Rating Scale Critique: Social Skills Improvement System

Juliet Duralde and Kendra Ostrovsky

Chapman University

CSP636: Assessment For Counselors

Summer 2021
 Rating Scale Critique: Social Skills Improvement System

Description

The Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales are intended to aid

professionals in screening and classifying students suspected of having significant social skill

deficits. It assists in the development of interventions for those students. Frank M. Gresham

(Ph.D.) and Stephen N. Elliott (Ph.D.) created the SSIS in 2008 to simplify the identification of

students in need of social skill support and their subsequent intervention planning. Both of the

individuals who authored this rating scale and manual identify as white American males.

Practical Information and Features

There are four SSIS Rating Scales forms; a teacher form, a parent form, student (ages

8-12) form, and student (ages 13-28) form. Each form is available electronically or manually,

and both student and parent forms are also available in Spanish. Generally, it takes the rater 15 to

20 minutes to complete a form. The SSIS only contains rating scales in the Spanish and English

languages.

Although the topics and questions differ slightly, each of the four types of the SSIS

Rating Forms follows a similar format. Questions ask students to rate the presence of social skills

and problem behaviors on a Likert scale corresponding to how true (N-not true, L-little true, A- a

lot true, V- very true) and how important (n- not important, i- important, c- critical) a statement

is to their perceived social development. Students in the 8-12 age range do not rank the

importance of each social skill because Gresham and Elliott (2008) did not see this as

developmentally appropriate. Parents and teachers completing the form rate the frequency of

both social skills and problem behaviors using a similar Likert scale format that reveals if they

occur never, seldom, often, or always. Only teachers rating a student using SSIS complete the
section on academic competence. This scale ranges from 1-5, with a 1 indicating the student falls

in the lowest 10% of the class, 2 the lowest 20%, 3 the middle 40%, 4 the highest 20%, and 5 the

highest 10% of their class for math, reading, and learning behaviors (Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

The SSIS Rating Scale is a revised version of the original Social Skills Rating System,

developed by Gresham and Elliott in 1990. The 2008 edition was created to update the perceived

national norms utilized as baselines in the assessment. Additionally, the 2008 edition is

considered a better measure for children ages three to five because the authors included a norm

group of parents and teachers assessing children in this age range (Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

Also, the 2008 version contains four additional sub-scales that include communication,

engagement, bullying, and the Autism Spectrum. Furthermore, the SSIS has a Spanish version

and direct links to interventions. There are also improved psychometric properties and a more

significant overlap of content across forms.

In general, the manual recommends that the SSIS Rating Scales be used when evaluating

students whose ‘problem behaviors’ interfere with the student’s ability to acquire or perform

social skills (Gresham & Elliott, 2008). The manual advises raters to complete the form in a

single session. Therefore it is essential to facilitate a safe and quiet space for the rater to

complete the SSIS. In regards to students, establishing rapport and monitoring the administration

is especially important.

Characteristics

The Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) rating scale claims to assess three

domains: social skills, problem behaviors, and academic competence. Each domain contains

subdomains to help administrators understand a student’s baseline skills and deficits to make a

plan for improvement. Elliot and Gresham (2008) define social skills as “learned behaviors that
promote positive interactions applied in appropriate social situations'' (p.1). The seven

subdomains tested in the social skills subscale include communication, cooperation, assertion,

responsibility, empathy, engagement, and self-control. Conversely, problem behaviors “interfere

with the acquisition or performance of socially skilled behaviors” (Elliot & Gresham, 2008, p. 2).

The teacher and parent forms contain rating questions for the problem behavior subscale within

the following five subdomains: externalizing, bullying, hyperactivity/inattention, internalizing,

and autism spectrum behaviors. The teacher form contains an academic competence section in

which they are asked to assess their primary or secondary student on reading and math

performance, motivation, parental support, and general cognitive functioning. Overall the SSIS

takes a multi-rater approach; teachers, parents, and students themselves can document the

frequency and perceived importance of various positive behaviors. To reiterate, only parents and

teachers can rank problem behaviors, and only teachers can rate academic competence.

Test Administration

Gresham and Elliot (2008) estimate each rating scale form takes about fifteen to twenty

minutes to complete. Administering the SSIS does not require any special outside training. Still,

the authors do require administrators to possess at least a bachelor’s degree. They have

completed a program that included “coursework in principles and measurement in the

administration and interpretation of tests” (Gresham & Elliot, 2008, p. 4). The test can be scored

by hand or electronically using the ASSIST software system; both methods take no more than

twenty minutes, and both the score sheet and manual contain specific details on how to interpret

and measure scores.

Gresham and Elliot recommend adhering to five steps when administering the rating

scale. First, establish rapport with the rater. By this, they mean keeping an open and honest
dialogue with the student, teacher, and/or parent about the intended use of results, reason for

evaluation, limits of confidentiality, and any relevant legal issues regarding privileged

communication. Second, administrators should record demographic information about the

student and the rater. Third, they should explain to the raters how to mark responses to ensure

completeness and accuracy. Fourth, the rater should complete the form; it is recommended that

the rater (especially if they are a student) complete the form with the administrator to clear up

any confusion or questions. Lastly, the administrator should review the rating scale to check for

missing or multiple answers to one question to have all the information they need to complete an

accurate assessment of the student.

Critique of Test Characteristics

The SSIS Rating Forms have many features and characteristics that make them accessible

and easy to use. Primarily, its availability in written or electronic versions ensures easy

administration and accessibility. The forms and scoring process is intended to be as brief as

possible while still providing ample information on important behaviors. Additionally, the

multi-rater approach was designed to incorporate more objective, reliable, and valid data that

provides a more holistic view of the student. Furthermore, the SSIS was revised in 2008 to

ensure that the norms utilized are considered to represent sex-specific and age-based norms. This

revision also came with improved psychometric properties that provide evidence for validity and

internal consistency. Finally, the 2008 revision of the SSIS Rating Forms offers direct links to

interventions, like specific social skills programs.

The validity and reliability section of the manual provides a variety of measures

demonstrating high correlation coefficients among scales and subscales and between different

raters. Internal consistency reliability presents a .90 coefficient alpha, and interrater reliability
between teachers observing the same student came out to a mean coefficient alpha of .58.

Interrater reliability between parents and close relatives observing the same student resulted in a

median coefficient alpha of .59. Although relatively low compared to the ideal coefficient of .1,

Gresham and Elliott (2008) argue that the discrepancy occurred because only one teacher knew

the student (especially at the primary level) very well, and parents often know the child better

than any other close relative. However, the low alpha coefficients presented indicate that this

rating scale represents low reliability as a multi-rater scale, making it confusing and difficult to

synthesize information gained from different raters into one cohesive behavioral plan.

Overall, raters need to use the results of these scales as a general guideline, not a

diagnostic tool or criteria. Parents and teachers often do not see the same behaviors, making it

ideal for assessing a whole child but also challenging for interpreting the best developmental

plan to improve a child’s behavior. Additionally, the race (white) and gender (male) of the test

creators inevitably creates some bias in the type of social skills deemed culturally and socially

appropriate. Therefore, test administrators should ask themselves if there are any cultural

differences between the student and the demographics of the norm group. Also, the rating scale

has not been updated since 2008, thirteen years ago. An updated version might better assess the

needs and skills of positive social behavior today, especially in a post-pandemic society. It should

also include more than two languages to better reflect the diverse backgrounds of families and

their students across the country.

Clinical Tool Standardization and Reliability

Sample
 Gresham and Elliott (2008) sought to create a representative norm sample in their efforts

to update the SSIS. In doing so, the samples were based on the Current Population Survey,

March 2006. The survey's demographics were applied to the three norm groups; preschool (ages

3 to 5) and two school-aged groups (ages 5 to 12 and 13 to 18). Each age group sample was

designed to have equal numbers of males and females and to match the U.S population

concerning the socioeconomic status and geographical region. This nationwide sample spanned

35 states and contained a sample of 4,700 children. The states included were broken down by

region, including five Northeast states, nine North Central states, twelve South states (including

District of Columbia), and nine West states (Gresham & Elliott, 2008). They do not break down

the population of raters per state, but they do list counties, and it appears that states with higher

populations (New York, California, Texas) contain the most amount of participants. Additionally,

their standardization plan called for the inclusion of at least 25 individuals from the following

clinical populations: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

(ADD/ADHD), Developmental Delay, Emotional/Behavioral Disturbance, Gifted/Talented,

Intellectual Disability, Specific Learning Disability, and Speech/Language Impairment (Gresham

& Elliott, 2008).

Sample Critique

Although Gresham and Elliott (2008) mention their commitment to a representative

sample several times, there is no actual data reported regarding the demographic information. A

map of the United States is included with different points highlighting each geographic location

where data was collected. However, no further information is given regarding any other

demographic information (i.e., gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, etc.). This is

problematic as there is no way to ensure that the data truly aligns with Gresham and Elliott’s

(2008) call for inclusion in any demographic dimension.

Reliability

The SSIS manual reports reliability data by including the internal consistency reliability,

test-retest reliability for parent, teacher, and student forms, interrater reliability for parent and

teacher forms, and standard error of measurement (SEM). Internal consistency aims to assess the

consistency of scores across items within one scale or subscale of the test (Gresham & Elliott,

2008). If the content is homogenous and well-written, it will best represent the behavioral trait or

dimension that the scale of the test aims to assess. Gresham and Elliott (2008) used Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient to evaluate internal consistency for all three domains (social skills, problem

behaviors, and academic competence) for all three test forms (student, parent, and teacher).

Alpha coefficients in the range of 0.8 are considered adequate for screeners, and 0.9 the best for

education and clinical use (Sheperis et al., 2020). Median coefficient alpha reliabilities for the

Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, and Academic Competence scales fall at 0.9 or above.

Subscale coefficients range from 0.7 to 0.85, but Sheperis et al. (2020) argue that an alpha

coefficient of 0.7 is adequate for subscale reliability. Gresham and Elliott (2008) do not include a

breakdown of median alpha coefficients for each domain, but they report average coefficients in

each form of each reliability measure. It would be beneficial if they were more explicit about the

average reliability testing results rather than present these high correlations with little breakdown

of averages.

Test-retest reliability finds the consistency of scores across a brief gap in time for the

“same individual by the same rater using the same form” (Gresham & Elliott, 2008, p. 66). In the

teacher form sample, Gresham and Elliott (2008) included 144 individuals rated twice by the
same teacher for an average of 43 days apart. Subscale reliability coefficients ranged from

0.68-0.86 with an average of .81. Gresham and Elliott (2008) reported a relatively low shift of

average test scores between ratings; the mean standard score changed by less than one point or

one-fifteenth of a standard deviation. On the parent form, 115 individuals were rated by a parent

twice on an average of 61 days apart. The median subscale reliability alpha coefficient for the

parent form came out to 0.8; overall range extended from 0.7-0.87 (Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

For the student form, 127 individuals aged 8-18 rated themselves twice, an average of 66 days

apart (Gresham & Elliott, 2008). Subscale reliability for students presented much lower

coefficients, ranging from 0.59-0.81, and a median reliability coefficient of 0.71. Gresham &

Elliott (2008) account for this lower test-retest reliability among students due to their less

consistent interpretations of behavioral statements.

Next, Gresham & Elliott (2008) evaluated interrater reliability, assessing the scores of

two raters rating the same individual using the same form around the same time. They highlight

that the difference between raters comes down to how differently they interpret behavioral

statements, how differently they interpret the intensity of the student’s behaviors, and how

differently the student behaves in front of each different rater (Gresham & Elliott, 2008). The

level of interaction between the two teachers rating the one student tended to have significant

variation, especially for primary students who only had one homeroom teacher. Subscale

reliability coefficients for the 108 teachers that rated 54 students ranged from 0.36-0.69, with a

median of 0.59 (Gresham & Elliott, 2008). For the parent form, Gresham and Elliott (2008) had

both parents (or one parent and one close relative) rate 110 individuals aged 3-18. Reliability

coefficients for subscales on the parent form fell between the 0.5-0.6 range, with standout low

reliability for the assertion subscale (0.37), bullying (0.38), and internalizing behaviors (0.43)
(Gresham & Elliott, 2008). Both parent and teacher samples included individuals from each

demographic category of sex, race/ethnicity, parent’s education, and region of the country

deemed representative of the population. However, no specifications are made about the actual

demographic makeup of this group (Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

The test makers include a short section on the standard error of measurement (SEM) or

the estimated difference between the obtained test score and the true test score (the score

obtained without any error). The SEM for teachers assessing social skills of children grouped in

ages 3-18 is 2.6, for problem behaviors 3.0-3.7, and academic competence 2.6-3.6 (Gresham &

Elliott, 2008). On the parent form, SEM ranges from 3.0-3.3 for social skills and 3.2-3.6 for

problem behaviors. For the student form, SEM of social skills came out to 3.7 and 3.3 and 4.5

and 3.3 for problem behaviors. Generally, lower SEMs indicate a higher reliability coefficient;

however, this is relative to the standard deviation (Sheperis et al., 2020). Nevertheless, this scale

contains a standard deviation of 15, which according to calculations done by Sheperis et al.

(2020), indicates the SEM of a highly reliable scale. Therefore, the ranges of standard error of

measurement found by Gresham and Elliott (2008) indicate a relatively low error and high

reliability.

The manual for SSIS also contains a fourth method of reliability testing. Correlation

between the SSIS and other similar measures (parallel stability) measures the reliability

coefficient of the rating scale (the SSIS) to various other similar behavioral assessment scales.

The authors discussed intercorrelation coefficients in the validity section rather than the

reliability section of the manual. Still, the study compared SSIS to the Social Skills Rating

System (SSRS), the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-II), the

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II), Walker-McConnell Scale of

Social Competence and School Adjustment (SSCSA), and the Home & Community Behavior

Scales (HCSBS). Correlation coefficients with the SSRS range from .46-.76, .44-.82 with the

BASC-II, .48-.75 with the Vineland-II, .71-.76 with the SSCSA, and .51-.77 with the HCSBS

(Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

Reliability Critique

Gresham and Elliott measure temporal stability with the test-retest method, stability

across two tests with multiple parallel comparisons, stability within the measure by assessing

internal consistency, and consistency across raters by measuring interrater reliability.

The test-retest reliability method did not include a t-test to ensure stability of the mean,

but they do state that the mean, standard scores changed by less than one point (Gresham &

Elliott, 2008). The correlation coefficients for all three forms fell between 0.59-.80, which is high

considering each test was administered between 1.5 and 2 months apart; the general guideline for

test-retest reliability dictates .60 as an appropriate coefficient for tests or scales administered

more than one month apart (Sheperis et al., 2020). When measuring the stability of scores across

two tests, Gresham and Elliott (2008) included various samples but found relatively moderate

correlations, with few exceeding the .70 range. For measuring internal consistency, the test

makers used Cronbach’s alpha which is considered the best for evaluating a multiple response

formatted test (Sheperis et al., 2020). Findings for the overall internal consistency of the entire

rating scale came to .90, a value considered reliable for clinical and educational purposes, and

.75-.80 for the internal subscale consistency, also deemed reliable to making educational and

clinical decisions (Sheperis et al., 2020). Lastly, Gresham and Elliott (2008) assessed interrater

reliability for parents and teachers. General guidelines for a robust scale indicate that the

correlation coefficient for interrater consistency among two parents should lie around .60, for
teachers and parents around .50, and for child and parent around .40 (Sheperis et al., 2020).

Gresham and Elliott (2008) did not conduct their inter-rater analysis this way and instead tested

two parents assessing one student and two teachers assessing one student. This led to relatively

low inter-rater consistency and failed to include comparisons that might better capture the

differences between behaviors at home and school and the differences in perspectives between

child and adult.

All in all, the measures done by Gresham and Elliott (2008) demonstrate mostly strong

indications of reliability. The comparisons across similar tests demonstrate only moderate

consistency, and the inter-rater reliability tests are not adequate, nor do they indicate strong

correlations. However, Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency ratings demonstrates

educationally and clinically significant reliability, and the test-retest method shows a high level

of stability over time. Therefore, this test should be considered in the moderate to strong range of

reliability and used among those wanting to rate the behavior of their students who fit the

demographic characteristics of the norm group. This does not mean that administrators of the

SSIS should use the results as a singular justification for any diagnosis or behavior plan. Rather

it should be employed as a tool for helping understand the student’s current status and possible

needs to enhance positive behavioral development.

Clinical Tool Validity and Conclusion

Validity

The manual includes mention of content, construct, and criterion validity. Gresham and

Elliott (2008) overlap content and construct validity with very little clear evidence as to how they

developed the content for their test. For construct validity, they state that “item development for
the SSIS rating scales was based on a broad survey of the empirical literature on social skills

deficits in special populations,” without actually defining the makeup of these “special

populations” or the literature where they derived their findings (Gresham & Elliott, 2008, p. 75).

They only specifically name the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV and the Social Skills

Rating System (SSRS) as two sources for informing the items on the SSIS. The items taken from

these related diagnostic criteria were subjected to DIF, factor-analysis, item-total correlation, and

readability analysis (Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

Additionally, Gresham and Elliott (2008) tested the perceived importance of each test

item by allowing participating parents, students (age 13-18), and teachers to rate the importance

of each Social Skill and Problem Behavior item on a scale from 0-2. Across all forms and

subscales, the mean rating for importance of each item landed at or exceeded 1 (Gresham &

Elliott, 2008). However, this does not present strong construct validity evidence because the

opinion of raters does not reflect theoretical or empirical knowledge that should be used to

develop and assess a construct or domain. It also fails to present content validity because the test

receives subjective and surface-level feedback from respondents rather than from a panel of

experts on the topic of childhood behavioral issues (Sheperis et al., 2020).

Gresham and Elliott (2008) find the intercorrelation coefficients among scales and

subscales of the SSIS to further cover content validity. Gresham and Elliott (2008) categorize

SSIS into three general domains: Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, and Academic Competence.

They intend the social skills domain to contain behaviors that promote positive social

interactions, which likely leaves little room for problem behaviors. Therefore the moderately

negative correlation to the Problem Behaviors scale was anticipated and displayed. For each

form (parent, teacher, and student), the Social Skills and Problem Behaviors alpha
intercorrelation coefficient ranged from -.41 to -.65, demonstrating the moderate negative

correlation that they predicted (Gresham & Elliott, 2008). Furthermore, the correlation between

the Social Skills scale and Academic Competency was moderate and positive, which also reflects

Gresham and Elliot’s (2008) prediction based on their assertion that learning requires social

interaction. The correlation coefficient for academic and social domains were .50 and .53,

reflecting the moderate associations between social skills development and achievement

proposed by Gresham and Elliott (2008).

Lastly, Gresham and Elliott (2008) contain criterion validity by comparing the SSIS to

five other measures: Social Skills Rating System (SSRS), the Behavior Assessment System for

Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-II), the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition

(Vineland-II), Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (SSCSA),

and the Home & Community Behavior Scales (HCSBS). Alpha correlation coefficients between

the SSIS and each of these similar scales can be found in the reliability section listed in the above

section. Overall, average coefficients ranged from .46 to .82 at the highest, demonstrating

moderate to strong relationships and validity when comparing the SSIS to other behavioral rating

scales.

Validity Critique

For the most part, the data included on reliability demonstrates that the SSIS measures

the intended domain of social skills and problem behaviors. Alpha correlation coefficients

demonstrate an inverse relationship between variables tested in the Social Skills and Problem

Behaviors domains and moderate correlations between variables tested in the Social Skills and

Academic Competence domains. The Social Skills domain is intended to be comprised of

behaviors that promote positive social interactions, which likely leaves little room for problem
behaviors resulting in an inverse relationship. Furthermore, it is believed that much of learning

involves social interactions, hence the moderate correlation between Academic Competence and

Social Skills. Gresham and Elliott (2008) also assess correlation among items in the same

subscales (item-total correlation). They break down all of these correlations onto charts included

in the validity section in the manual but write that the average coefficient for Social Skills on the

teacher form landed at .60, .50 on the parent form, and .40 on the student form. The average

coefficient for correlation of items on the Problem Behaviors subscale across parent and teacher

forms came out to .40 or above (Gresham & Elliott, 2008). Overall, the correlational relationship

among variables appears only moderate, indicating moderate to low levels of validity when

assessing if the descriptions of items matched what appeared in the data on coefficients.

Although many different forms of validity were explored throughout Elliott and

Gresham’s (2008) manual, there were a couple of notable forms of validity left out. Primarily the

consequences of test-taking and response processes were left out. Each is important

independently as they reinforce the need for the SSIS and the internal processes of the students

(respectively). Gresham and Elliott (2008) did not discuss the implications of administering the

SSIS, and therefore, potential biases are left unexposed. Furthermore, without further knowledge

of the internal processes that students, parents, or teachers are involved in when completing SSIS

Rating Forms, it reduces students to a simple score. Although the SSIS intends to get a holistic

view of the student by applying multiple perspectives, its lack of ability to display thought

processes or justifications limits the scope of the information provided.

Sheperis et al. (2020) argue that validity is a matter of degree, not an absolute. In this

case, SSIS falls in the low to moderate range of validity. Gresham and Elliott (2008) failed to

clearly state who, if any, experts reviewed their test content or what literature they used to derive
the items in each subscale. On the one hand, the intercorrelation coefficients among scales and

subscales demonstrate moderate correlations and reflect their predictive validity, indicating that

the content does measure the intended domains (problem behaviors, social skills, and academic

competence). Conversely, the manual completely lacks information on what theories,

evidence-based research, and literature they reviewed to create the items for each subscale,

indicating a major miss of criterion validity. Also, there is no discussion on the impact of SSIS

on special populations outside of a short section on differences between male and female

students. This prohibits conversations about whether the test will accurately and appropriately

measure social and behavioral skills for students from diverse populations. It appears that the

test-makers did not take care to ensure that their test would be valid across populations, nor did

they specify any random sampling or expertise review.

Conclusion

The Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales (SSIS Rating Scales; Gresham &

Elliott, 2008) are a set of norm-referenced rating forms that enable targeted assessment of

individuals and small groups (Gamst-Klaussen et al., 2016). It aids in evaluating social skills,

problem behaviors, and academic competence. The SSIS Rating Scales speak of being

intentional about creating a well-rounded and holistic view of the student. This is accomplished

by involving the parent and teacher in addition to the student to ensure multiple perspectives are

accounted for (Rigney, 2019). There are versions of the parent and student SSIS available in

Spanish in an attempt to provide accessibility. However, there are no other languages that are

made available. This creates a lack of access for those individuals that speak different languages.

When translated to Norwegian in a study done by Gamst-Klaussen et. al (2016), the SSIS

wielded moderate to strong relations to the English version and acceptable internal consistency
across subscales. This data provides the foundation for further translations of the SSIS Rating

Forms, which ultimately creates more accessibility for those whose English is not their primary

language.

Through data analysis, the SSIS has demonstrated multiple forms of reliability and

validity. Crosby (2016) reviewed the SSIS’s psychometric properties and evaluated its reliability

and strength. The author was impressed by the clear identification of behavioral strengths and

weaknesses across raters and settings. They recommend the use of the SSIS to guide specific

results to inform focused instruction and intervention. Furthermore, Crosby (2016) deemed the

psychometric properties of these scales as satisfactory and highlighted the usage of the SSIS as a

component of social and behavioral screening and evaluation.

Several publications have suggested the SSIS would benefit from an update of the

nor-references utilized in the assessment (Rigney, 2019; Gamst-Kaussen, et al., 2016; Crosby,

2016). Since the SSIS is intended to be a norm-referenced measure, it is important to reiterate the

significance of updating the norms to ensure the representation of the current population.

Although Gresham and Elliott’s (2008) revision prioritized updating the norms, they have yet to

be updated again since 2008. This leaves approximately a 13-year gap in which cultural and

behavioral norms have shifted significantly. Rigney (2019) sought to evaluate the efficacy and

reliability of the SSIS Rating Forms in a more up-to-date setting. Rigney concluded that the SSIS

would benefit from an updated version of normative data utilized. The author also suggested

additional reliability data in the screening and progress monitoring scale and parent, teacher, and

student forms. Including these suggestions would provide more support for the use of the SSIS in

cases of the assessment and monitoring of social-emotional competence in K-12 students

(Rigney, 2019).
 Ultimately, the SSIS Rating Scales provide a solid starting point when thinking about a

student’s social skills, problem behaviors, and academic competence. However, it is imperative

to utilize other methods of measurement in order to better evaluate and understand the needs of

students.

References
Crosby, J. W. (2011). Test review of Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales [Review of

the test Social skills improvement system rating scales, by F. M. Gresham & S. N.

Elliott]. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(3), 292–296.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910385806

Rigney, A. M. (2019). Test Review: Social Skills Improvement System Social-Emotional

Learning Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(5), 669–673.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918781194

Sheperis, Carl J, Drummond, Robert, & Jones, Karyn D. Assessment Procedures for Counselors

and Helping Professionals. 9th ed., Pearson, 2020.

Thor Gamst-Klaussen, Lene-Mari P. Rasmussen, Frode Svartdal & Børge Strømgren (2016)

Comparability of the Social Skills Improvement System to the Social Skills Rating

System: A Norwegian Study, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60:1, 20-31,

DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2014.971864