85543

13
JPA32110.1177/0734282913485543Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentLocke et al.

Article
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
2014, Vol 32(1) 6276
Assessing Social Skills in Early 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Elementary-Aged Children With sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282913485543
Autism Spectrum Disorders: The jpa.sagepub.com

Social Skills Q-Sort

Jill Locke1, Connie Kasari2 and Jeffrey J. Wood2

Abstract
This study employed a newly developed measure, the Social Skills Q-Sort (SSQ), to assess
paraprofessionals and teachers reports of social skills for children with and without ASD.
Paraprofessionals and teachers showed good rater-agreement on the SSQ. ROC curve analyses
yielded an excellent profile of sensitivity and specificity for discriminating between children with
ASD and typically developing children. The paraprofessional SSQ converged with objective ratings
of playground social behavior; however, there was little evidence of convergence between SSQ
scores and parent and teacher ratings on questionnaire measures. The SSQ may be effective in
screening for ASD and the severity of ASD-related social communication challenges.

Keywords
autism, social skills assessment, social involvement, social networks

Diagnosing and classifying children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been refined using
the gold-standard Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord et al., 2000) and the
Autism Diagnositic Interview-Revised (ADI-R; Lord, Rutter, & Le Couteur, 1994). Although it
is expected that most children with autism will be identified before they enter school, many chil-
dren go undiagnosed particularly if they are performing academically (Brock, Jimerson, &
Hansen, 2006). While there are many avenues in which families can turn to receive a diagnosis,
many families (especially those in urban settings) rely heavily on school resources; however,
many schools are ill-equipped to provide screening or diagnostic services for children suspected
of having an ASD, in part, because these assessments require an expertly trained clinician or
psychologist to administer, which can be time-consuming, quite costly, and unrealistic for public
school settings. Schools need a more cost-efficient and easily administered way of assessing and
screening childrens social skills, a core deficit of ASD. While existing paper and pencil rating
systems for social functioning reliably measure specific domains of social functioning, they do
not fully capture the gamut of social skills that children with ASD display. Because autism is a
spectrum disorder, childrens social abilities are difficult to measure and multiple domains of

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

2University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Jill Locke, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market St., 3rd Floor, Room 3107, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Email: jlocke@upenn.edu
Locke et al. 63

social functioning need to be evaluated. Thus, this study introduces a new measure, the Social
Skills Q-Sort (SSQ), that has the potential to address these issues.
The ability to understand social cues and engage in interpersonal exchanges requires a set of
social skills, which is inherent in most typically developing children. In contrast, children with
ASD experience challenges in social reciprocity and communication that may impede their abil-
ity to navigate social interactions, which in turn, may interfere with their ability to establish last-
ing and quality friendships. Children with ASD often experience challenges surrounding social
pragmatics (e.g., turn-taking in conversation, initiating conversation, and the ability to take the
listeners perspective), perseverative speech, and emotion regulation, expression, and under-
standing (Williams White, Keonig, & Scahill, 2007). These deficits may possibly lead to rejec-
tion and isolation from peers (Bellini, 2004), particularly when integrated with typically
developing children in inclusive school settings (Chamberlain, Kasari, & Rotherham-Fuller,
2007; Kasari, Locke, Gulsrud, & Rotheram-Fuller, 2011). Inclusion of children with ASD in
mainstreamed classrooms has become an increasingly common practice (Kasari, Freeman,
Bauminger, & Alkin, 1999); however, inclusion alone does not improve social functioning or
peer relationships (Kasari et al., 2011). In fact, children with ASD are often on the periphery of
their classroom social networks (Chamberlain et al., 2007; Kasari et al., 2011) and their social
involvement within these networks typically worsens as they progress through elementary school
(Rotheram-Fuller, Kasari, Chamberlain, & Locke, 2010).
Although researchers have begun to describe the developmental course of social interactions
and relationships among children with ASD (McConnell, 2002), measuring social functioning is
difficult particularly in higher functioning children with ASD. Although children with ASD
included in general education classrooms have comparable cognitive ability scores within the
average to above average range and are performing at grade level with respect to their typically
developing classmates, there is a disconnect in their social competencies (Kasari et al., 2011;
Rotheram-Fuller et al., 2010). Since social skills encompass several domains of social function-
ing (e.g. communication, friendship, engagement, play, emotion recognition/understanding, etc.)
that vary across children with ASD, reliably and comprehensively measuring childrens social
skills sets can be difficult to achieve when using only one approach, methodology, or rater
(Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
Aside from the ADOS and the ADI, the gold-standard instruments used to classify children
with ASD, at present, there are only a few paper and pencil assessment tools that are used to
identify social skills precisely and reliably (Bellini & Hopf, 2007). Among the most frequently
used for children with ASD are the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott,
1990), the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS; Constantino & Gruber, 2005) and the Autism
Social Skills Profile (ASSP; Bellini & Hopf, 2007). Although several studies have used the SSRS
to measure social skills in children with autism (Macintosh & Dissanayake, 2006; Meier, DiPerna,
& Oster, 2006), the SSRS was not specifically designed to assess children with autism. Thus, few
of the items address the unique patterns of social behavior exhibited by children with autism
(Bellini & Hopf, 2007), providing an insufficient profile of these childrens social skills and
behaviors. Another frequently used social skills assessment is the SRS (Constantino & Gruber,
2005). While the SRS yields a single total score with higher values indicating greater severity of
autism spectrum symptoms, the existence of separate subdomains of social behavior have not
been empirically supported (Bellini & Hopf, 2007; Pine, Luby, Abbacchi, & Constantino, 2006).
Thus, it may be difficult to parse out specific areas of social deficits in children with ASD. More
recently, Bellini & Hopf (2007) developed the ASSP, a questionnaire specifically designed for
children and adolescents with autism that provides a comprehensive measure of social function-
ing. While the ASSP provides a description of childrens social functioning, it was developed as
an intervention planning tool and has not been used a school-based screening tool.
64 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32(1)

Paper and pencil measures have traditionally been given to parents and teachers to complete
who may or may not be privy to childrens relationships with peers at school or have the oppor-
tunity to observe children in the context in which they apply these skills (i.e. the playground).
Since paraprofessionals spend a considerable amount of time with children with ASD during
social periods such as recess on the playground, they may be the most informed raters of chil-
drens social abilities. In addition, raters often do not have the ability to distinguish frequency
from significance using these instruments, thereby limiting the specificity and accuracy of iden-
tifying areas of strength and weakness in childrens skill sets (Waters & Deane, 1985). Thus,
alternative measurement strategies such as the Q-sort methodology may elucidate specific
domains of childrens social abilities to provide a more thorough profile of childrens overall
social competence.
The Q-sort methodology allows raters to rank order, from most characteristic to most unchar-
acteristic, a set of descriptive items in which scores are to be assigned (Waters & Deane, 1985).
This methodology (described below) offers several advantages to paper and pencil checklists.
First, raters are kept unaware of the constructs that will be scored from the data they provide,
thereby reducing response bias. Second, raters are not required to have detailed knowledge of
norms for each item since they are describing one specific child. Third, the significance of a
behavior is clearly distinguished from the frequency with which it occurs since raters sort items
into a rank order in the context of a well defined set of other items (Waters & Deane, 1985).
In the development of any instrument, a gold-standard measure should be used to cross-vali-
date the new rating scale. Although time intensive and costly, behavioral observations are well
regarded in capturing childrens social abilities in applied situations such as the classroom and
playground (Kasari et al., 2011) and serve as a gold standard for assessing severity of social com-
munication problems in daily life. The Q-sort developed in this study may be more cost-effective
and efficient in providing detailed information on childrens social abilities and friendships and
does not require a trained clinician, psychologist, or researcher to administer as with the ADOS.
To ascertain its convergent validity, Q-Sort ratings were cross-validated against detailed play-
ground behavioral observations, which served as the gold standard in this study.
The objective of this study was to explore various aspects of childrens social functioning as
rated by paraprofessionals and teachers. This study employed the SSQ to examine the social
skills of elementary-aged children with ASD and a group of typically developing matched peers.
We hypothesized that the SSQ would show evidence of rater agreement, and convergent validity
with behavioral observations. We also explored convergence with checklist measures of chil-
drens social skills. Furthermore, paraprofessionals and teachers ratings from the SSQ for chil-
dren with ASD were expected to be significantly lower than their ratings of the matched peers.

Method
Participants
There were 42 participants in this study: 21 children with ASD and 21 matched typically devel-
oping children and their parents. Children were included for the ASD group if they were referred
from their school administrations and had a diagnosis of ASD from a licensed psychologist, were
fully included in a regular education classroom for at least 80% of the school day, were between
the ages of 5 to 8 years old, and were in kindergarten through second grades.
Children in the matched group were recruited from the same classrooms as children with
ASD. Twenty-one children were matched on age, gender (predominantly male; 86%), and grade
to serve as a comparison group. Children were not matched on mental age because intelligence
tests were prohibited in the participating schools.
Locke et al. 65

Table 1. Child Demographics.

ASD (N = 21) Matched peers (N = 21)
M (SD) / Frequency (%) M (SD) / Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 18 (85.7) 18 (85.7)
Female 3 (14.3) 3 (14.3)
Grade
Kindergarten 4 (19) 4 (19)
First 11 (52.4) 11 (52.4)
Second 6 (28.6) 6 (28.6)
Ethnicity
Caucasian 9 (42.9) 7 (33.3)
Minority 12 (58.1) 14 (66.7)
Chronological age (years) 6.71 (1.00) 6.67 (0.86)

Table 1 summarizes the background characteristics for children with ASD and their matched
peers. In addition, 17 paraprofessionals (88% female) and 19 teachers (100% female) partici-
pated in this study. Children in classrooms with more than one child with ASD shared the same
paraprofessional. Both paraprofessionals and teachers were from diverse ethnic backgrounds
(Paraprofessionals: 23.5% Caucasian, 17.6% African American, 52.9% Latino, and 5.9% Asian;
Teachers: 36.8% Caucasian, 15.8% African American, 21.1% Latino, 15.8% Asian, and 10.5%,
Other). Overall, teachers had an average of 12.26 8.28 years of teaching experience and the
majority (63.2%) had some training (i.e. workshops, consultations, seminars, graduate courses,
and professional development) in working with children with ASD. A smaller percentage of
teachers (31.6%) were formally trained in special education. Further demographic information
was not collected on the 17 paraprofessionals that participated in this study.

Measures
Social Skills Q-Sort (Locke, Kretzmann, & Kasari, 2008). Consistent with Waters and Deane (1985),
the SSQ was developed and revised in four stages. In the first stage, the social skills and autism-
related intervention literature was reviewed. From this literature review, a preliminary item set
was constituted. The items were selected to represent the gamut of social skills since many
school-aged children with ASD experience a range of enduring and complex deficits that fall
underneath the larger umbrella of social functioning which encompasses a broad range of abili-
ties including foundational skills (e.g. using eye contact, playing with an object, taking turns
with peers) as well as more complex skills (e.g. having reciprocal conversations, playing social-
interactional games with typically developing peers, establishing, and maintaining friendships).
In the second stage, the preliminary item set was distributed to professionals (i.e. clinicians,
teachers, and researchers) working with children with ASD. They were asked to rate a child
with ASD that they knew well. These professionals were also instructed to document any items
that were unclear or irrelevant. In the third stage, behaviors that never occurred, could not be
sorted with good agreement, or had very little variance across subjects were revised or elimi-
nated. In the final stage, 43 professionals (i.e. clinicians, teachers, and researchers) were given
the SSQ and asked to sort the items (on cards) on a hypothetical typically developing child in
elementary school who embodies the ideal socially competent child. Each expert rater was
independently given the SSQ to complete at a time that was convenient to them. Their average
Q-sort ratings of this hypothetical child were used as a standard criterion against which Q-sort
66 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32(1)

ratings obtained in this study were compared. Simple correlations were conducted between the
SSQ criterion means for each item from the expert sort and each item from the paraprofessional
and teacher reported sorts for both children with ASD and their matched peers. The correlation
coefficient between the ideal construct definition and the description of the subject was used as
the subjects SSQ score. The correlation coefficients ranged from 1.00 to & +;1.00, where
positive correlations indicated closer approximations to the criterionthe ideally socially com-
petent elementary-aged child and negative correlations indicated deviance from the criterion
(Waters & Deane, 1985).
The SSQ was designed to permit descriptions of individual childrens repertoire of social
skills in order to create one comprehensive social skills profile. The SSQ consists of a set of
100 descriptive cards to be arranged or sorted into nine piles whose designations range from
most characteristic (pile 9) to least characteristic (pile 1) of a particular subject. Raters sorted
the items into three piles and then subdivided these piles into a total of nine. Then, working
from the outer piles toward the center, each pile was adjusted so that the final sort conforms to
a symmetrical, unimodal distribution with specified numbers of items in each of the nine piles
(e.g. 5, 8, 12, 16, 18, 16, 12, 8, 5). Items may not be deleted or excluded from the sort. Extremely
placed items were the most salient and most informative in conveying understanding of the
child being described. Items placed in the middle categories can be of three kinds: (a) the par-
ticular item is of little salience for understanding the child; (b) the particular item is sometimes
true and sometimes not trueexpressing its average importance; and (c) the rater has little or
no information or is uncertain about the behaviors or qualities involved. Each item on the SSQ
was scored in terms of its placement (piles 1-9) in the distribution (e.g., each of the five items
in pile 9 received a score of 9; each of the eight items in pile 8 received a score of 8, and so
forth). Subsequently, the items were correlated with the criterion means to generate one total
SSQ score. The specific items on the SSQ as well as their criterion means can be found in
Appendix A.

Playground Observation of Peer Engagement (POPE) (Kasari, Rotheram-Fuller, & Locke, 2005;
Kasari et al., 2011). The POPE is a timed-interval behavior coding system that examines
childrens engagement and social communicative behaviors with peers on the playground.
Independent observers watched the child with ASD on the playground for 40 consecutive
seconds and then coded for 20 s for 10 min during the recess or lunch period on two separate
occasions within 1 week. Observers were trained and considered reliable with a criterion
> 0.80. Playground engagement states were summed and divided by the total number of
observed intervals. Reliability was estimated with Kappa statistic and averaged to be .91
(range .83-.96; see Kasari et al., 2011).

Social Skills Rating SystemTeacher and Parent Forms (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990).The
SSRSteacher form is a 57-item assessment of childrens social behaviors. The first 48 items
are measured on a 0 to 2 point scale ranging from never to very often, whereas the remain-
ing nine items are rated on a scale from 1 to 5 ranging from lowest 10% to highest 10%.
The teacher-rated SSRS yields three categories: Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, and Aca-
demic Competence. The SSRSparent form is a 55-item assessment of childrens social
skills and problem behaviors. The same 0 to 2 point scale is used. The first 38 items yield the
Social Skills domain, and items 39 to 55 yield the Problem Behaviors domain. The SSRS has
high internal consistency ( = .73-.94) and test-retest reliability (r > .65-.93; Gresham &
Elliott, 1990).

Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS; Constantino & Gruber, 2005). The SRS is a 56-item rating
scale that assesses the level of reciprocal social behavior characteristically demonstrated by
Locke et al. 67

children with ASD. The SRS has been widely used to distinguish children with a pervasive
developmental disorder from those with other psychiatric conditions (Constantino et al.,
2006). The measure is used for children between the ages of 4 to 18 years with internal con-
sistency of .88, inter-rater reliability of .75, and testretest reliability of .88 (Constantino &
Gruber, 2005).

Procedures
Participants were recruited from 19 classrooms in six elementary schools in an urban area. Once
a letter of collaboration was obtained from the principal, recruitment materials were provided to
the school administration to distribute to interested families. Upon return, a peer consent and
parent packet were sent home to a randomly selected matched peer. During this visit, an indepen-
dent observer collected a behavioral observation on the child with ASD on the playground during
recess or lunch.
Paraprofessionals and teachers were asked to rate the child with autism and his/her matched
peer on the SSQ in order to test inter-rater agreement. Administration of the SSQ was counterbal-
anced where half of the paraprofessionals first gave Q-sort ratings to the child with autism and
the other half first gave Q-sort ratings to the matched peer. Teachers were also asked to complete
the SSRS and SRS for both the children with autism and their matched peers. As an incentive for
their time, paraprofessionals and teachers were offered a small stipend.

Results
Paraprofessionals and Teachers Q-Sorts Versus Criterion
The degree of association between the ideal criterion ratings and the SSQ ratings of each child in
this study was calculated for all paraprofessional- and teacher-reported SSQs. The mean for the
paraprofessional-reported SSQs for children with ASD was 0.15 0.41 with a range of .54 to
0.70 and 0.62 0.19 with a range of 0.02 to 0.80 for the matched peers. Similarly, the mean for
the teacher-reported SSQs for children with ASD was 0.07 0.36 with a range of 0.49 to 0.62
and 0.62 0.29 with a range of 0.44 to 0.84 for the matched peers. A rater (i.e. paraprofessionals
and teachers) by group (i.e. autism and matched peers) repeated measures ANOVA (RMANOVA)
indicated there were no significant within group differences between paraprofessional and
teacher ratings on the SSQ, F (1, 38) = .75, p = .39. See Figures 1 and 2. However, the RMANOVA
yielded significant between-group effects in paraprofessional and teacher ratings on the SSQ, F
(1, 38) = 30.72, p < .0001.
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis indicated that the optimal cutpoints
for identifying children with ASD were .19 on the teacher SSQ (sensitivity, .71; specificity, .95)
and .17 on the paraprofessional SSQ (sensitivity, .75; specificity, 1.00). Hence, at these cut-
points, the SSQ was able to detect the majority of true positive cases of ASD and made almost no
errors in falsely identifying a typical child as having ASD.

Rater Agreement
Intra-class correlations (ICC) were conducted to examine rater agreement between paraprofes-
sionals and teachers reports of social functioning on the SSQ for children with ASD and their
matched peers. Overall inter-rater agreement between paraprofessionals and teachers ratings of
social skills for children with ASD was good, ICC = .74. Similar agreement was attained for the
matched peers, ICC = .71.
68 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32(1)

Figure 1. Distribution of paraprofessional and teacher-rated SSQs for children with ASD.
Locke et al. 69

Figure 2. Distribution of paraprofessional and teacher-rated SSQs for the matched sample.
70 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32(1)

Table 2. Correlations Between SSQ, Observational Proportion Scores, and SRS and SSRS Scores.

Converging factors Paraprofessional SSQ ASD Teacher SSQ ASD

Observer-rated
Joint-engagement & games .48* .27
Initiations .51* .40
Appropriate responses .60* .17
Solitary engagement .46 .12
Successful initiations .29 .07
Responses .22 .05
Parent-rated
SSRS social skills .30 .04
SRS total score .15 .00
Teacher-rated
SSRS social skills .42 .64**
SRS total score .21 .64**
Diverging factor
Teacher-rated
SSRS academic competence .23 .24

Note: *p<.05. **p<.01.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Correlations between paraprofessional-reported SSQ scores and independent observer-rated
playground engagement scores for children with ASD are reported in Table 2. There was
some evidence of convergent validity for paraprofessional-rated SSQs. Correlations were
significant between paraprofessional SSQ scores and (a) observer-rated joint engagement and
games, (b) childrens total initiations toward peers, and (c) childrens appropriate responses
to peers initiations. However, paraprofessional-rated SSQs were not significantly correlated
with childrens solitary engagement, successful initiations and total responses to peers (range
r = .46-.29). In addition, teacher rated SSQs had negligible correlations with observer rated
playground engagement and social communicative behaviors (range r = .12-.40; not pre-
sented in Table 2).
Correlations between parents and teachers ratings were not significant for both the SRS (rASD
= .05. p = .82 and rMATCHED = .18, p = .44) and the SSRS (rASD = .02, p = .92 and rMATCHED =
.18, p = .44). We also examined paraprofessional- and teacher-reported SSQs and parent- and
teacher-rated SSRS and SRS scores (see Table 2). Overall, SSQ scores did not evidence a statisti-
cally significant association with parent- and teacher-rated SRS and SSRS scores for children
with ASD.

Predicting to Playground Observational Ratings

In contrast to teachers ratings on the SSRS and SRS, parents questionnaire ratings yielded sig-
nificant correlations with one variable from the POPE, appropriate responses, rSSRS = .54 and rSRS
= .50, respectively. A stepwise multiple regression was conducted to determine if paraprofes-
sional-rated SSQs and parent ratings on the SSRS and SRS contributed independent variance to
childrens appropriate responses on the POPE. The results indicated that paraprofessional-rated
SSQs significantly predicted childrens appropriate responses to peers on the playground, =
.60, t(15) = 2.87, p = .01. Parents ratings on the SSRS and SRS did not contribute additional
Locke et al. 71

variance to childrens appropriate responses to peers on the playground above and beyond para-
professional-rated SSQs.

Discussion
This study had two overarching goals. First, the SSQ was developed and paraprofessionals and
teachers ratings of childrens social skills were compared for agreement on young children with
and without ASD as well as against criterion ratings. Second, the validity of the SSQ was evalu-
ated. The results demonstrated the potential utility of the Q-sort methodology for deriving a
broad school profile of childrens social skills. Both teacher- and paraprofessional-rated SSQ
profiles were sensitive to the presence of ASD, with good sensitivity and excellent specificity.
The findings also showed that paraprofessional-rated SSQs were associated with objective obser-
vations of childrens social behavior during free play at recess, offering critical evidence of con-
vergent validity. However, teacher-rated SSQs showed little evidence of convergent validity.
Hence, the discussion focuses on the capacity of the paraprofessional-rated SSQ to assess social
skills in children with ASD, and also addresses possible reasons for the lack of evidence of valid-
ity for the teacher-reported SSQ.
These results provide further evidence of the disparity in social functioning between children
with ASD and their typically developing peers from a unique and often neglected perspective
that of paraprofessionals and teachers. Although social skills checklists are economical and effi-
cient, they may not fully capture multiple areas of childrens social functioning in applied
contexts. The SSQ may fill this void and act as a reliable and cost-effective school-based screen-
ing tool in identifying children who may need evaluation for an ASD.
There was evidence suggesting that paraprofessional-rated SSQ scores converged with
objective observations of childrens social engagement and behavior on the playground. It is
evident that generalization of skills to other contexts is challenging for children with ASD
(McConnell, 2002), and the presence (or lack of) social skills may be more apparent in unstruc-
tured settings such as the playground (Kasari et al., 2011). The fact that paraprofessionals
ratings on the SSQ converged with observer ratings on the POPE more than teachers and
parents ratings lend credence to the idea that paraprofessionals are more accurately assessing
childrens social skills in the playground context. However, paraprofessionals and teachers had
high inter-rater reliability for both samples traversing the classroom and the playground indi-
cating that the social skills being measured by the SSQ may be situation specific to the school
context.
Although paraprofessionals and teachers had high agreement in rating childrens social skills
on the SSQ, there was little evidence of convergent validity for the teacher-rated SSQ, which may
be due to several factors. First, these findings may be limited because of the small sample size in
each group, thereby limiting statistical power to detect a relationship. Second, the observed cor-
relations between teacher-rated SSQs and observers ratings of childrens playground engage-
ment may be due to the fact that teachers often do not spend time with children on the playground
during recess and lunch. These periods are typically monitored by paraprofessionals, which may
explain the lack of convergence between teachers and observers.
In considering why neither paraprofessional- nor teacher-rated SSQ scores converged with
parent-rated checklist scores, it is noted that items on the SSQ may not capture the same social
skills as the SSRS and SRS. The SSQ was created to represent the gamut of social behaviors
that characterize childrens social functioning at school. In this study, both parent-reported and
teacher-reported SSRS and SRS did not correlate for the sample with ASD or the matched
sample, which suggests that even validated social skills instruments may be situation specific,
where parents and teachers are seeing different social behaviors across the home and school
contexts. While this could be a sample size issue, it is more likely that the lack of convergence
72 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32(1)

between the paraprofessional- and teacher-rated SSQs and the parent- and teacher-rated SSRS
and SRS indicates that childrens social skills in one domain may not generalize to other con-
texts. Parents and teachers may have different opinions on childrens behaviors or what behav-
iors they see in children resulting in low agreement in their perceptions of childrens social
abilities (Reisinger et al., 2010). Thus, if parents and teachers ratings on these validated
measures did not correlate in this study, it is unlikely that the SSQ would correlate with either
measure.

Limitations
While this study is unique in its multimethod approach to understanding social skills in chil-
dren with ASD, there were several limitations to this study. First, only 21 children with ASD
and 21 matched peers were enrolled in this study. Additional research participants would
increase statistical power. Second, although children with ASD recruited for this study were
identified by their school districts as having an ASD and referred to this study by school per-
sonnel, research personnel did not independently confirm childrens diagnoses of ASD.
Furthermore, the matched peers were not screened for ASD to rule out the possibility of sample
contamination.
Furthermore, the cross-sectional design of this study and restrictions in grade level (K-2) also
limit understanding of what changes might occur across age groups, classrooms, and time.
Longitudinal studies may help specify a developmental trajectory in childrens social skill sets
that may specify when exact difficulties arise for children with ASD that might be optimal inter-
vention periods. Understanding how childrens social skills change as children age would help
inform interventions to target developmentally appropriate areas in childrens social functioning
that could potentially alleviate social difficulties at school.

Future Directions
Because the SSQ measures broad areas of childrens social functioning (see appendix), future
studies should examine whether the SSQ can be used as an instrument to identify potential
treatment areas for school-based social skills interventions. Researchers are only beginning to
explore and truly understand the social functioning of included school-aged children with
ASD and how these skills impact their relationships and engagement with peers on the play-
ground (Rotheram-Fuller et al., 2010; Kasari et al., 2011). While a variety of school-based
social skills interventions have been employed to remediate childrens social skills, the meth-
ods in which they identify childrens intervention targets are less clear (Bellini, Peters, Benner,
& Hope, 2007).
In addition, future studies should examine the stability of the SSQ over time to determine
whether it could be used to monitor intervention progress in children with ASD. Many studies
rely on one or two responders (e.g. parents and/or the child) to provide detailed information on
the social and emotional functioning of children with ASD (Bauminger & Kasari, 2000); how-
ever, the social lives of children with ASD are often complex and may not be fully understood
from a single source or within a single context (Kasari et al., 2011). Hence, measuring treatment
outcomes may be limited and intervention effectiveness may not be adequately captured. An
essential piece to understanding childrens social skills sets is to incorporate multiple agents in
the childs life to cross-validate the information provided. The SSQ has the potential to be used
by multiple raters within the school context. Future studies that explore the potential uses of the
SSQ may provide a means in which interventionists plan treatment targets and measure associ-
ated outcomes.
Locke et al. 73

Appendix

Items on the Social Skills Q-Sort Mean

1. Prefers nonverbal methods of communication. 4.21
2. Joins group activities without being told to. 6.42
3. Is warm and responsive. 7.37
4. Gets along well with other children. 7.65
5. Is admired and sought out by other children. 6.51
6. Is helpful and cooperative. 7.02
7. Seeks physical contact with others 4.93
8. Responds to others verbal initiations. 6.49
9. Develops genuine and close relationships. 8.35
10. Avoids social situations with other children. 2.63
11. Has a stable peer group. 6.93
12. Has tantrums when doesnt get his/her way. 2.35
13. Seeks negative attention. 3.07
14. Tries to do everything exactly right or perfect. 4.51
15. Child is rejected or not well-liked by other children. 2.40
16. Child tends to be pleased with and proud of his/her products and accomplishments. 6.44
17. Child is physically aggressive. 1.65
18. Expresses negative feeling towards peers directly and openly. 4.28
19. Child is off-topic in speech; rambles. 3.63
20. Has low self-esteem. 3.37
21. Has a reciprocal best friend. 7.21
22. Tries to manipulate others. 3.26
23. Is fearful and anxious. 3.26
24. Makes friends easily. 7.33
25. Has multiple (3 or more) reciprocal friendships with age-mates. 7.23
26. Enjoys physical activity (e.g. running, climbing, walking). 5.30
27. Is visibly deviant from peers in appearance, size, or physical condition 4.09
28. Is vital, energetic, lively. 6.21
29. Is polite and respectful of others. 6.84
30. Stares or gazes off to space. 3.72
31. Shows recognition to the feelings of other; is empathic. 7.86
32. Tends to give, lend, and share with others. 7.23
33. Cries easily. 3.56
34. Is restless and fidgety. 4.14
35. Is inhibited and constricted. 3.53
36. Accepts friends/peers ideas for playing. 6.93
37. Prefers to interact with adults. 4.23
38. Has set routines. 4.74
39. Tends to become rigidly repetitive or immobilized. 2.51
40. Is curious and exploring, eager to learn, open to new experiences. 7.23
41. Perseverates in activities/topics of speech, etc. 3.02
42. Is receptive to other children. 6.81
43. Can recoup or recover after stressful experiences. 6.72
44. When in conflict or disagreement with other tends to yield and give in. 4.79
45. Tends to withdraw and disengage from others. 2.70
46. Tends to go to pieces under stress, becomes rattled, and disorganized. 2.79
47. Enjoys a multitude of activities and games 6.37
48. Is short tempered; easily enraged. 2.60
49. Engages in self-stimulatory behaviors and/or rituals 2.56
(continued)
74 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32(1)

Appendix (continued)

Items on the Social Skills Q-Sort Mean

50. Easily changes from one activity to another. 6.35
51. Is agile and well-coordinated. 5.42
52. Becomes easily embarrassed. 4.40
53. Has random verbal outbursts. 2.93
54. Has rapid shifts in mood; is emotionally volatile. 2.26
55. Has peers who are friendly and welcoming. 6.26
56. Has difficulty relating to peers. 2.79
57. Is agreeable. 6.40
58. Is emotionally expressive (facially, gesturally, or verbally). 6.56
59. Sustains engagement in games. 6.63
60. Becomes anxious when the environment is unpredictable or poorly structured. 3.60
61. Has an aide, assistant, adult supervisor during social times 3.33
62. Is obedient and compliant. 5.65
63. Prefers table top games or activities. 5.02
64. Is calm and relaxed, easy-going. 6.30
65. Initiates play/games to others. 7.09
66. Child is attentive and able to concentrate. 6.53
67. Child is responsive to new ideas/suggestions. 6.91
68. Responds to direct instruction. 5.49
69. Is verbally fluent; can express ideas well in language. 6.91
70. Is awkward in turn taking interactions with peers. 3.47
71. Looks to adults for help and direction. 5.16
72. Is nice to other children. 7.09
73. Enjoys talking to other children. 6.79
74. Has negative thoughts; easily discouraged. 3.63
75. Child is cheerful. 6.42
76. Understands limits. 6.47
77. Reflective of self. Aware of his/her differences. 6.42
78. Is easily offended; sensitive to ridicule or criticism. 3.70
79. Avoids eye contact. 3.21
80. Teases other children. 2.88
81. Optimistic or positive in thinking. 6.84
82. Becomes easily motivated. 6.44
83. Tends to self-regulate effectively. 7.33
84. Child has average or above average athletic ability. 5.30
85. Child is verbally aggressive. 2.42
86. Likes to be by him/herself, enjoys solitary activities. 4.12
87. Initiates conversation to others. 6.91
88. Becomes obsessive with others. 2.40
89. Child is competent, skillful, agile, or adept. 6.30
90. Child is stubborn and inflexible. 2.98
91. Is inappropriate in emotional behavior. 2.21
92. Child appears likeable to peers and/or is pleasant to be around. 7.33
93. Yells at others. 2.98
94. Tends to be sulky or whiny. 3.63
95. Overacts to minor frustrations; is easily irritated and/or angered. 2.53
96. Understands/follows game rules. 6.28
97. Engages in solitary imaginary/fantasy play. 4.77
98. Has difficulty making social connections. 2.67
99. Engages in games with other children. 6.40
100. Is picked on by other children. 3.19
Locke et al. 75

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
This study was funded in part by a UCLA Dissertation Year Fellowship to the first author.

References
Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000). Loneliness and friendship in high-functioning children with autism.
Child Development, 71, 447-456.
Bellini, S. (2004). Social skill deficits and anxiety in high-functioning adolescents with autism spectrum
disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 78-86.
Bellini, S., & Hopf, A. (2007). The development of the autism social skills profile: A preliminary analysis
of psychometric properties. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(2), 80-87.
Bellini, S., Peters, J. K., Benner, L., & Hope, A. (2007). A meta-analysis of school-based social skills inter-
ventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 153-162.
Brock, S. E., Jimerson, S. R., & Hansen, R. L. (2006). Identifying, assessing, and treating autism at school.
New York, NY: Springer.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multi-
method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation? The social networks
of children with autism in regular classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37,
230-242.
Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2005). The social responsiveness scale (SRS) manual. Los Angeles,
CA: Western Psychological Services.
Constantino, J. N., Lajonchere, C., Lutz, M., Gray, T., Abbacchi, A., McKenna, K., & Todd, R. D. (2006).
Autistic social impairment in the siblings of children with pervasive developmental disorders. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 294-296.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Kasari, C., Freeman, S. F. N., Bauminger, N., & Alkin, M. C. (1999). Parental perspectives on inclusion:
Effects of autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 297-305.
Kasari, C., Locke, J., Gulsrud, A., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2011). Social networks and friendships at school:
Comparing children with and without autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41,
533-544.
Kasari, C., Rotheram-Fuller, & Locke, J. (2005). The development of the Playground Observation of Peer
Engagement (POPE) measure. Unpublished manuscript, University of California Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, CA.
Locke, J., Kretzmann, M., & Kasari, C. (2008). The Social Skills Q-Sort. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Lord, C., Rutter, M., & Le Couteur, A. (1994). Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised: A revised version of
a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders.
Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 24(5), 659-685.
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Jr., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., & Rutter, M. (2000).
The autism diagnostic observation schedulegeneric: A standard measure of social and communica-
tion deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
30, 205-223.
Macintosh, K., & Dissanayake, C. (2006). Social skills and problem behaviours in school aged children with
high-functioning autism and Aspergers Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
36, 1065-1076.
McConnell, S. R. (2002). Interventions to facilitate social interaction for young children with autism:
Review of available research and recommendations for educational intervention and future research.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 351-372.
76 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32(1)

Meier, C. R., DiPerna, J. C., & Oster, M. M. (2006). Importance of social skills in the elementary grades.
Education & Treatment of Children, 29, 409-419.
Pine, E., Luby, J., Abbacchi, A., & Constantino, J. N. (2006). Quantitative assessment of autistic symptom-
atology in preschoolers. Autism, 10, 344-352.
Reisinger, E. M., Harker, C. M., Xie, M., Shin, S., & Mandell, D. S. (2010). Parentteacher concordance
on the Social Responsiveness Scale for children with an existing ASD diagnosis. Poster presented at the
International Meeting for Autism Research, Philadelphia, PA.
Rotheram-Fuller, E., Kasari, C., Chamberlain, B., & Locke, J. (2010). Grade related changes in the social
inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 51, 1227-1234.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment rela-
tionships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. Child
Development, 50, 41-65.
Williams White, S., Keonig, K., & Scahill, L. (2007). Social skills development in children with autism
spectrum disorders: A review of the intervention research. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37, 1858-1868.