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

Transcrição

1 Assessing Social Intelligence with System of Assessment of Interpersonal Problem Solving Test (SIP) A. A. Candeias*, M. Oliveira*, F. Koich Miguel**, A. Rocha* & G. Franco*** *University of Évora: CIEP & CIMA (Portugal) **University of S. Francisco (SP, Brazil) ***University of Madeira (Portugal) University of Szeged (Hungary), November/December, 2009 Dynamic Assessment of Functioning and Oriented at Development and Inclusive Learning A Comenius multilateral project LLP-BE-COMENIUS-CMP

2 Introduction This study presents the SIP. This test results from one adaptation of the test developed by Candeias in 2007 PCIS. Adelinda Candeias 2

3 Theorectical foundations Structural approach focuses on qualitative description of the structures of social understanding during the successive stages of development. This approach is rooted in the work on the construction of the knowledge level of ontogenetic J. Piaget, and extends to the study of various areas, such as moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1976), the rules and social conventions (Turiel, 1980, 1983), and the social perspective taking (Selman, 1980). Functional approach is focused on the study of various features of the thought process during the social interaction. There is a concern to identify skills and thought processes used by individuals during social interaction (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Spivak et al., 1976). Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 3

4 Theorectical foundations Social knowledge specific domain Through interaction with the social environment, the subject builds different forms of knowledge that underlie the existence of different domains of social knowledge, independent of non-social cognitive structures and based on the nature of the object of social knowledge and relationships that the individual has with the object (Flavell et al., 1993): (i) people, while cognitive objects are different because they can act spontaneously and deliberately, that is, they perceive, represent, know, think, try, want, experience emotion and learn, (ii) the relationships that people develop with each other are different from those that refer to physical objects because is a "static relation of similarity. This similarity justifies the use of cognitive processes specific to that cognitive domain, including metacognition, (iii) social interactions are dynamic and our thinking and our behavior on social objects can be guided by our representations of social roles, relationships and behaviors or the mutual representations that other people have on our thoughts and intentions. Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 4

5 Theorectical foundations Social knowledge specific domain Underlying the hypothesis of partial structures is the idea that the construction of knowledge takes place by the subject's interaction with the environment. The nature of conceptual structures is influenced by the environment as such in the construction of various concepts, and in order to understand the concepts the construction of various concepts, and in order to understand the concepts constructed by the subjects due will distinguish the different social fields, in structural and processual terms. Adelinda Candeias 5

6 Theorectical foundations Components of SIP I. Components of problem solving processes The decoding of social information and understanding of the problem, the design of a resolution plan and its implementation and evaluation. These components were organized on the model of problem solving by Pretz, Naples, and Sternberg (2003) which takes into account the following phases: Recognize or identify the problem, Define and mentally represent the problem, Develop a strategy for resolution, Organize knowledge about the problem, Consign mental and physical resources to solve the problem, Monitor progress towards the goal and assess the correctness of the solution These stages are organized (Polya, 1945, 2003, Almeida, 2004) in 4 major steps: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) understanding the problem, development of a resolution plan, (implementation of the plan, verification of resolution. Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 6

7 Theorectical foundations Components of SIP II. Components related to levels of knowledge Involve the type of contents seized for the understanding of the interpersonal and the interpersonal perspective taken to understanding, planning and implementation of the response. Type of contents - organized according to the models proposed by Perception of contents expressed and latent social situation (Argyle, 1994): Type of traits and more important tracks (Barnes & Sternberg, 1989) Interpersonal perspective or the level of reflective thinking involved in the justification of the assessment or decision, organized in: Unilateral and simplistic stage; Instrumental stage; Mutual and pro-social stage; Systemic and standardized stage(selman, 1980). Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 7

8 Social intelligence construct Social intelligence construct can be understood through two main dimensions: cognitive and behavioral (e.g., Jones, & Day, 1997) that involve: Interpersonal Problem Solving, Familiarity with Interpersonal Situations, Motivation and Self-confidence to cope with Interpersonal Situations (Candeias, 2007). Adelinda Candeias 8

9 Interpersonal Problem Solving Test This test is based on the assumption that social intelligence could be assessed through the quality of cognitive processes and the quality ok knowledge used in interpersonal problem solving. Adelinda Candeias 9

10 Interpersonal Problem Solving Test The participants are expected to analyse an interpersonal problem-situation (in a pictorial format), in three major dimensions: Interpersonal Problem Solving, which is evaluated through a questionnaire in which the participants are requested to request a verbal protocol based of cognitive process and knowledge assumptions, Experience in similar situations, to evaluate on a 1-to-5 Likert scale, Motivation toward this kind of interpersonal situation, evaluating on a 1-to-5 Likert scale. Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 10

11 Adelinda Candeias 11

12 Method - Participants All participants were Portuguese children and youngsters: 441 children from regular class (248 girls and 240 boys, with the average age of 8.64 years, SD = 1.03); 326 youngsters from regular class (168 girls and 158 boys, with the average age of years, SD = 1.80); Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 12

13 Results Study of the itens Childrens (N=441) Table 1 Descriptive analysis of the itens: PRP-I Alpha if. Item M DP Min. Máx. PD Alpha se ,301 0, ,421, ,295 0, ,407, ,985 0, ,567, c 1,100 0, ,524, p 0,913 0, ,602, c 1,037 0, ,514, p 0,958 0, ,584,841 Alpha: ac 3,762 1, ,185, m 3,808 0, ,194, f 2,071 0, ,078, ,271 1, ,240, ,097 0, ,571, ,886 0, ,593, c 1,007 0, ,610, p 0,827 0, ,632, c 0,980 0, ,598, p 0,837 0, ,577, ac 3,575 1, ,134, m 3,745 0, ,211, f 2,237 0, ,071, ,369 0, ,430, ,228 0, ,529, ,972 0, ,539, c 1,067 0, ,512, p 0,845 0, ,567, c 1,003 0, ,505, p 0,851 0, ,575, ac 3,644 1, ,243, m 3,762 0, ,249, f 1,816 0, ,016,858 Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 13

14 Results Study of the itens Youngsters (N=326) Alpha:.89 Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the itens: PCIS Itens N Mínimo Máximo Média Desvio- Padrão Assimetria Curtose PD Processo: Compreensão do problema ,49 0,66-0,314-0,226 0,586 Processo: Concepção de um plano ,24 0,72-0,003-0,451 0,621 Processo: Resolução do problema ,52 0,64 0,002-0,235 0,613 Processo: Verificação da solução ,23 0,79 0,249-0,333 0,668 Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-percepção ,70 0,57-0,073-0,317 0,550 Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-traços ,34 0,74-0,007-0,376 0,472 Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano ,50 0,73 0,011-0,274 0,643 Conteúdo: Resolução do problema ,56 0,73 0,160-0,336 0,679 Auto-confiança: Nível de confiança ,62 0,84-0,267-0,012 0,179 Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade ,45 0,86-0,284 0,248 0,265 Familiaridade: Experiência ,73 1,86-0,791-1,382 0,168 Familiaridade: Conhecimento ,23 1,18-0,223-0,718 0,318 Interesse: Nível de interesse ,04 0,87-0,390 0,693 0,307 Interesse: Nível de agrado ,68 0,97 0,039-0,099 0,241 Processo: Compreensão do problema ,44 0,61-0,368-0,462 0,641 Processo: Concepção de um plano ,07 0,71 0,219-0,210 0,690 Processo: Resolução do problema ,26 0,66-0,066-0,357 0,645 Processo: Verificação da solução ,95 0,77 0,324-0,599 0,652 Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-percepção ,60 0,60-0,068-0,300 0,648 Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-traços ,38 0,74-0,054-0,361 0,607 Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano ,24 0,73 0,172-0,197 0,657 Conteúdo: Resolução do problema ,27 0,77 0,099-0,415 0,680 Auto-confiança: Nível de confiança ,43 0,97-0,191-0,192 0,044 Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade ,38 1,04-0,287 0,029 0,063 Familiaridade: Experiência ,39 1,91 0,639-1,599 0,190 Familiaridade: Conhecimento ,67 1,16 0,225-0,624 0,354 Interesse: Nível de interesse ,97 1,04-0,100-0,331 0,290 Interesse: Nível de agrado ,56 1,03 0,144-0,396 0,300 Processo: Compreensão do problema ,18 0,65 0,153 0,023 0,636 Processo: Concepção de um plano ,93 0,69 0,325-0,135 0,640 Processo: Resolução do problema ,13 0,69 0,113-0,273 0,646 Processo: Verificação da solução ,80 0,74 0,520-0,446 0,652 Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-percepção ,34 0,62 0,147-0,094 0,626 Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-traços ,25 0,73 0,105-0,295 0,591 Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano ,10 0,66 0,153-0,063 0,619 Conteúdo: Resolução do problema ,10 0,76 0,260-0,311 0,669 Auto-confiança: Nível de confiança ,27 1,08-0,067-0,576 0,171 Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade ,31 1,01-0,161-0,159-0,019 Familiaridade: Experiência ,77 1,99 0,236-1,954 0,221 Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 14 Familiaridade: Conhecimento ,66 1,22 0,181-0,794 0,360 Interesse: Nível de interesse ,91 1,11 0,089-0,483 0,227 Interesse: Nível de agrado ,18 0,65 0,153 0,023 0,636

15 Results Validity Childrens (N=441) Factorial analysis: principal components, Varimax rotation, 3 components (explained 47% of global variance). Quadro 2 Análise em componentes principais com rotação varimax da PRP-I (N=488) Componentes Item ,561 -,064 -,195, ,501 -,014,019, ,703 -,022,000, c,609,127 -,345, p,712,100 -,249, c,612,119 -,450, p,687,126 -,328, ac -,036,671,152, m,002,659 -,064, f,041,069,650, ,332 -,051 -,052, ,686,012,139, ,706,017,198, c,733,081,018, p,767,060,007, c,728,075 -,082, p,711,052 -,037, ac -,080,697,061,496 h 2 2.7m -,001,705 -,094, f -,002,145,573, ,539 -,026,019, ,655 -,055,161, ,661 -,010,164, c,683 -,112 -,054, p,738 -,087 -,082, c,669 -,091 -,142, p,720 -,047 -,134, ac,042,652,201, m,033,683,090, f -,088,086,694,498 Valores próprios 9,3 3,0 1,8 14,1 % de variância total 31,1 10,0 6,1 47,0 A rotação convergiu em 5 interacções, as saturações >.30 (a negro) foram consideradas fundamentais para a interpretação dos factores. Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 15

16 Results Validity of construct Youngsters (N=326) Factorial analysis: principal components, Varimax rotation, 4 components (explained 54% of global variance). Variáveis S1-Processo: Compreensão do problema S1-Processo: Concepção de um plano S1-Processo: Resolução do problema S1- Processo: Verificação da solução S1-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-percepção S1-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-traços S1-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano S1-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema S1-Auto-confiança:Nível de confiança S1-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade S1-Familiaridade:Experiência S1-Familiaridade:Conhecimento S1-Interesse: Nível de interesse S1-Interesse: Nível de agrado S2-Processo: Compreensão do problema S2-Processo: Concepção de um plano S2-Processo: Resolução do problema S2- Processo: Verificação da solução S2-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-percepção S2-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-traços S2-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano S2-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema S2-Auto-confiança:Nível de confiança S2-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade S2-Familiaridade:Experiência S2-Familiaridade:Conhecimento S2-Interesse: Nível de interesse S2-Interesse: Nível de agrado S3-Processo: Compreensão do problema S3-Processo: Concepção de um plano S3-Processo: Resolução do problema S3- Processo: Verificação da solução S3-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-percepção S3-Conteúdo: Comp. do prob.-traços S3-Conteúdo: Concepção de um plano S3-Conteúdo: Resolução do problema S3-Auto-confiança:Nível de confiança S3-Auto-confiança: Nível de dificuldade S3-Familiaridade: Experiência S3-Familiaridade: Conhecimento S3-Interesse: Nível de interesse Componentes ,726-0,154-0,111 0,237 0,762-0,113-0,055 0,215 0,753-0,083-0,137 0,235 0,742-0,042 0,128 0,257 0,681-0,124-0,105 0,245 0,579-0,122-0,025 0,186 0,758-0,058-0,104 0,272 0,771-0,073-0,049 0,301 0,059-0,058 0,595 0,233 0,170-0,129 0,670 0,192 0,100-0,067-0,112 0,467 0,150 0,017 0,040 0,643 0,118 0,697-0,117 0,113 0,007 0,725-0,006 0,145 0,769 0,015-0,106 0,134 0,781 0,056 0,094 0,124 0,747 0,121 0,051 0,051 0,744 0,048 0,154 0,078 0,750 0,038-0,081 0,190 0,695-0,018-0,007 0,207 0,729 0,093 0,123 0,102 0,786 0,089 0,032 0,107-0,057 0,032 0,594 0,031-0,003-0,038 0,703-0,114 0,054 0,051 0,111 0,468 0,107 0,249 0,129 0,595 0,090 0,758 0,007 0,059 0,075 0,800 0,045 0,054 0,770 0,065-0,046 0,005 0,796 0,105 0,034-0,118 0,721 0,208 0,079-0,039 0,698 0,201 0,144-0,002 0,732 0,108-0,059 0,063 0,684 0,168 0,015-0,030 0,753 0,106 0,084-0,097 0,760 0,175 0,118-0,034 0,073 0,142 0,661-0,117-0,086-0,074 0,695-0,133 0,150 0,019-0,153 0,372 0,128 0,273 0,030 0,499 0,050 0,757-0,089 0,025 S3-Interesse: Nível de agrado Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 16 Valores próprios (Eigenvalues) Variância explicada acumulada (%) -0,026 0,806 0,048-0,037 13,850 3,860 2,870 1,900 32,970 42,170 48,990 53,520

17 Results Convergent vs Divergent Validity Social intelligence Social competence - Academic Intelligence,81 Chi-Square =172,974 [51] prob =,000 GFI =,930 AGFI=,893 CFI=,947 NFI =,927 PCFI=,732 RMSEA =,081 ECVI =,617,48 Academic Performance Social Competence,85,91,93,39,28,18,89,78,72,92,73,83,87,15,08,03,79,61,52,84 NotaPortugues NotaMatematica NotaEstudoMeio mpcrnotat Socialfactor1 Socialfactor3SAfactor1 SAfactor2 SAfactor3 SAfactor5 IRPS Social Intelligence,32,22,10 IMotivação,05 e9 e8 e7 e10 e6 e4 e11 e12 e13 e14 e1 e3,71 Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 17

18 Results Convergent vs Divergent Validity Social intelligence Social competence - Academic Intelligence Qui-Quadrado = 135,290 Df =47 Probabilidade =,000,82 e5 SPS,53,73,86 M,93,99 e11 e2 e1 SM C,03,17,61,37 SI,47,23 CS AI 1,00 LP,18,43 VR,37,14 AR e12 e13 e14,51 -,57,16 -,47,73,82,28,03,22,53,66,08 SPSC TSCD SSCF PPSC SPSCG e10 e9 e8 e7 e6,23 Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 18,14

19 Conclusions Portuguese studies with Children (7-10) (N=441), and Youth (12-17) (N=326), indicated that SIP is one assessment tool with great validity of construct, proved by factorial analyses, in which the multidimensionality of the questionnaire is shown. Such dimensions present great internal consistency. Such psychometric results points out to a reliable and valid tool to do traditional and dynamic assessment that supports psychological intervention. Next steps: Study the quality of itens with a pretest-mediation-postest (Samples: Childrens and adolescents (Casa Pia, Lisbon); adults (Porto)). Adelinda Candeias aac@uevora.pt 19

20 Thanks for your attention! Adelinda Candeias 20