavioral measures of performance, adjustment, and academic
achievement remains of paramount interest.
Information regarding specific normative data for racial-ethnic
populations awaits and merits further study. Social and external validation
indices, for minority-status children, are particularly scarce in the social
skills assessment literature. Therefore, particular attention should be given
to moderator factors such as the race of peers or teachers who serve as
judges in the validation process.
Future investigators might wish to examine the relationship between
self-report and behavioral observations in the natural environment to
obtain additional information regarding external validity. Researchers will
also need to determine the relationship among social competency, peer
acceptance, and specific versus global dimensions of social skills.
Normative data are needed regarding the CABS across a divergent range of
grades, geographical regions, and socioeconomic levels. Finally,
improvements in the CABS should follow sound and systematic
psychometric principles in an effort to refine its clinical-research utility (cf.
Combs and Slaby, 1977; Michelson & Wood, 1981; Van Hasselt et al.,
1979).
Children's Assertive Behavior Scale 9

APPENDIX

Instructions

You are going to answer some questions about what you do in various situations. There
are not any "right" or "wrong" answers. You are just to answer what you would really do. For
example, a question might be:
"What do you do if someone does not listen to you when you are talking to them?"
You have to choose the answer which is like what you usually do. You would usually:
(a) Tell them to listen.
(b) Keep on talking.
(c) Stop talking and ask them to listen.
(d) Stop talking and walk away.
(e) Talk louder.
From these 5 answers, you decide which one is most like the one you would do. Now circle the
letter on the answer sheet for each question.
DO NOT WRITE ON THE TEST. WRITE ON THE ANSWER SHEET ONLY.
Now turn the page and answer each question by circling the letter (a, b, c, d, or e)
beside each question. After you have marked your answer for the question, go on to the next
one.
If you cannot understand a word, question, or answer, then raise your hand and you
will be helped. Remember to answer honestly about how you would act. There is no time limit,
but you should answer as quickly as possible.
1. Someone says to you, "I think you are a very nice person." You would usually:
(a) Say "No, I'm not that nice."
(b) Say "Yes, I think I am the best["
(c) Say "Thank you."
(d) Say nothing and blush.
(e) Say "Thanks, I am really great."
2. Someone does something that you think is really great. You would usually:
(a) Act like it wasn't that great and say "That was alright."
(b) Say "That was alright, but I've seen better."
(c) Say nothing.
(d) Say "I can do much better than that["
(e) Say "That was really great!"
3. You are working on something you like and think is very good. Someone says, "I don't
like it[" You would usually:
(a) Say "You're a dummy!"
(b) Say "I think it's good."
(c) Say "You are right," although you don't really agree.
(d) Say "I think this is great; besides what do you know!"
(e) Feel hurt and say nothing.

4. You forget something you were supposed to bring and someone says, "You're so
dumb! You'd forget your head if it weren't screwed on!" You would usually:
(a) Say "I'm smarter than you any day; besides what do you know!"
(b) Say "Yes, you're right, sometimes I do act dumb."
(c) Say "If anybody is dumb, it's you!"
I0 Michelson and Wood

(d) Say "Nobody's perfect. I'm not dumb just because I forgot something!"
(e) Say nothing or ignore it.
5. Someone you were supposed to meet arrives 30 minutes late, which makes you upset.
The person say nothing about why they are late. You would usually:
(a) Say "I'm upset that you kept me waiting like this."
(b) Say "I was wondering when you'd get here."
(c) Say "This is the last time I'll wait for you!"
(d) Say nothing to the person.
(e) Say "You're a jerk! You're late!"
6. You need someone to do something for you. You would usually:
(a) Not ask for anything to be done.
(b) Say "You gotta do this for me!"
(c) Say "Would you please do something for me?" and then explain what you want.
(d) Give a small hint that you need something done.
{e) Say "I want you to do this for me."
7. Someone ask you to do something which would keep you from doing what you really
want to do. You would usually:
(a) Say "I did have other plans, but I'll do what you want."
(b) Say "No way! Find someone else.
(c) Say "OK, rll do what you want."
(d) Say "Forget it, shove off!"
(e) Say "l've already made other plans, maybe next time."
8. You see someone you would like to meet. You would usually:
(a) Yell at the person and tell them to come over to you.
(b) Walk over to the person, introduce yourself, and start talking.
(c) Walk over near the person and wait for him to talk to you.
(d) Walk over to the person and start talking about great things you have done.
(e) Not say anything to the person.
9. Someone you haven't met before stops and says "hello" to you. You would usually:
(a) Say "What do you want?"
(b) Not say anything.
(c) Say "Don't bother me. Get lost!"
(d) Say "hello," introduce yourself, and ask who they are.
(e) Nod your head, say "hi," and walk away.
10. You know that someone is feeling upset. You would usually:
(a) Say "You seem upset; can I help?"
(b) Be with them and not talk about their being upset.
(c) Say "What's wrong with you?"
(d) Not say anything and leave them alone.
(e) Laugh and say "You're just a big baby!"
11. You are feeling upset, and someone says, "You seem upset." You would usually:

(a) Turn your head away or say nothing.

(b) Say "It's none of your business!"
(c) Say "Yes, I am upset, thank you for asking."
(d) Say "It's nothing."
(e) Say "I'm upset, leave me alone."
Children's Assertive Behavior Scale 11

12. Someone else makes a mistake and someone blames it on you. You would usually:
(a) Say "You're crazyF'
(b) Say "That wasn't my fault; someone else made the mistake."
(c) Say "I don't think it was my fault."
(d) Say "Wasn't me, you don't know what you're talking about!"
(e) Take the blame or say nothing.
13. Someone asks you to do something, but you don't know why it has to be done. You would
usually:
(a) Say "This doesn't make any sense, I don't want to do it."
(b) Do what they ask and say nothing.
(c) Say "This is dumb, I'm not going to do it!"
(d) Before doing it, say "I don't understand why you want this done."
(e) Say "If that's what you want" and then do it.
14. Someone says to you they think that something you did was terrific. You would usually:
(a) Say "Yes, I usually do better than most."
(b) Say "No, that wasn't so hot."
(c) Say "That's right, because I'm the best."
(d) Say "Thank you."
(e) Ignore it and say nothing.

15. Someone has been very nice to you. You would usually:
(a) Say "You have been really nice to me, thanks."
(b) Act like they weren't that nice and say "Yea, thanks."
(c) Say "You have treated me alright, but I deserve even better."
(d) Ignore it and say nothing.
(e) Say "You don't treat me good enough!"

16. You are talking very loudly with a friend and someone says, "Excuse me, but you are
being too noisy." You would usually:
(a) Stop talking immediately.
(b) Say "If you don't like it, get lost!" and keep on talking loudly.
(c) Say "I'm sorry, I'll talk quietly" and then talk in a quiet voice.
(d) Say "I'm sorry" and stop talking.
(e) Say "Alright" and continue to talk loudly.

17. You are waiting in line and some steps in front of you. You would usually:
(a) Make quiet comments such as, "Some people have a lot of nerve," without actually
saying anything directly to the person.
(b) S~ty"Get to the end of the line!"
(c) Say nothing to the person.
(d) Say loudly, "Get out of this line you creep!"
(e) Say "I was here first; please go to the end of the line."

18. Someone does something to you that you don't like and it makes you angry. You would
usually:
(a) Shout "You're a creep, I hate you!"
(b) Say "I am angry, I don't like what you did."
(c) Act hurt about it but not say anything to the person.
(d) Say "I'm mad. I don't like you!"
(e) Ignore it and not say anything to the person.
12 Michelson and Wood

19. Someone has something that you want to use. You would usually:
(a) Tell them to give it to you.
(b) Not ask to use it.
(c) Take it from them.
(d) Tell the person you would like to use it, and then ask to use it.
(e) Make a comment about it, but not ask to use it.
20. Someone asks if they can borrow something o f yours, but it is new and you don't want
to let them use it. You would usually:
(a) Say "No, I just got it and I don't want to lend it out; maybe some other time."
(b) Say "I really don't want to, but you can use it."
(c) Say "No, go get your own!"
(d) Give it to them even though you don't want to.
(e) Say "You're crazy!"
21. Some people are talking about a hobby you really like, and you want to join in and
say somethingl You would usually:
(a) Not say anything.
(b) Interrupt the people and immediately start telling them how good you are at this
hobby.
(c) Move closer to the people and enter into the conversation when you have a chance.
(d) Move closer to the people and wait for them to notice you.
(e) InterruPt the people and immediately start talking about how much you like the
hobby.
22. You are working on a hobby and someone asks, "What are you doing?" You would
usually:
(a) Say "Oh, just something" or "Oh, nothing."
(b) Say "Don't bother me. Can't you see I'm working."
(c) Keep on working and say nothing.
(d) Say "It's none of your business!"
(e) Stop working and explain what you were doing.
23. You see someone trip and fall down. You would usually:
(a) Laugh and say "Why don't you watch where you're going?"
(b) Say "Are you alright, is there anything I can do?"
(c) Ask "What happened?"
(d) Say "That's the breaks !"
(e) Do nothing and ignore it.
24. You bumped your head on a shelf" and it hurts. Someone says, "Are you alright?"
You would usually:
(a) Say "I'm fine, leave me alone!"
(b) Say nothing and ignore them.
(c) Say "Why don't you mind your own business!"
(d) Say "No, I hurt my head; thanks for asking."
(e) Say "It's nothing, I'm OK."
25. You made a mistake and someone else is blamed for it. You would usually:
(a) Say nothing.
(b) Say "It's their mistake!"
(c) Say "I made the mistake."
(d) Say "I don't think that person did it."
(e) Say "That's their tough luck!"
Children's Assertive Behavior Scale 13

26. You feel insulted by something someone said to you. You would usually:
(a) Walk away from them, but don't tell them you feel upset.
(b) Tell them not to do it again.
(c) Say nothing to the person, although you feel insulted.
(d) Insult them back and call them a name.
(e)' Tell them you don't like what they said and tell them not to do it again.
27. Someone often interrupts you when you're speaking. You would usually:
(a) Say "Excuse me, I would like to finish what I was saying."
(b) Say "This isn't fair; don't I get to talk?"
(c) Interrupt the other person by starting to talk again.
(d) Say nothing and let the person continue to talk.
(e) Say "Shut up, I was talking!"

REFERENCES

Beck, S., Forehand, R., Wells, K. C., and Quante, A. Social skills training with children:
An examination of generalization from analogue to natural settings. Unpublished
manuscript. Athens: University of Georgia, 1978.
Combs, M. F., and Slaby, D. A. Social skills training with children. In B. B. Lahey and
A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology: Vol. 1. New York: Plenum
Press, 1977.
Goldfried, M. R., and D'Zurillz, R. J. A behavioral analytic model for assessing competence.
In C. D. Spieldberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology:
Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Hersen, M., and BeUack, A. S. Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook. New York:
Pergamon Press, 1976.
Hops, H., Fleischman, D. H., Guild, J. J., Paine, S. C., Walker, H. M., and Greenwood,
C. R. Peers Programs for socially withdrawn children. Eugene: Center at Oregon for
Research in the Behavioral Education of the Handicapped, Center on Human
Development, University of Oregon, 1978.
Michelson, L., and Wood, R. Behavioral assessment and training of social skills for
children and adolescents. In M. Hersen, P. Miller, and R. Eisler (Eds.), Progress
in behavior modification, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Michelson, L., and Wood, R. A group assertive training program for elementary school
children. Child Behavior Therapy, 1980, 2, 1-9.
Michelson, L., Andrasik, F., Vucelic, I., and Coleman, D. Concurrent, predictive and
external validity of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale: Teacher, parents, peers
and self-report measures of social compentency in elementary school children.
Unpublished manuscript. Pittsburgh: Department of Psychiatry, University of
Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, 1979.
Van Hasselt, V. B., Bellack, A. S., Hersen, M., and Whitehill, M. B . S o c i a l skills assess-
ment and training for children: An evaluative review. Advances in Behavior Research
and Therapy, 1979, 17, 413-438.
Walker, H. M., Street, A., Garrett, B., Hops, H., Crossen, J., and Greenwood, C. R. Re-
programming environmented contingencies for effected social skills (RECESS);
Consultant manuak Eugene: Center at Oregon for Research in the Behavioral
Education of the Handicapped, University of Oregon, 1978.
Wood, R., Michelson, L., and Flynn, J. Assessment of assertive behavior in elementary school
children. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement
of Behavior Therapy, Chicago, December 1978.