The Impact of A Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills C

The Florida State University
DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
7-12-2004
The Impact of a Work-Related Interpersonal

Communication Skills Curriculum on the Workand Social-Relationships of Ninth-Grades
Carlos Camilo Gomez-Estefan
Florida State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

Recommended Citation
Gomez-Estefan, Carlos Camilo, "The Impact of a Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills Curriculum on the Work- and
Social-Relationships of Ninth-Grades" (2004). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 4149.
This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact
lib-ir@fsu.edu.
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
THE IMPACT OF A WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL

COMMUNICATION SKILLS CURRICULUM ON THE WORK- AND
SOCIAL-RELATIONSHIPS OF NINTH-GRADES
By
CARLOS CAMILO GOMEZ-ESTEFAN
A Dissertation submitted to the

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2004
Copyright 2004
Carlos Camilo Gomez-Estefan
All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Carlos GomezEstefan defended on July 12, 2004.
Gary Peterson
Professor Directing Dissertation
Bruce Menchetti
Outside Committee Member
Briley Proctor
Committee Member
James Sampson
Committee Member
Approved:
Frances Prevatt, Chair, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning
Systems
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named
committee members.
ii
This dissertation is dedicated to

my beautiful bride
a source of unending strength
with whom I hope to grow old and wise.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I wish to express my deep thanks and appreciation to my wife and
my parents for their support and encouragement during the course of my doctoral
studies. Without them I could have never made it! My wife, Holly, was my backbone
and foundation throughout the course of these studies and dissertation. I had Hollys
never-failing support from since my decision to pursue doctoral studies and her
assistance with this dissertation was invaluable and truly self-sacrificing. For instance,
on many occasions she drove six hours from Athens, Georgia where she was
pursuing her graduate studies to lead-proctor data collection for this study and would
return back to the University of Georgia for her next class. Holly was selfless in
providing me assistance wherever I needed it the most, including data-entry, sorting
files, and proofreading, as well as constant encouragement and positive reinforcement.
My mom, Yvonne, who always encouraged me to pursue my education, has provided
me with the love and support to ensure that I stay the course. My dad, Nabil, has
always been ready to share his wisdom and encouragement; often helping me stay
grounded and focused on what is really important in life. I would like to thank my
deceased father, Carlos Fernando, who always had great dreams for my future and my
deceased uncle, Camilo, who worked until the end to make these dreams possible for
me. A warm thank you goes to my aunt, Stella, for her enduring support throughout my
life. I would also like to thank my daughter, Mary Elizabeth, whose coos and smiles
gave me all the energy to complete this dissertation. Its because of my family that I
consider myself among the most fortunate people in the world. Finally, I thank God for
the gift of life and the health and opportunity to pursue my goals and my vocation.
I would like to express my deep thanks and appreciation to my doctoral committee chair
and major professor, Dr. Gary Peterson, who from the first day that I entered the
program selflessly provided me with the time, wisdom, and intellect which were
instrumental in the completion of my graduate studies and professional training. Gary
was truly a mentor who challenged me to push my abilities to the limit in every area of
iv
science and practice including psychotherapy, psychodiagnostic assessment,

consultation, and research. He also taught me to think like a psychologist by spending
endless hours discussing everything from this research to the most esoteric but
fascinating issues related to human behavior. I will truly miss my weekly meetings with
Gary, which did more to form me as a professional than any class ever could. My
thanks and appreciation also goes to Dr. James Sampson for his clinical supervision
and interest in my professional development from early in my masters studies through
the last edit of this dissertation. Finally, I would like to also acknowledge Dr. Bruce
Menchetti and Dr. Briley Proctor for having served on my doctoral committee.
I would like to thank my excellent clinical supervisors throughout my studies including
Dr. Enrique Casero, Dr. Pollie Caskie, Dr. Ann Cituk, Annie Hands, Dr. Larry Kubiak, Dr.
Janet Lenz, Mike McAuley, and Dr. David Seaton. Special thanks go to Dr. Thomas
Meacham who has clinically challenged me to think out of the box when it comes to
understanding the dynamics of human behavior and strategies for treatment and for his
great friendship. In the same vein, deep gratitude goes to Dr. Robert Schuchts, for his
mentorship, which I can honestly say has had the most profound influence in helping
me become a better human being and a more humane clinician. Finally, I would like to
thank my internship supervisor and director of training, Dr. Eddie E. Roca who has not
only been an outstanding supervisor, but also a friend, mentor, and godfather (thanks
Don!).
My deep gratitude also goes to my peer-colleagues who are among the finest people I
have ever met. First I would like to thank Alia Creason, one of the best friends I have
ever had, for all of her support with this dissertation including data collection and the
scoring with critical incidents. Likewise, I extend my gratitude to Travis Creason and
Susan Williams for their assistance with data collection. I would also like to extend my
gratitude to Lauren Hutto, Tara Segassie, and Meredith Senholz scoring critical
incidents. Finally, I would like to thank Yvonne Achkar and Gail Reed for proofreading
part of the early drafts of this dissertation and to Holly Gomez and Jennifer Savino for
the editing the final copy.
I would also like to thank the staff and faculty at the Florida State University School for
their kindness in opening the school for this research project. First, I would like to thank
Eileen McDaniel and Linda Jones for their interest and commitment to my research. I
would also like to thank the ninth grade teachers who assisted with the instruction of the
curriculum. My deepest appreciation goes out to the participants in this study whose
generosity with their time was essential in completing this research and indirectly my
doctoral studies at the Florida State University.
Last, but not least, there is no way I can even thank my parents who provided me the
financial and moral assistance to not just complete this dissertation, but also to pursue
my education.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ....................................................................................
List of Figures ....................................................................................
Abstract
..........................................................................................
x
xi
xii
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................
Employability Skills and American Schooling...........................
Statement of the Problem............................................................
Floridas Comprehensive Guidance Model................................
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................
Evaluation Standards and Research Questions........................

Output Standards......................................................................
Outcome Standards ..................................................................
9
9
10
Significance of the Study ............................................................
11
Assumptions ................................................................................
11
Definition of Terms ......................................................................
12
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................
15
Introduction ..................................................................................
15
Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills ..................

Self-Awareness and Corrective Feedback................................
Provision of Empathic Support..................................................
Assertive Responding ...............................................................
Conflict Management ................................................................
16
17
23
27
30
Developing Interpersonal Communication Skills......................

Reinforcement Learning Theory................................................
Information Processing Learning Theory ..................................
Social-Cognitive Learning Theory .............................................
Integrative Theoretical Assumptions .........................................
Implications of the Assumptions for Developing Training..........
35
35
37
40
45
46
A Strategy for Implementing Interventions in the Schools ......

Challenges for Counseling Psychologists in the Schools .........
Collaborative Strategy...............................................................
49
50
53
Summary.. .................................................................................
Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills ...................
Developing Interpersonal Communication Skills .......................
A Strategy for Implementing Interventions in the Schools.........
56
56
58
59
vii
III. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................
60
Introduction .................................................................................
60
Context ...................................................................................
60
Inputs.. ...................................................................................
Participants ...............................................................................
Instructional Staff ......................................................................
Curriculum Domains and Competencies...................................
Teacher Instructional Materials .................................................
Evaluation Measures ................................................................
62
62
63
63
63
65
Process ..................................................................................
Curriculum ................................................................................
Staff Training and Curriculum Adaptation .................................
71
71
75
Study Design and Procedures ...................................................
76
Data Analysis Outputs .................................................................

Criterion 1 .................................................................................
Criterion 2 .................................................................................
Criterion 3 .................................................................................
80
80
80
81
Data Analysis Outcomes .............................................................

Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................
Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................
Hypothesis 3 .............................................................................
81
81
82
82
IV. RESULTS
....................................................................................
83
Results of Outputs .......................................................................

Criterion 1 .................................................................................
Criterion 2 .................................................................................
Criterion 3 .................................................................................
Summary of Outputs .................................................................
83
83
87
88
88
Results of Outcomes ...................................................................

Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................
Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................
Hypothesis 3 .............................................................................
Summary of Outputs .................................................................
90
90
92
96
98
V. DISCUSSION....................................................................................
100
Introduction ..................................................................................
100
Conclusions and Discussion ......................................................

Standard 1 ................................................................................
Standard 2 ................................................................................
Standard 3 ................................................................................
Research Questions 1 and 2 ....................................................
Research Question 3 ................................................................
102
102
104
106
107
111
viii
Limitations of the Study ..............................................................

Internal Validity .........................................................................
External Validity ........................................................................
113
113
117
Directions for Future Research...................................................
119
Implications for the Improvement and Implementation of the

Curriculum ....................................................................................
Recommendations for the Improvement of the Curriculum .......
Implications for Future Implementation .....................................
Social Significance....................................................................
121
122
125
127
Prcis.. ...................................................................................
128
APPENDICES
A. Human Subjects Approval Letter ..........................................
129
B. Consent and Assent Forms ...................................................
131
C. Measures .................................................................................
135
D. Charter Schools Formula for Reported SES Levels ...........
143
E. Critical Incident Blank Sample Rater Training Materials.....
145
F. Curriculum Domains, Competencies, & Learning Objectives
152
G. Sample Lesson Plan, Overhead Transparencies, and

Student Handout .....................................................................
157
H. Curriculum in Terms of Floridas School Counseling and

Guidance Framework (2001) Program Standards ................
162
I. The relationship between the GPJ Work-Related

Interpersonal Communication Skills Curriculum Target
Competencies and the Floridas School Counseling and
Guidance Framework (2001) Competencies.........................
165
J. The relationship between the GPJ Work-Related

Interpersonal Communication Skills Curriculum Target
Competencies and the SCANS (1991) Competencies .........
167
K. Measure Administration Scripts ............................................
169
REFERENCES ....................................................................................
181
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................
193
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Sample Demographics .........................................................
64
Table 3.2. GPJ Curriculum Domains and Competencies ......................
66
Table 3.3. Rating Criteria for Individual Responses on the CIB ............
68
Table 4.1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Regression Analysis of

Variables Predicting Performance on the CIB Posttest .........
84
Table 4.2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Repeated Measures

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Results for Performance in the
CIB (Skill) as a Function of Curriculum Completion .............
85
Table 4.3: Paired-Samples T-test for Differences in Means between the

CIB Pretest and Posttest.......................................................
86
Table 4.4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Participant

Ratings of Curriculum Objectives Ordered from Highest to
Lowest Percent of Agree or Strongly Agree Ratings .............
89
Table 4.5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Repeated Measures

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Results for In-Class Collegial
Workgroup Peer Ratings.......................................................
91
Table 4.6: Paired-Samples t-test Comparisons for In-Class Collegial

Workgroup Ratings ...............................................................
91
Table 4.7: Means, Standard Deviations, and Repeated Measures Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA) Results for Out-of-Class Collegial
Socializing Peer Ratings .......................................................
93
Table 4.8: Paired-Samples t-test Comparisons for Collegial

Socializing Ratings................................................................
94
Table 4.9: Paired-Samples t-test Comparisons of the Estimated Means

of In-Class Collegial Workgroups and Out-of-Class Collegial
Socializing Peer Ratings Across Time ..................................
95
Table 4.10: Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Participant

Ratings of Curriculum Transfer Outcomes...........................
97
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Components of Comprehensive Counseling and Guidance
Figure 2.1: The Johari Window..............................................................
19
Figure 2.2: Assertiveness Continuum ...................................................
28
Figure 2.3: Conflict Management Stances ............................................
32
Figure 2.4: Four Basic Steps in Inventing Options.................................
34
Figure 3.1: Cohens Kappa Formula......................................................
69
Figure 3.2: Time Line of Sessions across a Seven-Week Instruction....
72
Figure 3.3: Interpersonal Communication Skills Instruction Sessions

Keyed to Curriculum Learning (Process) Objectives...........
74
Figure 3.4: Quasi-experimental single-group design .............................
77
Figure 4.1: Estimated Means of the Critical Incident Blank ...................
86
Figure 4.2: Means for in-class collegial workgroups and out-of-class

collegial socializing peer rating design.
92
xi
ABSTRACT
The present study evaluated the impact of a work-related interpersonal skills

curriculum on the classroom behavior of 114 ninth-graders at a charter school affiliated
with a large southeastern university. This seven-week curriculum taught the workrelated interpersonal communication skills of self-awareness and corrective feedback,
empathic support, assertive responding, and conflict management.
The evaluation component of this study addressed the curriculum in terms of
three standards: (a) improvement in performance on critical incidents; (b) degree to
which participants report having achieved the learning competencies; and (c) participant
satisfaction with instruction. The result was a direct relationship between students who
completed the curriculum assignments and significant (p < 0.01, B = 0.23) improvement
from the pretest to the posttest on the quality of written responses to critical incidents.
Seventy percent (70%) of the participants also reported achieving at least thirteen out of
the fifteen learning goals and seventy-three percent (73%) reported that they felt
satisfied with the instruction.
The research component of this study measured changes of the in-class collegial
workgroup peer ratings and out-of-class collegial socializing peer ratings over time
(baseline, pretest, posttest, and follow-up periods). The changes in means of both peer
ratings over time were measured with a within-subjects repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The results revealed that both peer ratings declined over time.
Post-hoc analyses indicated a significant (p < 0.001; d = 0.4) mean change between the
pretest and the posttest for in-class collegial workgroup peer ratings. There was also a
significant (p < 0.01; d = 0.27) mean change between the baseline and the pretest, as
well as a significant (p < 0.001; d = 0.26) mean change between pretest and posttest.
xii
In terms of transfer of learning into interpersonal relationships, 63% of the

participants reported that the curriculum helped them improve their relationships with
their friends; however, less than half reported that the curriculum helped them improve
other relationships. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the participants endorsed the whole
intervention as having been worth their time. The implications of these findings are
discussed in terms of directions for future research and improving and implementing the
curriculum.
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
For most of the twentieth century, there was a popular ethos that, contingent
upon a consistent work ethic, new employees of large corporations could expect
lifelong employment through retirement. For the first two-thirds of the century,
workers expected their employers to provide them with job training, internal
promotions, and rewards for loyalty (tenure). However, this ideal began to erode
due to both the restructuring that occurred in the recessions of the late 1970s,
mid 1980s, and early 1990s, and the shift of the national economy from domestic
manufacturing and industry to an economy focused on the provision of services and
the management of information (Herr & Cramer, 1996). These changes in the
economy, fueled by corporate restructuring, resulted in: the closing of mills,
factories, and other domestic manufacturing plants; jobs being shipped abroad
(Resnick & Wirt, 1996); and job losses for many of the skilled workers and middle
managers who had previously counted on job security (Baker & Satcher, 2000).
Many individuals who had once counted on lifelong employment found themselves
permanently laid off, unable to find gainful employment in their fields, and ended up
working for lower wages (Bluestein, Juntenen, & Worthington, 2000).
Today, workforce-entrants face the reality of job insecurity with few
organizations that reward or even expect tenure. Most can expect to work in many
different organizations during their lifespan, with an increasing number working for
various organizations at the same time (Lee & Johnston, 2001). Along with the
devaluation of tenure comes the reality that fewer corporations are taking
responsibility for the training or career development of their employees. Many
sectors shift their human resource practices from traditional employment
arrangements (wages) to contingency employment contracts involving the
outsourcing of work to individuals serving in the capacity of independent contractors

(Thottam, 2004).
Current employees and future entrants to the workforce can expect to be
held personally responsible for their acquisition of job skills with the burden for the
provision of training shifting from the shop floor to the K-12 classroom (Baker &
Satcher, 2000; Cassel, 1998; Cassel & Kolstad, 1998). However, such changes in
the workplace have occurred during a period of increasing concern that public
schools are not keeping up with international educational standards (see
Employability Skills and American Schooling section). The unfortunate
consequence has been a widening skill gap between the changing labor market
demands and the employability skills of American workers, resulting in the import
of large amounts of highly educated foreign labor to offset domestic shortages,
thereby helping to fuel strong economic growth (Heet, 2003, p. 2).
Employability Skills and American Schooling
Beginning with the launch of Sputnik (1958) through today, there has been a
social concern that American high school graduates are less prepared for the
workplace and the sciences than foreign graduates from other industrialized
nations. These concerns have resulted in a number of significant legislation
initiatives and white paper reports from educational foundations. For instance,
immediately following Sputnik, the US congress passed the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA) which mandated the propagation of basic sciences in the
schools as a defense to foreign, economic, and military threats to the United States
(Myrick, 1997). However, by 1981, the US Department of Education determined
that the American educational system was not adequately preparing students for
the workplace and convened the National Commission of Excellence in Education
to investigate the US educational system. Two years later, in April of 1983, the
Commission published an ominous report entitled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative
for Educational Reform, which emphasized the lack of preparation of students for
transitions into the workplace and/or further schooling. Particularly alarming was
that in spite of the passage of the NDEA, American students continued to fall
2
behind other industrialized nations in the areas of the basic sciences (math, biology,
chemistry, and physics).
The Nation at Risk report was followed by numerous other reports both
analyzing various aspects of education and proposing solutions aimed at increasing
the competitiveness of American workers (Wraga, 1998). One such report was the
seminal report from the Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
(SCANS), convened in February of 1990 to examine the characteristics of the labor
market demands of the workplace and the skills needed for success in the
workplace (Rusch & Chadsey, 1998). In 1991, the SCANS commission produced a
report entitled What Work Requires of Schools, defining five competencies
(resources, interpersonal communication skills, information, systems, and
technology) and three foundations (basic skills, thinking skills, and personal
qualities) for success in the workplace. An important aspect of this report was the
recognition of interpersonal skills as paramount to the workplace (Rusch & Millar,
1998). More recently, in 1997, the Workforce 2020 (1997) report by the Hudson
Institute further emphasized the primacy of the SCANS report for employee
success in what it calls the present Innovation Age. However, many of the
employability skills highlighted in the SCANS report fail to be addressed in high
school curricula.
The Clinton Administration responded by supporting and signing the Schoolto- Work Opportunities Act of 1994. This legislation addressed the issues
highlighted in the SCANS report and encouraged the creation of School-to-Work
Opportunities (SWO) Programs to prepare high school students for the evolving
needs of the workplace (Stodden, 1998). SWO programs were identified as those
providing school-based and work-based educational learning experiences and
connective activities designed to assist high school students with more successful
post-school outcomes.
Another seminal report following A Nation at Risk (1983) was the Hudson
Institutes Workforce 2000 (1988) and the subsequent Workforce 2010 (1996) and
Workforce 2020 (1997). These reports have consistently predicted that the gaps in
skills among American workers were not being addressed at the speed in which the
globalization of the Innovation Age was requiring skills in the SCANS

competencies (Lewis, Stone, Shipley, & Madzar, 1998).
The next white paper report by the Hudson Institute, Beyond Workforce
2020, is due this year (2004). Heet (2003), one of the report fellows, addressed
that the 2004 edition will emphasize that the long-term implications of the stillgrowing skill gap were due to the structural unemployment at the domestic labor
market being satisfied by changing new sources into international labor supply.
This presents an ever-growing crisis of Americans being at a disadvantage for their
own best domestic jobs.
Statement of the Problem
High school students are not graduating ready for the workplace in terms of
interpersonal communication skills (Campell & Deyette, 1994). The new workplace
requires job entrants to possess abstract and verbal skills including interpersonal
and teamwork skills (Bloch, 1996; Lent & Worthington, 2000; Katz, 1974;
Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS], 1991). However,
the emphasis in education reform continually emphasizes high-stakes testing of
basic skills such as reading, writing, and mathematical computations. Conversely,
the results of a recent survey of Fortune 500 companies by the Education
Consumers Clearing House indicate that the most coveted job skills have to do
with being able to work with people as opposed to reading, writing, and arithmetic
(Cassel & Kolstad, 1998, par 2). The top five most coveted critical-job skills in the
Fortune 500 companies were reported as: (1) teamwork; (2) problem-solving; (3)
interpersonal communication skills; (4) oral communication; and (5) listening.
Traditional basic skills such as writing, computation, and reading were ranked 10th,
12th, and 13th, respectively. A review of the same survey conducted 30 years
earlier reveals that interpersonal communication skills have risen from the 13th spot
to the current 3rd spot; this supports the notion that the changing workplace has
demanded more interpersonal communication skills from employees (Cassel,
1998).
In another survey, interpersonal communication skills are presented as

essential for successful execution of job duties in the current market; in fact, it is
estimated that human relation skills have a stronger influence (up to 80%) on job
promotions than job proficiency (Cassel & Kolstad, 1998). However, many
graduating high school students are lacking in these essential employability
competencies (Lewis, et. al, 1998). Thus, in order to produce American school
graduates who are competitive within the workforce, schools need to increase their
emphasis on human and social development (Cassel & Kolstad, 1998).
As a response to the aforementioned labor gap and the passage of the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act (which requires school-based instruction in
employability skills), state legislatures and departments of education have recently
passed state laws and policies geared to address these human relation skill deficits.
Various states have delegated the duties of preparing students to be workers in a
new century to school counseling programs that, in turn, have created
comprehensive career development programs (Lewis, Stone, Shipley, & Madzar,
1998; Myrick, 1997; Sink & MacDonald, 1998). These programs have integrated
social and personal development outcomes into the school curriculum. However,
beyond outcome expectations, there is a lack of published program evaluations
delineating the best practices of facilitating high school students acquisition of the
interpersonal communication skills necessary for success in the workplace (Foster,
Watson, Meeks, & Young, 2003).
Floridas Comprehensive Student Development Program Model
The State of Floridas response to the SCANS report was the development of
Floridas Student Development Program in 1995 (by F. Donald Kelly, Gary W.
Peterson [Florida State University], and Robert Myrick [University of Florida]) as an
innovative alternative to traditional guidance. This program was developed as a
paradigm shift from college-prep and reactive crisis and deficiency oriented
guidance models developed in accordance with both the School-to-Work
Opportunity Act of 1994 and Goal 2 of Floridas Accountability and Educational
Reform planStudents graduate and are prepared to enter the workforce and
postsecondary education (Kelly, Peterson, Myrick, 1995, p. vi).
The original Student Development Model became an excellent blueprint for a
comprehensive guidance program. The initial release was considered to be more
academic; therefore, the authors released a revised, more practitioner-oriented
Student Development Model in 2001 called the Floridas Counseling and Guidance
Framework: A Comprehensive Student Development Program Model (2001). This
framework emphasized the development of academic, career, and social skills
associated with positive learning and life outcomes; the underlying assumption was
that classroom behavior has both a direct and indirect impact upon subsequent
success in postsecondary education, successful employment and career
development, stable families and responsible parenting, and in community
involvement (p. 6). One of the four components of readiness to learn is
classroom social skills; a successful school-to-work transition program requires that
students learn and transfer classroom social skills to the modern workplace . . . the
acquiring of basic human relation [interpersonal] and communication skills thus
becomes an essential survival skill (p. 6).
The classroom is then proposed as the context for the developing of
readiness to learn (and work) skills and the ground for developing the basic skills,
thinking skills, and personal qualities that encompass the SCANS foundations. The
Florida Comprehensive Guidance Model provides a blueprint to reshape the
educational curriculum from its emphasis on what SCANS (1991) identified as the
core subjects of todays schools (history, geography, science, English, and
mathematics) into a curriculum that parallels the reshaping of the workplace and
emphasizes the learning of the five SCANS competencies: resource, interpersonal,
information, systems, and technology (1991).
Self
Efficacy
as a
Learner
Career and
Life Goals
Academic
Learning
Skills
Readiness
To
Learn
Student
Learning in
the
Curriculum
Normative
Measures of
Student
Achievement
Outcomes of
Educational
Programs
Classroo
m Social
Skills
Figure 1.1. Components of comprehensive counseling and guidance model and its
impact on student learning and achievement and educational outcomes.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was to teach the Gomez-Peterson-Jones

Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skill Curriculum (GPJ Curriculum;
Gomez-Estefan, Peterson, & Jones, 2004) and to evaluate the curriculum outputs
and the social- and work-related outcomes on the work- and social-relationships of
ninth-graders.
The GPJ Curriculum is a seven-week seven-session high school intervention
which integrates four skill domains of work-related interpersonal communication
skills into the core curriculum. The five skill domains include: (a) foundations of
work-related interpersonal skills; (b) self-awareness and corrective feedback; (c) the
provision of empathic support; (d) assertive responding; and (e) conflict
management. These five skill domains are composed of fifteen curriculum

competencies that were developed using the Florida Comprehensive Guidance
Model as a template of work-relevant interpersonal communication skills. The
fifteen GPJ Curriculum competencies are as follows (for learning objectives please
see Appendix F):
1.
Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the importance of

interpersonal communication skills;
2.
Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the communication model;
3.
Develop respect for the diversity and rights of others;
4.
Identify which interpersonal communication skills one needs to further

develop;
5.
Acquire self-knowledge;
6.
Increase own self-awareness using the Johari Window as a model;
7.
Discriminate between effective and destructive feedback;
8.
Identify the risks and benefits of self-disclosure;
9.
Demonstrate basic active listening skills;
10. Demonstrate an understanding of empathy;

11. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of assertive responding;
12. Provide examples of I-based feedback and messages;
13. Identify common personal and interpersonal conflicts;
14. Demonstrate ability to develop a strategy for managing conflict; and
15. Evaluate ones own conflict-management behavior.
The content of these five domains and fifteen curriculum competencies were
integrated into the language arts, social studies, and life management regular
curriculum of ninth-graders and taught in the form of the following seven weekly
instruction sessions:
1. Introduction to Interpersonal Communication Skills
2. Self-Awareness and Corrective Feedback Lecture
3. Provision of Empathic Support Lecture and Demonstration
4. Provision of Empathic Support Skills Lab
5. Assertive Responding Lecture and Demonstration
6. Assertive Responding Skills Lab

7. Conflict Management and Capstone Lecture
The impact of this seven-week, seven-session curriculum unit was then
evaluated from the perspectives of: (a) skill acquisition; (b) impact upon the learning
environment; (c) transfer into in-class collegial workgroup relationships; (d) out-ofclass collegial socializing relationships; (e) achievement of workplace
competencies; and (f) learner satisfaction. The work-related content and impact of
these domains upon the workplace are described in greater detail in the Workrelated Interpersonal Communication Skills section of Chapter II.
Evaluation Standards and Research Questions
The curriculum was measured across three output standards related to skill,
knowledge, and attitudes (SKAs) and three research questions related to the impact
of the curriculum upon the learning environment and other significant relationships.
Output Standards
The curriculum output standards evaluate the learning of skills, the degree to
which participants report that they achieved the knowledge competencies, and the
participants overall attitude towards the curriculum.
Standard 1: Skill performance improvement on written critical
incidents. Following the completion of curriculum instruction, there was an
improvement in the study participants performance in responding to written critical
incidents. This standard is based upon the Florida Comprehensive Guidance
Models assumption that classroom social skills transfer into workplace-relevant
interpersonal communication skills. This standard is via expert ratings of each
participants maximum performance in responding to critical incidents, requiring the
participant to emotionally understand, problem-solve, and respond to an
interpersonal situation.
Standard 2: Participant report of learning the target competencies of

the curriculum. Following the completion of curriculum instruction, most
participants report having learned target competencies of the curriculum. This
standard is used to evaluate the degree to which participants report having
developed sufficient knowledge to achieve the curriculum target competencies.
Standard 3: Participant Satisfaction. Following the completion of
curriculum instruction, most participants report satisfaction with the curriculum. This
standard is used to evaluate the participants attitude after completing the
curriculum instruction.
Outcome Research Questions
The curriculum outcome standards evaluate whether the adoption of an
interpersonal communication skills curriculum in the ninth-grade classroom had an
impact upon the classroom social environment in terms of in-classroom,
schoolwork- related interpersonal relationships and out-of-school interpersonal
relationships among students. The standards also evaluate whether the adoption of
the curriculum resulted in the transfer of learning into specific significant
interpersonal relationships.
Research Question 1: In-class collegial workgroups. What is the impact
of a seven-week, seven-session, work-related interpersonal communication skills
curriculum delivered to ninth-graders upon the in-class collegial workgroups? This
research question is based upon the Florida Comprehensive Guidance Models
assumption that classroom social skills are directly related to a persons teamwork
skills. The null is assumed as it is not known whether peers would become more
willing to work with others or more discriminating in whom they would like to work
with. This research question is measured by having the participants peers rate
their willingness to work with the participant on a quarter-long, graded group project
which was the developmental approximate to a long-term, high-stakes workgroup.
Research Question 2: Out-of-class collegial socializing. What is the
impact of a seven-week, seven-session, work-related interpersonal communication
skills curriculum delivered to ninth-graders upon the out-of-class collegial
10
socializing? This research question is based upon the Florida Comprehensive

Guidance Models assumption that learning occurs from peers. The null is
assumed as it is not known whether peers would become more willing to socialize
with others or more discriminating in whom they would like to socialize with. This
research question is measured by having the participants peers rate their
willingness to spend time with the participant outside of the classroom which was
the developmental approximate for outside-the-office politicking and socializing.
Research Question 3: Transfer into a significant relationship. Did a
seven-week, seven-session, work-related interpersonal communication skills
curriculum delivered to ninth-graders have a positive impact upon the participants
significant interpersonal relationships? A directional hypothesis was adopted in this
case as it was an expected outcome that the learning of interpersonal
communication skills will transfer into better interpersonal relationships.
Significance of the Study
Due to the aforementioned gap in the literature of high-school level,

workplace-related interpersonal communication skills curricula, there is a void of
information regarding the effectiveness of such school-to-work, or comprehensive,
guidance programs (Foster, Watson, Meeks, & Young, 2003). The present study
evaluates the workplace-relevant interpersonal communication skills curriculum
using the best-practice framework advanced by Gysbers, Hughey, Starr, and Lapan
(1992). According to these authors, the evaluation of a guidance program should
address: (a) the programs content, structure, and resources; (b) the evaluation of
counselors (instruction, in this situation); (c) measurement of student mastery of
competencies; (d) assessment of the impact upon the learning environment; and (e)
satisfaction of those served by the program. The present study provides one of the
few in-depth evaluations of this type of curriculum.
11
Assumptions
1. Interpersonal competency entails the integration of different learning
domains each composed of sub-skills or micro-skills (Goldstein and
McGinnis, 1997; Ivey and Ivey, 1999);
2. Participants will render maximum effort on the skill performance instrument
the Critical Incident Blank (CIB; Gomez-Estefan & Peterson, 2001);
3. Participants will honestly rate their peers in terms of both their willingness to
work with them on a quarter-long graded group project and their willingness
to socialize with them after school or during the weekend; and
4. Participants will provide honest ratings of the degree to which they achieved
the curriculum competencies and their degree of satisfaction with the
curriculum.
Definition of Terms
Active Listening: A listening stance that encourages others to talk about

their current situation; it includes verbal skills such as paraphrasing, reflecting
feelings, reflecting meaning, questioning, and non-verbal skills such as maintaining
eye contact, congruent body language, and verbal following.
Aggressive Response: A response to a conflict situation in which an
individual bluntly expresses his or her opinions, wants, and feelings (usually anger)
and tramples upon the rights of others (Alberti & Emmons, 1975).
Assertive Response: A response to a conflict situation in which an
individual stands up for their personal rights and expresses his or her thoughts,
feelings, and beliefs in direct, honest, and appropriate ways which respects the
rights of others (Alberti & Emmons, 1982, p. 38).
Competence: The mastery of knowledge, skills, and ability interactions by a
given individual within a given environment in which the costs of successfully
executing the task do not outweigh the benefits (Gilbert, 1978; Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998; Saarni 1997). In terms of this curriculum, interpersonal
competence is taught in terms of fifteen competencies related to self-awareness
and corrective feedback, the provision of empathic support, assertive responding,
and/or conflict management.
Conflict: A situation in which one individual attempts to reach a goal or
position and infringes upon the goals or position of another individual (Deutsch,
1973, Fisher & Ury 1991; Johnson, 2000).
12
Constructive Feedback: The type of feedback that provides individuals with

new perspectives regarding their adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal and work
behaviors and encourages specific positive behaviors and specific changes
(Morran, Robison, & Stockton, 1985).
Ecological Validity: A way to demonstrate the authenticity and
trustworthiness of field research study by showing that the researchers descriptions
of the field site match those of the members of the site and that the researcher was
not a major disturbance (Neuman, 2000, p. 509).
Empathic Understanding: Attention to the emotional cues another was
communicating, accurately identifying thoughts and feelings, and responding in an
emotionally-supportive manner (Ivey and Ivey, 1991; Raskin & Rogers, 1995).
Employability Skills: Employability skills usually refer to the emotional,
affective, self-management, and decision-making or planning aspects of choosing,
preparing for, and adjusting to the demands of the workplace. In a society in which
teamwork, occupational diversity, and adjusting to different management styles and
organizational entities become major issues in both choosing and adjusting to work,
the quality and scope of an individuals general employability skills become
extremely important aspects of career development (Herr & Cramer, 1996, p. 112).
Evaluation: The process by which a service or intervention is analyzed and
improved (Peterson & Burck, 1982).
Evaluation Research: A type of applied research in which one tries to
determine how well a program or policy is working or reaching its goals and
objectives (Neuman, 2000, p. 509).
Internal Validity: The degree to which the observed changes in the study
are associated with the independent variable (the curriculum intervention) and are
not the result of confounding variables (Neuman, 2000).
Outcomes: The resultant or consequent effects of the acquisition of new
competencies following treatment (Peterson & Burck, 1982, p. 493) or intervention.
Outputs: The new knowledge and skills (competencies) acquired by clients
during educational or therapeutic treatment processes (Peterson & Burck, 1982, p.
493).
Passive Response: A response to a conflict situation in which an individual
withholds the expression of opinions, feelings, and wants at the expense of the self
and his or her personal rights (Alberti & Emmons, 1975).
Perspective-Taking: An individuals imaginative attitude that attempts to
place himself or herself in the situation of another person (Long & Andrews, 1990).
Self-Awareness: The congruence between an individuals self-assessment
on a given personality trait, skill, or behavior and those provided by direct report of
others (Sala, 2003; Church, 1997b).
13
Self-Disclosure: An interpersonal process by which person A verbally

and/or non-verbally communicates to person B some item of personal importance
which was previously unknown to B (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, 1994, p. 220).
Social Competence: Social competence is conceptualized as a multitude
of social [and interpersonal] skills that increase a persons social effectiveness
(Rutherford, Quin, & Maggee, 1998).
Work: An activity that produces something of value for oneself or others
(Reardon, Lenz, Sampson, & Peterson, 2000, p. 7). There are five types of work:
wage work, fee work, homework, gift work, and learning work (Handy 1989, cited by
Reardon and Associates, 2000).
Workplace: A setting where individuals engage in work and work-related
activities. There are five general types of workplaces: wage workplace, fee
(contractor) workplace, home (homemaker) workplace, gift or volunteer workplace,
and learning (or classroom) workplace.
Workplace-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills: Goal-oriented,
learned behaviors that allow the individual worker to interact and function effectively
with groups and other individuals within the social context of a given workplace.
Workplace Skill: Broad domains of human relation skills which include selfawareness and corrective feedback, the provision of emotional support, assertive
responding, and conflict management.
14
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter is organized around three fundamental questions: (a) What

interpersonal communication skills should be included in a high school work-related
skills curriculum?; (b) What are the learning theory assumptions and implications
that undergird the development of a work-related interpersonal communication skills
curriculum?; and (c) What are the likely challenges for a Counseling Psychologist
(or a Counseling Psychology graduate student) in introducing an interpersonal
communication skills curriculum into the schools? These three fundamental
questions are explored in three sections. The first section consists of a proposed
framework of work-related interpersonal communication skills which includes selfawareness and corrective feedback, the provision of empathic support, assertive
responding, and conflict management as basic skills subject to curriculum
instruction. The second section is a succinct review of the assumptions and
implications of reinforcement learning theory, information processing learning
theory, and social-cognitive learning theory upon the development of training in
interpersonal communication skills. The third section is a review of the challenges
for a counseling psychologist to implement an intervention in the schools and a
proposal of a collaborative model for the development of effective working
relationships with the schools for the purpose of research and curriculum
development.
15
Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills
Work-related interpersonal communication skills are defined in the present

study as goal-oriented, learned behaviors that allow the individual worker to interact
and function effectively with groups and other individuals within the social context of
a given workplace. A persons degree of interpersonal communication skill
competence is directly related to positive work outcomes such as job performance
ratings, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Ashford & Black, 1996;
Fisher, 1985, Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003;
Segrin & Flora, 2000). A lack of competence is associated with such negative work
outcomes as loneliness and social isolation (Jones, Hobbs, & Hockenbury, 1982;
Nelson & Quick, 1991). The impact of interpersonal skill competence is theorized to
be particularly salient during work transitions where interpersonal communication
skills facilitate getting the inside scoop to the established organizational formal
and informal behavioral norms, power structures, sets of expectations, and other
contingencies (Hesketh, 2000; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Once at the
workplace, interpersonal communication skills assist in creating both empathic
support networks and high-functioning organizational teams.
It is proposed that work-related interpersonal communication skills, while
complex and often context-specific, can be organized into five domains of generic
work-related transferable skills adapted from Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, and
Reiss (1988) model of interpersonal competence. The five proposed domains for
the present study are: foundations of work-related interpersonal communication
skills, self-awareness and corrective feedback, provision of empathic support,
assertive responding, and conflict management. The first domain, foundations of
work-related interpersonal communication skills, deals with the introductory and
summative didactic activities of the Gomez-Peterson-Jones Work-Related
Interpersonal Communication Skills Curriculum (GPJ Curriculum; Gomez-Estefan,
Peterson, & Jones, 2004). The content of the four other domains is explored in the
next four sections: Self-Awareness and Corrective Feedback, Provision of Empathic
Support, Assertive Responding, and Conflict Management. The connections
16
between these five domains and the Florida Comprehensive Guidance Model is
graphically depicted in Appendix I and the connection between the five domains
and the SCANS is graphically depicted in Appendix J.
Self-Awareness and Corrective Feedback
Self-awareness refers to the degree of congruence between an individuals
self-assessment (self-disclosure) on a given personality trait, skill, or behavior and
the direct feedback from others (Church, 1997a; Sala, 2003). In terms of the
workplace, self-awareness is measured in the organizational psychology and
human resource management literature in terms of self-perception accuracy
defined as the degree of agreement between self- and other-ratings (Yammarino
and Atwater, 1993, p. 232). The self-rating refers to the individuals self-disclosure
in terms of a given personality characteristic, skill, behavior, performance, or area
for self-improvement. The other-ratings refers to the feedback received from others
on the same attribute by the person(s) of interest which may be a superior,
subordinate, colleague, client/customer, etc. (Yammarino and Atwater, 1993). The
self-other congruence index appears to be a stable construct with a considerable
range of variability (Atwater, L. & Yammarino, 1997; Atkins & Wood, 2002; Harris &
Schaubroeck, 1988) with good higher convergent reliability among other-ratings
than among self- and other-ratings (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992).
A number of studies in the workplace literature suggest that higher levels of
self-awareness (self-perception accuracy) are associated with positive work and
interpersonal outcomes (Sala, 2003). One of the seminal articles in this area of
research is Atwater and Yammarinos (1992) study which provides evidence that
self-awareness (accurate self-perception) is positively related to leadership
performance; in addition, inaccurate self-ratings both inflated and deflated
tended to be associated with poor performance. The same results were observed
by Church who coined the construct as managerial self-awareness (MSA) -- defined
as the ability to reflect on and accurately assess ones own behaviors and skills as
they are manifested in workplace interactions (1997b, p. 281). Church applied this
construct to evaluate the performance of managers across four industries. In that
study (1997b), he identified high-performing managers as those who were selected
17
by their respective industries to receive meritorious or prestigious awards and those

selected for senior- and middle- management development programs. Church
found that high-performing managers had higher levels of managerial selfawareness than other managers across the four industries. These findings were
again supported in a subsequent study by Church (2000), who found further
evidence to support the assumption that higher-functioning managers have higher
levels of self-awareness.
Those who have low self-awareness fall into one of two categories: (a) those
who overrate and (b) those who underrate themselves in relation to the ratings of
others. Van Velsor, Taylor, and Leslie (1993) found that self-overraters had the
lowest other-ratings and that self-underraters had the highest other-ratings. One
explanation of these results is that those who overrate themselves not only have
lower leadership performance (than those with high self-awareness), but also
receive lower ratings from their subordinates. These findings and conclusions were
later supported and expanded by Atwater and Yammarino (1997), who found that
the direction of the difference between self-other ratings, as well as the magnitude,
was relevant in predicting worker effectiveness; overestimators had the lowest
effectiveness and job performance and good estimators had the highest.
Underestimators were observed to have mixed results since they often have
problems with low self-confidence in relation to their actual abilities (Atwater,
Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998).
A fundamental assumption of self-awareness is that a persons selfawareness can be increased via the provision of constructive feedback from others
and that the receipt of constructive feedback (whether positive or negative) has
positive effects on helping individuals improve their behavior. This assumption was
supported by Atwater, Rousch, & Fischthal (1995), who found evidence that
constructive feedback has positive effects on self-awareness. In their 1995 study of
almost one-thousand student leaders, they found that underestimators responded
to constructive feedback by increasing their subsequent self-ratings while overestimators reduced their subsequent self-ratings to improve their accuracy. This
assumption is also the basis for the increasing popularity of 360-degree feedback
programs across all sectors of private and public organizations (Atkins & Wood,
18
2002) and the generally-held notion that multi-source feedback (i.e. supervisor-tosupervisee, teacher-to-student, master-to-apprentice) is an essential component of
employee development (London & Smitther, 1991).
Self-awareness. The concept of self-awareness is rather abstract and often
difficult to teach. The Johari Window (Luft, 1969, 1970) is perhaps the best-known
model for teaching self-awareness as the interaction of self-disclosure and otherfeedback upon interpersonal relationships. This model (whose name is derived
from the names of its two authors Joe Luft and Harry Ingham, 1955) was
developed as an integrated graphic model of interpersonal interactions. It consists
of a 2x2 grid (see Figure 2.1). The horizontal axis represents a dichotomous
decision of whether the given attribute (i.e. personality characteristic, skill, behavior,
etc.) is known to the self. The vertical axis is comprised of the dichotomous decision
of whether the given attribute is known to others. The two axes of the Johari
Window are comprised of four quadrants or areas: the open area, the hidden area,
Known
to Others
Unknown to Others
Known
to Self
Open
1
Hidden
2
Unknown
to Self
the blind area, and the unknown area.
Blind
3
Unknown
4
Figure 2.1. The Johari Window.
19
The open area represents an attribute (characteristic, skill, behavior,

performance, motivation, etc.) that is accurately known by the self and others. This
area corresponds to the construct of managerial self-awareness where the persons
self-knowledge or self-disclosure corresponds to the observations of others.
Conversely, the blind area represents the equivalent of low managerial selfawareness where the ratings of others did not correspond with the persons selfknowledge or self-disclosure about the same attribute. The assumption given to
this quadrant is that the person is lacking interpersonal self-awareness in this
region, partially due to either a lack of constructive feedback from others or a lack of
willingness to accept such feedback (Johnson, 2000). A third area of interest, not
measured in the above referenced literature, is the hidden (or secret) area which
refers to given attributes that are known to the self, but not to others. The selfawareness of attributes in this area is inconclusive as it may represent accurate
self-assessment that is kept hidden for constructive reasons (i.e., confidentiality,
privacy, modesty, etc.) or a maladaptive/inaccurate self-assessment kept secret, to
the persons detriment. Finally, the unknown area represents attributes that, while
not known, have a continual impact upon a persons interpersonal and work
relationships (Luft, 1970).
The importance of developing self-awareness and self-knowledge is targeted
in the GPC Curriculum with Competency 5: Acquire self-knowledge and
Competency 6: Increase own self-awareness using the Johari Window as a model.
This competency is instructed with the following learning objectives:
-
Objective 5.1 Upon completion of the instruction, student will report having
increased self-knowledge;
Objective 6.1 Student will describe the hidden window and provide a lowvalence personal example;
Objective 6.2 Student will describe the blind window and provide an
example of a personal attribute that was previously in this window; and
Objective 6.3 Student will describe the unknown window and provide an
example of something previously in this window.
20
Constructive feedback. The term feedback refers to the interpersonal

transaction(s) in which others share observations of a persons personality
(characteristics, skills, behavior, performance, or areas for self-improvement) with
the observed, aiming to help that individual gain insight concerning how they are
perceived by others (Toth & Erwin, 1998). For the sake of simplicity, feedback can
be divided into two broad categories: constructive feedback and destructive
feedback. Constructive feedback is defined as feedback that provides individuals
with new perspectives regarding their adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal and
work behaviors and feedback that encourages specific positive behaviors and
specific changes (Morran, Stockton, & Bond, 1991). Alternatively, destructive
feedback does not have the potential to provide the individual with increased selfawareness; this feedback subsequently does not encourage positive behavior
changes. Johnson (2000) also describes feedback as destructive if it includes
abusive language or if the level of feedback is not commensurate with the trust level
of the relationship.
The importance of learning to discriminate between constructive and
destructive feedback is targeted in the GPC Curriculum with Competency 7:
Discriminate between effective and destructive feedback. This competency is
instructed with the following learning objectives:
-
Objective 7.1 Student will define constructive feedback; and
Objective 7.2 Student will describe the difference between constructive and
destructive feedback.
Self-disclosure. Self-disclosure refers to an interpersonal process by
which person A verbally and/or non-verbally communicates to person B some item

of personal information which was previously unknown to B (Hargie, Saunders, &
Dickson, 1994, p. 220). Self-disclosure represents a basic component of
interpersonal relations, as it is essential to initiation, intimacy, and relationship
sustenance. Likewise, self-disclosure, when inappropriately used, can also be a
source of isolation and rejection, thus having a push-pull feature in interpersonal
relationships (Johnson, 2000).
21
Derlega and Grzelak (1979) highlight the elements of self-disclosure as:

valence, honesty, depth, appropriateness, accessibility, and flexibility. These can
be clustered into three dimensions: (1) valence & honesty; (2) depth &
appropriateness; and (3) accessibility & flexibility. Valence and honesty represent
the emotional value or strength of the disclosure (as perceived by the listener),
balanced by the perceived genuineness and credibility of the speaker. This
dimension is critical during relationship building as it imprints an initial impression
regarding the message sender.
Depth and appropriateness are closely related to valence (Derlega &
Grzelak, 1979). Depth is the degree of affect involved in a specific subject;
appropriateness deals with the suitability of the comment to the given situation and
established intimacy in the relationship. A socially-competent individual will initially
self-disclose at breadth (many subject areas) but not at depth; they will
progressively decrease breadth and increase depth as intimacy is developed. This
requires the use of continual metacognitive analysis of the verbal and non-verbal
feedback in the relationship. Finally, the accessibility and flexibility dimension deals
with the ability to regulate self-disclosure to meet the demands of a given situation.
Flexibility refers to the ability of an individual to modify the valence and depth of
their self-disclosures to meet contextual appropriateness and present relationship
needs. Accessibility refers to the individuals willingness and ability to self-disclose
when another, or the relationship, elicits such a response.
Delegate and Great (1979) also present a thorough qualitative exploration of
the benefits and risks of self-disclosure. Among the relational benefits, they cite the
deepening of relationships, development of intimacy, and overall quality of life
improvements. In relation to self-awareness, self-disclosures can also help
individuals validate (or modify) their perceptions of others, increase emotional
awareness, and elicit analgesic responses associated with catharsis. Selfdisclosure can be used as a means of empathic support or for social control.
Likewise, self-disclosure requires risk-taking, as one can never take back
something that has already been disclosed. Perhaps the most valid risk of selfdisclosure is the fear of rejection (Johnson, 2000).
22
The importance of learning the risks and benefits of self-disclosure is

targeted in the GPC Curriculum with Competency 8: Identify the risks and benefits
of self-disclosure. This competency is instructed with the following learning
objectives:
-
Objective 8.1 Student will develop own definition of self-disclosure;
Objective 8.2 Student will list the elements of self-disclosure;
Objective 8.3 Student will list which fears associated with selfdisclosure;
Objective 8.4 Student will list some of the benefits of self-disclosure;

and
Objective 8.5 Student will practice self-disclosure in a role-play.
Provision of Empathic Support

Empathic support is shown when one attends to the verbal and non-verbal
emotional cues another is communicating, in accurately identifying their thoughts
and feelings, and in responding in an emotionally-supportive manner. Recently, the
provision of empathic support has received considerable attention as it also
presents the core of what is now colloquially referred to as emotional intelligence - broadly defined as the general ability to identify and regulate emotions (for a
thorough review of emotional intelligence please refer to Elfenbein & Ambady,
2003; Mayer & Salovey, 1993). This ability to listen and recognize emotions in
others and to provide empathically-accurate feedback has been associated with an
individuals ability to develop relationships and engage in pro-social behavior
(Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Competency in the provision of empathic support
requires competency in active listening (Ivey & Ivey, 1999; Rogers 1961; Raskin &
Rogers, 1995; Johnson, 2000) and empathically-accurate responding (Cutrona,
Cohen, & Ingram, 1990; Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Miller, Carlo, Poulin, Shea, &
Sheir, 1991; Hill 1991; Michener & DeLamater, 1999; Shaffer; 1988).
Active listening. Active listening is a verbal and non-verbal listening stance
that encourages others to talk about their current situation. Active listening became
a well-known construct following Carl Rogers dissemination (in the 1960s) of the
person-centered approach to human behavior. Rogers describes active attending
23
as paramount to providing unconditional support to others, as understanding can

only be acquired through intense, continuous and active attention to the feelings of
others, to the exclusion of any other type of attention (Raskin & Rogers, 1995, p.
142). The foundational verbal components of active listening are proposed to be:
paraphrasing of content, reflecting of feelings, questioning, and confronting. The
foundational non-verbal components are then proposed to include eye contact,
congruent body language, and attending posture.
At the core of the verbal components of active listening is the skill of
paraphrasing content in which the listener repeats to the sender the content of what
she or he had self-disclosed using the senders own words. The reflection of
feelings and meaning adds an interpretation to the paraphrase. In reflecting ones
feelings, the listener adds the use of affective words to a paraphrase to convey
emotional meaning and facilitate the persons identification of their own emotions.
By reflecting meaning, the listener adds conceptual interpretations to the
paraphrase. A prerequisite of this skill is basic emotional literacy in feeling words.
During active listening, one may use questioning as a means of helping the person
further explore their current situation and discovering perspectives previously
unknown, thus increasing the senders self-awareness. There are two types of
questioning: open questioning and closed questioning. Closed questions are those
that can easily be answered with simple responses such as yes, no, or maybe.
Open questions, therefore, are those questions that request a thoughtful response
from the other person. Finally, confronting involves the active attempt to follow the
persons verbal disclosures, even when they are confusing. In such situations
where the listener gets lost, they can always use paraphrasing or reflecting as a
confronting tool to capture the others perspective.
The non-verbal component of active listening includes eye contact, attending
posture, and congruent body language. These behaviors are often culture-specific
and what may be construed in one culture as attending may carry a different
meaning in another culture. For instance, in Western culture, direct eye contact
gives the sender the covert message that they are being listened to; however, in
some Native American cultures, looking away carriers the covert meaning that that
the topic is important enough for the person to look away and focus on the verbal
24
content (Ivey & Ivey, 1999). Likewise, attending posture is likely to vary according
to the situation and culture since what may be an attending posture in one situation
may be construed as rigidity and discomfort in another. Perhaps the best indication
of attending behavior is a congruent body language to indicate concordance with
the verbal message of listening. However, competence in non-verbal attending
behavior requires the cultural sensitivity and self-awareness that is developed over
time and is only effective when it is a genuine attitude; thus, the adage that body
language does not lie, is relevant here.
The importance of learning basic active listening skills is targeted in the GPC
Curriculum with Competency 9: Demonstrate basic active listening skills. This
competency is instructed with the following learning objectives:
-
Objective 9.1 Student will define paraphrasing;
Objective 9.2 Student will define reflecting;
Objective 9.3 Student will describe the difference between verbal and
non-verbal messages; and
Objective 9.4 Student will accurately demonstrate the skills of

paraphrasing and reflecting in a role-play.
Empathically-accurate responding. Empathically-accurate responding

refers to a deliberate and congruent cognitive and affective verbal and non-verbal
expression of concern, empathy, and esteem for an individual (Duan & Hill, 1996;
Hill, 1997; Ickes, 2000). Empathic responding requires both a caring attitude and a
cognitive and affective ability to gather, process, and communicate the empathic
attitude to the person needing empathic support. Also necessary is an intentional
response by a helper to the distress experienced by a target (Burleson, 2003, p.
552). The cognitive component is called perspective-taking and the affective
component is called empathic accuracy.
Perspective-taking is defined as the ability to cognitively place oneself in the
role of another (Eisenberg, et. al., 1991; Long & Andrews, 1990). It involves the
attitudinal disposition of attempting to understand anothers situation and position as
important and valid. Coutu (1951) explains this vicarious ability in terms of the
individual projecting into the perceptual field of the other person, imaginatively puts
25
himself in the others place, in order that he may get an insight in the other persons
probable behavior in a given situation (cited by Goldstein, 1999, p. 18).
Perspective-taking abilities have been associated with positive relationship
outcomes; for instance, Davis and Oathout (1987) found that degree of perspectivetaking competence was a predictor of not only marital satisfaction, but also a
predictor of long-term relationships as compared to short-term relationships. This
skill and attitude is best explained with the Native American proverb that one cannot
understand another person until one has walked for two moons in their moccasins.
Empathic accuracy is defined as a vicarious emotional response that is
identical or very similar to that of the other person (Eisenberg, et. al., 1991, p. 459).
Empathy is the core of this skill and has been defined in various manners,
particularly depending on theoretical orientation (psychodynamic versus
humanistic). However, in terms of interpersonal skill training, empathic
understanding typically follows the Rogerian definition of empathy as a sensitive
empathy with each of the clients feelings and communications as they seem to him
at that moment (Rogers, 1961, p. 34). Following this theoretical orientation,
empathic accuracy is among the three Rogerian essential ingredients for a
successful therapeutic experience -- the other two being congruence and
unconditional positive regard (Goldstein, 1999; Rogers, 1957). Empathic accuracy
requires the listener to possess the skill of accurately identifying the feelings of
another (Simpson, Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995). The degree of empathic accuracy
has been associated with relationship stability and longer-term relationships. The
importance of learning to provide empathically-accurate support is targeted in the
GPC Curriculum with Competency 10: Demonstrate an understanding of empathy.
This competency is instructed with the following learning objectives:
-
Objective 10.1 Student will list the components of empathic

understanding;
Objective 10.2 Student will define empathic accuracy; and
Objective 10.3 Student will identify the attitudes and behaviors for
establishing empathic support.
26
Assertive Responding
Assertiveness refers to an individuals ability to stand up for their personal
rights and express their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in direct, honest, and
appropriate ways with respect to the rights of others (Alberti & Emmons, 1982, p.
38). Assertive responding is increasingly becoming an essential interpersonal skill
for the workplace, particularly with the trend towards participative-decision making
teams, such as quality circles, which require the input of employees from all levels
of the organization (Bruning & Liverpool, 1993; Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Baker,
1996). Smith-Jentsch and associates (1996) point out that the success of quality
circles and other participative information-gathering and decision-making
arrangements require employees from all levels to be both willing and able to be
assertive and persuasive in expressing their thoughts and beliefs. The
consequences of lack of assertiveness range from inefficiency to catastrophic
events in such settings as nuclear power plants, emergency medical teams, and the
space program. Assertiveness is also related to personal success. Nota and
Soresi (2003) found considerable evidence in the literature that individuals who are
lacking interpersonal competence are also often indecisive about their careers and
that that assertiveness training not only decreases social discomfort but also helps
individuals become better problem-solvers and decision-makers.
Assertiveness continuum. The concept of assertiveness has its roots in
Satler and Wolpe (1949); however, it was Lange & Jakubowski (1976) who
conceptualized, in terms of a continuum, assertiveness as falling between
aggressive responding on one end and passive responding/withdrawal on the other
end. The aggressive end of the continuum represents the blunt non-empathic
expression of opinions, feelings, and wants without regard for the needs or rights of
others (including abuse). This is contrasted by the other end, passive/withdrawal,
which describes a withholding in the expression of opinions, feelings, and wants at
the expense of the self and personal rights (Alberti & Emmons, 1982). The middle
of the continuum, assertiveness, refers to the ability to respond to interpersonal
situations and social cues in a manner that asserts the rights of self and others,
which is the target behavior of assertiveness training.
27
Assertive
__
___ I _______
I
I
Passive
Aggressive
Figure 2.2. Assertiveness continuum.
Christoff and Kelly (1985) present that there are at least three types of
assertive behaviors: (a) socially-appropriate refusals; (b) appropriate expression of
self; and (c) appropriate expression of ones requests (cited by Wood &
Mallinckrodt, 1990). These three components can be converted into three levels of
assertive responding. Rose and Tyron (1979) provide a taxonomy of three different
levels labeled basic competency, intermediate competency, and mastery. Basic
competency refers to an individuals ability and willingness to provide a mere
statement that the presenting behavior, thought, or idea is undesirable.
Intermediate competency refers to the person also providing an indication of
dissatisfaction or non-compliance. It is proposed that mastery, then, refers to an
individuals ability and willingness to provide a statement that the presenting
behavior, thought, or idea is undesirable, that they are dissatisfied with the request
(or that they will not comply), and then present a suggestion, request, or demand
for a behavioral change.
The importance of developing a conceptual understanding of the
assertiveness continuum is targeted in the GPC Curriculum with Competency 11:
Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of assertive responding. This
-
Objective 11.1 Student will describe the components, benefits, and

likely consequences of an assertive response;
Objective 11.2 Student will describe the components, possible benefits,

and likely consequences of a passive response;
Objective 11.3 Student will describe the components and likely

consequences of an aggressive response; and
28
Objective 11.4 For given critical incident simulations, student will

generate passive, aggressive, and assertive responses.
The provision of I-based messages and feedback. The masterful

execution of assertion often also requires the use of I-messages. I-messages
communicate to the listener the nature of the offense (content) as well as the
resultant emotion. When a grieved individual communicates in terms of Imessages, they take responsibility for their emotions and attempt to present them
to the other person in a non-threatening and non-aggressive format. The goal is not
to blame, but rather to clearly communicate with the aim of increasing the other
persons perspective-taking and awareness of the impact of their behavior. The
opposite of I-messages are You-messages, which have an accusatory tone and
place the other individual in a defensive/protective stance, versus one that
encourages empathetic understanding, as seen or heard in the I-messages.
In terms of workplace-related training, programs often involve either
attitudinal-focused or performance-focused training strategies (Smith-Jentsch,
Salas, & Baker, 1996). The attitudinal-focused strategy often involves lectures or
inspirational empowerment seminars with demonstrations or cognitively-based
instruction. The performance-focused training strategy often has a specific
behavioral skill focus and involves skill-drills and role-plays. In their literature
review, Smith-Jentsch and associates further suggest that the effectiveness of each
strategy depends on the underlying cause for lack of assertiveness. Among these,
the skill/performance-based approach is most effective for those with
underdeveloped interpersonal competency, while the attitude/cognitive-based
approaches are more effective for those whose lack of competency is due to
negative thoughts and/or an external locus of control.
The importance of learning to provide I-based feedback is targeted in the
GPC Curriculum with Competency 12: Provide examples of I-based feedback and
messages. This competency is instructed with the following learning objectives:
-
Objective 12.1 Student will speculate the likely response to You

messages (defensive); and
29
Objective 12.2 Student will reframe a series of You-messages into Istatements.
Conflict Management
Conflict Management concerns an individuals ability to problem-solve and
manage conflicts of interest, defined as situations in which one individual attempts
to reach a goal or position which infringes upon the goals or position of another
individual (Deutsch, 1973, Fisher & Ury 1991; Johnson, 2000). Heun and Heun
(1978) present successful conflict management as the resolution of disagreements
in a way that members are satisfied and are able to continue working together in a
mutually productive manner (p. 197). Problem-solving and conflict management
are among the most coveted workplace skills, with problem-solving being the
second-most coveted skill in the workplace (Cassel & Kolstad, 1998). The nature of
conflict is the interdependence between two parties in regards to their positions in
the face of scarce resources (Roloff, 1981). Roloff presents that interpersonal
problems or conflicts arise because of a perception of inequity, when an individual
feels that something within a relationship is not meeting their expectations, or that
one member is gaining or has a desired advantage over the other. Negotiation is
the process by which people that have both shared and opposed interest wish to
come to an agreement attempt to work out a settlement (Stevahn, Johnson,
Johnson, Green, & Laginski, 1997).
One of the GPC curriculum targets is to encourage students to identify
everyday conflicts in their own lives. This is targeted with Competency 13: Identify
common personal and interpersonal conflicts. This competency is instructed with
the following learning objectives:
-
Objective 13.1 Student will identify interpersonal conflicts in their own

life;
Objective 13.2 Student will recognize the existence of conflicts in

everyday life; and
Objective 13.3 Student will analyze the relationship between personal

needs and expectations and their development of interpersonal conflicts.
30
Perspective taking & principled negotiation. The principled negotiation

approach is based on Harvard Business School professors Roger Fisher and
William Urys (1991) Getting to Yes. This approach to negotiation is based upon
the assumption of the primacy of perspective-taking as a negotiation approach. To
this effect, Fisher and Uri state, the basic problem in negotiation lies not in the
conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each sides needs, desires,
concerns, and fears (p. 40). A goal in the principled approach is for individuals to
understand their needs, yet to not entrench themselves in a given position or musthave demand. Instead, the goal is to attempt to understand the other party or
parties in the conflict and to seek to find areas of common ground or common
interest. Thus, rather than taking a passive or aggressive approach to negotiations,
the principled negotiator assertively seeks a collaborative relationship.
Fisher and Urys approaches to increase perspective-taking in negotiations
include: (a) placing oneself in the position of the other and asking, Why would they
want such a position?; (b) asking oneself, Why not their choice?; (c) realizing that
each side has multiple interests with different levels of valence; (d) analyzing the
situation from the perspective of Maslows hierarchy of needs; (e) discussing
common interests and acknowledging them as a part of the problem space; and (f)
going hard on the problem and easy on the person.
Conflict-management stances. Whenever one enters a conflict situation,
the first decision made is which response style (passive, aggressive, assertive) to
adapt to the situation. A passive style is one in which the person or party gives in to
the demands of the other and forfeits what they wanted (their position). An
aggressive style is that of a hard sell in which the emphasis is on maximizing a
given goal or position without regard for the other party or maintaining a relationship
with the other party. An assertive style is one which attempts to maximize
achieving what is wanted (the position) while also maintaining or developing the
relationship with the other party.
Johnson (2000) expands this position by creating a grid of Blake and
Moultons (1964) five managerial conflict-management styles: withdrawing, forcing,
smoothing, compromising, and negotiating (see Figure 2.3). The withdrawing
approach represents an individuals conflict strategy of forgoing both their position
31
Importance of
Relationship
Goal or Position
Smoothing
Negotiation
Compromising
Withdrawing
Forcing
Figure 2.3. Conflict management stances
and the relationship. The forcing approach occurs when the conflict strategy is to
maximize ones position without any regard for the interpersonal relationship. The
smoothing approach represents when the individuals conflict strategy is to forgo the
position for the sake of gaining on the relationship. The compromising approach
represents a surrender of both the position and the relationship for the sake of
reaching an agreement. The problem is often that neither party is completely
satisfied with the outcome. An alternative to the compromise is the principled
negotiation approach in which both parties are encouraged to think outside the box
and generate situations where the position is maximized for all parties involved.
This conflict strategy requires all parties to engage in perspective taking, to consider
the positions of others, and, at times, to question their own position. The result is
often not only a win-win situation, but also the strengthening of the relationship.
The importance of having students learn to develop a strategy to manage
everyday conflict in their lives is targeted in the GPC Curriculum with Competency
14: Demonstrate ability to develop a strategy for managing conflict. This
-
Objective 14.1 Student will identify the relationship between

perspective-taking and conflict management;
Objective 14.2 Student will list the five conflict management stances
and identify when to use each stance appropriately;
32
Objective 14.3 Student will list the four steps in inventing options;
Objective 14.4 Student will demonstrate perspective-taking in a

hypothetical critical incident; and
Objective 14.5 Student will demonstrate the ability to confront and

challenge in a hypothetical interpersonal conflict.
Conflict management when the relationship matters. Fisher and Ury

(1991) recommend the following strategy to maximize the negotiation potential
within a conflict in which the relationship matters: (1) identify the problem; (2)
analyze the problem; (3) brainstorm alternatives; and (4) take action. These four
steps are depicted in a chart (see Figure 2.4). The philosophical background in this
model is that the problem-solving process begins in the context of the real-world
and departs into theoretical idealism until solutions are generated. At this point, the
goal challenge is to execute the solution. The first step deals with a thorough
analysis of the problem and its symptoms. The most important component at this
level is to engage in perspective taking and to separate people from the conflict.
There is also an analysis of the contrast between the disliked facts and the
preferred situation. The Cognitive Information Processing Learning Theory for
Career Decisions calls this concept the gap (Peterson, Reardon, Sampson, & Lenz,
1996).
The second step involves an analysis of the problem. During this stage, the
symptoms are organized into a taxonomy that will help in the assignment of cause.
At this level, a needs analysis occurs with regards to what is lacking, as well as an
evaluation of obstacles to generating alternatives. Fisher and Ury (1991) cite the
following common mistakes at this level: (a) making a premature decision in regards
to causation; (b) fear of widening the gap; (c) assuming only one solution exists;
and (d) seeing problem solving as the problem itself.
The third step involves the brainstorming of alternatives and creative
solutions to the conflict or problem. Fisher and Ury offer the following guidelines for
success at this level: (a) separate inventing from deciding; (b) broaden your
33
Theoretical
Idealism
Real-World
Analysis
Approaches
Step II
Step III
Action Ideas
Problem
Step IV
Step I
Figure 2.4. Four basic steps in inventing options.
options, including broadening the scope and commitment to possibilities; and (c)
look for points of mutual gain. Then in the fourth step, the parties create a plan to
translate problem-solved solutions into executable decisions. Essential to this step
is obstacle planning. New obstacles and unexpected consequences will likely lead
to a new step -- one in which changes will always result in resistance by other
parties. Yet, the benefit is the collaborative relationship-building outcome that
occurs during principled negotiation. The importance of being able to evaluate ones
own conflict-management behavior is targeted in the GPC Curriculum with
Competency 15: Evaluate ones own conflict-management behavior. This
-
Objective 15.1 Student will identify opportunities for negotiation and

compromise in their own lives;
Objective 15.2 Student will analyze their typical conflict-management

style; and
Objective 15.3 Student will analyze and critically evaluate whether their
conflict management style is adaptive to their interpersonal needs.
34
Developing Interpersonal Communication Skills
There is not one generally-adopted theory for interpersonal communication

skill training. Most trainers incorporate elements of reinforcement theory,
information processing learning theory, and social-cognitive learning theory in
developing training programs (Stipek, 1998). This section begins with a brief
description of the three aforementioned meta-theories, followed by the proposed
integrative assumptions for the training in interpersonal communication skills. Core
elements of these three theories are then synthesized into a proposed set of
integrated assumptions. These assumptions are then used as a departure point to
elaborate upon key components of an interpersonal communication skills training,
which represents the core framework for the development of the work-related
interpersonal communication skill curriculum evaluated in the present study.
Reinforcement Learning Theory
Reinforcement theory views training as a matter of changing or targeting
the environmental response to a persons behavior in order to increase or achieve
the incidence of target behaviors and reduce or eliminate non-target or undesirable
behaviors. Reinforcement theory has its roots in Edward Lee Thorndikes seminal
work, Educational Diagnosis (1913; cited by Gormezano, 2000), and its
presentation of the Law of Effect. Also providing reinforcement theory framework is
B.F. Skinners The Behavior of Organisms (1938), which proposed a systematic
behavior theory under the premise that behavior is modifiable with the pairing of
positive and negative reinforcements to specific behavioral antecedents (cited by
Coleman, 2000); behavior can be shaped by positively rewarding subsequent
approximations to the target behavior (Medsker & Fry, 1997).
Social and interpersonal communication skills as a target for behavioral
modification have their roots in Joseph Wolpes (1958) work on reciprocal inhibition,
which advocated replacing maladaptive behaviors with adaptive ones and thus
changing undesirable outcomes to desirable ones. However, interpersonal
35
communication skills did not become a target for modification until Joseph Wolpe
and Arnold Lazarus wrote Behavioral Therapy Techniques (1958) and introduced
the concept of assertiveness training as a training intended to increase prosocial
behaviors and reduce maladaptive behaviors under the premise that the social
environment will reinforce adaptive behaviors (cited by Segrin & Givertz, 2003).
The basic foundation of current reinforcement theory is the deliberate
pairing of behavior with one of four consequences: positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment. The reinforcement,
or punishment, is strictly defined in terms of observing effects on behavior: what
may be reinforcing for one person may constitute a punishment for another (Stipek,
1998). The goal of reinforcement theory is that over time, individual behaviors
become secondarily reinforced (i.e. a behavior becomes reinforced by being linked
to another behavior which is then reinforced) and later generalized into other
situations, even in absence of direct reinforcement. In terms of training, this
generalization is the target outcome of instruction; that is the goal is for the
application of acquired skill, knowledge, and attitudes to be transferred from the
artificial training environment into the real-life target environment.
Implications. The desired result of the positive reinforcement of a response
is for the behavior to generalize to other similar behaviors (Stipek, 1998). Since
interpersonal skills are complex, a desired implication for the positive reinforcement
desired behaviors is to target specific behaviors with the objective of having these
behaviors generalize to other similar prosocial behaviors. The GPC Curriculum
follows this assumption of generalization by targeting specific core work-related
interpersonal communication skills and by having students repeatedly practice
these in the form of role-plays in which they receive positive reinforcement for
successive approximations (shaping) of the target behavior. Following role-plays,
students are given written critical incidents to complete as homework (increasing
the duration of the intervention) to further engage and practice the skills and receive
written feedback about their application of the skills. Consistent with the principles
of shaping, students are rewarded for engaging the written critical incident
homework by receiving academic credit for engaging the material without receiving
punishment or negative consequences for non-optimal performance, provided there
36
is subjective evidence of engagement (for limitations of this method see Limitations

section in Chapter V). Another reinforcement theory implication is the
encouragement of instructional staff to reinforce the appropriate use of the target
skills during everyday interactions.
Information Processing Learning Theory
Information processing meta-theory focuses on cognition, the internal
process of learning. All information-processing models rely on three core
assumptions: the assumption of representation, the assumption of process, and the
assumption of architecture (Logan, 2000). The assumption of representation
proposes that the individual receives all of its information from the environment and
then encodes this information with an internal representation of actual reality or in
the case of constructivist theorists, what is constructed to be reality (Mahoney,
1991). The process assumption is concerned with the operations that translate the
perception into mental processes. Logan (2000) elaborates this assumption by
identifying three types of processes: perceptual processes which perceive the
external stimuli, central processes which organize representations into schemata,
and motor processes which translate perceptual and central processes into physical
courses of action. Finally, the architecture assumption stipulates the structure to
determine how processes communicate with others and in which manner (Logan,
2000).
Mahoney (1991), elaborates that specific information cognitive theories can
be organized according to their assumptions about architecture to include: (a) linear
sensory (SOR) models, which are an extension of basic S-R theory by adding the
O, which strictly represents covert stimuli-response processes; (b) linear
association information processing models, which recognize specific internal
functions to include the processes of attention, encoding, retention, and retrieval
which result in the formation of short- and long-term memory; (c) hierarchical
cognitive models, based on computer science theory, in which information is
organized in schemas and basic input/output processes are managed by
intermediate mediational processes, which are controlled by executive control
processes; and (d) connectivist models which rely on recent neuropsychological
37
findings to suggest that the mind is actually organized across complex neural
networks and semi-dependent neural pathways which, while bound by finite
boundaries, have the property of plasticity and arrange and re-arrange themselves
in concordance with learning experiences.
In terms of social skills, and more specifically, interpersonal communication
skills, the generally-accepted theory is a linear association theory called
communication meta-theory. Wyer and Gruenfeld (1995) delineate five phases
involved in almost every interpersonal interaction. The first phase is semantic
encoding, which describes how the information is semantically encoded in light of
previous experiences and current attributions. The second phase, organization,
describes how different pieces of information are organized into coherent mental
representations or schemas. Beck and Weishaar (1995) define schemas as
cognitive structures that consist of the individuals fundamental beliefs and
assumptions, which develop early in life from personal experiences and
identification with others (p. 237), while Weary and Edwards (1994), define a
schema as an enduring cognitive structure that represents an individuals
organized knowledge about a concept or stimulus domain (Weary & Edwards,
1994, p. 292).
Schemas include not only the content of an interaction, but
also the thoughts and emotional reactions associated with the relationship (Wyer &
Gruenfeld, 1995).
The third phase of communication meta-theory is the storage of the
heuristically-associated integration of semantic encoding and organization within
long-term memory. The fourth phase, retrieval and inference, requires the
accessing of stored skill, knowledge, or attitudes as elicited by a given situation.
Finally, the last response deals with the generation, or blocking, of a verbal and
non-verbal response to a given psychosocial stimulus.
Johnson (2000), along with Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson (1987), provides
pragmatic generic models of the process of interpersonal communication. Johnson
(2000) presents a model that is composed of seven parts: (a) the intentions of the
sender; (b) the encoding of the message; (c) the sending of the message; (d) the
channel; (e) the decoding of the message by the receiver; (f) the internal response;
and (g) the noise in the step. This model does not explicitly close the loop between
38
the sender and the receiving functions. The model of Hargie and associates (1987)
closes the loop, but is more descriptive than process-oriented. It identifies six
components to the interpersonal communications process: (a) person-situation
context; (b) goal; (c) mediating processes; (d) response; (e) feedback; and (f)
perception. This model is similar to that of Johnson (2000), but it is more complete
in that it closes the loop back to the original message.
The preceding models can be pragmatically integrated into a generic fivecomponent model: (a) the sender; (b) the receiver; (c) the channel; (d) feedback;
and (e) noise. The sender function involves a goal or intention, which is encoded
and sent verbally and non-verbally to the receiver. The receiver will decode and
organize the message according to his or her own beliefs regarding themselves, the
other person, and the situation. The mismatch between the intended message and
received message is called noise. Noise can be classified as external or internal.
External noise occurs in the channel of communication and is the result of either
actual noise in the environment such as a radio or noise emerging from the
sender mannerisms, choice of dress, or speech patterns (Johnson, 2000).
Internal noise is largely due to attitudes, the heuristic-experiential processing of
similar situations or long-standing mental organizations regarding the self and
others. The feedback function, when constructive, closes the loop and increases
communication.
Implications. The purpose of cognitive learning intervention is to change
how a person conceptualizes and organizes the experience of self, others, and the
world (Vacc & Loesch, 1994). Cognitive-theory-based interpersonal communication
skills interventions are delivered through seminar and demonstration formats with
the goal of helping learners develop new semantic knowledge and motivating them
to change their attitudes. The first implication of cognitive theory upon interpersonal
communication skills training includes the necessity to ensure that instruction is
designed in such a manner that the learner is able to assimilate new information
with the prerequisite information stored in long-term memory (Medsker & Fry,
1997). A second related implication is that new information must be presented in a
developmentally-appropriate manner (that is consistent with the persons level of
prior knowledge) and must emphasize over-learning or remedial learning when
39
necessary. A third implication is in the case when similar prior knowledge is not
easily accessible in long-term memory; information should be taught using models
to help the learner organize new information in logical units or components (i.e.,
present the generic communication model).
The importance of providing learners with a conceptual model of information
processing theory implications are incorporated into the GPC Curriculum with
Competency 2: Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the communication
model. This competency is instructed with the following learning objective:
-
Objective 2.1 Student will describe the components communications

model, including the sender and receiver roles, and typical problems
associated with noise in the channel.
Social-Cognitive Learning Theory

Social-cognitive learning theory (Bandura 1977a, 1977b; 1986; 1999)
extends Skinners work on the powerful environmental (external) effects of
consequences (i.e., reinforcement and punishment) upon human behavior by
proposing that behavior is managed via internal personal factors (cognitive and
affective events) that mediate events and consequences in the psychosocial
environment (Bandura, 2000; Stipek, 1998). Thus, social-cognitive learning theory
rests on the assumption that while reinforcement and punishment are essential for
behavior change, behavior is moderated by personal factors that process
expectations and beliefs about the self, others, and psychosocial environment
(Stipek, 1998). These personal factors include cognitive, affective, and biological
processes, as well as the persons transactional view of self and society (Bandura,
2000, p. 329). Social-cognitive learning theory presents that persons are
characterized across five interactional capabilities: symbolizing capability, vicarious
capability, forethought capability, self-regulatory capability, and self-reflective
capability (Bandura, 1986; 1999; 2000).
Symbolizing capability. The symbolizing capability assigns a central role
to cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective processes in human
development and functioning (Bandura, 2000, p. 329). It represents the capability
of human beings to use symbols to transform external experiences and learning into
40
relevant, internal models of experience. According to Bandura (2000),

environmental events exhort their influence through cognitive processes in that it is
these internal processes (see Information Processing section) that manage the
meaning assigned to experience, the attribution on their impact upon the person,
and how information is organized for present and future use. Thus, people develop
internal symbolic representation of their world and these symbols provide human
beings with the capacity for vicarious learning, self-reflection, and the expansion of
knowledge (Lent & Maddux, 1997).
Vicarious capability. Bandura (2000) proposes that individuals learn by
one of two methods: by experiencing the effects of their actions (reinforcement
theory) and by social modeling. Human beings are believed to have an advanced
capacity for observation; as such, nearly all learning can occur vicariously through
observation, versus only through direct experience as postulated by classical
behaviorism. Individuals are able to learn by watching the consequences of others
behavior and will adapt their behavior in the expectancy of similar or related
desirable and undesirable consequences (Medsker & Fry, 1997). Most social
learning occurs via modeling such as: language, family traditions, cultural norms,
workplace behavior, etc. (Bandura, 2000; Medsker & Fry, 1997; Stipek 1998).
However, once vicariously learned, these behaviors are still subject to
reinforcement and punishment by the social environment and interpersonal
competence optimizes social reinforcement (Bandura, 1992).
Forethought capability. Forethought refers to the assumption that all
behavior is intentional or goal-directed; actions are driven by expectancies of future
desirable or undesirable outcomes for a given behavior and that in light of this
future-time perspective, humans are able to sustain effort over long periods in the
expectation of delayed reinforcement (Bandura, 2000; Stipek, 1998). Thus, a
component of any training program is to motivate learners to recognize the
relevance of behavior change towards both present and future positive and
negative consequences. Because outcomes exert their influence through
forethought, they have little or no behavioral or motivational impact until people
discover how outcomes are linked to actions in their environment (Bandura, 2000,
p. 330).
41
Self-regulatory capability. The self-regulatory capability assumption

advances that while external events have an influence on behavior; individuals are
capable of direct control over their own behavior. Thus, behavior is a product of
personal standards and goals. Individual differences in behavior can be explained
by different sets of goals and standards. Thus, self-reflective capability postulates
that human beings are proactive in their behavior and able to evaluate their
cognitions, feelings, and conation while engaging in self-verification via
metacognitive activities.
Self-reflective capability. The self-reflective capability assumptions focus
on the human persons capability to reflect upon his or her own actions and to
evaluate and verify the accuracy of ones current thoughts (beliefs, attitudes, and
expectancies) with some indicator of reality, including outcomes (Bandura, 2000).
Furthermore, this verification process occurs through four models of verification:
enactive, vicarious, persuasory, and logical. Bandura (2000) elaborates: enactive
verification involves the comparison of ones thoughts with actual outcomes;
vicarious verification involves seeing the consequences paired to other peoples
behaviors; persuasory verification involves the person comparing their thoughts to
those of others; and logical verification involves the logical comparison of ones
thoughts with ones knowledge about reality (p. 331).
The metacognitive activities of self-reflection can have positive and negative
consequences. While thought-reality accuracy is likely to result in adaptive
behavior, erroneous thinking can lead to maladaptive and seemingly-illogical
behavior (Bandura, 2000). An example, in terms of interpersonal communication
skills, is the individual who engages in socially-noxious behaviors believed by him
or her to lead to future reinforcement; when the reinforcement does not materialize,
if their thinking is not changed, they are likely to increase intensity, frequency, or
duration in expectancy of such a reinforcer.
Self-efficacy. At the core of these capabilities is the concept of self-efficacy,
defined as an individuals belief in their ability to mobilize the resources needed to
meet the task demands from the environment (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is a
holistic predictor of behavior which involves a generative capability in which
cognitive, social, and behavioral sub-skills must be organized into integrated
42
courses of action to serve innumerable purposes (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Gist

and associates (1991) further cite self-efficacy as: (a) accounting for a considerable
variance in performance, after controlling for ability; (b) a better predictor of
performance than past behavior; and (c) people with high self-efficacy outperform
those with low self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a judgment of task-specific capabilities,
while self-esteem is an affective evaluation of the self (Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta,
1991). Self-efficacy differs from outcome expectation in that self-efficacy refers to a
self-perception of capability to engage in an activity, while outcome expectation
refers to the judgment regarding the consequences of the given performance
(Bandura, 1986). Finally, self-efficacy is believed to be the function of performance
attainment, vicarious learning, social persuasion (and rewards), and psychological
(or emotional) arousal (Bandura, 2000).
Relational schemas. In his social-cognitive learning theory, Bandura (2000)
discusses the persons transactional view of self and society. Although not
connected to Banduras work, Baldwin (1992) presents one of the best models of
the relationship of self and worldview, which he terms relational schemas. A
relational schema is a knowledge structure containing an image of the self, an
image of other, and a script for a pattern of interaction between the self and other
(Baldwin, Granzberg, Pippus, & Pritchard, 2003, p. 153). The relational schema
works as a cognitive map from which individuals navigate the psychosocial
environment.
Relational schemas operate in terms of well-defined scripts. Scripts are
composed of declarative knowledge about interactions and responses, as well as
procedural components such as how and when to use different behavior rehearsals.
Baldwin (1992) further states that scripts can range from simple behavioral
interactions, such as the fight-flight response, to very complex sequences of
behaviors. For instance, if a person views themselves as inadequate in a given
situation (self-schema) and views others as critical (worldview), then the person will
activate a critical or disapproval expectancy schema such as, If I make a mistake
he will reject me (Baldwin, et. al., 2003, p. 153). If this expectancy is reinforced
with the expected outcome, then the persons self-schema becomes more selfcritical, their worldview more threatening, and the script is validated. If this script
43
continues to be reinforced in other interactions with a given individual (i.e., a

supervisor) then over time the script becomes more engrained and generalized as
expectancies into other interpersonal relationships. As such, during the course of
development, people develop relational scripts which have deterministic effects
upon their adult lives (Berne, 1972). It is then proposed that interpersonal
competence is the sum of adaptive scripts while relational schemas and
interpersonal deficiencies are composed of maladaptive scripts. However, different
from Bernes original script theory, it is argued that scripts are developed not only
early in childhood, but also when the person encounters new experiences, such as
entering the workplace.
Implications. Interpersonal communication skills can be acquired via
vicarious social learning events, such as observation and modeling (Bandura,
1986). Interpersonal skill performance is mediated by a persons transactional view
of self and society, ones cognitive and affective processes, and consequences
from the environment and associated relational scripts. Competence in
interpersonal communication optimizes social reinforcement; however, faulty
thinking can mitigate negative cues from the environment. Current interpersonal
behavior operates from relational schemas and associated scripts.
One of the reasons for faulty thinking is an ingrained relational script, which
presents a template for current interactions derived from past experiences.
Implications of social-cognitive learning theory within training in interpersonal
communication skills include: (a) the importance of vicarious learning and the use of
highly competent individuals provide the modeling of interpersonal competence; (b)
the importance of evaluating the learners self-efficacy in planning individual
interventions; (c) the presentation of optimal scripts for interpersonal interactions;
and (d) the importance of evaluating the accuracy of an individuals self-reflective
capabilities in understanding interpersonal behavior and possible resistance to
learning
Social-cognitive theory implications are integrated into the GPC Curriculum
by providing an instructional framework that incorporates the deliberate instruction
of relational scripts and problem-solving rubrics both in a traditional lecture format
and by having these modeled to encourage vicarious learning. Students are also
44
encouraged to engage their self-reflective capabilities and to identify target

behaviors and relationships in which to practice the skills. This self-reflection is
targeted in the GPC Curriculum with Competency 1: Demonstrate a conceptual
understanding of the importance of interpersonal communication skills and
Competency 4: Identify which interpersonal communication skills one needs to
further develop. These two competencies are instructed with the following learning
objectives:
-
Objective 1.1 Student will speculate how the development of

interpersonal communication skills will help them with personal
relationships;
Objective 1.2 Student will evaluate their behaviors towards others and
decide which are effective in interpersonal communication relationships
and which need improvement;
Objective 4.1 As part of a capstone project, student will identify one

interpersonal communication skill that they wish to further develop; and
Objective 4.2 As part of a capstone project, student will develop a

personal learning plan to further develop one interpersonal
communication skill.
Integrative Theoretical Assumptions

The three meta-theories are often combined in the development of training
programs (Stipek, 1998). Using Merrell and Gimpells (1998) assumptions of social
skills as a departure point, the following integrated assumptions derived from
reinforcement, information processing, and social-cognitive learning theory are
proposed as the theoretical propositions and assumptions in regards to the
development of interpersonal communication skills: (a) interpersonal
communication skills are acquired via social learning such as observation,
modeling, rehearsal and feedback (Bandura, 1986); (b) interpersonal competence
can be conceptualized as having effective relational scripts of effective and
appropriate initiations and responses for a wide-variety of situations (see definition
of competence); (c) interpersonal communications are semantically processed as
symbols and cognitive schemas about the self and others (Bandura, 1986;
45
Johnson, 2000; Wyer & Gruenfeld 1995); (d) interpersonal skill performance is
mediated by schemas about the self, schemas about other(s), and the associated
relational scripts (Baldwin, 1992); (e) interpersonal competence optimizes social
reinforcement (Bandura, 1992); (f) important relationships or events during early
experiences will have considerable effects on the development of relational styles
(Berne, 1972 ); and (g) interpersonal communications have both overt-verbal and
covert-non-verbal components.
Implications of the Assumptions Developing Training
The above assumptions and theoretical orientations also have direct
implications for the development of training programs in interpersonal
communication skills. These include the following implications: (a) interpersonal
modeling, rehearsal and feedback (Bandura, 1986); (b) the ultimate goal in the
development and training in interpersonal communication skills is the generalization
and transfer of adaptive skills and scripts to replace maladaptive skills and scripts;
(c) instruction must be designed in such manner that the learner is able to
assimilate new information with prerequisite information stored in long-term
memory; (d) instruction must be delivered in a developmentally-appropriate format;
(e) interpersonal communication skill training must teach skills in a manner that the
person is rewarded for successive approximations of the target behavior (shaping)
until the target behavior is achieved; (f) new information must be presented in a
developmentally-appropriate manner (that is consistent with the persons level of
prior knowledge), and over-learning or remedial learning must be emphasized when
necessary; (g) when similar prior knowledge is not easily accessible in long-term
memory, information must be taught using models to help the learner organize new
information in logical units or components (i.e. present the generic communication
model); (h) the importance of vicarious learning and the use of highly competent
individuals provide the modeling of interpersonal competence; (i) the importance of
evaluating the learners self-efficacy in planning individual interventions; (j) the
presentation of optimal scripts for interpersonal interactions and the importance of
evaluating the accuracy of an individuals self-reflective capabilities in
46
understanding interpersonal behavior and possible resistance to learning; and (k)

once the behavior is achieved, the application environment must reinforce the
behavior for it to transfer from the learning laboratory to the target environment.
These can be integrated into the following requisite design components of an
effective interpersonal skill training program: lectures, modeling, role-playing, and
homework assignments (Segrin & Givertz, 2003).
Lectures. Lectures represent the didactic presentation of the knowledge
base and rationale for the various interpersonal communication skills taught.
Baldwin and Ford (1988) emphasize the teaching of the models, components, and
underlying rules as one of the essential components knowledge base as
fundamental in the training for transfer. Such instruction must be provided in a
format that is developmentally and contextually-appropriate and in such a manner
that the learner is able to assimilate new information with their current worldview
and knowledge. This instruction should be repeated and drilled in order to
emphasize over-learning (Segrin & Givertz, 2003).
Modeling. Social-cognitive learning theory proposes that while the
acquisition of competencies, skills, and attitudes can occur via the direct experience
of positive and negative response consequences, most learning occurs intentionally
or unintentionally through the power of social modeling (Bandura, 1999, p. 30).
The rationale is that humans are born with few inborn skills and that learning occurs
due to the evolution of an advanced capacity for observational learning that
enables them to expand their knowledge and competencies rapidly through the
information conveyed by the rich variety of models (p. 30). As such, Bandura
(1999) proposes that virtually all behavioral, cognitive, and affective learning from
direct experience can be achieved vicariously by observing peoples actions and the
consequences for them (p. 31). It is therefore not surprising that behavioral
modeling training is considered to be the gold standard of interpersonal
communication skills training (Baldwin, 1992).
Segrin and Givertz (2003) propose three steps for the vicarious or
modeling instruction of interpersonal communication skills. First, they propose the
importance of repetition by having multiple models demonstrating the execution of
the same skill/target behavior or, when various models are unavailable, having the
47
same model repeat the demonstration various times. Repetition helps the learner
internalize the symbolic representation; while having multiple models, the learner
can see that different people can execute the target behavior. The second
proposed step is that the more familiar the model is to the learner (in terms of
demographics), the more likely the learner is to imitate the model. The third step
proposes that if the model is rewarded for their actions (either directly or via a
confederate), then the behavior is more likely to be imitated. A fourth step that
should be added to the Segrin and Givertz (2003) proposal is to ensure that the
demonstrations are performed by highly competent individuals who perform the skill
correctly; however, the expertness should match (and not exceed) the degree of
competence realistically expected from the learners so that the learner can develop
positive expectancies without becoming overwhelmed.
Role playing. Role playing is the logical step to follow modeling as it
provides the learner the opportunity to execute the observed skills/behaviors in a
controlled setting (Segrin & Givertz, 2003). Role plays also serve to contextualize
the skills of the target environment and are staged with one actor and one
confederate. The confederate will often receive a vignette describing the undesired
situation and descriptions of how to behave while the actor (practicing the
skill/behaviors) receives only identifying information to resemble real life situations
(Segrin & Givertz, 2003).
The role-play is carried out while a coach observes and provides positive
reinforcement -- specific behavioral approximations of the target. The confederate
is also often encouraged to provide specific feedback to the learner (actor) with Ibased language such as, When I mentioned that I was upset and the response
was to tell me to cheer-up, it made me feel misunderstood, or When I mentioned
that I was upset, and you asked me what had happened, it made me feel that you
cared. In the case of small groups, all members of the small group may be
encouraged to provide feedback in the same manner. When role-plays are carried
out in small groups, all members benefit; the actor benefits from direct
reinforcement, while the confederate and learners learn to provide constructive
feedback, as well as learning vicariously. In repeating the role-plays, one achieves
48
overlearning, which is empirically supported to increase incidence of learning and

transfer (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).
Homework assignments. Homework assignments encourage the
generalization of learned skills into the target environment. Homework may take
the format of written critical incidents or in-vivo practice of skills. While homework
assignments can be very effective, it is important to reinforce the learner both for
correct performance and for having attempted the performance. Segrin and Givertz
(2003) warn that in-vivo homework assignments, when too complex or when the
learner is not yet prepared can discourage the learner. Follow-up and reinforcement
are critical in helping learners generalize their skills for subsequent transfer.
Integration into the GPC Curriculum. These implications for the
development of training are implemented into the GPC Curriculum in that the
curriculum uses the four modalities of lectures, modeling, role-playing, and
homework assignments in the instruction of work-related interpersonal
communication skills. These are taught in a progressive order beginning with
introductory lectures for all concepts followed by modeling and in-vivo skill practice
in the form of role-plays or written skill practice with instructor feedback. All
instructional sessions had associated homework assignments to encourage the
generalization of skills.
A Strategy for Implementing Interventions in the Schools
This section explores the expected challenges for a counseling psychologist

(or graduate student in counseling psychology) to implement a human development
intervention in the school. This section first explores the historical background of
these challenges over the past half-century and then proposes a strategy to reintegrate into the schools.
Challenges for Counseling Psychologists in the Schools
49
The call for developmental guidance and school-to-work programs

integrating the development of interpersonal communication skills among students
presents an ideal challenge to be met by the combined skills and collaboration of
counseling psychologists and school counselors, both of whose professions share a
common heritage in vocational guidance. However, collaborative efforts among
counseling psychologists and school counselors face considerable disciplinary
barriers with roots stemming to the 1950s, when a split occurred in the professional
identities between the two.
Historical background. In 1951, Division 17 changed its name from the
Division of Personnel and Guidance Psychologists to the Division of Counseling
Psychology. The next year (1952), professional guidance practitioners created the
American Personnel and Guidance Association (most recently the American
Counseling Association.). Mark Pope (2004), the current president of the American
Counseling Association, presents that the Division 17 name-change heralded a drift
from its original guidance and K-12 focus.
Hoffman and Carter (2004) present that this erosion from K-12 education
became most evident in the time following the 1957 launch of Sputnik and the
passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 (Myrick, 1997).
This act established funding for the development of the guidance counselor as a
career professional and as an integral part of the countrys agenda to identify
talented students in math, science, and English and guide them into strategic fields
to compete against the threat of Russian educational superiority (Baker, 1996,
Hoffman & Carter, 2004). Whitely (1984) notes that while this act provided major
momentum for the development of masters counseling programs, counseling
psychology as a doctoral specialty experienced a failure in its inability, or lack of
desire, to capitalize on the opportunities it was afforded by NDEA (Hoffman &
Carter, 2004).
The period between 1970 and 1995 marks an era during which counseling
psychology and school counseling both focused their attention towards professional
recognition. It was during this time that the fields of study with their roots in
personnel and guidance began to mature into professions with marked professional
scope and identity. In 1976, the Commonwealth of Virginia passed the first
50
licensure law for professional counselors (Brown & Srebalus, 1995), and state
licensure of the professional psychologist as a healthcare provider became more
important. Counseling psychology as a profession reached a critical decision where
it needed to decide whether to align itself with counseling, personnel and guidance,
or psychology. It was a catch-22 because licensure requires eligibility for listing in
the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology, which requires the
candidate to be a graduate from an identifiable psychology program. However,
most counseling psychologists had graduated from doctoral programs in personnel
and guidance and faced a time-limited grandfather clause opportunity for
counseling psychologists graduating from such programs (Heppner, Casas, Carter
& Stone, 2000). The choice for counseling/vocational psychologists was to be
among the most educated of those in the counseling professions or to seek the
benefits of the psychologist designation; the field chose the latter, and with this
choice not only moved further away from K-12 education, but in 1992, with the
creation of sections, vocational psychology with vocational work officially became a
subset of Division 17 rather than a point of identity.
Another shift also occurred within academic institutions that transitioned their
doctoral training programs from counselor education to counseling psychology.
Galaski and Akos (2004) point out that this shift did not occur without serious rifts
between the faculty of counseling psychology programs and counselor education
programs, creating serious interpersonal, turf, and prestige issues among former
colleagues still housed within the same department. These situations were
worsened by what counselor education faculty experienced as the development of
accredited counseling psychology programs at the expense of counselor education
and even the replacement of once- flourishing counselor education programs by
counseling psychology faculty. This was often due to increased applications for
counseling psychology and decreasing applications for doctoral counselor
education. All of these factors created rivalries and turf wars within departments;
this further separated counseling psychology from the counselor education turf of K12 counseling interventions. Galaski and Akos (2004) further point out that the
profession of counseling psychology has not focused much attention to the schools
51
over the past fifteen years as evidenced by the rarity of articles and special issues
focusing on school-aged children in The Counseling Psychologist.
The school counseling profession also went through a period of soulsearching during this time. The boom of NDEA ended by the 1970s and reduced
enrollments also resulted in reductions in school counselors. It was during this time
that psychologists Mosher and Sprinthall (1970) introduced their Deliberate
Psychological Education curriculum which was the first psychologically-based
school counseling curriculum (Baker, 1996). The concept of career education soon
followed; however, the aforementioned events within counseling psychology again
did not result in counseling psychologists becoming involved in the schools.
The separation between counseling psychology and school counseling
continued. In 1983, the APGA changed its name to the American Association of
Counseling and Development (AACD), and again in 1991, to the American
Counseling Association (ACA). However, the unifying name of counseling
between Division 17 and ACA did not denote a unifying in purpose; instead, APA
became the representation for the doctoral-level counseling psychologist and the
ACA for masters-level counseling professionals, to which school counselors
belong.
Current situation. While counseling psychology spent the majority of the
second half of the twentieth century dissociating itself from its vocational guidance
roots and integrating into healthcare provision, the late 1990s presented a new
crisis with the cannibalization of healthcare by managed care plans. Psychology
itself became more interested in school-based prevention programs following the
shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. These recent events have
resulted in counseling psychologys desire to return to the comprehensive guidance
of the schools, serving their psychological needs (Hepnner, 1997; Kachgal, 2004),
as evidenced by two recent issues of The Counseling Psychologist dedicated to the
role of counseling psychologists in the schools (Carter, 2004). However, this
antagonism towards counseling psychologists still continues in the schools today
where school counselors, and school counseling academicians, are reluctant to
collaborate with counseling psychologists (Lichtenberg & Goodyear, 2004). This
52
antagonism was faced by the primary investigator when attempting to work with the
school counselors in the setting for the present study.
Collaborative Strategy
A proposed paradigm for the academic counseling psychologist (and
graduate student) is to employ a collaborative action-research model the schools.
The counseling psychologist/graduate student, as an expert in lifelong
development, serves the school as a consultant in developing psychologicallysound preventive strategies and interventions in exchange for access to the school
context for academic research (Brand, Felner, Skim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003).
Such alliances must be development with: (a) an articulation of mutual goals; (b)
jointly developed operating structures; (c) shared roles and responsibilities; (d)
mutual authority and accountability for success; and (e) sharing of resources and
rewards (Everson & Guillory, 1997, p. 300).
Partnership requires the primary investigator not only to work with
community members, but also to join the community as a partner. The present
state in which researchers do not engage in joining is evidenced by the colloquial
perspective of academicians as in their ivory towers, and community members
and practitioners viewing the researcher as out-of-touch with the real-world. A
recent report from the Behavioral Science Workgroup of the National Advisory
Mental Health Council (2000) cites that conducting translational research will
require new alliances and methods of developing and supporting such
partnerships. The importance of such collaborations was the subject of a recent
article in the Monitor on Psychology (Rabasca, March 2000).
Various models that have worked for the delivery of career education are
amenable to such an endeavor including offering the curriculum a regular guidance
program, creating a life-skills course, embedding it within a career development
course, or integrating into a core curriculum course such as language arts (Lapan,
Gysbers, Hughey, & Arni, 1993). These strategies have been used for integrating
interpersonal skill instruction into language arts (Morton & Dawson, 1993) and
social studies (Stevahn, Johnson, Johnson, Green, & Laginski, 1997).
53
Proposition. It is proposed that the intervention research would benefit from

researchers expanding their roles to include functions analogous to a psychological
consultant whose involvement with an organization undergoes a series of stages,
beginning with pre-entry preparation (Brown, Pryzwansky, & Schulte, 1998), as well
as to enroll the collaboration of practitioners in the development of their
interventions. Thus, rather than a primary investigator going to a community or
organization and requesting participants for pre-determined intervention, it is
proposed that the researchers designed intervention serve as a blue-print from
which to translate theory and basic science into practice. It is further proposed that
this blueprint should be stated in language and terms that are congruent with the
language and paradigms of the target community. Such a translation into contextappropriate language will communicate an attitude of partnership, collaboration, and
trust.
Operations for collaborative programs. Everson and Guillory (1998)
suggest the use of a four-stage model for the creation of collaborative programs;
they cite the Tuckman (1964) stages as -- forming, storming, norming, and
performing -- as adaptable for educational interventions. According to this
formulation, the implementation of an intervention begins with the forming stage,
consisting of an organizational needs assessment, an identification of the
population in need, a delimitation of target population, an identification of the core
stakeholders and decision-makers, an initial forming meeting, and a follow-up to
confirm team membership. The storming step involves the developing of value and
mission statements, a delimitation of given needs from the needs analysis, the
development of short- and long-term intervention goals, the organization of the
intervention team, the definition of the roles of team-members, and the creation of
process/timelines for the implementation, as well as governance rules. At the
norming stage, the intervention team pilots the proposed intervention from a
formative pilot-study focus on the needs of students and adjusts the program
according to ongoing formative evaluations. At the performing stage, the team
becomes a permanent organizational unit and the intervention becomes a
permanent part of the school, community, or district. Some of the activities include
54
ongoing strategic planning, as well as ongoing formative evaluations and fixed

periods for summative evaluation.
It is proposed that any interpersonal workplace skills intervention should
integrate the collaborative cooperation standards with the traditional research
perspective of literature review and empirical integrity. This perspective is not
necessarily intended to ease empirical integrity, but rather to augment the scientific
method in order to ensure context-appropriateness and longevity, particularly when
most interventions fail to be implemented in the long-run. Thus, it is proposed that
prevention researchers combine empirical inquiry skills ability with collaborative
team-building skills to ensure that interventions not only work, but that the target
population will continue to benefit from empirically-supported interventions, and that
the intervention is portable to other settings and has a framework for ecological
modifications for different settings.
A need exists for the integration of guidelines and models for the integration
of the scientific method and collaborative partnerships. As such it is proposed that
Counseling Psychologists enter the schools using Everson and Guillorys (1998)
ten-guideline framework which is logically organized as a model to implement
Tuckmans (1964) four stages into team-development. The proposed guidelines for
the forming stage include: (1) initiate and organize a team and (2) confirm
membership. The guidelines for the storming stage include: (3) develop value and
a mission statement; (4) conduct needs assessment; (5) develop team structural
and operating procedures; and (6) foster team structural and operating procedures.
The norming state guidelines include: (7) focus on individuals; and (8)
develop/implement action plans. The performing stage guidelines include: (9)
maintain a teams direction and focus; and (10) monitor and evaluate a teams
effectives. The consultation and organizational development literature would
support the addition of a termination stage for the researcher(s). Guidelines
proposed for this stage include: (11) ensure that a there is a preparation and
succession process for post-research continued leadership; and (12) establish an
arrangement for future consultation or collaboration for present and/or future
interventions.
55
It is believed that this model of collaborative relationships will allow for the
counseling psychologist to be effective in presenting to the school the value of
having the counseling psychologist (or graduate student) as a consultant. It is
proposed that this model presents best practices in that the counseling psychologist
learns to develop ecologically-valid interventions and the school learns the value of
developing partnerships with academics, bridging the gap between the counseling
psychologist and the schools. A similar partnership may be attempted with the
school counseling functions of the school in helping them meet the student needs.
Summary
Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills

Work-related interpersonal communication skills are defined in the present
study as goal-oriented, learned behaviors that allow the individual worker to interact
and function effectively with groups and other individuals within the social context of
a given workplace. It is proposed that interpersonal relations, which while complex
and often workplace-specific, can be organized into four domains of generic workrelated transferable skills adapted from Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, and
Reiss (1988) model of interpersonal competence. The four proposed domains for
the present study are: self-awareness and corrective feedback, provision of
empathic support, assertive responding, and conflict management skills. Selfawareness refers to the degree of congruence between an individuals selfassessment (self-disclosure) of a given personality trait, skill, or behavior and direct
feedback from others (Church, 1997; Sala, 2003).
Self-awareness is measured in terms of congruence between self- and
other-ratings on a given personality characteristic, skill, behavior, performance, or
area for self-improvement. High levels of self-awareness are associated with
leadership and high managerial performance (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Church,
1997b; Salas, 2003). In terms of those with low levels of self-awareness,
overestimators had the worst outcomes (Atwater & Yammarino, 1997). Selfawareness can be taught using the Johari Window (Luft, 1969, 1970) as a model
56
for instruction. Corrective feedback is most effective when provided in a

constructive manner namely, in a way that provides individuals with new
perspectives regarding their adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal and work
behaviors, and when that feedback encourages specific positive behaviors and
specific changes (Morran, Robison, & Stockton, 1985).
Empathic support is shown when one attends to the verbal and non-verbal
emotional cues another is communicating, in accurately identifying their thoughts
and feelings, and in responding in an emotionally supportive manner. Competency
in the provision of empathic support requires competency in active listening (Ivey &
Ivey, 1999; Rogers 1961; Raskin & Rogers, 1995; Johnson, 2000) and
empathically-accurate responding (Cutrona, Cohen, & Ingram, 1990; Eisenberg,
Fabes, Schaller, et. al., 1991; Hill 1991). Active listening is a verbal and non-verbal
listening stance that encourages others to talk about their current situation and
empathically-accurate responding refers to deliberate and congruent cognitive and
affective verbal and non-verbal expression of concern, empathy, and esteem for an
individual (Hill, 1997). Empathically-accurate responding consists of both cognitive
and affective skills which can be summarized as perspective-taking and empathic
understanding.
Assertiveness refers to an individuals ability to stand up for their personal
rights and express their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in direct, honest, and
appropriate ways which respect to the rights of others (Alberti & Emmons, 1982, p.
38). The concept of assertiveness has its roots in Satler and Wolpe (1949);
however, it was Lange & Jakubowski (1975) who conceptualized assertiveness, in
terms of a continuum, as falling between aggressive responding on one end and
passive responding and withdrawal on the other end. There are three levels of
assertive responding which can be labeled as basic competency, intermediate
competency, and mastery. It is proposed that mastery, then, refers to an
individuals ability and willingness to provide a statement identifying the presenting
behavior, thought, or idea as undesirable, identifying themselves as dissatisfied with
the request (or that they will not comply), and then presenting a suggestion,
request, or demand for a behavioral change. Basic competency represents the
persons ability and willingness to simply state disagreement with a behavior or
57
situation, while intermediate competency adds an indication of non-compliance or

dissatisfaction without proposing an alternative or expected course of action. The
masterful execution of assertion often also requires the use of I-messages. Imessages communicate to the listener the nature of the offense (content) as well as
the resultant emotion
Conflict management concerns an individuals ability to problem-solve and
manage conflicts of interest, defined as situations in which one individual attempts
to reach a goal or position while infringing upon the goals or position of another
individual (Deutsch, 1973, Fisher & Ury 1991; Johnson, 2001). It is proposed that
the nature of conflict is the inter-dependence between two parties in regards to their
positions in the face of scarce resources (Roloff, 1981). Fisher and Urys (1991)
principled approach to negotiation is proposed as a workplace strategy for
managing conflict. This approach builds on the assertiveness continuum as a
response style to a conflict situation. Johnson (2000) expands this position by
creating a grid of Blake and Moultons (1964) five managerial conflict-management
styles: withdrawing, forcing, smoothing, compromising, and negotiating; each is
appropriate for different situations. In instances when the negotiating approach is
chosen, Fisher and Ury (1991) recommend the following strategy to maximize the
negotiation potential within a conflict in which the relationship matters: (1) identify
the problem; (2) analyze the problem; (3) brainstorm alternatives; and (4) take
action.
Developing Interpersonal Communication Skills
There is no single generally-accepted theory for interpersonal
communication skill training. Most trainers incorporate elements of reinforcement
theory, information processing learning theory, and social-cognitive learning theory
in developing training programs (Stipek, 1998). Core elements of these three
theories are, then, synthesized into the following set of integrated assumptions in
regards to the development of interpersonal communication skills: (a) interpersonal
modeling, rehearsal, and feedback (Bandura, 1986); (b) interpersonal competence
can be conceptualized as having effective relational scripts of effective and
58
appropriate initiations and responses for a wide-variety of situations (see definition

of competence); (c) interpersonal communications are semantically processed as
symbols and cognitive schemas about the self and others (Bandura, 1986;
Johnson, 2000; & Wyer & Gruenfeld 1995); (d) interpersonal skill performance is
mediated by schemas about the self, schemas about other(s), and the associated
relational scripts (Baldwin, 1992); (e) interpersonal competence optimizes social
reinforcement (Bandura, 1992); (f) important relationships or events during early
experiences will have considerable effects on the development of relational styles
(Berne, 1972 ); and (g) interpersonal communications have both overt-verbal and
covert-non-verbal components. These assumptions have direct implications upon
training programs; it is recommended that a training program should include
instruction with all the following modalities: lectures, modeling, role-playing, and
homework assignments.
A Strategy for Implementing Interventions in the Schools
The interest of the present study is to teach these skills to ninth-graders
within the context of the school setting. However, counseling psychologists today
face considerable barriers in entering the schools to conduct research and promote
interventions. Some of these barriers are the result of about a half-century of
tumultuous relationships between counseling psychologists and school counselors;
another reason is that, despite the fact that counseling psychology has its roots in
schools, the profession was relatively absent from schools over the last half of the
twentieth century. It is then proposed that counseling psychologists (and graduate
students) should develop a collaborative strategy to re-enter the schools in an
ecologically-valid and useful manner. As such, it is proposed that counseling
psychologists should enter schools using Everson and Guillorys (1998) four-stage
model for the creation of collaborative programs which includes the forming,
storming, norming, and performing stages. These four stages can then be used as
a model for the integration of interpersonal communication skill competencies into
the core academic curriculum
59
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of evaluation is not to prove, but to improve (Stufflebeam &

Shinkfield, 1985, p. ii). The evaluation design adopted for the present study was
the CIPOO Model (Context, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Outcomes), which is
based upon Stufflebeams CIPP Evaluation Model (Context, Inputs, Process, and
Product; Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 1985) with the replacement of product with
specific measures of outputs and outcomes as accountability measures (Peterson
and Burck, 1982). The CIPOO model evaluates curricula to obtain information for
accountability and for the judgment of decision alternatives. This chapter is divided
into six sections, detailed below: five correspond to each of the five components of
the CIPOO model, and one comprises evaluation design.
(1) Context Section. Describes the setting into which the curriculum was
implemented;
(2) Inputs Section. Describes the components of the intervention, including
participants, instructional staff, instructional materials, and evaluation
measures;
(3) Process Section. Describes the curriculum sessions and staff training;
(4) Study Design and Data Collection Procedures. Describes the
evaluation research design and procedures;
60
(5) Outputs Section. Describes the data analysis procedures for evaluating
the degree of skill, knowledge, and abilities learned and the degree of
participant acquisition of the learning competencies (Peterson & Burck,
1982); and
(6) Outcomes Section. Describes the data analysis procedures for
evaluating the transfer effects of the intervention upon the classroom
workplace environment and other significant relationships.
Context
The present study was conducted with ninth-graders at a K-12 charter school
affiliated with a large southeastern research university. This school provides the
university with access to potential study participants as well as teacher education
opportunities. According to Williams (2003), the school had the following
demographic characteristics for the year in which this study was conducted: 60%
White, 26% African-American, 9% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 1% Native American, and
2% multi-racial and approximately 23% of the student body qualified for free or
reduced lunch. A comparison of the schools demographics to recent public school
demographics (Florida Department of Education, 2004) suggests that the school is
largely representative of the state of Florida in terms of ethnic/racial composition,
with 10% over-representation of White and 10% under-representation of Hispanic
(State of Florida: 50% White, 25% African-American, 20% Hispanic, 2% Asian,
>1% Native American, and 2% multi-racial). In terms of income level (as determined
by percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch), this school appears
to be considerably below the approximately 44% of Florida public school students
who were eligible for free or reduced lunch in 2003 suggesting that this school has
a more affluent student composition that the average Florida public school.
61
Inputs
Participants
All ninth-grade students at the K-12 research school were invited to participate in
the present study, and 118 (85% of the available pool of participants) submitted
appropriate consent to participate. Of these participants, there was complete and
usable data on 114 participants (82.6% of the available pool of participants).
Demographic and background values of the final sample are presented in Table
3.1. All percentages are estimated to the nearest whole, and there is some missing
data for school ability and family income.
An inspection of Table 3.1 reveals that the final sample is 47% female and
53% male and is predominately composed of 14- or 15-year-olds (98% of sample).
These participants identified themselves as 62% Caucasian, 18% AfricanAmerican, 8% Hispanic, 7% multi-cultural, 5% Asian-American, and 2% Native
American, which is consistent with the schools demographics and fairly
representative of the State of Florida (see Context section). Socioeconomic status
was measured as the four income levels derived by the charter schools formula for
socioeconomic status which follows the family income and number of people living
in the household rubric from the National School Lunch Program (see Appendix D
for the formula and rubric). Using that model, the socioeconomic composition of
this sample, 22% eligible for free or reduced lunch, is not representative of the
Florida public school population where twice as many students (44%) were eligible
to receive free or reduced lunch in 2001. Thus, this sample is biased towards
wealthier schools or charter schools and comparisons may only be made as such.
In terms of educational expectations, 99% of the sample participants
expected to graduate from high school a percentage fairly representative of the
state of Florida, which has a three percent dropout rate (Florida Department of
Education, 2004). However, this sample does appear to be biased towards higher
educational expectations: 81% of participants expressed an expectation to achieve
62
a higher education degree of a bachelors or higher, compared to the 60% of high

school graduates nationally who actually attend college (Campell & Deyette, 1995).
The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) is a general academic ability
indicator which is not content-specific. The score projects how well the child is able
to learn (or his/her capability). The students Otis-Lennon (Otis & Lennon, 1986)
academic ability estimate was normally distributed with a mean, median, and mode
of 5 and quartile cutoffs of 4 and 6, respectively. A comparison of the sample
OLSAT score distribution to a stanine normal curve reveals that the stanine scores
are largely representative of the expected normal distribution of stanine scores; with
the exception of the sixth stanine, which is overrepresented, resulting in a slightly
negative skew towards higher school-ability scores.
Instructional Staff
The instructional staff included the primary investigator, who served as a coteam leader for the purposes of the work-related interpersonal communication skills
curriculum, and the team-leader, who was also the ninth-grade language arts
teacher. Other curriculum faculty included the ninth-grade math, science, and
social studies teachers and one instructional aide.
Curriculum Domains and Competencies
The five curriculum domains were foundations of work-related interpersonal
skills, self-disclosure and corrective feedback, empathic understanding, assertive
responding, and the fifteen GPJ Curriculum competencies displayed in Table 3.2
(for learning objectives please see Appendix F).
Teacher Instructional Materials
The curriculum materials included a conceptual introduction to workplace
interpersonal skills, lesson plans, overhead transparencies, student handouts, and
curriculum role-play cards. A sample lesson plan with transparences and a handout
is provided in Appendix G.
63
Table 3.1. Sample Demographics

Variable
Gender
Frequency
Percent of
Sample
Female
Male
60
54
53%
47%
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
1
65
42
5
1
1%
57%
37%
4.5%
1%
71
21
8
7
5
2
62 %
18 %
7%
6%
4%
2%
11
13
22
60
10 %
12 %
21 %
57 %
Highest Educational Expectations

Less than High School
High School
2-Year College or Voc
4-Year College or Voc
Graduate School
Undecided/Other
1
0
11
48
44
10
1%
0%
10 %
42 %
39 %
9%
School Ability Estimate Stanine (OtisLennon)

1
( 4th percentile)
2
(5th 11th percentile)
3
(12th 23rd percentile)
4
(24th - 40th percentile)
5
(41st - 60th percentile)
6
(61st 77th percentile)
7
8
9
( 97th percentile)
1
3
10
17
31
24
14
4
2
1%
3%
10 %
16 %
29 %
23 %
13 %
4%
1%
Age
Ethnicity
Caucasian (not Hispanic)
African-American
Hispanic
Multi-Cultural
Asian
Native American
SES*
Level 1 (Free Lunch-Eligible)

Level 2:(Reduced Lunch Eligible)
Level 3:
Level 4:
See Appendix D for charter schools formula

for computing SES
64
Evaluation Measures
The curriculum was evaluated using the five measures described below.
Blank copies of each of these measures may be found in Appendix C.
CIB Critical Incident Blank. The Critical Incident Blank (CIB; Gomez-Estefan &
Peterson, 2001) is a custom-designed performance instrument to measure an
individuals ceiling interpersonal skill in responding to various critical incidents. In
each protocol, the participant is presented with three interpersonally-challenging,
everyday situations to which the participant provides a free response in a What
would you say? format. High performance in this task requires the participant to
decode the nature of the conflict, engage their generic problem-solving skills, and
formulate a verbal response to the conflict. This method of assessing situational
perception is consistent with other studies assessing social competence and
interpersonal communication skills (Goldstein, 1999; Goldstein and Glick, 1987).
The critical incident method followed by a What would you say? format is also
developmentally appropriate for elementary and secondary school participants
(Goldstein, 1999).
The CIB was constructed as a pretest-posttest measure with parallel forms A and B
which are scored by two independent raters who undergo training until they reach a
Cohens Kappa (Cohen, 1960, cited by Cantor, 1996) of 1.0. Each item was scored
on a 5-point scale (See Table 3.3). Each critical incident then received a score that
ranged from 2 to +2. The three ratings per form were summated across both
raters. Thus, the CIB as used in this study has a possible raw score range of 12
to +12. This mean rating score is then reported as the final score, resulting in a
score ranging from 2 to +2.
Four volunteer graduate students in counseling and school psychology with
extensive training in rating responses in terms of intelligence and achievement
testing were trained to rate responses according to the criteria set in Table 3.3.
Two of these volunteers were trained as the raters for the instrument and two rated
a separate measure using the same criteria, but not used in this study. These
raters were chosen for the scoring of the CIB due to their experience in rating
verbal responses on a scale from zero to two, which is a similar task to the one
65
Table 3.2. GPJ Curriculum Domains and Competencies
Domain 1: Foundations of Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills
Competency 1: Demonstrate a Conceptual Understanding of the Importance of

Interpersonal Communication Skills
Competency 2: Demonstrate a Conceptual Understanding of the

Communication Model
Competency 3: Develop Respect for the Diversity and Rights of Others
Competency 4: Identify which Interpersonal Communication Skills One Needs to

Further Develop
DOMAIN 2: Self-Awareness and Corrective Feedback
Competency 5: Acquire Self-Knowledge
Competency 6: Increase Own Self-Awareness Using the Johari Window as a

Model
Competency 7: Identify the Risks and Benefits of Self-Disclosure
Competency 8: Discriminate between Effective and Destructive Feedback
DOMAIN 3: Provision of Empathic Support
Competency 9: Demonstrate an Understanding of Empathy
Competency 10: Demonstrate Basic Active Listening Skills
DOMAIN 4: Assertive Responding
Competency 11: Demonstrate a Conceptual Understanding of Assertive

Responding
Competency 12: Provide Examples of I-Based Feedback and Messages
DOMAIN 5: Conflict Management
Competency 13: Identify Common Personal and Interpersonal Conflicts
Competency 14: Demonstrate Ability to Develop a Strategy for Managing

Conflict
Competency 15: Evaluate Ones Own Conflict-Management Behavior
66
required by the CIB. Rater training consisted of an abridged instruction/review of

the interpersonal communication skills assessed, instruction in the rating criteria,
and reliability calibration using actual participant responses collected during the pilot
phase of this project (different participants from those in the present study). These
volunteers trained with the sample responses in batches (see Appendix H for rater
training materials including sample responses for each scoring level and rater
calibration practice protocols) until they reached a Cohens Kappa of 1.0 (see
Figure 3.1).
This study used two adjacent scores as the criteria for agreement. The use
of adjacent scores for agreement of verbal test items is a common practice in highstakes testing. In this case, Kappa is a good non-parametric statistic to compute
inter-rater reliability since the e (proportion of ratings expected to exhibit
agreement by chance alone) can be set to any level to protect for agreement only to
chance. In this study, the e was set at 0.6. This figure was arrived at by dividing
nine (the number of possible adjacent permutations by chance alone) by fifteen (the
total number of possible permutations). The final Cohens Kappa for this study
using this formula for e was 0.80. In terms of a parametric inter-rater reliability
analysis, the two-rater correlation of summative scores for form A was 0.75 (p <
0.001) and for form B was 0.71 (p <0.001)
The primary investigator remained blind to the ratings until all the coding was
completed. Once the ratings were completed, the non-adjacent responses were
scored by the psychologist directing this dissertation and the two adjacent scores
became the new item score. Protocols with one missing response (or a response
that could not be scored) had the missing response replaced by the average of the
other two responses. Protocols with more than one such responses resulted in the
protocol to be judged invalid and in the case removed from the sample (four cases
were removed from the final sample due invalid CIB responses).
Peer ratings. A rating is a peer-perception measure of social competency
or of a given personality attribute. The mechanics of this instrument was that each
person in a cohort group rates every other person on a given personality or social
attribute and was generally considered to be gold-standard of peer social status
67
Table 3.3. Rating Criteria for Individual Responses on the CIB

Rating Score
-2
Destructive
-1
Poor
0
Fair
+1
Good
+2
Excellent
Missing Data
Rating Criteria
AGGRESSIVE OR ABUSIVE: Likely to escalate or assault (would you feel
Assaulted?)
WITHDRAWN OR AVOIDANT: Allows self to be interpersonally exploited
PASSIVE: Does not state dissatisfaction about situation or if does it is diffused

by sugar-coating
DEFIANT OR ABRASIVE: Non abusive: Disproportionate anger, but not likely
to escalate
MARGINAL: Is not assertive; nor abusive, aggressive, or abrasive.

- Does not constructively state their perspective (that is while taking into account
the other persons perspective)
- Does not make a direct request for a behavior change (tone appropriate to
situation) and does not begin to negotiate a different outcome
ASSERTIVE RESPONSE: States dissatisfaction with the situation

AND Either:
- Constructively states their perspective (that is while taking into account the
other persons perspective and not abusive, aggressive, or abrasive) and/or
- Makes a direct request for a behavior change (tone appropriate to situation) or
begins to negotiate a different outcome
AND (2 out of 3):
other persons perspective and not abusive, aggressive, or abrasive);
begins to negotiate a different outcome; and/or
- Empathically Accurate (perceives situation accurately at a counselor or expert
level)
NO RESPONSE - or did not follow task (treated as missing data for statistical
analyses)
68
(McConnell & Odom, 1986). Such a rating system provides the researcher with not
only a measure of how a person was perceived by their peers, but also an
indication of the social pulse of the cohort itself.
K = o e
1 - e
Key
o = proportion of rating pairs showing agreement
e = proportion of ratings expected to exhibit
agreement by chance alone
Figure 3.1. Cohens Kappa Formula.
The present study used two peer ratings on separate sheets of paper. Each
rating sheet had a list of peers preceded by a directive to cross out their name and
rate each peer on a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from +1 (Definitely Yes) to +5
(Definitely No) (Gresham, 1986) according to the given directive. The first peer
rating in the present study was called in-class collegial workgroups. The directive
for this rating was: Rate each person according to whether you want to work with
them on a quarter-long graded group project. The rationale for this first rating was
having the participants peers rate their willingness to work with the participant on
the developmental approximate to a long-term, high-stakes workplace workgroup.
The second peer rating in the present study was called out-of-class collegial
socializing. The directive for this rating was: Rate each person according to
whether you want to hang out with them after school or during the weekend. The
rationale for this first rating was to measure the peers willingness to work with their
participant on a class project (class-work); the rationale for the second was to
measure their willingness to spend time with the participant outside of the
classroom -- the developmental approximate for outside-the-office politicking and
69
socializing. Peer rating scores were then inversed so that each participant received
a score equivalent to the average peer rating received from their peers. The sevenweek stability coefficient was 0.853 (p < 0.001) for the in-class collegial workgroup
peer rating and was 0.865 (p < 0.001) for the out-of-class collegial socializing.
Participant ratings of the target competencies of the curriculum. This
data was collected with a form called the Interpersonal Skills Unit Evaluation in
which the study participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed with that the curriculum instruction helped them achieve the fifteen
curriculum work-related interpersonal communication skill target competencies.
Participant ratings of satisfaction. This was a summative evaluation
rating form called Satisfaction Survey in which study participants were asked to rate
what they perceived to be the impact of the curriculum upon relationships with
family members, peers, teachers, and employers. Participants were also asked to
rate the degree of their satisfaction with the curriculum.
Percentage of curriculum assignments completed. All students in the
ninth grade whether or not participating in this evaluation study receive the
curriculum instruction as part of their ninth-grade curriculum and were required to
complete written in-class and homework assignments, as well as a take-home final
capstone project. The students maintained a portfolio of all of their assignments for
the quarter, which included the assignments of the GPJ Curriculum. This portfolio
was used to document the students engagement in life-management related
activities in order for them to receive life-management credit for activities integrated
into the core curriculum. These portfolios were graded with the grade criteria being
the percent of the assignments that was completed with sufficient effort to receive a
completion percentage grade. According to the teachers policy, low-effort work
would be returned to the student with the possibility of the student resubmitting with
corrections. The recorded grade then is assumed to be an indicator of degree of
engagement in the curriculum activities and is directly representative of the
percentage of curriculum activities completed. Data was collected unobtrusively
from the teachers grade roster after the completion of the study, thereby reducing
experimenter bias in grading the assignments (possible limitations to this method
are discussed in the Limitations section of Chapter V).
70
Process
The Curriculum
The university-affiliated charter school adopted the integrated curriculum as
meeting the state-mandated interpersonal communication skills component of the
life management course credit required by the State of Florida for graduation. All
students in the ninth grade (study participants and non-participants) received the
curriculum; however, the only data statistically analyzed was that of participants
who provided proper consent and who completed the measures at all four data
collection points. The number of curriculum products (assignments) completed was
not an inclusion or exclusion criterion.
This curriculum was developed according to the ten program standards
proposed by the Florida Comprehensive Student Development Mode (Kelly,
Peterson, Myrick, 2001). These include the specification of: (1) a Mission
Statement; (2) a Rationale/Philosophy; (3) an Advisory Committee; (4) Program
Resources; (5) Program Management and Support; (6) Counseling; (7)
Consultation; (8) Coordination; (9) a Curriculum; and (10) Accountability (to view the
curriculum in terms of the Florida Comprehensive Student Development model,
refer to Appendix D).
The curriculum was taught in seven sessions integrated into the language
arts, life management, and social studies curricula. Below is a timeline of sessions
across the seven-week instructional period (Figure 3.2), followed by a brief
description of each session (for a sample lesson plan, overhead transparency, and
student handout, see Appendix G). Figure 3.3 presents a grid of these curriculum
sessions keyed to curriculum competencies (for competencies keyed to the Florida
Comprehensive Guidance Model and SCANS, please refer to Appendices I and J,
respectively).
Session 1: Introduction [language arts & life management]. Students
were introduced to the curriculum and encouraged to reflect upon the relevance of
learning interpersonal communication skills to improve significant personal
relationships. Following the instructional session, students wrote an Interpersonal
71
Communication Skills Relationship Essay in which they identify and describe one
relationship they would like to improve. Students were then introduced to the
capstone project. This session was taught co-jointly by the language arts teacher
and the primary investigator.
Instructional Session
1. Introduction to Interpersonal
Communication Skills
Week
1
Week
2
Week
3
Week
4
Week
5
Week
6
Week
7
2. Self-Awareness & Corrective

Feedback
3. Provision of Empathic Support

Lecture
4. Provision of Empathic Support Lab
5. Assertive Responding
6. Assertive Responding Lab
7. Conflict Management & Capstone
Take Home Exam Due
Figure 3.2. Timeline of sessions across a seven-week instructional period.
Session 2: Self-awareness and corrective feedback [language arts and

life management]. Students received instruction on the foundational blocks of
interpersonal communication skills including: the communication model, the Johari
Window, the risk and benefits of self-disclosure, and the use of I-based and nonthreatening feedback. Following the instructional session, students wrote an essay
analyzing a character in Romeo and Juliet using the four quadrants of the Johari
Window, analyzed the costs and benefits of their self-disclosures to others, and
72
examined the effectiveness of their feedback to other characters in the play. This
lesson was led by a ninth-grade teacher.
Session 3: Provision of empathic support lecture [language arts and
life management]. Students received instruction on the five components of
empathic understanding, verbal and non-verbal messages, empathic accuracy, and
the paraphrasing and reflecting of thoughts and feelings. During the instructional
session, students wrote notes on a worksheet which was later used to assist with
Active Listening and Empathic Responding Lab assignments. This session was
taught co-jointly by the language arts teacher and the primary investigator.
Session 4: Provision of empathic support lab [life management].
Students had an opportunity to observe role plays in which the skills were
demonstrated (vicarious learning) by various ninth-grade teachers; student
volunteers role-played the skills in a large group setting, receiving feedback from
the primary investigator. This was then followed by small group role-plays with
teachers providing individual attention and feedback. Following the role-plays,
students practiced responding to written critical incidents and submitted their
responses to their language arts and life management skills instructor. This lab
session was taught co-jointly by the primary investigator and the ninth-grade
faculty.
Session 5: Assertive responding lecture [language arts and life
management]. Students received instruction on how to recognize the components
of assertiveness, the three ways of responding to critical incidents (passive,
aggressive, & assertive), and the three levels of an assertive response, and were
presented with a model for evaluating the appropriate response to a critical incident.
During the instructional session, students wrote notes on a worksheet which was
later used to assist with the Assertive Responding Lab assignments. This session
was taught co-jointly by the language arts teacher and the primary investigator.
Session 6: Assertive responding lab [life management]. Students had
an opportunity to observe role-plays in which the skills were demonstrated vicarious
learning) by various ninth-grade teachers. Students then volunteered to role-play
the skills in a large group setting with feedback from the primary
73
Target Competencies
Instructional Session
Introduction to
Interpersonal
Communication Skills
Self-Awareness &
Corrective Feedback
Provision of Empathic
Support Lecture
Provision of Empathic
Support Lab
Lecture
Lab
Conflict Management &

Capstone
10 11 12 13 14 15
Key
Following a seven-week, seven session curriculum intervention, students will report that
they:
1. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the importance of interpersonal
communication skills;
2. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the communication model;
3. Develop respect for the diversity and rights of others;
4. Identify which interpersonal communication skills one needs to further develop;
5. Acquire self-knowledge;
6. Increase own self-awareness using the Johari Window as a model;
7. Identify the risks and benefits of self-disclosure;
8. Discriminate between effective and destructive feedback;
10. Demonstrate basic active listening skills;
Figure 3.3. Interpersonal communication skills instructional sessions keyed to

curriculum competencies.
74
investigator; this was followed by small group role-plays with teachers providing
individual attention and feedback. Following the role-plays, students practiced
responding to written critical incidents and submitted their responses to their
language arts and life management skills instructor. This lab session was taught
co-jointly by the primary investigator and the ninth-grade faculty.
Session 7 Conflict management and capstone [language arts, social
studies, and life management]. Students received instruction about Fisher and
Urys (1991) Principled Negotiation Model and its transferability to both
interpersonal relationships and national conflicts. Students were given the
curriculum take-home exam which included the capstone project. Following the
distribution of the take-home exam, the principal investigator, language arts, and
social studies teachers were available to answer questions in class that day and
during the course of the next week.
Staff Training and Curriculum Adaptation
Stage 1. The first stage of training was instruction of the curriculum material
to the language arts teacher who was the ninth-grade team leader. The goal was to
integrate the curriculum instruction within the context of language arts and for the
skill labs to fulfill the interpersonal communication skills life management
requirements. The team leader/language arts teacher and the primary investigator
had various informal meetings to discuss the material. This teacher reviewed the
proposed lesson plans and the first chapter and the literature review of the
dissertation prospectus. The team-leader and primary investigator then modified
the lesson plans to integrate with the reading of Romeo and Juliet. Class lab
sessions were then approved by the curriculum specialist to fulfill the interpersonal
communication skills competency requirements of ninth-grade life management
skills curricula.
Stage 2. The second stage was a two-part project-orientation in-service with
the ninth-grade faculty, co-instructed by the team leader and the primary
investigator. During a teacher workday, this stage was initiated by a conceptual
orientation of the project followed by the abridged literature review of the
interpersonal communication skills to be taught. The second part was comprised of
75
ongoing two-to-one conferences among the team leader and primary investigator
with each of the ninth-grade faculty members; this helped answer any questions
that occurred throughout the duration of the project. Faculty members were
encouraged to integrate the curriculum concepts into everyday instruction to
increase the transfer effects and to become further involved in co-teaching the labs.
During one conference, one teacher offered to teach the second lesson within the
context of language arts (although this teacher was not the regular language arts
teacher, but was also certified in this area). During another of these conferences,
the social studies teacher volunteered to integrate the capstone project into her
teaching about Nationalism and National Conflicts; this suggestion was added to
the seventh instructional session. All the teachers assisted with the skill labs by
demonstrating skills in role-plays and coaching the students while they practiced.
Stage 3. The third state of training was conducting weekly meetings (eight
total) beginning the week prior to the implementation of the curriculum and lasting
through the last week of curriculum instruction. During these meetings, the material
to be taught the following week was reviewed, faculty members divided the
instruction of the labs, and questions and concerns were discussed.
Stage 4. The final stage was a staff debriefing and acknowledgement for all
the assistance in making the curriculum a success. The staff expressed interest in
repeating the curriculum instruction; however, the only staff member working in the
ninth-grade classroom the next year was the team leader/language arts instructor.
Study Design and Procedures
The evaluation design is a baseline-pretest-posttest-follow-up QuasiExperimental design with participants serving as their own controls (see figure 3.4).
Data was collected at four consecutive seven-week time intervals. The first data
collection point was called the baseline. The second data collection point was the
pretest, as it occurred immediately before the implementation of the curriculum
intervention. The third data collection point was the posttest, as it occurred
immediately after the implementation of the intervention. The fourth data-collection
point was called the follow-up, as it occurred seven weeks after the intervention.
76
7
weeks
Time 1
Baseline
7
weeks
Time 2
Pretest
Standard 1:
Skill Performance
O2
7
weeks
Time 3
Posttest
X
Time 4
Follow-up
O3
Standard 2:
Target Competencies
O4
Standard 3:
Participant Satisfaction
O4
Hypothesis 1:
In-Class Collegial
Workgroups
O1
O2
O3
O4
Hypothesis 2:
Out-of-Class Collegial
Socializing
O1
O2
O3
O4
Hypothesis 3:
Transfer to a Significant
Relationship
O4
Key
O= Observation (Point of Data Collection)
X = Intervention
Figure 3.4. Quasi-experimental single-group design.
77
A true experimental design with an intervention and control group was not
available due to the fact that the school required all the ninth-grades to complete
their workplace interpersonal communication skills requirements at the same time in
the same nine-week grading period. The lack of a comparison or control group is
common with ecologically-valid school counseling interventions (for an in-depth
discussion see Foster, Watson, Meeks, and Young, 2002). In situations such as
this, Foster and associates (2002) recommend using the one-group design where
subjects are used as their own controls and the criteria is not group differences but
rather change over time.
The data collection procedures were designed to reduce threats to internal
validity due to subject and researcher effects. As such, set procedures, protocols,
and scripts were developed prior to the first data collection and the volunteer
graduate student confederates were trained to administer the measures. The
school collected the informed consent from the parents and the primary investigator
provided the students with a brief orientation to the study and requested written
assent to participate. At the first administration (time 1), the participants were
asked to provide the confederates with written assent prior to filling out the
measures. For each measure, a proctor read a detailed instructions script, at each
administration, to ensure standardized testing conditions among testing groups.
There were breaks between measures to ensure that all students filled out the
forms at the same time, as well as to reduce the incentive for participants to
acquiescence or rush through the measures. The same procedures were followed
for all other instrument administrations.
Volunteer research assistants (confederates) conducted all data collection.
The purpose of using confederates was to reduce researcher bias and demand
characteristics, as well as a method of behavior management with a minimal ratio of
one confederate per fifteen participants. Administration groups ranged from 20-40
participants (2-3 confederates) per testing session. The confederates provided
each participant with a folder and were instructed to use the folder as a barrier to
increase their privacy, reducing the pressure demand to answer sensitive socialenvironment items in a way that satisfies peer pressure. Confederates were trained
to follow high standards of ethical data collection including the encouragement of
78
participants to use folders as shields to ensure confidentiality (particularly in the

case of collecting peer-ratings). The following is a brief content description of the
specific procedures for each data collection point.
Baseline (time 1). The baseline data collection occurred seven weeks prior
to the first day of curriculum instruction (see Table 3.4). Instruments administered
(of interest to this study) included the demographics questionnaire and the peer
ratings (in that order). The ordering of the instruments was designed to present the
peer-ratings (more intrusive measures) last. Participants were asked to use folders
as shields to protect the confidentiality of their responses. Research assistants
were always present to answer any questions and to ensure that students complete
the measures independently. All folders were collected at the same time (for a
transcript of the instructions given, please refer to the measure administration script
in Appendix K)
Pretest (time 2). The pretest data collection occurred as the first event of
the first week of curriculum instruction. Instruments administered (of interest to this
study) included the CIB and the peer ratings (in that order). Participants received a
folder containing the CIB (one-half of students randomly received form A the other
half form B) and the two sets of Peer Sociometric ratings. A new script was used
for this administration of these instruments; however, the script remained the same
for the peer ratings (See script in Appendix K).
Posttest (time 3). The posttest data collection occurred on the last day of
the seven-week curriculum instruction. The same instruments were administered
as in the pretest and the script and procedures for this administration were identical
to those of the baseline.
Follow-up (time 4). The follow-up data collection occurred seven-weeks
after the last day of curriculum instruction. Instruments administered (of interest to
this study) included the CIB, Peer Ratings, the Interpersonal Skills Unit Evaluation,
and the Satisfaction Survey. The follow-up was administered seven to eight weeks
after the administration of the posttest. The same procedures of administration were
used as in the previous administrations. Participants were provided with a folder,
which contains the Assertiveness Discriminability Index, two sets of Peer
Sociometric ratings, and the Curriculum Participant Ratings. The same script
79
sections, as the previous tests, were used for the Assertiveness Discriminability
Index and Peer Sociometric Ratings, and a new script section was used for the
Curriculum Participant Ratings.
Debriefing. Although this study is very transparent regarding the
procedures and objectives, the week following the fourth administration of the
measures (time 4), all participants (including those who did not complete the study)
received a short in-class presentation of the purpose of the evaluation study. The
primary investigator was also available in the classroom, during the students lunch
period, before school, and after school at numerous times to answer any questions.
Data Analysis of Outputs
This section describes the data analysis procedures for evaluating the
outputs of the seven-week work-related interpersonal communication skills
curriculum. The three evaluation standards presented in Chapter I were measured
with the following three criterions:
Criterion 1
Skill performance improvement on written critical incidents. Following
the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, there was a statistically
significant positive relationship ( = 0.05; > 0.2) between the percentage of the
curriculum completed and skill performance in the posttest, with pretest skill
performance as a covariate. This was measured using a regression analysis of the
percentage of curriculum completed on the CIB posttest, with the CIB pretest as a
covariate.
Criterion 2
Participant report of learning the target competencies of the
curriculum. Following the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, 80%
or more of the curriculum target competencies are rated as having been met by at
least 70% of the curriculum participants. This was measured via a discrepancy
80
model of the percentage of fifteen target competencies rated as learned by the

participant.
Criterion 3
Participant satisfaction. Following the seven-week, seven-session
curriculum instruction, 70% of curriculum participants report feeling satisfied with
the curriculum. This was measured via a discrepancy model of the percentage of
participant rating of a summative evaluation question which asked participants to
rate whether the curriculum was worth their time (agree or strongly agree) or not
worth their time (disagree or strongly disagree).
Data Analysis of Outcomes
This section describes the data analysis procedures for evaluating the
outcomes produced by the seven-week work-related interpersonal communication
skills curriculum. The three research questions presented in Chapter I were
measured with the following three hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
In-class collegial workgroup peer ratings. Following the seven-week,
seven-session curriculum instruction, there are no significant ( = 0.05; d > 0.2)
differences in means between the baseline-pretest, pretest-posttest, and posttestfollow-up peer rating seven-week intervals. This hypothesis was measured using a
repeated measures analysis of variance (repeated measures ANOVA). The inclass collegial workgroup ratings across four measurement periods were tested as
the within-subjects variables, and there was no between-subjects variable as the
measurement of interest was in the social environment as a whole.
81
Hypothesis 2
Out-of-class collegial socializing peer ratings. Following the sevenweek, seven-session curriculum instruction, there are no significant ( = 0.05; d >
0.2) differences in means between the baseline-pretest, pretest-posttest, and
posttest-follow-up peer rating seven-week intervals. This hypothesis was measured
using a repeated measures analysis of variance (repeated measures ANOVA). The
out-of-class collegial socializing ratings across four measurement periods were
tested as the within-subjects variables and there was no between-subjects variable
as the measurement of interest was in the social environment as a whole.
Hypothesis 3
Transfer into significant relationship. Following the seven-week, sevensession curriculum instruction, at least 70% of curriculum participants will report that
the curriculum helped them to improve at least one significant interpersonal
relationship.
82
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The results of the statistical analysis and testing of the criteria and
hypotheses are presented in this chapter. This chapter is divided into three
sections. The results of the three curriculum output criteria are presented in the first
section. The results of the two peer rating outcome hypotheses are presented in
the second section. The results of the transfer outcome hypothesis are presented
in the third section.
Results of Outputs
Criterion 1
Skill performance improvement on written critical incidents. Following
the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, there was a significant
positive relationship ( = 0.05; > 0.2) between the percentage of the curriculum
assignments completed and skill performance in the posttest, with pretest skill
performance as a covariate. This criterion was modeled with the participants score
on the Critical Incident Blank (CIB; Gomez-Estefan & Peterson, 2001) posttest as
the dependent variable, percentage of curriculum assignments completed as the
independent variable, and the participants score on the CIB as a covariate. A
case-wise diagnostics did not reveal any studentized residuals with scores above
3.0. A visual inspection of a plot of the model residuals versus the predicted
outcomes did not suggest any violations of the regression assumptions of correct
fit, constant variance, or normality. The model R2 of 0.26 reflects that the model
83
percentage of curriculum activities completed, with the pretest as covariate, was

statistically significant (F [2, 111] = 19.9, p <0.001) in its prediction of CIB-Posttest
performance. The adjusted overall R2 was 0.250, suggesting that the degree of
engagement and performance on the pretest predict 25% of the variability in the
posttest
Table 4.1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Regression Analysis of Variables

Predicting Performance on CIB Posttest (n = 114)
R2
0.09
.43***
0.21***
0.77**
0.28
0.23**
0.05**
Variable
SD
SEB
Constant
0.58**
0.23
-0.14
0.7
0.46***
0.78
0.2
-0.05
0.7
Skill Pretest
(Covariate)
% Curriculum
Assignments
Completed
Skill Posttest
**p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001
The effect of the independent variable and the covariate on the CIB-Posttest
is provided in Table 4.1. The percentage of curriculum assignments completed had
a unique contribution to the model R2 of 0.05 -- a statistically significant result, F [1,
111] = 7.51, p < 0.01. The standardized positive effects of percentage of curriculum
assignments completed on the dependent variable, significant at the 0.01 alphalevel, indicates that the CIB-Posttest scores are expected to increase by 0.14
Critical Incident Blank points (0.2 x 0.7 = 0.14) for every 20% of curriculum activities
completed. The standardized coefficient was used as a measure of effect.
84
size and it was above the preset criteria ( > 0.20); therefore, the conclusion is
made that the curriculum met the skill performance criterion.
Additional analysis procedure for Criterion 1. An additional analysis of
the variables was conducted in order to better understand the relationship between
the percentages of curriculum activities completed (degree of engagement) by
creating a criterion variable called completion of instruction to divide completers
from non-completers. The completers group had the following inclusion criteria:
completed 70% or more of the curriculum activities. The non-completers group had
the following inclusion criteria: completed less than 70% as curriculum noncompleters (35%; n = 40). The 70% cut-off was chosen arbitrarily and based on
what would constitute a C- or above in a high school academic environment. The
differences in means between the pretest and the posttest by completion of
instruction group were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance
(repeated measures ANOVA). The paired-measure pretest and posttest scores
were tested as the within-subjects variable and completion of instruction group
(completers and non-completers) was analyzed as the between-subjects measure.
The results are displayed in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Repeated Measures Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) Results for Performance in the Critical Incident Blank (Skill) as a
Function of Curriculum Completion (Group)
CIBPretest
Group
Curriculum Completers
Curriculum NonCompleters
SD
SD
-0.1
0.7
0.1
0.7
-0.2
ANOVA F
CIBposttest
0.6
-0.3
*p < 0.05
85
0.7
Skill (S)
Group
(G)
SxG
0.53
6.35*
4.79*
These results are based on all of the participants in the final sample (n =
114) with no missing data. An inspection of plots did not suggest any violations of
the assumptions, other than that of multicollinearity between measures which was
controlled by the repeated measures framework. An omnibus test of significance
was conducted to protect against the chance of a family-wise Type I error. There
was a significant interaction at the 0.05 level (Wilks Lambda = 0.959, F [1, 112] =
4.780, p = 0.03; Hotelings Trace = 0.042, F [1, 112] = 4.789, p = 0.031). The p
value of this interaction suggests that the difference in means between the pretest
and posttest was different for the completer group as compared to the noncompleter group.
The difference in pretest and posttest means for both groups (completers
and non-completers) was analyzed using a post-hoc Bonferoni-corrected pairedsamples t-tests ( = [.05/2] = 0.025) analysis with practical significance set at an
effect size (Cohens d) level of 0.2. The estimated difference in means for the
completer group (M = 0.21) was statistically significant (t [73] = 2.378) with a pvalue of 0.02 and a Cohens d of 0.29. The estimated difference in means for the
non-completer group (M = - 0.10) was not statistically significant (t [39] = 0.973, p
= 0.34) at the 0.05 level, suggesting that it may have occurred by chance alone.
This result was consistent with the regression analysis and suggests that the
curriculum completers had significant improvements in skill performance between
the pretest and posttest, while non-completers displayed no change in
performance. The differences of means for the completer and non-completer
groups are presented in Table 4.3 and graphically depicted in Figure 4.1.
To determine if there was a difference in means between the completer and
non-completer groups in the pretest and in the posttest, the difference in group
means for each time period was analyzed using Bonferoni-corrected ( = [.05/2] =
0.025) ANOVAs. The null hypothesis of no difference in means was rejected for the
posttest period (M = 0.45; F [1,112] = 10.536, p = 0.002), but not for the pretest
period (M = 0.14; F [1,112] = 1.044, p = 0.309, d = 0.6). This suggests that the
differences in means for the completer and non-completer groups were not
significantly different prior to the start of the intervention; however, the differences
were considerably different following the intervention period.
86
Table 4.3. Paired-Samples T-test for Differences in Means between the CIB Pretest
and Posttest
2 1
t (113)
0.2
2.38*
0.29
- 0.1
0.97
0.16
Completers (n = 75)
Non-Completes (n = 40)
* p < 0.05
Estimated CIB Mean Scores
0.2
0.11
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
-0.23
-0.3
-0.34
-0.4
Completers (n = 74)
Non-Completers ( n =40)
Figure 4.1. Means of the Critical Incident Blank.
Criterion 2
curriculum. Following the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, 80%
or more of the curriculum target competencies are rated as having been met by at
least 70% of the curriculum participants. This criterion was measured via a
87
discrepancy model of the percentage of participants rating each target competency

as met (agree or strongly agree) or not (disagree or strongly disagree). The means,
standard deviations, and percentages of agree and disagree ratings are displayed
in Table 4.4. A review of these results reveals that 13 out of the 15 target
competencies received satisfaction ratings from more than 70% of the study
participants. Thus, 87% of the target curriculum competencies received an agree
rating by more than 70% of the curriculum participants; therefore, the conclusion is
made that the curriculum met the standard for participant rating of target curriculum
competencies.
Criterion 3
Participant satisfaction. Following the seven-week, seven-session
curriculum instruction, 70% of curriculum participants report feeling satisfied with
the curriculum. This standard was measured by asking the participants to rate the
following item on the participant satisfaction survey: I am satisfied with the
curriculum unit. The mean rating was 1.8 (SD = 0.8), and 73% of participants
agreed or strongly agreed with the item. Since the percentage of agree is above
the 70% threshold, the conclusion is made that the curriculum met the participant
satisfaction criterion.
Summary of Outputs
The curriculum SKAs were evaluated in this section. A review of these three
analyses suggests that the curriculum met the skill performance, participant ratings
of learning objectives, and participant satisfaction evaluation standards. The postanalysis procedure for the skill performance criterion suggests that the study
completer group (those who completed at least 70% of out-of-class curriculum
activities (homework)) improved its estimated mean performance on the CIB, while
the non-completer group did not. Furthermore, there is evidence that prior to
instruction, there were no significant skill differences between completers and noncompleters; however, there was a considerable difference after instruction, with
completers having significantly higher estimated mean scores than non-completers
88
Table 4.4. .Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Participant Ratings of
Curriculum Objectives Ordered from Highest to Lowest Percent of Agree or
Strongly Agree Ratings (n = 114)
Stimulus Question
The interpersonal communication skills
curriculum helped me:
Learn to respect the diversity and rights of

2.1
others.
Learn to be more assertive (as opposed
2.1
to passive or aggressive).
SD
Agree or
Strongly
Agree
0.7
84%
0.8
82%
Learn active listening skills.
2.0
0.8
81%
Learn to manage conflict.
2.0
0.8
80%
0.8
78%
0.7
78%
2.0
0.8
74%
Learn about the risks and benefits of self1.8

disclosure.
0.7
74%
Learn more about myself.
0.8
73%
0.7
73%
0.8
73%
0.7
71%
0.8
70%
0.7
65%
0.7
60%
Learn about effective and destructive

2.0
feedback.
Learn the importance of Interpersonal
1.9
communication skills.
Learn to evaluate my own behavior.
2.0
Learn about the elements of interpersonal

1.8
conflict.
Learn to identify which interpersonal
communication skills I need to further 1.8
develop.
Learn about the communications model
1.8
(sender, receiver, noise, etc.).
Learn how to be more empathic.
1.8
Learn to provide I-based feedback and

1.7
messages.
Learn about Self-Awareness and the
1.6
Johari Window.
89
Results of Outcomes
Hypothesis 1
differences in means between the baseline-pretest, pretest-posttest, and posttestfollow-up peer rating seven-week intervals. The difference in means for each peerrating interval was analyzed using a within-subjects repeated measures analysis of
variance (repeated measures ANOVA).
An omnibus test of significance was conducted to protect against the chance
of a family-wise Type I error. The within-subjects repeated measures ANOVA
analysis then tested whether the mean differences at each peer-rating seven-week
interval could have occurred by chance alone. The null hypothesis of equality of
means was rejected at the 0.001 level (Wilks Lambda = 0.383, F [1, 111] = 59.590,
p < 0.001; Hotelings Trace = 1.611, F [1, 111] = 59.590, p < 0.001). The small plevel provides a very high degree of confidence (99.9%) that there is a difference in
means that did not occur due to chance. The estimated means, standard
deviations, and univariate analysis are provided in Table 4.5.
To identify the direction of the difference in means, as well as which of the
seven-week intervals contributed to the significant univariate F test, each interval
was analyzed using Bonferoni-corrected paired-samples t-tests ( = [.05/3] = 0.017)
with an effect-size (Cohens d) threshold of 0.20. The paired samples comparisons
results are displayed in Table 4.6. An inspection of this table reveals that all the
differences in means were in the negative direction, statistically significant at the
0.01 level, with the pretest-posttest interval (the period during which the curriculum
was implemented) reaching a level of statistical significance at the greater than
0.001 level, indicating that there is a minimal probability that these results could
have occurred due to chance alone.
The pretest-posttest interval had a level of practical significance (d = 0.40)
which was double the specified effect size level. The baseline-pretest (d = 0.18)
and posttest-follow-up (d = 0.10) intervals fell below the 0.20 effect size threshold.
The conclusion was made that there was a considerable difference in means
90
between the pretest-posttest peer rating interval but not for the baseline-pretest and
posttest-follow-up interval, which supports rejecting the null hypothesis and
supporting the alternate. The means for both the in-class collegial workgroup and
out-of-class collegial socializing ratings are displayed in Figure 4.2.

Variance (ANOVA) Results for In-Class Collegial Workgroup Peer Ratings
Peer Rating
SD
Univariate F [1,
113]
Collegial
Workgroup
Time 1
3.00
0.6
Time 2
2.90
0.5
Time 3
2.70
0.5
Time 4
2.65
0.6
174.01***
***p < 0.001
Table 4.6. Paired-Samples T-test Comparisons for In-Class Collegial Workgroup

Ratings
M
t (113)
Baseline-Pretest
- 0.09
3.35**
0.18
Pretest-Posttest
-0.20
8.87***
0.40
Posttest-Follow-up
- 0.06
2.72**
0.10
** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
91
Estimated Means of Ratings
3.10
3.00
3.00
2.90
2.90
2.80
2.70
2.70
2.60
2.65
2.64
2.57
2.50
2.44
2.40
2.43
2.30
Time 1
Time 2
Collegial Workgroups
Time 3
Time 4
Collegial Socialzing
Figure 4.2. Means for in-class collegial workgroups and out-of-class collegial
socializing peer rating.
Hypothesis 2
differences in means between the baseline-pretest, pretest-posttest, and posttestfollow-up peer rating seven-week intervals. The difference in means for each peerrating interval was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance
(repeated measures ANOVA).
An omnibus test of significance was conducted to protect against the
chance of a family-wise Type I error. The within-subjects repeated Measures
ANOVA analysis then tested whether the mean differences at each peer-rating
interval could have occurred by chance alone. The null hypothesis of equality of
means was rejected at the 0.001 level (Wilks Lambda = 0.631, F [1, 111] = 21.645,
p < 0.001; Hotelings Trace = 0.585, F [1, 111] = 21.645, p < 0.001). The small p-
92
level provides a very high degree of confidence (99.9%) that there is a difference in
means that did not occur due to chance. The estimated means, standard
deviations, and univariate analysis is provided in Table 4.7.

Variance (ANOVA) Results for Out-of-Class Collegial Socializing Peer Ratings
Peer Rating
M
SD
Univariate F [1,
113]
Collegial
Workgroup
Time 1
2.64
0.6
Time 2
2.57
0.5
Time 3
2.44
0.5
Time 4
2.43
0.5
29.07***
***p < 0.001
To identify the direction of the difference in means, as well as which sevenweek intervals contributed to the significant univariate F test, each interval was
analyzed using Bonferoni-corrected paired-samples t-tests ( = [.05/3] = 0.017) with
an effect-size (Cohens d) threshold of 0.20. The paired samples comparisons
results are displayed in Table 4.8. An inspection of this table reveals that the
difference in means was in the negative direction for the baseline-pretest (p < 0.01)
and pretest-posttest (p < 0.001); however, there was no difference between posttest
and follow-up means. The difference in means of both the baseline-posttest and
the baseline-follow-up peer rating intervals are of almost identical practical
significance (d = 0.27 and 0.26, respectively). Thus, the conclusion was made to
93
retain the null in that the difference in means between the baseline-pretest peer
intervals and pretest-posttest peer intervals is not of practical significance.
Table 4.8. Paired-Samples T-test Comparisons for Out-of-Class Collegial

Socializing Ratings
t (113)
Baseline-Pretest
- 0.07
2.58**
0.27
Pretest-Posttest
-0.13
4.92***
0.26
Posttest-Follow-up
0.00
0.10
** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
Two additional analyses were conducted of the peer ratings to provide more
information as to the nature of the dataset. The first analysis investigated whether
there was a significant ( = 0.01) difference in the estimated means between
ratings at each data-collection point between the means of the in-class collegial
workgroup and out-of-class collegial socializing peer ratings. The second analysis
investigated whether there is a statistical significance ( = 0.01) in the difference in
means for each peer rating time period (baseline-pretest, pretest-posttest, and
posttest-follow-up).
Overall mean differences between ratings. To determine if there was an
overall mean difference in means between the in-class collegial workgroup and outof-class collegial socializing peer ratings at each of the four-data collection periods,
the difference in group means at each time period was analyzed using Bonferonicorrected paired-samples t-tests ( = [.05/4] = 0.01). The results of this analysis
are presented in Table 4.9 and indicate that there were statistically significant
differences (at the 0.001 level) in out-of-class collegial socializing estimated mean
ratings at all four data collection points, supporting the study assumption that high
94
school students, in their collegial relationships, differentiate between in-class

workgroups and out-of-class collegial socializing.
Table 4.9. Paired-Samples T-test Comparisons of the Means of In-Class Collegial

Workgroups and Out-Of-Class Collegial Socializing Peer Ratings across Time
Collegial
Collegial
Workgroup
Socializing
SD
SD
t (113)
Baseline
3.00
0.6
2.64
0.6
0.36
10.62***
0.60
Pretest
2.90
0.5
2.57
0.5
0.34
10.90***
0.66
Posttest
2.70
0.5
2.44
0.5
0.27
7.69***
0.52
Follow-up
2.65
0.6
2.43
0.5
0.21
6.87***
0.40
*** p < 0.001
Comparison of magnitude of mean differences for each time sevenweek intervals. The observed negative trends in Figure 4.1 were further analyzed
using three Bonferoni corrected ANOVAs ( = 0.01) to determine if there was
evidence to support a difference in the magnitude of mean change between the inclass collegial workgroup and out-of-class socializing peer ratings at each sevenweek interval period (baseline-pretest, pretest-posttest, and posttest-follow-up).
Since an omnibus test of significance was not able to be conducted for all three
analyses, the univariate F-test was set to a Bonferoni corrected alpha of 0.01. The
null hypothesis of no difference between means was retained for both the baselinepretest (p = 0.317) and posttest-follow-up (p = 0.039) seven-week peer rating
intervals. However, the null hypothesis of no difference between means was
rejected for the intervention period (p < 0.01). An analysis of the means and
standard deviations of the changes in mean ratings reveals that there was a greater
difference in means for the in-class collegial workgroup ratings (M = - 0.20, SD =
0.2) than for the out-of-class collegial socializing peer ratings (M = - 0.13, SD = 0.3).
95
Remaining consistent to the effect size calculations in the previous analyses, these
results have an effect size of 0.28, which is above the threshold of practical
importance.
Hypothesis 3
Transfer into significant relationship.
Following the seven-week, seven-
session curriculum instruction, at least 70% of curriculum participants will report that
the curriculum helped them to improve at least one significant interpersonal
relationship. The means, standard deviations, and percentages for the participant
ratings of transfer outcomes of the curriculum into improving their interpersonal
relationships are given in Table 4.9. A review of these results demonstrates the
highest percentage of participants reporting that the curriculum helped them
improve one significant interpersonal relationship was 63% (relationship with
peers). This is to be contrasted with the rest of the listed relationships (teachers,
peers who were not friends, parents, grandparents, siblings, or cousins) in which
the majority of participants reported that the curriculum did not help them improve.
Since none of the observed mean ratings met the 70% pre-set threshold, the
conclusion was to retain the null hypothesis that there are no positive changes in
significant relationships associated with the work-related interpersonal
communication skills curriculum.
Additional procedure. Although reporting a high satisfaction with the
curriculum, since participants did not perceive a significant transfer effect from the
curriculum instruction into significant relationships, an additional analysis was
conducted to evaluate the participants actual buy-in of the curriculum itself in terms
of personal worth. This analysis entailed the following item on the satisfaction
survey: The curriculum was worth my time. The mean rating was 1.5 (SD = 0.9)
with 59% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing. Remaining consistent with
the 70% threshold of agree or disagree as indicative of meeting a criteria or
hypothesis, it can be concluded while a majority of participants (59%) reported that
the curriculum was worth their time.
96
Table 4.10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Participant Ratings
of Curriculum Transfer Outcomes into Significant Interpersonal Relationships
SD
Agree or
Strongly
Agree

curriculum helped me improve my
relationship with my friends.
108
1.7
0.9
63.%

relationship with my teachers.
111
1.4
0.9
48%

relationship with peers who where not
friends before the start of the curriculum.
107
1.4
0.9
47%

relationship with my siblings
96
1.4
0.9
45%

relationship with my parents.
109
1.3
0.9
46%

relationship with my grandparents.
100
1.3
0.9
35%

relationship with my employer.
31
1.2
1.0
39%

relationship with my cousins.
99
1.2
0.9
35%
Stimulus Question
97
Summary of Outputs
Peer Ratings: The outcome of the interpersonal communication skills
curriculum upon the in-class collegial workgroup and out-of-class collegial
socializing peer ratings was evaluated in this section. The in-class collegial
workgroup peer ratings main analysis suggests that there was a statistically and
practically significant difference in the mean ratings between the pretest and the
posttest seven-week interval (which coincided with the implementation of the
intervention) as compared to the baseline-pretest and posttest-follow seven-week
intervals. The conclusion was then made to reject the first null hypothesis in favor
of the alternate. The out-of-class collegial socializing peer rating analysis suggests
that while the differences in mean ratings for the baseline-pretest and posttestfollow-up seven-week intervals were both practical and had statistical significance,
the difference between means were almost identical to each other while there was
no difference between means for the posttest-follow-up period. The conclusion was
made to retain the second null hypothesis.
Post-hoc analysis procedures for the peer ratings revealed that the
difference in means between in-class collegial workgroups and socializing peer
ratings were statistically and practically significant for all four data collection points.
This suggests that participants produced two distinct sets of peer ratings in terms of
choosing classroom peers they would like to form in-class collegial workgroups with
and choosing classroom peers for out-of-class socializing. However, an inspection
of the magnitude of difference in means for each of the three time seven-week
intervals revealed that while there were no significant differences in the magnitude
of change in means for the baseline-pretest and posttest-follow-up seven-week
intervals, the magnitude of the difference between means during the pretestposttest seven week interval was considerably greater for the in-class collegial
workgroup than for the out-of-class collegial rating, which is consistent with the
results of the main analysis.
Transfer into significant relationships: The transfer effects of the
curriculum into the significant relationships of the ninth-grade were evaluated in this
section. While a majority of participants (63%) reported that the curriculum helped
98
them improve their relationships with peers, this was below the 70% preset
threshold. Furthermore, a majority of participants reported that the curriculum did
not help them with the rest of their relationships, such as teachers, family members,
and employers, having disagree percentages ranging from an estimated 52% to
65%. An additional analysis was conducted to determine the inherent worth the
participants drew from the time spent on the curriculum instruction. The results of
this analysis revealed that an estimated 59% of participants reported that the
curriculum was worth their time.
99
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Introduction
The present study evaluated the impact of a work-related interpersonal skills

curriculum intervention on the classroom behavior of 114 ninth-grades at a charter
school affiliated with a large southeastern university. This intervention taught the
Gomez-Peterson-Jones Work-related Interpersonal Communication Skills
Curriculum (GPJ Curriculum; Gomez-Estefan, Peterson, and Jones, 2004) which is
a seven-week, seven-session high school intervention integrating the skill domains
of work-related interpersonal communication skills into the core curriculum. The
five skill domains included: (a) foundations of work-related interpersonal skills; (b)
self-awareness and corrective feedback; (c) the provision of empathic support; (d)
assertive responding; and (e) conflict management. These domains were
composed of fifteen curriculum competencies that were developed using the Florida
Comprehensive Guidance Model as a template of work-relevant interpersonal
communication skills (for learning objectives please see Appendix F):
1. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the importance of
interpersonal communication skills;
2. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the communication model;
3. Develop respect for the diversity and rights of others;
4. Identify which interpersonal communication skills one needs to further
develop;
5. Acquire self-knowledge;
6. Increase own self-awareness using the Johari Window as a model;
7. Discriminate between effective and destructive feedback;
100
8. Identify the risks and benefits of self-disclosure;

9. Demonstrate basic active listening skills;
The content of these five domains and fifteen curriculum competencies were
integrated into the language arts, social studies, and life management regular
curriculum of ninth-grades and was taught in the form of the following seven weekly
instruction sessions:
1 Introduction to Interpersonal Communication Skills
2 Self-Awareness and Corrective Feedback Lecture
3 Provision of Empathic Support Lecture and Demonstration
4 Provision of Empathic Support Skills Lab
5 Assertive Responding Lecture and Demonstration
6 Assertive Responding Skills Lab
7 Conflict Management and Capstone Lecture
The evaluation component of this study addressed the curriculum in terms of
three standards: (a) skill performance improvement on written critical incidents; (b)
participant report of learning the target competencies of the curriculum; and (c)
participant satisfaction with instruction. The research component of this study
measured: (d) changes of the peer ratings (in-class collegial workgroup and out-ofclass collegial socializing) over time (baseline, pretest, posttest, and follow-up
periods) and the (e) participants self-report of the transfer effects of this sevenweek curriculum.
This chapter is organized into five sections: (1) the results and conclusions of
each standard or research question; (2) the limitations of the method, design, and
101
procedures of this study; (3) the implications for research; (4) the implications for
the improvement and implementation of the curriculum; and (5) a prcis.
Conclusions and Discussion
As, the purpose of evaluation is not to prove, but to improve (Stufflebeam &
Shinkfield, 1985, p. ii); the discussion of the results of this study is presented in the
following format: summary of findings, conclusions, and then a discussion of the
conclusions. The rationale for this order is to first present the reader with: (a) the
evaluation standard or research question; (b) the associated empiricallymeasurable criterion or hypothesis question; (c) the rationale for the criterion or
hypothesis question; (d) a summary of the results relative to the given criterion or
hypothesis question, and (e) the empirically-based conclusions. This is followed by
a discussion of the likely implications of such conclusions on the improvement of
the curriculum and/or the improvement in the measurement of curriculum outputs
and outcomes.
Standard 1
Skill performance improvement on written critical incidents. The first
evaluation standard was: Following the completion of instruction, there was a
performance improvement in the study participants skill performance in responding
to written critical incidents. Given the expectancy that the curriculum should meet
its skill development purpose, this standard was measured in terms of a minimum
performance improvement threshold which is related to the degree of curriculum
engagement (measured as percentage of activities completed). This criterion was
stated as: Following the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, there
was a statistically significant positive relationship ( = 0.05; > 0.2) between the
percentage of the curriculum completed and skill performance in the posttest, with
pretest skill performance as a covariate. The analysis of the data collected relative
to this criterion indicated that there was a significant relationship (p < 0.01) between
degree of engagement (measured as the percentage of curriculum assignments
102
completed) and performance improvements on the Critical Incident Blank (CIB;

Gomez-Estefan & Peterson, 2001) posttest, with the CIB pretest as a covariate.
The conclusions are therefore made that: (1) the curriculum met the skill
performance improvement criterion; and (2) the curriculum was a valid intervention
for improving interpersonal communication skill performance. The limitations of
percentage of curriculum assignments completed as a measure of degree of
engagement is discussed in the Limitations section of this chapter.
Additional Analyses. Two additional analyses were conducted to better
understand the nature of the observed relationship between degree of engagement
and performance improvement on the CIB. The first analysis partitioned the
percentage of curriculum assignments completed into two variables: completers
(70% of curriculum assignments completed) and non-completers (< 70% of
curriculum assignments completed, which is the equivalent of a grade of D or F) to
determine if there was a significant difference in CIB performance improvement
(change in pretest-posttest means) between both groups. The second analysis
explored whether there was a difference in mean performance of both groups on
the CIB pretest. The results of these indicated that there was a difference in pretestposttest means between both groups with a significant (p < 0.05) improvement for
the completers and while there was no difference in pretest-posttest means for the
non-completers; however, there was no observed skill difference between groups at
the pretest level. Therefore, it may be concluded that: While there were no
differences in pretest scores between curriculum completers and non-completers,
those who engaged the curriculum showed significant (p < 0.05, d = 0.29) learning
while those who did not engage the curriculum did not (p > 0.05).
Discussion: Although all the students participated in the curriculum
activities of attending lectures, observing skill modeling, and practicing skills in roleplays, the degree of skill improvement in written critical incident simulations was
directly related to the percentage of curriculum out-of-class activities (homework
assignments) completed. Furthermore, on average, those who completed at least
70% of the curriculum assignments showed skill improvements, while those who
completed less than 70% (equivalent to a D or F) did not show improvements.
103
This finding is consistent with the literature review in Chapter II in that it

supports the importance of adding homework or field-practice experiences to
instruction as a crucial element of skill instruction (Segrin & Givertz, 2003). In terms
of social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 2000), all the students had equal exposure to
curriculum lectures, modeling, and role-play skill practice; however, it is assumed
that those who engaged the homework assignments were more likely to develop
the internal models of prosocial scripts and have a higher self-appraisal of their
performance attainment capabilities. Those who completed the assignments were
also more likely to experience the positive reinforcement of the completion grade.
Meanwhile, those who did not complete the activities experienced the negative
consequence of a failing grade. However, it should be noted that although there
was no difference in measured skill prior to the curriculum, the percent engagement
in out-of-class curriculum activities (homework assignments) only explains about
5% of the variability in posttest scores, which suggests other unmeasured factors
as sharing in the performance differentials between the pretest and posttest; an
area subject to future research.
Standard 2
curriculum. The second evaluation standard was: Following the completion of
curriculum instruction, most participants report having learned target competencies
of the curriculum. Given the expectancy that the curriculum should meet its skill
development purpose, this standard was measured in terms of both participant
report of learning the target competencies and a minimum cutoff of target
competencies of the curriculum to be reported as met. This criterion was then
stated as: Following the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, 80% or
more of the curriculum target competencies are rated as having been met by at
least 70% of the curriculum participants. This was measured via a discrepancy
model of the percentage of fifteen target competencies rated as learned by the
participant. The analysis of data collected relative to this criterion indicated that 13
out of the 15 target competencies (87%) received satisfaction ratings from more
104
than 70% of the study participants. The conclusions are therefore made that: (1)
the curriculum met the standard target competencies criterion; and (2) the
curriculum had sufficient treatment fidelity to support that an intervention occurred
between the pretest and the posttest data collection points.
Discussion: A formative evaluation analysis of the fifteen learning
objectives suggests that the curriculum was most successful (agree ratings > 80%)
at teaching students to respect the diversity and rights of others, to be more
assertive, and to learn active listening skills. The rating of the diversity competency
in itself marks a great success for the curriculum as this objective was infused in all
the sessions and activities. This high rating represents a very relevant knowledge
for and highly desired attitudinal stance for the emerging diversity in the current and
future workplace which, by itself, is often the sole objective of interpersonal skill
interventions (Karp & Sammour, 2000). Given that competency in developing
respect for the diversity and rights of others is a work-related interpersonal skill
which may be explicitly found in both the Florida Model and SCANS (Appendices I
and J), it can be concluded that it will be essential for success in the twenty-first
century workplace.
The next three rated items were: learn to be more assertive (82%), learn
active listening skills (81%), and learn to manage conflict (80%). These three items
are directly related to the core competencies of the empathic support, assertive
responding, and conflict management. They are also worded in a skill-oriented
manner and represent the skills that were taught using all four of Segrin & Givertzs
(2003) training modalities: lecture, modeling, role-play, and homework assignments.
This provides further evidence of the assumption proposed in Chapter II which
states that: Interpersonal communication skills are acquired via social learning such
as observation, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback (Bandura, 1986). This
proposition is further supported by the fact that the two competencies that did not
meet the 70% criteria only employed lecture as their mode of instruction which may
be partially due to the lack of different instructional modalities.
Further analysis of the lowest-rated competencies (or failed competencies)
reveals that these were taught in the second session, Self-Awareness: selfdisclosure and corrective feedback. This was the only session that was not taught
105
co-jointly by a counselor (in this case the primary investigator) and a teacher. While
there is evidence that the content of the session was taught, over one-third of the
students report not having learned the core objectives, which suggests that this one
session was problematic in terms of the gestalt of the curriculum. The cause for
such problems could be that the treatment effect was not the same when the school
teacher taught the course alone than when the trainer was assisted by the primary
investigator. Evidence for this can be found in meta-analysis of social skill training
with children (cited by Segrin & Givertz, 2003) which found that social skill
interventions are considerably more powerful when trainers are psychologists or
psychology graduate students (d = 0.48) than when the trainers are school teachers
(d = 0.20). However, the low ratings also suggest other factors such as design of
instruction as possibly explaining the lower ratings. An alternate explanation is that
the low-rated statements are esoteric in their wording and not consistent with the
proper writing of learning objectives and a clearer statement could have received a
higher rating.
Standard 3
Participant satisfaction. The third evaluation standard was: Following the
completion of curriculum instruction, most participants report satisfaction with the
curriculum. This was measured via a discrepancy model of the percentage of
participant rating of agree or disagree to the summative evaluation question: I am
satisfied with the curriculum unit. The criterion was then stated as: Following the
seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, 70% of curriculum participants
report feeling satisfied with the curriculum. An analysis of the participant responses
to this question indicates that 73% of the participants endorsed the curriculum as
satisfactory; however, in a related analysis only 59% reported that the curriculum
was worth my time. The conclusions are therefore made that: (1) the curriculum
met the learner satisfaction criterion; however, (2) ninth-grades make a distinction
between satisfaction with a learning experience and whether that experience was
worth their time.
106
Discussion. The dichotomy between the curriculum being satisfying and

worth the learners time suggests that ninth-graders see the difference between
satisfaction and the relevance (worth my time) of instruction. This provides
evidence for John Kellers (1999) ARCS model for the design and evaluation of
training. This model presents four motivational concepts and characteristics for
successful training: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Attention
refers to the need to design instruction to grab and sustain the learners attention.
Relevance involves helping the learner make a connection between the material
being instructed and their present and future needs. The concept of confidence is
closely related to developing self-efficacy in that the instruction should be such that
the learner believes that they will be able to learn the proposed material. Finally,
satisfaction refers to the learners intrinsic and extrinsic rewards associated with the
instruction. Using the ARCS model as a template for interpreting the greater
number of participants rating the curriculum as satisfying in comparison with those
who rate it as being worth their time, it can be concluded that: (1) the curriculum
was sufficiently satisfying for 72% of the students in terms of internal and/or
external rewards; however, (2) a large number of students (41%) failed to see the
relevance between the curriculum and their real-life needs.
Research Questions 1 and 2
Peer ratings. The first and second research questions involve participant
peer ratings across four data collection periods. The first peer rating measured a
construct called in-class collegial workgroups; the second peer rating a construct
called out-of-class collegial socializing. The in-class collegial workgroup rating is a
peer-rating of the following directive: Rate each person according to whether you
want to work with them on a quarter-long graded group project. The out-of-class
collegial workgroup rating is a peer-rating of the following directive: Rate each
person according to whether you want to hang out with them after school or during
the weekend. The rationale for the first rating was that having peers rate their
willingness to work with the participant is the developmental approximate to
willingness to work with someone on a long-term, high-stakes workplace
workgroup. The rationale for the second peer rating was that measuring willingness
107
to spend time with the participant outside of the classroom is the developmental
approximate for outside-the-office collegiality and politicking.
In-class collegial workgroups. What is the impact of a seven-week,
seven-session, work-related interpersonal communication skills curriculum
delivered to ninth-graders upon the in-class collegial workgroups? Given that the
in-class collegial workgroup is a previously unmeasured construct, the
corresponding hypothesis was stated in the null form. The hypothesis was stated
as: Following the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, there are no
significant ( = 0.05; d > 0.2) differences in means between the baseline-pretest,
pretest-posttest, and posttest-follow-up peer rating seven-week intervals. The
analysis of data collected relative to this hypothesis indicated that the in-class
collegial workgroups peer rating declined over time with a significant (p < 0.01; d =
0.27) mean change between the pretest and posttest, while the mean change
between the baseline and pretest and pretest and follow-up were below the
threshold for practical significance which was set as an effect size above 0.2. The
conclusion was made that: there was a considerable difference in means between
the pretest and posttest peer ratings, but not for the baseline-pretest and posttestfollow-up intervals, which supports rejecting the null hypothesis and supporting the
alternate
Out-of-class collegial socializing. What is the impact of a seven-week,
seven-session, work-related interpersonal communication skills curriculum
delivered to ninth-graders upon the out-of-class collegial socializing? Given that
out-of-class collegial socializing has not been measured this way as a construct, the
corresponding hypothesis was also stated in the null form. The hypothesis was
stated as: Following the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction, there
are no significant ( = 0.05; d > 0.2) differences in means between the baselinepretest, pretest-posttest, and posttest-follow-up peer rating seven-week intervals.
The analysis of data collected relative to this hypothesis indicated that the in-class
collegial workgroups peer rating declined over time with a significant p < 0.01; d =
0.27) mean change between the baseline and the pretest, as well as a significant (p
< 0.001; d = 0.26) mean change between pretest-posttest. Thus, the conclusion
108
was made to: retain the null as the difference in means between the baselinepretest and pretest-posttest peer intervals is not of practical significance.
Additional Analyses. Two additional analyses were conducted to better
understand the nature of the relationship between the in-class collegial workgroups
and out-of-class collegial socializing peer ratings. The first analysis investigated
whether there was a significant ( = 0.01) difference in the estimated means
between ratings at each data-collection point between the means of the in-class
collegial workgroup and out-of-class collegial socializing peer ratings. The second
analysis investigated whether there is a statistical significance ( = 0.01) in the
difference in the magnitude of change between means for each peer rating time
interval (baseline-pretest, pretest-posttest, and posttest-follow-up). The results of
the first analysis indicated that there were significant (p < 0.001) differences in
mean scores between the two peer ratings across all four data collection points.
The result of the second analysis indicated that the magnitude of change between
means was significantly (p < 0.01) different between in-class collegial workgroup
and out-of-class collegial socializing for the pretest-posttest period with the in-class
collegial workgroup ratings having a greater magnitude of change than the out-ofclass collegial socializing ratings.
Therefore, it may be concluded that: (1) the in-class collegial workgroup and
out-of-class collegial socializing scales represent two different constructs as
evidenced by their consistent significant (p < 0.001) difference in means across four
time periods; however, (2) something occurred in terms of in-class collegial
workgroups that did not occur in terms of out-of-class socializing in the time period
between the pretest and the posttest (which coincided with the implementation of
the intervention) as evidenced by the significant (p < 0.01) difference in magnitude
of the change in pretest-posttest means between both ratings.
Discussion: The assumption adopted in the present study is that two
separate peer ratings were needed to measure the classroom social environment
because, ninth-grade students are able to differentiate two distinct types of collegial
classroom-related (developmental approximate of work-related) and types of peercolleague relationships: one dealing with in-class workgroups and the other with
out-of-class socializing. This assumption was supported by the observation that, on
109
the average, ninth-grader participants received significantly higher scores in terms

of their peer desirability for working on a semester-long graded school project than
for out-of-class socializing. This pattern is similar to what may be expected in the
adult workplace in which the composition of peer-colleagues is predetermined and
there is generally a greater selectivity in terms of which workers are willing to
associate and work with during work hours at the structured worksite versus whom
they are willing to associate with during their unstructured time.
While the collegial workgroup and collegial socializing peer rating trend lines
represent two different types of peer collegiality; it must be noted that their slopes
over time were not independent of each other during the (non-intervention) baseline
and follow-up periods. The only difference in slopes occurred during the
intervention period in which the collegial workgroup ratings had a steeper negative
slope than collegial socializing. This supports the establishment of a new
assumption about collegial relationships: While in the absence of an intervention
(or other coinciding history and unmeasured maturation events), the choice of peers
to form workgroups and for socializing are not independent of each other; the
selectivity, and perhaps choices of individuals are sufficiently different that each
must be specified and analyzed using separate measures.
While the peer rating hypotheses were set in term of the null, the negative
direction of the peer rating trend-lines is paradoxical to the logical expectation, that
better interpersonal communication skills would result in better overall workplace (or
classroom) collegiality and not lower overall collegiality as may be inferred by the
accelerated drop in peer ratings during the intervention period. A possible
explanation for these ratings is that they measured peer-to-peer interaction, which
is a theoretical subset of a larger and more complex construct called classroom
social learning environment.
The classroom social learning environment is a comprehensive construct
that encompasses the interrelated factors of the classroom workplace which include
student-student collegiality, student-teacher relationships, teacher personality and
teaching style, the physical plant, and other factors such as student size and course
scheduling (Raviv, Raviv, & Reisel, 1993). The myriad of other events preceding
and co-occurring with the curriculum intervention were competing independent
110
variables to the curriculum intervention. Such events included the fact that the
school had moved that same year to a new plant, substantially increased its
enrollment, implemented a career academy organizational structure, hired new
teachers, and during the period of the intervention, the ninth-grade administration
changed its scheduling from regular seven-daily periods to block scheduling. As
such, the declining peer ratings at the baseline period suggest that history and
maturation events caused a negative change in the classroom climate prior to the
intervention phase and it may be inferred that the curriculum, while successful in
teaching interpersonal skills, lacked sufficient effect strength to override these other
factors.
In retrospect, given that there is support in the literature to suggest that
classroom social learning climates vary both between classroom in a given school
and between schools (Brand, Felner, Skim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003), the
present study should have used classroom social learning climate measures as
both descriptive and inferential variables to isolate these confounds from the effects
of the intervention. Another possible explanation for the negative peer rating trends
is that while the curriculum did not have a significant effect upon the classroom
social learning environment in terms of collegial workgroup; a change did occur in
terms of participant SKAs, in which they learned how to better select peers for
workgroups and for out-of-class socializing. Thus, is possible that in learning the
components of work-related interpersonal competence and in watching peers
perform these skills in simulations and in the context of the classroom, participants
learned how to form more effective groups. Thus, the effect on the classroom
workplace was not to create an overall increase in cohesiveness, but instead to
create more effective and higher-performing workgroups for the higher subset of the
ninth-grade population.
Research Question 3
Transfer into a significant relationship. The third research question was:
Did a seven-week, seven-session, work-related interpersonal communication skills
curriculum delivered to ninth-graders have a positive impact upon the participants
significant interpersonal relationships? Given that one of the desired consequent
111
effects of participation in the curriculum was the transfer of instruction into better
interpersonal relationships, the corresponding hypothesis was also stated in the
alternate form as: Following the seven-week, seven-session curriculum instruction,
at least 70% of the curriculum participants will report that the curriculum helped
them improve at least one significant interpersonal relationship. The analysis of
data collected relative to this hypothesis indicates that 63% of participants reported
that the curriculum helped them improve their relationships with their friends; less
than half the participants reported that the curriculum helped them improve other
significant relationships. Therefore, the conclusion was made to: retain the null
as not enough participants endorsed the curriculum learning to support the alternate
hypothesis that the curriculum helped participants to improve at least one
interpersonal relationship.
Discussion: The lack of sufficient evidence to support the implied
assumption that the implementation of the curriculum would result in overall
improved classroom workplace relationships highlights the importance of
conducting evaluation in terms of both outputs and outcomes (Peterson & Burck,
1982). Had this evaluation study been limited to just outputs, as is often done with
curriculum evaluation, the curriculum would have been declared a success and the
lack of transfer would not be observed. Baldwin and Ford (1988) suggest that there
are three factors that determine the success (or lack of success) of any given
training: training design, trainee characteristics, and work environment (SmithJentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 1996).
The first success factor is training design. In the case of this curriculum, it
has been previous established that the treatment was a valid intervention in terms
of increasing skill performance (standard 1) and that the target competencies were
sufficiently met (standard 2) to support the assumption of treatment fidelity.
However, it must be noted that the expected skill performance improvement was on
written critical incidents and not contextualized instances and that learning occurred
only with those who engaged the curriculum. Those who did not engage the
curriculum (35% of sample) did not show skill improvements. This large number of
students not engaging the curriculum can be assumed to have diluted the treatment
intensity of the curriculum at the classroom level. Thus, like with the peer ratings,
112
the intervention may not have been sufficient in intensity to bring about the desired
change in these trainees given the present work environment. Since this study
lacked the foresight to measure trainee characteristics in areas related to
interpersonal skill development such as self-efficacy, popularity, mental, health,
etc., no clear conclusions may be made as to cause for the observed lack of
transfer. While possible causes could include the possibilities that the curriculum
did not provide relevant learning to transfer into relationships, the learners were not
motivated by the instruction, or that the learning climate was not optimal for
learning, these factors were not directly measured and such conclusions would not
be appropriate given the lack of supporting data.
Limitations of the Study
This section will evaluate the threats to internal and external validity. Each
possible threat will be described, as well as the attempts to minimize their influence.
Internal Validity
Internal validity refers to the degree to which the observed changes in the
study are associated to the independent variable (the curriculum intervention) and
not due to confounding variables (Neuman, 2000). This section explores the
possible effects of history, maturation, testing-effects, selection bias, nonequivalence, mortality, experimenter bias, instrumentation, and specification as
threats to internal validity and includes a discussion of attempts to minimize the
effects of these threats to the dependent variable and participant ratings of the
curriculum instruction.
History. Perhaps the most severe threat to internal validity, which is
inherent to repeated measures designs, was history. History refers to unplanned
events outside the investigators control that confound the changes in the
dependent variable. It is a common phenomenon in all repeated measure studies
and affects both descriptive and inferential studies. Good study designs that
include a control group are the best remedy for history (Hadley & Mitchell, 1995);
113
however, due to the fact that the school mandated for the curriculum to be taught to
all ninth-graders at the same time, a control group was not possible. Even with a
control group, instruction would have been subject to the John Henry effect.
In the case of the present study, a number of history events occurred. The
first was the change of the class schedule from seven 50-minute class periods to a
complicated block-schedule in which core subjects were taught on alternate days
on bi-weekly Friday schedules. This change coincided with the first day of
curriculum instruction. A second event was an overall drop in performance in at
least one of the core classes during the period of the intervention, which coincided
with the onset of the block scheduling. Regardless of cause, there is sufficient
evidence to suggest that unforeseen factors associated with the change in
scheduling were responsible for this drop in performance. The transferable threat
in the drop in performance may be translated into the students approach to the
intervention and an overriding negative learning climate. The extent of this possible
environmental historical event is the fact that out of the entire core faculty involved
with this intervention, only the team leader/language continued to be a teacher in
the school the following year.
A third history threat is that since the study spanned 21 weeks from time 1 to
time 4, there were multiple competing studies at this research school whose datacollection and interventions may also have confounded the results. These history
factors may have had an overriding effect on the students receptiveness to the new
instruction, as well as their attitude towards completing the curriculum assignments
and the evaluation measures. The only control was that participation in completing
the study instruments was voluntary and not compulsory; however, even in these
cases, participating in a study may be better explained by negative reinforcement
(compared to the next alternative) than by positive reinforcement where there are
inherent internal or external rewards for participation.
Maturation and testing effects. The second and third threats to internal
validity were maturation and testing effects, which are also common in all repeatedmeasures designs. Maturation refers to changes in research participants that may
account for changes in the dependent variable; however, these are unmeasured
and unaccounted for in the statistical manipulation of the data. Closely related to
114
maturation are testing effects, which refer to the process of maturation that occurs
specifically in relation to the measures. Such changes may include the participants
learning of the instruments or testing fatigue, apathy, hunger, etc. (Hadley &
Mitchell, 1995). The best remedy for maturation and testing effects is study design
with a control group. Since this was not possible for the present study, maturation
effects were investigated by adding a baseline and follow-up time period to the
study design to investigate participants behavioral changes over time both prior to
and following the intervention. To increase control over testing effects, the
instruments that could be affected by learning (e.g., the Critical Incident Blank) were
administered as counter-balanced with parallel forms and instrument loafing
discouraged by requiring participants to complete each measure in a group session,
waiting for other students to finish each measure prior to moving on to the next one.
Testing fatigue was a threat that was not controlled as it not only involved the
present study, but also all the other competing studies using the same population.
Selection bias, non-equivalence, and mortality. The fourth, fifth, and
sixth threats to internal validity included selection bias, non-equivalence, and
mortality. Selection bias is a common problem to all psychological research as
most research involves volunteer participants drawn from a convenience sample
versus the whole population of ninth-graders. Non-equivalence refers to situations
where individuals are not randomly assigned to groups, but rather assigned to
groups by certain inclusion/exclusion criteria. Mortality refers to when groups are
created according to a given criterion. Mortality is a natural phenomenon in field
research in which participants are lost over time and/or not all participants who
receive an intervention choose to participate in the evaluation portion of the study.
Although a large sample of the ninth-grade at the developmental research school
was used, a review of the demographics reveal that the final sample was not
representative of the general population in various variables (see External Validity
section). The problem of mortality was minimized by having make-up sessions the
next morning following each data-collection section. The problem of noncompleters possibly needing to be removed for the performance measure was
managed by the creation of a dummy variable (percentage of activities completed)
and two criterion groups based on performance; while non-equivalence is inherent
115
to this method, its limitations are acknowledged in the interpretation of results. The
final usable data corresponded to 83% of the available sample, which represents
acceptable mortality for field research.
Student absenteeism. Another facet of mortality was student absenteeism,
as it impacted the uniformity of intervention received by all students. However,
absenteeism was accepted as a natural component of the high school and good
ecological validity for a school-based intervention. Thus, rather than excluding or
singling out students based on absenteeism, students who were absent received
make-up instruction under the same format with which they make-up other missed
classwork such as informal meetings with the teacher and completion of homework.
Experimenter bias. The seventh factor affecting internal validity was
experimenter bias. Great lengths were taken to prevent experimenter bias in the
data collection procedure by recruiting volunteer research confederates to conduct
all the data collection sessions, reading a pre-set script, excluding the primary
investigator from the data collection. Furthermore, all ratings, scoring, and
participant randomization were conducted by a volunteer research assistant with
the primary investigator examining data only for accuracy. Uncontrolled factors,
addressed in the next section, were the primary investigators buy-in and person
effort exerted to ensure that the intervention maintained the highest levels of
treatment fidelity to the point of his delivering the instruction as necessary. This last
factor may have confounded the results with the persona of the primary investigator
becoming an independent variable himself.
Instrumentation. The eighth factor affecting internal validity was
instrumentation as it relates to both the Critical Incident Blank and the percentage
of curriculum assignments completed as a measure of engagement. A limitation of
the Critical Incident Blank is that it is a measure of maximum or ceiling
performance; however, since it is not graded or otherwise rewarded, the analysis of
results is done under the assumption of maximum effort of the instruments. This
introduces the prospects of systematic error across cases and across samples.
Attempts to maximize effort on the CIB included verbal persuasion, keeping the
task manageable (three incidents per administration), and having participants in
each testing cohort wait for their peers to finish prior to moving to the next task to
116
reduce the reward of hasty completion. Another potential pitfall of the CIB is that
while it is useful as a measure of pure learning, it does not capture the actual
variance of everyday performance in contextualized peer-collegial settings (SmithJentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001).
The scores on the measure of engagement, while assumed to be objective
as a measure of effort, are subject to teacher bias as to criteria of acceptable
performance (either too strict or too lenient). This threat was difficult to control as
the primary investigator needed to remain unobtrusive in terms of grading; however,
variations in grading objectivity are a natural ecological phenomenon of the
classroom environment.
Specification of the model. A final threat to the present study was
improper specification of the model since the measures did not take into account
the moderator effects of classroom climate or learning environment. The lack of
specification of this variable leaves the possibility that the changes in the dependent
variable are due to classroom climate and not due to the intervention.
The strength of these threats to internal validity warrant caution in
interpreting both the changes in the dependent variables and the percentages of
agree in the ratings of instruction and satisfaction as being directly caused by the
implementation of the curriculum. However, sufficient controls were established to
manage these threats to a degree that some confidence can be attributed to the
results.
External Validity
External validity refers to the researchers ability to generalize the observed
results to settings or people who differ from the context and participants in the
present study (Neumann, 2000). The primary investigator chose the university
research school in an attempt to have a sample that is demographically
representative as possible (in terms of gender, ethnicity, family income, educational
expectations, and school ability) to the population of the State of Florida.
Generalizability. Inferences as to the generalizability of this sample may be
made by comparing the sample demographics (Table 3.1) to the demographics of
the State of Florida (and United States). According to the most current, publicly
117
available census data (May 2004), the State of Floridas (United States in
parenthesis) gender and racial/ethnicity breakdown is a follows: female persons,
51.2% (50.9%), White not of Hispanic Origin 65.4% (69.1%), Black or AfricanAmerican 14.6% (12.3%), Hispanic or of Latino Origin 16.8% (12.5%), Asian 1.7%
(3.6%), and Native American 0.3% (0.9%). In terms of highest educational
attainment, the percentage of individuals holding a bachelors degree or higher is
22.3% (24.4%), while 79.9% are high school graduates (80.4%). Likewise, the
most recent data from the Florida Department of Education (2004) indicates the
public school demographics to be as follows: 50% White, 25% African-American,
20% Hispanic, 2% Asian, >1% Native American, and 2% multi-racial.
Approximately 44% of Florida public school students were eligible for the free and
reduced lunch program in 2001 (year this sample was collected).
A review of the sample demographics reveals that this sample is largely
representative of the Florida public schools in terms of gender, age, and
ethnic/racial composition. However, the sample socioeconomic composition is not
representative of the average socioeconomic composition of State of Florida public
schools as evidenced by the 22% of participants who were eligible for free- or
reduced-lunch as compared to 44% statewide. This school has it in its mission
statement to be as representative as possible to the schools recent relocation to a
planned suburban development catering to more affluent residents who, in
exchange for the land granted, receive preferential treatment in the admissions
process.
While the available census data did not provide national samples for highest
academic expectations of ninth-graders, an expectation of 81% of participants to
achieve a higher education degree of a bachelors or higher may represent a bias in
comparison to the 60% of high school graduates that actually attend college
(Campell & Deyette, 1995); however, the actual number of ninth-graders statewide
or nationwide who expect to attend college is not known. Likewise, sample
participants stanine score distribution on the Otis-Lennon school (Otis & Lennon,
1986) ability estimate suggests a slightly skewed distribution. These two
demographics suggest that participants in the present study have higher school
118
ability and considerably higher educational expectations than may be expected in

the general school population.
As such, the results of the present study, within the confines of the
limitations to internal validity, generalize to the state and national population of
ninth-graders only in regards to gender, age, and ethnicity, not in terms of family
income, school ability, and most likely educational expectations. Instead, the
results of this investigation may be generalized to the population of either a
medium-size public school in an affluent, planned suburban development
community (such as Celebration in Orange County, Florida or Weston in Broward
County, Florida) or perhaps certain church-affiliated or private schools.
Ecological validity. Another threat to external validity is the threat of the
primary investigator being involved in the planning of the curriculum,
implementation, and curriculum instruction as he had a significant buy-in to ensure
the successful completion of the project and the adherence to treatment fidelity.
The primary investigator as a variable is not measured; however, the primary
investigators buy-in and time-expenditure is not likely to generalize to the
implementation of the curriculum in other settings. Evidence of the effects of the
primary investigator on the intervention may be seen in the low-participant rating of
learning objectives for the session for which the primary investigator was not
present as a co-instructor. As such, even in light of a similar setting, it may be
expected that the personality of the curriculum coordinator may affect the overall
intervention. However, other than possible evidence toward a positive influence
upon the dependent variable, the actual influence of the primary investigator upon
the intervention can not be established without running the intervention again with a
different coordinator or primary investigator.
Directions for Future Research
Classroom social learning climate. The outcome results of the present

study suggest the importance of modeling the classroom social learning
environment as an important variable in regards to the context upon which the
training occurs and the development and transfer of interpersonal skills is
119
reinforced. While there are studies to document the differences in social climate
between classrooms and within schools (Brand, et. al., 2003), and there is research
to document transitions into high school as a particularly challenging time for
students, little is known about the normal and abnormal patterns of classroom
social learning climate during the course of natural development. That is, was the
consistently-negative trend seen in the present study representative of the normal
trend following the transition from middle school into high school, or is this unique to
this sample? Likewise, does the implementation of a work-related interpersonal
communication skills curriculum, all other conditions being equal, have a positive
(direction) impact upon collegial peer relations, or is the observed social rating
correlative or a decrease the expected outcome? A related variable that was not
studied in the present study, due to the impossibility to mask results, is the degree
of social competence displayed by the teachers which are likely to be significant
contributors to the social learning climate (Goldwater & Nutt, 1999). The
implications of this research in terms of transfer of training would be the need to
account for such variations in research, as well as adjust interpersonal
communication skills instruction to fit the environment. For instance, Tracey,
Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh (1995) emphasize that transfer of training is determined
not only by the quality of instruction, but also by the quality of the formal training
context and the characteristics of the transfer environment.
Large-group versus small-group instruction. A second area for future
research is to compare the benefits and costs of instructing interpersonal
communication skills in a large group format (20-30 students per training cohort as
done in this intervention), as compared to traditional small group training.
Measures of effectiveness, efficiency, and effects would be instrumental in terms of
planning instruction and developing policy as to how to introduce these
employability skills. While it can be safely assumed that the effectiveness is likely
to be higher for smaller groups (as was in a pilot of this intervention), there needs to
be an empirical consideration of the tradeoffs between costs and efficiency and
differences in effects. A design for such a study may consist of five groups: a noinstruction control group, a large group involving learning environment engineering,
a large group without learning environment engineering, and two small groups one
120
with environmental engineering and one without. The implication of the result of
such a study would be helpful in planning how to allocate resources among high
school students and how to effectively target students to receive interpersonal
communication skill interventions.
Competence. A third area for future research is a more sophisticated
analysis of interpersonal competence from various perspectives to include selfrating of specific skills, direct behavioral observations, parent-completed measures,
teacher ratings, and skill-specific critical incident demonstrations. The current
maximum performance measure appears to be effective in measuring overall skill
development comparing the pretest and posttest. However, the individual results
of broad-based measures do not provide insight into specific areas of deficiency or
help target areas for intervention.
Self-awareness and skill development. A fourth area for future study is to
investigate the effects of an interpersonal skills curriculum intervention upon selfawareness and the relationship between changes in self-awareness and skill
development. Self-awareness is defined as the congruence between an individuals
self-assessment in terms of their social competence and social desirability in terms
of collegial workgroups and collegial socializing (Church, 1997b, Sala, 2003). This
could be measured by: comparing self-ratings with other-ratings (in terms of given
targeted interpersonal skills) on a pretest-posttest basis; observing relationship
trends between the degree of self-awareness in the pretest and the development of
interpersonal skills; and observing the relationship between the development of selfawareness and the development of other interpersonal skills.
Implications for the Improvement and Implementation of the Curriculum
Since this is an evaluation-based study, this section presents the social

significance of the study in terms of recommendations for the improvement and
future implementation of the curriculum.
121
Recommendations for the Improvement of the Curriculum

The main objective of program evaluation research is to improve human
service programs and improve overall quality of life. The Gomez-Peterson-Jones
Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills Curriculum is an intervention in
which the learning of the skills necessary for developing self-awareness and
corrective feedback, the provision of empathic support, assertive responding, and
conflict management are associated with such positive work outcomes as high
performance ratings, high job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Ashford
& Black, 1996; Fisher, 1985; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Riggio, Riggio,
Salinas, & Cole, 2003; Segrin & Flora, 2000). Results from this study present
several implications for the improvement of the Gomez-Peterson-Jones WorkRelated Interpersonal Communication Skills Curriculum (GPJ; Gomez-Estefan,
Peterson, & Jones, 2004). These implications are presented in terms of three
broad recommendations: (1) Design instruction so that all the fifteen competencies
are instructed following the first assumption presented in Chapter II which states
that: interpersonal communication skills are acquired via observation, modeling,
rehearsal, and feedback (Bandura, 1986); (2) Increase student engagement with
the curriculum homework assignments; and (3) Narrow the focus of the target
transfer environment to actual in-class collegial workgroups.
The first recommendation: Design instruction so that all the fifteen
competencies are instructed following the assumption that: interpersonal
communication skills are acquired via observation, modeling, rehearsal, and
feedback (Bandura, 1986). This conclusion is based upon the findings in the data
collected relative to the first criterion, which suggested that included the four
modalities of lecture, modeling, role-play, and homework assignments had the
highest participant self-report of having achieved the work-related interpersonal
communication competencies. Likewise, those competencies that were not
instructed using the four modalities had the lowest ratings. For example, the
participant ratings of learn to provide I-based feedback and learn about selfawareness and the Johari Window were taught in the second instructional session
which did not have a corresponding skills lab. As such, it is recommended that the
second instructional session be expanded to include a skills lab.
122
The second recommendation: Increase student engagement with the

curriculum homework assignments, is based upon the findings in the data collected
relative to the first criterion which revealed that 35% of the study participants
completed less than 70% of the curriculum homework assignments. There are a
number of possible reasons for this lack of engagement in these out-of-class
assignments. The first possibility, consistent with the discussion of homework
assignments in Chapter II, is the possibility that some of the learners perceived the
assignments as too difficult or too complex and did not have the confidence (or selfefficacy) to engage the task. Some strategies to increase confidence adapted from
the ARCS Model (Keller, 1999) include: (a) in addition to the in-vivo modeling of the
work-related interpersonal communication skills, provide students with written
examples of destructive, poor, fair, good, and excellent responses (consistent with
the grading criteria of the CIB) to various age-relevant critical incidents requiring the
use of one or more of the target skills and competencies; (b) the identification of
students who are not meeting objectives in order to offer them individual attention;
(c) allow students to offer feedback as to how the assignments could be improved;
(d) provide students with prompt encouragement, support, and/or feedback on all
homework assignments; and (e) increase students performance attainment
appraisals by explicitly expressing instructor satisfaction on successive
approximations of the target skills.
A second possibility for the observed deficiencies in student engagement in
the curriculum homework assignments, and perhaps the curriculum as a whole, is
that although students found the curriculum as satisfying, they did not see the
relevance of the instruction to their personal goals. This assumption is based upon
the observation of a discrepancy between the 59% of the study participants who
reported that the curriculum was worth their time and the 73% who reported feeling
satisfied with the curriculum instruction. Some strategies to increase relevance
adapted from the ARCS Model (Keller, 1999) include: (a) provide real-life examples
of other same-aged individuals or adult role models (such as professional athletes,
entertainers, prestigious individuals, or religious figures) who have benefited from
applying the target skills or who have faced considerable consequences due to skill
deficiencies; (b) have students bring in real-life examples for the role-plays and
123
skill rehearsal activities; (c) provide precise examples of how specific work-related
interpersonal communication skills are likely to affect the students career
development, providing real-life examples from their occupations of interest; (d)
allow time during lecture to have students spontaneously generate in-class
examples of which specific work-related interpersonal communication skill may be
related to a given positive or negative real-life outcome (this may also be done in
a game show quiz format for extra credit); and (e) provide students with the
opportunity to share at least one instance of how using the learned skill resulted in a
positive outcome.
The third recommendation: Narrow the focus of the target transfer
environment to actual in-class collegial workgroups. The analysis of the data in this
study suggests the participants had different preferences in terms of which peercolleagues they would like to work with in in-class workgroups and with whom they
would like to engage in out-of-class socializing. This supports the assumption that
the choice of workgroups in the ninth-grade is based on more factors than just with
whom students would like to socialize; however, it is possible (although not
conclusive) that this choice is affected by the learning of interpersonal skills as
evidenced by a greater change in means between the pretest and posttest for the
in-class workgroup ratings than for the out-of-class socializing peer ratings. As
such, the possibility exists that while the curriculum was not effective in producing
the outcome of better overall peer ratings, or transferring into better significant
personal relationships, the curriculum may have resulted in more effective actual
workgroups (which was not measured). Therefore, it is recommended that future
implementations of this curriculum focus on more efficient and effective workgroups
as the target of the work-related interpersonal workplace skills intervention, versus
the present broader and perhaps vague emphasis on improvement in significant
relationships. The latter focus is more consistent with the top three skills identified in
the Fortune 500 survey discussed in Chapter I.
124
Implications for the Implementation of the Curriculum

One of the most significant factors propelling the present study is that
interpersonal communication and workgroup skills are essential employability skills.
However, high school students are not graduating with the interpersonal
communication skills that they will need to get ahead in the workplace (Campell &
Deyette, 1994). While teamwork, problem-solving, and interpersonal
communication skills remain the three most desirable skills in the workplace as
identified by Fortune 500 Companies (Cassel & Kolstad, 1998), the emphasis in
education today is moving toward high-stakes testing of basic skills resulting in an
administrative environment in which teachers are dissuaded from departing from
instruction that is not specifically targeted to the tested standards. While highstakes tests help ensure the instruction of basic academic competencies,
knowledge alone does not result in post-school success. However, since the
content of curricular instruction is often politically not theoreticallymandated, it
becomes increasingly difficult to implement broad-based interpersonal skill
developmental programs even if such skills are critical to post-school outcomes.
The success of this curriculum may be partially attributed to the collaboration
between the teachers and a human service professional (a counseling psychology
graduate student in this instance). It is therefore proposed that such collaboration
is essential for the future success of this work-related interpersonal skills
curriculum.
The present study successfully utilized a collaborative framework in which
interpersonal skills were taught via integration to the language arts, social studies,
and life management curricula. Although, the Gomez-Peterson-Jones Workplace
Interpersonal Skills Curriculum (GPJ; Gomez-Estefan, Peterson, & Jones, 2004) is
subject to revision and improvement, the successful process implementation of this
curriculum and the attainment of desired outputs support the conclusion that workrelated interpersonal communication skills can be implemented in the classroom
when the collaborative strategy presented in Chapter II is appropriately applied. It
is therefore recommended that future implementations of the GPJ Curriculum also
follow the Collaborative Strategy presented in Chapter II of this dissertation.
125
In terms of the parties involved in such a collaborative model, it is proposed

that the school guidance counselor be an essential player; of whom was missing in
this intervention. The importance of the school counselor is highlighted by the
finding in this study that the lowest rated competencies also coincided with those
competencies that were not co-taught by a counselor (in this case the primary
investigator) and the regular core-subject teachers. School counselors are trained
human service professionals who are perhaps the most able to identify both the
social and interpersonal communication needs of students and their learning
environment. School counselors are often entrusted to develop comprehensive
guidance initiatives which represent a facilitative role within the school
organizational structure and are likely to influence student behavior (McFarland &
Culp, 1992). It is proposed that future implementations of this curriculum should be
co-lead by the lead-teacher (as done in this study) and the school counselor.
This curriculum also presents a model for the development of the lifemanagement curriculum. Although it took the school about two years postintervention to achieve life management credits for the collaborative instruction that
occurred within language arts and social studies, the acquisition of this credit opens
prospects for the life-management curriculum to be infused within basic instruction
to include other essential interpersonal topics: responsible behavior, the dangers of
drug and substance abuse, etc. An implication is the development of an integrated
curriculum in which these essential knowledge needs of adolescence can be
addressed year-round in a contextualized setting, versus as a one-shot half-credit
course.
Social Significance
The significance of this study is in its comprehensive evaluation of a workrelated interpersonal communication skills curriculum. There continues to be a gap
in educational research in regards to the effectiveness of comprehensive guidance
programs (Foster, Watson, Meeks, and Young, 2003), as well as psychology
interventions geared towards helping all students (not just those with special needs)
develop social and interpersonal communication skills. This study presents an
evaluation-research model that is helpful for speculating about the outcomes of
126
interventions (as is traditionally done in research) and a format from which to

evaluate and improve interventions (Peterson & Burck, 1982) that build upon the
components advanced by Gysbers and associates (1992). As such, this study
measured: (a) the programs content, structure, and resources; (b) the evaluation of
counselors (instruction, in this situation); (c) measurement of student mastery of
competencies; (d) assessment of the impact upon the learning environment; and (e)
satisfaction of those served by the program.
The Gysbers (1992) framework was followed in the following manner. First,
the curriculums content and structure was derived from an in-depth review of the
literature (presented in Chapter II). Second, instruction was evaluated from the
learners perspective in the form of participant rating of whether they learned the
target competencies. Third, the mastery of competencies was measured via a
maximum performance measure requiring the integration of target skills into a
written critical incident. Fourth, the impact or outcome of instruction upon the
learning environment was measured via both self-ratings of transfer effects, as well
as from the perspective of peer ratings. Finally, satisfaction was measured both
from a traditional satisfaction output perspective, as well as an inherent worth
perspective. The framework used presents an example -in the implementation of
this framework and provides evidence that these best practices can be followed in
an efficient and effective manner.
Prcis
The results of this study support the program evaluation notion that
workplace interpersonal communication skills can be integrated into school
instruction and still achieve the desired curriculum outputs in terms of target skills,
knowledge, and abilities (SKAs). Workplace interpersonal communication skills
were proposed to include the five instructional domains of: (a) foundations of workrelated interpersonal skills; (b) self-awareness and corrective feedback; (c) the
provision of empathic support; (d) assertive responding; and (e) conflict
management. These five skill domains were proposed to be composed of fifteen
curriculum competencies that were developed using the Florida Comprehensive
127
Guidance Model as a template of work-relevant interpersonal communication skills.

The results of the curriculum outputs indicated that following the instruction, 87% of
the students perceived the curriculum having taught them the target competencies,
and 73% reported feeling satisfaction with the instruction. Although all participants
participated in the curriculum activities of attending lectures, observing skill
modeling, and practicing skills in role-plays, on average, only those who completed
the curriculum written homework assignments demonstrated skill improvements in
written critical incident simulations. This finding is consistent with the literature
review in Chapter II which supports the importance of adding homework or fieldpractice experiences to instruction as a crucial element of retaining skill instruction
(Segrin & Givertz, 2003).
The research component of this study found evidence which is essential to
model--factors existent in the evaluation of any training: training design, trainee
characteristics, and work environment (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). The lack of
specific measure of these three characteristics considerably limits any clear
conclusions as to the social or educational cause of the observed downward trend
in average peer ratings. Nevertheless, it was found that ninth-grades were able to
differentiate between the proposed constructs of in-class collegial workgroups and
out-of-class collegial socializing. This study also found that the curriculum was
seen by a majority (59%) of participants as helping them improve current
friendships; however, less than half reported it as helping them with other workrelated interpersonal relationships. Thus, while the curriculum was successful in
meeting its stated evaluation standards (outputs), the target work-related skills,
knowledge, and abilities did not transfer into the target environment. This finding
supports the importance of the program evaluation of curricula to evaluate not only
SKAs, but also whether learning transferred into the intended outcomes (Peterson
& Burck, 1982).
128
APPENDIX A
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER
129
130
APPENDIX B
CONSENT AND ASSENT FORMS
131
Dear Parent,
Students in the ninth grade are being asked to participate in a questionnaire-type evaluation study of an
interpersonal skills curriculum unit which will be taught in their language arts class. I would appreciate
you returning the attached permission form to allow your child to assist us in evaluating the
curriculum (Real-Life Transferable School-to-Work Skills Curriculum Project). My name is Carlos
Gomez-Estefan and I am a graduate student completing my doctorate in the College of Education at
Florida State University under the direction of Gary Peterson, Ph.D. Your childs participation will
provide us with valuable information in our attempt to examine the effectiveness of the curriculum unit.
Students participating in this evaluation project will be asked to complete a series of surveys about the
curriculum; to develop hypothetical responses to common situations involving peers, parents, teachers,
and others adults; and to evaluate their relationships with other classroom students. Their total
involvement time in this project will be about 2 hours spread across four 20-30 minute sessions. I will
also be collecting data about participant demographics, as well as from report cards and test scores.
As participation in this evaluation study is voluntary, your child will always have the opportunity to
choose to not answer any items in the surveys and/or questionnaires as well as to withdraw from the
evaluation study at any time without any penalty. Students will also have ample time to make up
missed work, if any.
All information collected from children participating in the present study will be kept confidential to the
extent that is allowed by the law. While a summary this evaluation study may be presented at a
professional conference or published we will only report group data that is we will not report on
individual cases. Any information collected about your child will be kept according to a random
identification number in a locked secure area and I will shred any information with your childs name no
later than June 30, 2003.
If you have any questions regarding this evaluation study and/or your childs potential participation feel
free to address any questions to me (850) 574-6593 or to Dr. Gary Peterson (850) 644-1781.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please return this form in the enclosed envelope
to indicate whether or not you provide your child permission to participate in this evaluation study.
Sincerely,
Carlos Gmez-Estefan, Ed.S.
____ I give permission for my child ________________________________ to participate in the
present study
____ I do not give permission for my child ___________________________ to participate in the
present study
Parents (or legal guardians) name: ____________________ Signature: ______________ Date:
_______
If you have any questions about your rights (or those of your child) as a subject/participant in this
research, or if you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee,
Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8663.
132
I have been informed that my parent(s) have given permission for me to participate (If I want to) in a
study evaluating an interpersonal skills unit which will be taught in my Language Arts class next January
and February.
My participation in this project is voluntary and I have been told that I may stop my participation in the
present study at any time. By participating in the present study, I will be asked to complete a series of
surveys about the unit, to make up some responses to some make-belief situations, and to rate how much
I would like to work or hang out with some of my peers. This information will not result in a grade or
become part of my school record. I will not be penalized for participating, or not participating, in the
project and an adequate amount of time will be allowed to submit any work missed if any. The
researchers will also collect some information from my school records including my report card and test
scores.
I have been told that the information collected will be kept confidential, the project files will be kept in a
locked storage area, that my name will be substituted with a number, and the researcher will also shred
anything that where my name appears by June 30, 2003. While the results of the present study may be
published, my name or individual information will not be used in any way.
By signing this form, I attest that I voluntarily and without any pressure agree to participate in the present
study, that I have been given the right to ask any questions, and I have had my questions answered. I also
understand that I can ask any further questions during the course of this research by speaking to the
researchers in person or by calling them at the numbers listed below.
_________________________
Name
_____________________________
Signature
Mr. Carlos Gomez-Estefan

Dr. Gary Peterson
(850) 574-6593
(850) 644-1781)
133
________________
Date
134
APPENDIX C
MEASURES
135
Relevant Demographics
TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF
1. What is your birth date?

Year: _______
Month: _______
Day:
_______
2. What is your gender?

____Female
____Male
3. What is your year in High School?
____Freshman
____Sophomore
____Junior
____ Senior
4. What ethnic group best describes you?
____African American
____Asian American
____Caucasian (not of Hispanic/Latino (a) origin)
____Hispanic/Latino (a)
____Native American
____Other: ___________
5.
What is the highest level of education that you expect to complete?
____ Middle School

____ High School
____ 2-year college or vocational program
____ 4-year college
____ Graduate School
____ Other:_____________________________
____ Do not know
136
Critical Incident Blank (Form A)

The following are some real-life situations that people experience all the
time. For each situation read the item and then answer as if you were
responding directly to the person:
Situation 1
You are working with friends on a graded group project which you need to do well in. You
realize that a good friend in your group is not doing his or her share of the work. You are
worried that the work may not get done or that you may have to do it yourself. What would
you say this good friend?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Situation 2
You are at the mall with a friend trying on some clothes. When you leave the dressing room,
the salesperson starts to pressure you into buying a low-cost item that you do not wish to buy.
What would you say to the salesperson?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Situation 3
You go with a group of people to see a movie that you have really wanted to see. About
halfway through the movie someone behind you, starts talking on the cell phone making it
difficult for you to hear the movie. What would you say to this person?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
137
Critical Incident Blank (Form B)

The following are some real-life situations that people experience all the
time. For each situation read the item and then answer as if you were
responding directly to the person:
Situation 1
The teacher asks you to form into small groups to complete a graded assignment that you need
to do well. A good friend asks you to be in a group with a couple of your friends. However, you
realize that some people in this group are unlikely to get their work done. You are concerned
that you may end up doing most of the work. What would you say this good friend?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Situation 2
You go to a restaurant with a friend and you receive lousy service. When the bill arrives, you
notice that the server has automatically added a 20% tip to the final bill. What would you say
to the server?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Situation 3
You are with a group of people telling a story; meanwhile someone jumps in and tries to
change the topic. What would you say to this person?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
138
Sociometric Peer Rating 1: Collegial Workgroups

Find your name in the following sheet and cross out it out. Then rate each person
according to whether you want to work with them on a quarter-long graded
group project
Definitely
Not
Participants Name
Participants Name
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Definitely
Definitely
Neutral
Yes
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
139
Definitely
Neutral
Yes
Sociometric Peer Rating 2: Collegial Socializing

Find your name in the following sheet and cross it out. Then rate each person
according to whether you want to hang out with them after-school or during
the weekend.
Definitely
Not
Participants Name
Participants Name
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Definitely
Definitely
Neutral
Yes
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Name
Name
Name
Name
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
140
Definitely
Neutral
Yes
Participant Rating of Objectives

Interpersonal Skills Unit Evaluation
Please rate to the degree to which or agree of disagree with the following statements
regarding the Interpersonal Skills Unit:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. Learn about the importance of

interpersonal skills.
2. Learn about the communications model

(sender, receiver, noise, etc.).
3. Learn to respect for the diversity and

rights of others.
4. Learn about self-awareness and the

Johari Window
5. Learn about the risks and benefits of selfdisclosure
6. Learn about effective and destructive

feedback.
7. Learn how to be more empathic.
8. Learn active listening skills.
9. Learn to be more assertive (as opposed

to passive or aggressive)
10. Learn to provide I-based feedback and

messages
11. Learn about the elements of

interpersonal conflict.
12. Learn to manage conflict.
13. Learn to evaluate my own behavior.
14. Learn to identify which interpersonal

skills I need to further develop.
15. Learn more about myself.
The interpersonal skills unit helped me to:
Participant Ratings of Satisfaction

141
Satisfaction Survey
Please rate to the degree to which or agree of disagree with the following statements.
If a statement does not apply to you (i.e. relationship with employer and you do not have one,
circle NA).
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Does
Not
Apply
1. The interpersonal skills

relationship with my parents.
NA

relationship with my grandparents.
NA

relationship with my siblings.
NA

relationship with my cousins.
NA

relationship with my teachers.
NA

relationship with my friends.
NA

relationship with peers who where
not friends before the start of the
curriculum.
NA

relationship with my employer.
NA
9. I am satisfied with the curriculum

unit
NA
10. The curriculum unit was worth

my time.
NA
142
APPENDIX D
CHARTER SCHOOLS FORMULA FOR REPORTED SES LEVELS
143
SES LEVEL COMPUTATION FORMULA

# of individuals living in the household with a total family annual income at or below the levels shown:
# Living in
Household
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
$11,167
$15,093
$19,019
$22,945
$26,871
$30,797
$34,723
$38,649
$15,892
$21,479
$27,066
$32,653
$38,240
$43,827
$49,414
$55,001
$22,614
$30,565
$38,515
$46,465
$54,996
$62,366
$70,316
$78,266
$32,180
$43,494
$54,806
$66,120
$78,259
$88,747
$100,059
$111,372
Based on the 2002-2003 Free or Reduced Price Meal Program/National School

Lunch and School Breakfast Program federal chart. Level 1 and Level 2
reflect figures from the federal chart issued in July of each year*. Levels 3
and 4 calculated by:
Formula for % difference between Level 1 and Level 2:
Level 2
- Level 1____
= 42.3%
Level 1
Formula for difference between columns:
Step 1: #1 ($11,167) x 42.3 = a ($4,725)
Step 2: #1 ($11,167) + a ($4,725) = b [answer to column #2 ($15,892)] Continue for column 4
Step 3: b ($15,892) x 42.3 = c ($6,727)
Step 4: b ($15,892) + c ($6,722) = d (answer to column #3)
*2001-2002 Chart may be found at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/iegs/IEGs0102.pdf
144
APPENDIX E
CRITICAL INCIDENT BLANK SAMPLE RATER TRAINING MATERIALS
145
Rating Score
-2
Destructive
-1
Poor
0
Fair
+1
Good
+2
Excellent
Missing Data
Rating Criteria
AGGRESSIVE OR ABUSIVE: Likely to escalate or assault (would you feel
Assaulted?)
WITHDRAWN OR AVOIDANT: Allows self to be interpersonally exploited
PASSIVE: Does not state dissatisfaction about situation or if does it is diffused

by sugar-coating
DEFIANT OR ABRASIVE: Non abusive: Disproportionate anger, but not likely
to escalate
MARGINAL: Is not assertive; nor abusive, aggressive, or abrasive.

- Does not constructively state their perspective (that is while taking into account
the other persons perspective)
- Does not make a direct request for a behavior change (tone appropriate to
situation) and does not begin to negotiate a different outcome

AND Either:
other persons perspective and not abusive, aggressive, or abrasive) and/or
begins to negotiate a different outcome
AND (2 out of 3):
other persons perspective and not abusive, aggressive, or abrasive);
begins to negotiate a different outcome; and/or
- Empathically Accurate (perceives situation accurately at a counselor or expert
level)
NO RESPONSE - or did not follow task (treated as missing data for statistical
analyses)
146
Goal for a Critical Incident
Empathy
emotionally-supportive manner.
Empathic Accuracy: Accurately identifying the specific content of anothers

thoughts and feelings.

Assertiveness
Assertiveness: Ability to stand up for ones own personal rights and to express ones
own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in a direct, honest, and appropriate manner, while
respecting the rights of others
Three Levels of Competency:

1.
Basic competency: An individuals ability and willingness to

provide a mere statement that the presenting behavior, thought, or
idea is undesirable;
2.
Intermediate competency: Basic competency + the person also provides

an indication of dissatisfaction or non-compliance; and
Mastery: The ability and willingness to provide a statement that the
presenting behavior, thought, or idea is undesirable, that they are dissatisfied with
the request (or that they will not comply), and then present a suggestion, request, or
demand for a behavioral change.
147
Constructive versus Destructive Feedback
Constructive Feedback: Has the potential of providing individuals with new

perspectives regarding their adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal behaviors.
Destructive Feedback: Does not have the potential to provide the individual with new
perspectives on their adaptive or maladaptive behavior. Feedback is destructive if it includes
abusive language or if the level of feedback does not commensurate with the trust level of the
relationship.
I versus you statements

I-messages communicate to the listener the nature of the offense (content) as well
as the resultant emotion. When a grieved individual communicates in terms of Imessages, they take responsibility for their emotions and attempt to present them
to the other person in a non-threatening and non-aggressive format. The goal is not
to blame, but rather to clearly communicate with the aim of increasing the other
persons perspective taking and awareness of the impact of their behavior. The
opposite of -messages are you-messages, which have an accusatory tone and
place the other individual in a defensive/protective stance, versus one that
encourages empathetic understanding, as seen or heard in the I-messages.
148
DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS RELATED TO SELF-AWARENESS AND CORRECTIVE

FEEDBACK
Self-Awareness: The congruence between an individuals self-assessment
on a given personality trait, skill, or behavior and those provided by direct report of
others (Sala, 2003; Church, 1997b).
Constructive Feedback: The type of feedback that provides individuals with
new perspectives regarding their adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal and work
behaviors and encourages specific positive behaviors and specific changes
(Morran, Robison, & Stockton, 1985).
Self-Disclosure: An interpersonal process by which person A verbally
and/or non-verbally communicates to person B some item of personal importance
which was previously unknown to B (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, 1994, p. 220).
DEFINITIONS RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF EMPATHIC SUPPORT
Active Listening: A listening stance that encourages others to talk about

their current situation; it includes verbal skills such as paraphrasing, reflecting
feelings, reflecting meaning, questioning, and non-verbal skills such as maintaining
eye contact, congruent body language, and verbal following.
emotionally-supportive manner (Ivey and Ivey, 1991; Raskin & Rogers, 1995).
DEFINITIONS RELATED TO ASSERTIVE RESPONDING
Aggressive Response: A response to a conflict situation in which an
individual bluntly expresses his or her opinions, wants, and feelings (usually anger)
and tramples upon the rights of others (Alberti & Emmons, 1975).
Assertive Response: A response to a conflict situation in which an
individual stands up for their personal rights and expresses his or her thoughts,
feelings, and beliefs in direct, honest, and appropriate ways which respects the
rights of others (Alberti & Emmons, 1982, p.38).
Passive Response: A response to a conflict situation in which an individual
withholds the expression of opinions, feelings, and wants at the expense of the self
and his or her personal rights (Alberti & Emmons, 1975).
149
Example of Possible Responses

You are with a group of people telling a story, meanwhile someone jumps in and tries to
change the topic. What would you say to this person?
1. Nothing, (happens all the time).
-2
Destructive
2.Shut up, stupid! Cant you see Im trying to say something
1. Is it okay if I finish what I am saying?
-1
Poor
2. Hey, I was talking. Go away
1. We are not finished. Wait until we are done.
0
Fair
2. Excuse me I was talking.
1. We were talking about something. Could you wait until we are finished?
+1
Good
2. Excuse me. I was talking. Please let me finish what I was saying.
1. I know what you have to say is really important, but I am in the middle of a
story, could you please wait until I am finished?
+2
Excellent
2. Hey its great to see you! We are in the middle of a really funny story. Unless
what you want to share is urgent, let me finish and then we will get to what you
want to say.
150
Example of one of four rater training sheets used
151
APPENDIX F
GPJ WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS
CURRICULUM DOMAINS, COMPETENCIES, AND OBJECTIVES
152
GOMEZ-PETERSON-JONES
WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS CURRICULUM
(CPJ CURRICULUM; GOMEZ-ESTEFAN, PETERSON, JONES, 2004)
DOMAINS, COMPETENCIES, AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES
DOMAIN 1: FOUNDATIONS OF WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL

COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Competency 1; Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the importance of
interpersonal communication skills
Objective 1.1 Student will speculate how the development of interpersonal
communication skills will help them with personal relationships.
Objective 1.2 Student will evaluate their behaviors towards others and
decide which are effective in interpersonal communication relationships and
which need improvement.
Competency 2: Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the
communication model
Objective 2.1 Student will predict how the development of interpersonal
communication skills will help them with a personal relationship.
Objective 2.2. Student will describe the components communications
model including the sender and receiver roles, and typical problems
associated with noise in the channel.
Competency 3: Develop respect for the diversity and rights of others
Objective 3.1 Student will demonstrate respect for the diversity and rights
of others in the classroom.
Objective 3.2 Student will evaluate the impact of biases, prejudices, and
stereotypes on self and others.
Competency 4: Identify which interpersonal communication skills one needs
to further develop;
Objective 4.1 As part of a capstone project, student will identify one
interpersonal communication skill that they wish to further develop.
Objective 4.2 As part of a capstone project, student will develop a personal
learning plan to further develop one interpersonal communication skills.
DOMAIN 2: SELF-AWARENESS AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Competency 5: Acquire self-knowledge
Objective 5.1 Upon completion of the instruction, student will report having
increased self-knowledge
153
Competency 6: Increase own self-awareness using the Johari window as a

model
Objective 6.1 Student will describe the hidden window and provide a low
valence personal example.
Objective 6.2 Student will describe the blind window and provide an
example of a personal attribute that was previously in this window.
Objective 6.3 Student will describe the unknown window and provide an
example of something previously in this window.
Competency 7: Discriminate between effective and destructive feedback
Objective 8.1 Student will define constructive feedback.
Objective 8.2 Student will describe the difference between constructive and
destructive feedback.
Competency 8: Identify the risks and benefits of self-disclosure
Objective 7.1 Student will develop own definition of self-disclosure.
Objective 7.2 Student will list the elements of self-disclosure.
Objective 7.3 Student will list what some fears could be associated with
self-disclosure.
Objective 7.4 Student will list some of the benefits of self-disclosure.
Objective 7.5 Student will practice self-disclosure in a role-play.
DOMAIN 3: PROVISION OF EMPATHIC SUPPORT

Competency 9: Demonstrate basic active listening skills;
Objective 10.1 Student will define paraphrasing.
Objective 10.2 Student will define reflecting.
Objective 10.3 Student will describe the difference between verbal and
non-verbal messages.
Objective 10.4 Student will accurately demonstrate the skills of
paraphrasing and reflecting in a role-play.
Competency 10: Demonstrate an understanding of empathy
Objective 9.1 Student will list the components of empathic understanding.
Objective 9.2 Student will define empathic accuracy.
Objective 9.3 Student will identify the attitudes and behaviors for
establishing empathic support.
DOMAIN 4: ASSERTIVE RESPONDING

Competency 11: Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of assertive
responding;
Objective 11.1 Student will describe the components, benefits, and likely
consequences of an assertive response.
154
Objective 11.2 Student will describe the components, possible benefits,

and likely consequences of a passive response.
Objective 11.3 Student will describe the components and likely
consequences of an aggressive response.
Objective 11.4 For given critical incident simulations, student will generate
passive, aggressive, and assertive responses.
Competency 12: Provide examples of I based feedback and messages;

Objective 12.1 Student will speculate the likely response to you
messages (defensive).
Objective 12.2 Student will reframe a series of you-messages into Istatements.
DOMAIN 5: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Competency 13: Identify common personal and interpersonal conflicts;
Objective 13.1 Student will identify interpersonal conflicts in their own life.
Objective 13.2 Student will recognize the existence of conflicts in everyday
life.
Objective 13.3 Student will analyze the relationship between personal
needs and expectations and their development of interpersonal conflicts.
Competency 14: Demonstrate ability to develop a strategy for managing
conflict;
Objective 14.1 Student will identify the relationship between perspectivetaking and conflict management.
Objective 14.2 Student will list the five conflict management stances and
identify when to use each stance appropriately.
Objective 14.3 Student will list the four steps in inventing options.
Objective 14.4 Student will demonstrate perspective-taking in a
hypothetical critical incident.
Objective 14.5 Student will demonstrate the ability to confront and
challenge in a hypothetical interpersonal conflict.
Competency 15: Evaluate ones own conflict-management behavior.
Objective 15.2 Student will identify opportunities for negotiation and
compromise in their own lives.
Objective 15.3. Student will analyze their typical conflict-management style.
Objective 15.2 Student will analyze and critically evaluate whether their
conflict management style is adaptive to their interpersonal needs.
155
APPENDIX G
SAMPLE LESSON PLAN, OVERHEAD TRANSPARENCIES, AND STUDENT
HANDOUT
156
Session 5: Assertive Responding Lecture

Approximate Lesson Time: 35 minutes
Sunshine State Language Arts 9-12 Benchmarks:
LA.C.1.4.1, LA.C.1.4.3
Floridas School Counseling and Guidance Framework Competencies:

6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 8.1
SCANS Competencies:
Interpersonal Competencies: C, D, & F
Objectives
Objective 11.1 Student will describe the components, benefits, and likely
consequences of an assertive response.
Objective 11.2 Student will describe the components, possible benefits, and likely
consequences of a passive response.
Objective 11.3 Student will describe the components and likely consequences of
an aggressive response.
Materials
1
2.
3.
4.
Overhead Projector (or Computer Projector)

Session 5 transparencies (or computer with PowerPoint)
1 Sheet with overhead notes per student
1 Homework Sheet with Critical Incidents
Schedule
1.
2.
3.
4.
Conflict Management PowerPoint Presentation (20 minutes)

Instructor Role Plays (10 minutes)
Student Role Plays. (20 minutes)
Homework Assignment (5 minutes)
Assessment
1. Student will write down lecture content on handout;
2. Student will observe examples of passive, aggressive, and assertive responses to
conflict scenarios.
3. Student write passive, aggressive, and assertive responses to conflict scenarios
157
158
159
160
161
APPENDIX H
GPJ WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
SKILLS CURRICULUM IN TERMS OF FLORIDAS SCHOOL COUNSELING AND
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK (2001) PROGRAM STANDARDS
162
he curriculum evaluated in the present study was developed using the expected
student outcomes illustrated in Floridas Student Development Program (Kelly, Peterson, &
Myrick, 1995). The relationship between this curriculum and those outcomes is illustrated in
Table D1. Although, this curriculum was developed from the 1995 model, the learning
(process) objectives remain consistent to those recently proposed in the 2001 revision
titled, Floridas Counseling and Guidance Framework: A Comprehensive Student
Development Program Model. The relevance of the curriculum to the 2001 model is
illustrated in Table D2.
1. Mission statement. To provide ninth-grade students with a positive learning
experience in which they develop, practice, and master generic interpersonal
workplace skills and are rewarded for transferring the use of these skills to the
classroom workplace.
2. Rationale/philosophy. Interpersonal communication skills represent the core of
employability skills needed to succeed in the workplace. Furthermore, classroom
social skills as a whole represent an essential component of readiness to learn that
is not specifically addressed in other learning interventions. The classroom is the
developmental analogue of the students workplace (e.g. peers approximating
workplace colleagues and teachers approximating workplace supervisors). Student
interpersonal behavior in the ninth-grade is then the precursor, and learning ground,
for interpersonal behavior in the future. Likewise learning behavior in the ninthgrade is the direct precursor to lifelong learning activities (particularly as beginning
with the ninth-grade, academic marks have a direct influence upon post-school
outcomes). The interpersonal communication skills are taught using a Situational
Perception Training approach (Goldstein, 1999) where the emphasis is not just in
the learning of interpersonal communication SKAs, but also on the transfer of these
into relevant real-life situations. Using this approach, the skills are first taught
according to their components, and then they are modeled by the instructor,
followed by student volunteer role-play demonstrations, then learner practice via
simulations, followed by practice with and in real-life situations.
3. Advisory Committee. The advisory committee for this project is composed of
three professors from the Counseling Psychology and School Psychology Program
& one professor from the Special Education Program from the College of Education
at the Florida State University, as well as the Research Director and Lead Teacher
at the high school. Consultation and support is also provided from the School
163
Director and High School Mentor. Ideally, the traditional guidance department would
also serve a key role in the project from the perspective of school counseling.
4. Program Resources. The school has committed the staff resources of all the ninthgrade teachers and the financial resources of reproducing learning materials. The
primary investigator is responsible for the evaluation materials.
5. Program Management and Support. The School Director, Research Director,
High School Principal, and the High School Mentor are all committed and supportive
to the successful development of this program. The ninth-grade team meets
regularly to perform formative evaluations on the progress of the project and
needed adjustments. The ninth-grade lead teacher is fully committed to the
development, implementation, expansion, and dissemination of the project.
6. Counseling. The traditional guidance department is available for counseling
services as they relate to academic, personal/social, or career development.
7. Consultation. Parents receive written information regarding the program and
learning objectives, they are invited to a parents night to discuss the integrated
curriculum, all students have an Individual Action Plan to meet their individual
educational needs, and teachers and school counselors regularly schedule parent
conferences to discuss student progress.
8. Coordination. Ideally, these efforts are started and coordinated by the school
counseling personnel. In the unique situation of the research school, this given
curriculum, at this given time, is ancillary to the traditional guidance department, yet
collaboration is successfully managed via the members and consultants to the
advisory committee, as well as the ninth-grade instructional staff.
9. Curriculum. Perhaps one of the strongest aspects of this initial program is the
well-delineated curriculum across four logical interpersonal units (which correspond
to the previously presented domains) with an introductory unit. This program
includes the: (1) Introductory Unit (2) Self-Awareness & Corrective Feedback Unit;
(3) Provision of Empathic Support Unit; (4) Assertive Responding Unit; and (5)
Conflict Management Unit. These then integrate the curriculum domains with most
of the 2001 Personal and Social Development Standards.
10. Accountability. The proposed dissertation presents an initial step in curriculum
accountability via direct empirical observation of student learning, student transfer of
learning, and impact upon the classroom.
164
APPENDIX I
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GPJ WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION SKILLS CURRICULUM COMPETENCIES AND FLORIDAS
SCHOOL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK (2001)
COMPETENCIES
165
3. Develop respect for the diversity

and rights of others
4. Identify which interpersonal
communication skills one needs to
further develop
5. Acquire self-knowledge
Describe stereotypes and their impact

on self and others
Demonstrate respect and appreciation

individual and cultural differences
Understand the effects of peer

pressure.
2. Demonstrate a conceptual
understanding of the communication
model
Demonstrate effective skills for

interacting with peers and adults
Identify and express thoughts and

feelings
Demonstrate skills to interact and

work cooperatively in team
Apply decision-making / problemsolving skills
understanding of the importance of
interpersonal communication skills
Gomez-Person-Jones Work-Related
Interpersonal Communication Skills
Curriculum (2004) Competencies
Demonstrate effective skills for

interaction
Identify common personal and

interpersonal problems
Floridas School Counseling and Guidance Framework

(2001) Relevant Competencies
6. Increase own self-awareness using

the Johari window as a model
7. Discriminate between effective and

destructive feedback
8. Identify the risks and benefits of

self-disclosure
9. Demonstrate basic active listening

skills
10. Demonstrate an understanding of

empathy

understanding of assertive responding;
12. Provide examples of I based
feedback and messages
13. Identify common personal and

interpersonal conflicts
14. Demonstrate ability to develop a

strategy for managing conflict
15. Evaluate ones own conflictmanagement behavior
166
APPENDIX J
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GPJ WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION SKILLS CURRICULUM AND THE SCANS COMPETENCIES
167
1. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding

of the importance of interpersonal
communication skills
F. Works with Diversity works well

with men and women from diverse
backgrounds
I E. Negotiates works towards

agreements involving exchange of
resources, resolves divergent interests
2. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding

of the communication model
3. Develop respect for the diversity and
rights of others
4. Identify which interpersonal
communication skills one needs to further
develop
D. Exercises Leadership
communicates ideas to justify position,
persuades and convinces others,
responsibly challenges existing
procedures and policies
Skills Curriculum (2004) Competencies
C. Serves Clients / Customers

Works to satisfy customer expectations
Related Interpersonal Communication
B. Teachers others New Skills
Gomez-Person-Jones Work-
A. Participates as a Member of a
Team contributes to group effort
SCANS (2001) Interpersonal Competencies
5. Acquire self-knowledge
6. Increase own self-awareness using the
Johari window as a model
7. Discriminate between effective and

destructive feedback
8. Identify the risks and benefits of selfdisclosure
9. Demonstrate basic active listening skills
12. Provide examples of I based

feedback and messages
10. Demonstrate an understanding of

empathy
understanding of assertive responding;
13. Identify common personal and

interpersonal conflicts
14. Demonstrate ability to develop a

strategy for managing conflict
15. Evaluate ones own conflictmanagement behavior
168
APPENDIX K
MEASURE ADMINISTRATION SCRIPT
169
SCRIPT TIME 1
Thank you for participating in this study. We are going to complete
three sections today. For the first two sections, I am going to go
through each question with you.
If you have any questions at any time, please feel raise your hand and
someone will come to assist you.
Front Sheet:
Please place your name on the front sheet and circle your language
Arts class period. For this class you will circle _____ period.
Now turn the page
1. On the first space write your birth year,
On the next space write your birth month
On the third space write your birth day
For instance if you where born of October 16, 1986, you would
place a 1986 on the first space, October in the second space,
and a number 16 on the third space.
2. Now Place an x in the space by your gender.
3. Now place an x by your current year in high school.
4. Now place an x by the ethic group that you feel best describes
you, if you do not find that ethic group, please write it in the space
after other:_______
The next couple of questions will ask about your career development
and career interests.
5. On the spaces provided, list all the occupations that you are
currently considering doing after you graduate from high school.
6. Now list which of the above occupations is your first choice, if
undecided, write undecided.
170
7. Finally, indicate how satisfied you are with your first choice.
Please turn the page
8. For number 8, indicate the career academy that you are currently
in, if you are not in an academy chose: have not chosen a
career academy
9. Now indicate how satisfied you are with your choice of career
academy
10.
For number 10, indicate the highest level of education you
expect to complete. So, if you do not wish any more school after
high school, you would indicate high school, if you wish to
complete community college or a training program, indicate 2year College or vocational training program. If your choice is not
here, check other and fill it in. Remember, this is the highest
that you think you will go.
11.
What is the highest level of school or training completed by
your father? If you do not know your fathers highest level of
education, indicated the I do not know section. If your choice is
not here, check other and fill it in. Again, remember this is the
highest level completed.
12.
Now we will do the same as number 11, but this time for
your mother.
Almost done, two more:
13.
For number 13: Indicate, your fathers current occupation.
If he has more than one, place the one he spends the most time
doing first, and indicate the other ones afterwards.
14.
Finally, for number 14, do the same as number 13, but this
time for your mother.
I will wait until everyone is finished. Please do not go to the
next section until you are instructed to do so.
171
In the next section, you will see a list of names that are some of your
classmates.
While completing this section, you are to take this like a regular graded
exam. We ask you to keep your eyes on your paper.
Many people like to use their folders as a barrier to maintain their
privacy in making these ratings, you are encouraged to do this. You
are not to discuss your ratings with your peers.
Now turn the page
On this page, please cross out your name.
Now turn the page and cross out your name on the second page.
Now you will rate each person according to whether you want to work
with them on a quarter-long graded group project.
You may begin
When you are finished with this section turn the page and rate your
peers according to whether you would want to hang out with them after
school and on the weekends.
When you are done with both sections put everything back in the folder
so we will know that you are finished and collect them.
172
SCRIPT TIME 2 & 3

Thank you for your participation.
Today, we are going to complete three sections, just like we did last
time. You will see a blue sheet dividing each section. When you have
finished a section, do not continue until instructed to do so.
You may open your folders now
Time 2 Only: On the front page please state the career academy that
you are currently in.
Time 3 Only: On the front page please write your name and check your
block that is garnet or gold.
TURN THE PAGE
On this page, you will see some real-life situations that people
experience all the time. For each situation read the item and then
answer as if you where responding directly to the person.
Now read the first situation and fill in what you would actually say to this
person in this situation.
You will have plenty of time to finish each section
(wait until you see that most participants have finished the first one)
When, you have finished the first response, you may continue by filling
out what you would actually say for the next two situations.
173
Then turn the page, stop, and wait for further instructions.
Is there anyone who needs more time?
TURN THE PAGE
We are going to fill out this page together, follow along and do not get
ahead of the group.
Think of a real-life situation (like the ones we just completed in the
previous page) in the last two-weeks where you faced a challenging
situation to which you think you responded well to
Write a good description of that situation; Make sure to indicate who
was involved and what happened.
For Proctor: Wait about 3 minutes
Then fill in what you actually said in response to this situation.
For Proctor: Wait about 1-2 minutes
Now think of a real-life situation in the last two-weeks where you faced
a challenging situation that you did not respond well.
Then fill in what you actually said in response to that situation.
174
For Proctor: Wait about 1- 2 minutes
Finally, pretend that you could be in the situation again and think about
what you would have rather said. Fill in what you wish you had said.
When you are finished with this section please turn the page, stop, and
wait for further instructions.
Is there anyone who needs more time to complete this page?
classmates.
Now turn the page
You may begin
175
Q What if the person is no longer in the school

R Answer as if they where still in school.
176
SCRIPT TIME 4
Thank you for your participation.
Today, we are going to complete three sections, just as we did last
time. You will see a blue sheet dividing each section. When you have
finished a section, do not continue until instructed to do so.
You may open your folders now
On the front page, please write your name and check your block that is
garnet or gold.
Also please indicate which career academy your are currently enrolled
in, as well as check the statement that best describes your degree of
satisfaction with your career academy.
YOU MAY TURN THE PAGE
We are going to fill out this page together, follow along and do not get
ahead of the group.
Think of a real-life situation (like the ones we just completed in the
previous page) in the last two-weeks where you faced a challenging
situation to which you think you responded well to
Then fill in what you actually said in response to this situation.
For Proctor: Wait about 1-2 minutes
177
Now think of a real-life situation in the last two-weeks where you faced
a challenging situation that you did not respond well.
Then fill in what you actually said in response to that situation.
For Proctor: Wait about 1- 2 minutes
Finally, pretend that you could be in the situation again and think about
what you would have rather said. Fill in what you wish you had said.
When you are finished with this section please turn the page, stop, and
wait for further instructions.
Is there anyone who needs more time to complete this page?
classmates.
Now turn the page
178

You may begin
Q What if the person is no longer in the school

R Answer as if they where still in school.
NOW TURN THE PAGE

This is the final part of this study. Thank you for all your help and
assistance.
In this section, you are asked to evaluate the interpersonal skills
curriculum.
On the first page: Please rate to the degree to which or agree or
disagree with the following statements regarding the Interpersonal
Skills Unit.
179
On the next page, Please rate to the degree to which or agree of

disagree with the following statements. If a statement does not apply to
you like in the box that says relationship with employer and you do not
have one, please circle NA).
Again, thank you very much for all your help and assistance in
this project. Mr. Carlos Gomez will come to your class in a
couple of days and will explain the project to you and answer
any of your questions.
180
REFERENCES
Alberti, R. & Emmons, M. (1975). Your perfect right: A guide for assertive living (4th
Edition). San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact.
Ashford, S. J. & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role
of desire for control [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
199-214.
Atkins, P. W. B. & Wood, R. E. (2002). Self-versus others ratings as predictors of
assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback
programs [Electronic version]. Personnel Psychology, 55, 871 904.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F.J., and Fleenor, J.W. (1998). Self-other
agreement: Does it really matter? [Electronic version]. Personnel
Psychology, 51, 577-598.
Atwater, L., Roush, P., and Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback
on self- and follower ratings of leadership [Electronic version]. Personnel
Atwater, L. & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership
perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance
predictions? [Electronic version]. Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.
Atwater, L. & Yammarino, F. L. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and
model [Electronic version]. Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, 15, 121-174.
Baker, J., & Satcher, J. (2000). School counselors perceptions of required
workplace skills and career development competencies. Professional School
Counseling, 4, 134-139.
Baker, S.B. (1996). School counseling for the twenty-first century. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relationship schemas and the processing of social
information [Electronic version]. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461 484.
181
Baldwin, M.W., Granzberg, A., Pippus, L., & Pritchard, E. T. (2003). Cued activation
of relational schemas: self-evaluation and gender effects [Electronic version].
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35, 153-163.
Baldwin, T. T. & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for
future research [Electronic version]. Personnel Psychology 4, 63-105.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Bandura, A. (1999). Social-cognitive learning theory of personality [Online Version].
In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed), Handbook of personality, (2nd ed, pp. 154-196).
New York: Guillford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda
[Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York: Guillford Press.).
Bandura, A. (2000). Social-cognitive learning theory. In A. E. Kazdin, Encyclopedia
of Psychology, 7, 329-332. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beck, A. T. & Weishaar, M. E. (1995). Cognitive therapy. In R. J. Corsini & D.
Wedding (Eds.). Current Psychotherapies (5th ed.). Istaca, IL: Peacock.
Berne, E. (1972). What do you say after you say hello? The psychology of human
destiny. New York: Random House.
Blake, R.R. & Moutlon, I.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Bloch, D. P. ( 1996 ). Career development and workforce preparation: Educational
policy versus school practice. Career Development Quarterly, 45, 20-40
Blustein, D. L., Jutunen, C. L., & Worthington, R. L. (2000). The school-to-work
transition: adjustment challenges for the forgotten half. In S. D. Brown & R.
W. Lent, (Eds). Handbook of Counseling Psychology, (3rd Ed, pp. 435 - 470).
New York: Wiley.
Brown, D. & Srebalus, D. J. (1995). Introduction to the counseling profession.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, D., Pryzwansky, W. B., & Schulte, A. C. (1998). Psychological consultation:
Introduction to theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bruning, N.S. & Liverpool, P. R. (1993). Membership in quality circles and
participation in decision-making. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
29, 76-95.
182
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. ( 1988 ). Five
domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008 .
Burleson, B. R. (2003). Emotional support skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson
(Eds). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp 551
594). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Campell, J. & Deyette, R. (1995). The products of good schooling [electronic
version]. Regional Review, 5, 12-18.
Cantor, A. B. (1996). Sample-size calculations for Cohens kappa. Psychological
Methods, 2, 150-153.
Carter, R. T. (Ed.). (2004). Counseling psychology and school counseling [special
issue]. The Counseling Psychologist, 32 (2).
Cassel, R. N. (1998). Career readiness for the communication age based on
Fortune 500 job-skill needs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 222225.
Cassel, R. N. & Kolstad, R. (1998). Critical job-skill requirements for the 21st
century: living and working with people. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
25, 176-180.
Church, A. H. (2000). Do higher performing managers actually receive higher
ratings? [Electronic Version]. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 52, 99-116.
Church, A. H. (1997a). Do higher performing managers actually receive better
ratings? A validation of multi-rater assessment methodology. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52, 99-116.
Church, A. H. (1997b). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 281-292.
Christoff, K. A. & Kelly, J. A. (1985). A behavioral approach to social skill training (In
L. LAbate & M. A. Milan (Eds.) Handbook of social skills training and
research (pp. 361 387). New York: Wiley.)
Cohen, J.A. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Cited by
Coleman, S. R. (2000). Burrhus Frederick Skinner. In Kadzin (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
psychology,7, 294-297. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cutrona, C. E., Cohen, B.B., & Igram, S. (1990). Contextual determinants of the
perceived helpfulness of helping behaviors. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 7, 553-562.
183
Davis, M. H. & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic

relationships: Empathy as a multidimensional construct. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
Delegate, V. & Great, J. (1979). Appropriateness of self-disclosure. In G. Chelae
(ed.), Self-Disclosure, San Francisco, CA: Josses-Bass.
Deutsch, M (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Duan, C. & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research [Electronic
version]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261-274.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Miller, P., Carlo, G., Poulin, R., Shea, C.,
& Shell, R. (1991). Personality and socialization correlates of vicarious
emotional responding [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality & Social
Elfenbein, H. A. & Ambady, N. (2003). Predicting workplace outcomes from the
ability to eavesdrop on feelings [electronic version]. Journal of Applied
Everson, J. M., & Guillory, J. D. (1998). Building statewide transition services
through collaborative interagency teamwork. In F. R. Rusch & J. G. Chadsey
(Eds.). Beyond high school: transition from school to work (pp. 299 318).
Beltmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Management, 11, 39-53.
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in
(2nd Ed.). New York: Penguin.
Foster, L. H., Watson, T. S., Meeks, C. & Young, J. S. (2003). Single subject
research design for school counselors: Becoming an applied researcher
[Online Version]. Professional School Counseling, 6, 146-155.
Glaski, J.P. & Akos, P. (2004). Dj vu and moving the conversation: Reactions to
an underutilized partnership. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 235-244.
Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and
post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex
interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44, 837 861.
Goldstein, A. P. (1999). The prepare curriculum: Teaching prosocial competencies.
Champaign, IL: Research Press.
184
Goldstein, A. P. & Glick, B. (1987). Aggression replacement training: A

comprehensive intervention for aggressive youth. Champaign, IL: Research
Press.
Goldstein, A. P., & McGinnis, E. (1997). Skillstreaming the adolescent: New
strategies and perspectives for teaching social skills. Champaign, IL:
Research Press.
Gomez-Estefan, C. C. & Peterson. G.W. (2001). The Critical Incident Blank.
Unpublished measure.
Gmez-Estefan, C. C., Peterson. G. W., & Jones, L. (2001). The real-life
interpersonal communication skills curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.
Gormezano, I. (2000). Learning: Conditional approach . In Kadzin (Ed.)
Encyclopedia of psychology,5, 5-8. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gresham, F. M. (1986). Conceptual issues in the assessment of social competence
in children. In P.S. Strain, M. J. Guralnick, and H. M. Walker (Eds.).
Childrens social behavior: Development, assessment, and modification (pp.
143-179). New York: Academic Press.
Gysbers, N. C., Hughey, K. F., Starr, M., & Lapan, R.T. (1992). Improving schoolto-work programs: A framework for program, personnel, and results
evaluation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 565-570.
Hadley, R. G. & Mitchell, L. K. (1995) Counseling research and program evaluation.
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Hargie, O., Saunders, C., & Dickson, D. (1994). Social Skills in Interpersonal
Communication (3rd Ed.). London: Rutledge.
Harris, M. M. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, selfpeer, and peer-supervisor ratings, Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62.
Heppner, P. P.(Ed.) (1997). School-to-work transition [special issue]. The
Counseling Psychologist, 25 (3).
Heppner, P.P., Casas, M.J., Carter, J., & Stone, G.L. (2000). The maturation of
counseling psychology: Multifaceted perspectives, 1978-1998. In S.D. Brown
& R.W. Lent (Eds). Handbook of Counseling Psychology (3rd ed) (pp.3-49).
New York: Wiley.
Herold, D. M., Davis, W., Fedor, D. B. & Parsons, C. K. (2002). Dispositional
influences on transfer of learning in multistage training programs. Personnel
Herr, E. L. & Cramer, S.H. (1996). Career guidance and counseling through the
lifespan. New York: Harper Collins.
185
Hesketh, B. (2000). Prevention and development in the workplace. In S. D. Brown

& R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology, (3rd Ed, pp 471498). New York: Wiley.
Heun, L. R. & Heun, E. H. (1978). Developing skills for human interaction (2nd ed).
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Hill, C. A. (1991). Seeking empathic support: The influence of affiliative need and
partner warmth [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social
Hoffman, M.A. & Carter, R.T. (2004). Counseling psychology and school
counseling: A
call to collaboration. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32,
181-183.
Ickes, W. (2000). Empathic accuracy. In A. Kazin (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Psychology. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Ivey, A. E. & Ivey, M. B. (1999). Intentional interviewing and counseling: Facilitating
client development in a multicultural society (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Johnson, D. (2000). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization
(7th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Jones, W. H., Hobbs, S. A., & Hockenbury, D. (1982). Loneliness and social skills
deficits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 682-689.
Katz, M. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52,
90-102.
Keller, J. (1999). ARCS handbook: A systematic process for motivational design.
Tallahassee, FL: John Keller Associates.
Kelly, F.D., Peterson, G.W., Myrick, R.D. (2001). Floridas school counseling and
guidance framework: A comprehensive student development program model.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.
Kelly, F.D., Peterson, G.W., Myrick, R.D. (1995). Florida student development
program: A framework for developing comprehensive guidance and
counseling programs for a school-to-work system. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Department of Education.
Lange, A. & Jakubowski, P. (1976). Responsible assertive behavior. Champaign,
IL: Research Press.
Lapan, R.T., Gysbers, N., Hughey, K., & Arni, T. J. (1993). Evaluating a guidance
and language arts unit for high school students. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 71, 444 451.
186
Lee, F. K., & Johnston, J. A. (2001). Innovations in career counseling. Journal of

Career Development, 27, 177 185.
Lent, R.W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. (1999). A social cognitive view of school-towork transition. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 297-311.
Lent, R. W., & Maddux, J. E. (1997). Self-efficacy: Building a sociocognitive bridge
between social and counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist,
25, 240 255.
Lent, R. W., & Worthington, R. L. (2000). On school-to-work transition, career
development theories, and cultural validity. Career Development Quarterly,
48, 376-384.
Lewis, T., Stone, J., III, Shipley, W., & Madzar, S. (1998). The transition from school
to work: An examination of the literature. Youth & Society, 29, 259-292.
Logan, G. (2000). Information Processing Theories. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.)
Encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
London, M. & Smither, J. W. (1991). Agreement between subordinate and selfrating in upward feedback, Personnel Psychology, 44, 375-390.
Long, E. C. & Andrews, D. W. (1990). Perspective taking as a predictor of marital
adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 126-131.
Luft, J. (1969). On human interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press.
Luft, J. (1970). Group Processes: An introduction to group dynamics (2nd ed). Palo
Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window: a graphical model of
interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in
Group Development.
McFarland, W. P. & Culp, W. H. (1992). Interpersonal skill training for effective
conflict resolution [electronic version]. School Counselor, 92, 304-311.
Mahoney, M. H. (1991). Human change processes: The scientific foundations of
psychotherapy. US: Basic Books.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in
favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on
successful children [Electronic version]. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence.
Intelligence, 17, (4), 433-442
187
Medsker, K. L. & Fry, J. P. (1997). Acquisition of interpersonal communication

skills: A research-based approach. Telematics and Informatics, 14, 209-218.
Merrell, K. W., Gimpell, G. A. (1998). Social skills of children and adolescents:
Conceptualization, assessment, treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Publishers.
Michener, H. A. & DeLamater, J. D. (1999). Social Psychology (4th Ed.). Orlando:
FL: Earl McPeek.
Morran, D. K., Robinson, F. F. & Stockton, R. (1985). Feedback exchange in
counseling: An analysis of message content and receiver acceptance as a
function of leader versus member delivery, session, and valence. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 32, 57-67.
Morran, D. K., Stockton, R., & Bond, L. (1991). Delivery of positive and corrective
feedback in counseling groups. [Electronic version]. Journal of Counseling
Mosher, R. L. & Sprinthall, N. A. (1970). Psychological education in secondary
schools: A program to promote individual and human development.
American Psychologist, 25, 911-924.
Myrick, R. D. (1997). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical
approach. (3rd Ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.
National Advisory Mental Health Council Behavioral Science Workgroup (2000).
Translating Behavioral Science into Action [Electronic version]. Bethesda,
MA: National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved January 8, 2002, from
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/tbsia/tbsiatoc.cfm.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in
organizations: Attachment theory at work? [Electronic version] Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 12, 543-554.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. .
Nota, L. & Soresi, S. (2003). An assertiveness training program for indecisive
students attending an Italian university [Electronic version]. The Career
Development Quarterly, 51, 322- 334.
Peterson, G.W. & Burck, H. D. (1982). A competency approach to accountability in
human service programs. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(8), 491-495.
Peterson, G.W., Sampson, J. P., & Reardon, R.C. (1991). Career development and
services: A cognitive approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
188
Pope, M. (2004). Counseling psychology and professional school counseling:

Barriers to a true collaboration. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 235-262.
Posada, G. & Jacobs, A. (2001). Child-mother attachment relationships and culture
[Electronic version]. American Psychologist, 56, 821-822.
Rabasca, L. (March, 2000). NIH programs seek to increase research relevance to
practice. Monitor on Psychology, 31(3). Retrieved on January 9, from
http://www.apa.org/ monitor/mar00/nih.html.
Raskin, N. J. & Rogers, C. R. (1995). Person-Centered Therapy. In R. J. Corsini &
D. Wedding (Eds.). Current Psychotherapies (5th Ed, pp. 128- 161). Istaca,
IL: Peacock.
Raviv, A, Raviv, A, Reisel, E. (1993). Environmental approach used for evaluating
and educational innovation. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 317-324.
Reardon, R. C., Lenz, J. G., Sampson, J. P., & Peterson, G. W. (2000). Career
development and planning: A comprehensive approach. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Resnick, L. B. & Wirt, J. G. (1996). The changing workplace: New challenges for
education policy and practice. In L. Resnick and J. Wirt (Eds.). Linking
school and work: Roles for standards and assessment. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Riggio, R. E., Riggio, H. R., Salinas, C., & Cole, E. J. (2003). The role of social and
emotional communication skills in leader emergent and effectiveness
[electronic version]. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 83103.
Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach.
London: Sage.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic
personality change. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 95-103.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapists view of psychotherapy.
Boston: Houghton Miffling.
Romano, J. L & Kachgal, M. M. (2004). Counseling psychology and school
counseling: an underutilized partnership. The Counseling Psychologist, 32,
184Rose, Y. & Tyron, W. (1979). Judgments of assertive behavior as a function of
speech, loudness, latency, content, gestures, inflection, and sex. Behavior
Modification, 3, 112-123.
189
Rusch, F. R. & Millar, D. M. (1998). Emerging transition best practices. In F. R.

Rusch & J. G. Chadsey (Eds). Beyond high school: Transition from school to
work (pp. 36 59). Belmonth, CA: Wadsworth.
Rutherford, R. B., Mathur, S. R., & Magee, M. (1998). Promoting social
communication skills through cooperative learning and direct instruction
[Electronic Version]. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 354-369.
Saarni, C. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: educational
implications. In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter. Emotional competence and selfregulation in childhood. New York: Basicbooks.
Sala, F. (2003). Executive blind spots: Discrepancies between self- and otherratings. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 222-229.
Salter, A. & Wolpe. M. (1949). Conditioned reflex therapy. New York: Capricorn
Books. (Cited in Hargie, O., Saunders, C., & Dickson, D. (1994). Social Skills
in Interpersonal Communication (3rd Ed.).
Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires
of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Segrin, C. & Flora, J. (2000). Poor social skills are a vulnerability factor in the
development of psychosocial problems. Human Communication Research,
26, 489 514.
Segrin, C. & Givertz, M. (2003). Methods of social skills training and development.
In J. O Greene & B. R. Brant (Eds.) Handbook of Communication and
Social Interaction Skills (pp. 135- 176). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Shafer, D. R. (1988). Social and Personality Development. (Second ed). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the
heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships [Electronic version]. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629-641.
Sink, C.A., & MacDonald, G. (1998). The status of comprehensive guidance and
counseling in the United States. Professional School Counseling, 2, 88-94.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smith-Jentsch, K., Salas, E., & Baker, D. P. (1996). Training team performancerelated assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49, 909-936.
190
Steufflebeam, D. L. & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation. Boston:

Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Green, K., & Laginski, A. M. (1997).
Effects of high school students of conflict resolution training integrated into
English literature. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 302-314.
Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (3rd ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Stodden, R. A. (1998). School-to-work transition: Overview of disability education.
In F. R. Rusch & J. G. Chadsey (Eds). Beyond high school: Transition from
school to work (pp. 36 59). Belmonth, CA: Wadsworth.
Tesser, A., Rosen, S., & Tesser, M. (1971). On reluctance to communicate
undesirable messages (the mum effect): A field study. Psychological
Reports, 29, 651-654.
Toth, P. L. & Erwin, W. J. (1998). Applying skill-based curriculum to teach feedback
in groups: An evaluation study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76,
294 301.
Tottham, J. (2004, April 26). When execs go temp. Time, 163, 40-42.
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on
the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
Vacc, J. & Loesch, K. (1994). A professional orientation to counseling (2nd Ed.).
Levinttown, PA: Accelerated Development.
Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S, & Leslie, J. (1993). An examination of the relationships
among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader
effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 32, 249-264.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of
proactivity in the socialization process [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied
Weary, G. & Edwards, J. A. (1994). Social cognition and clinical psychology:
anxiety, depression, and the processing of social information. In R.S. Wyer &
T. K. Srull (Eds).. A handbook of social cognition (Vol 2, pp 289-338).
Whitley, J. M. (1984). Counseling psychology: A historical perspective. The
Counseling Psychologist, 12, 3-109. In Hoffman, M. A. & Carter, R. T.
191
(2004). Counseling psychology and school counseling: A call to

collaboration. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 181-183.
Williams, S. K. (2003). Parental attachment and involvement: Relationships to
childrens behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International [Online]. (UMI
No.3081458).
Wolpe. J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Wood, P. S. & Mallinckrodt, B. (1990). Culturally sensitive assertiveness training for
ethnic minority clients [electronic version]. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 21, 5-11.
Worthington, R. L. & Juntenen, C. L. (1997). The vocational development of noncollege bound youth: Counseling psychology and the school-to-work
transition movement. Counseling Psychologist, 25, 323-363.
Wraga, W. G. (1998). Implications of issues-centered education for the social
studies curriculum. International Journal of Social Education, 13, 49-65.
Wyer, R. S. & Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Interpersonal communication: Cognitive
social psychologists perspective. In D. E. Hewes (Ed.). The cognitive bases
of interpersonal communication (pp. 7 50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Yammarino, F. J. & Atwater, L. E. (1993). Understanding self-perception accuracy:
Implications for human resource management. Human Resource
Management, 32, 231-247.
192
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
EDUCATION
2004 Ph.D. Counseling Psychology and School Psychology, Florida State
University
An APA Accredited Combined Counseling and School Psychology
Program
2000 Ed.S. Mental Health Counseling, Florida State University
A CACREP Accredited Program in Mental Health Counseling
2000 M.S. Mental Health Counseling, Florida State University
1995 B.S.
Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University
CLINICAL EXPERIENCE
2003 2004 Chief Psychology Intern
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Univ of Miami School of Medicine/ Jackson Medical Center, Miami,
Florida
2002 2003 Psychological Trainee
Multidisciplinary Assessment Center
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
2002 - 2002 Psychological Trainee
Behavioral Health Center & Memory Disorders Clinic
Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida
2001 2002 Career Advisor / Psychological Trainee
2000 2000 University Career Center
1998 1999 Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
1999 2000 Therapist / Psychological Trainee
Archbold Northside Hospital
Archbold Medical Center, Thomasville, Georgia
1998 1998 Psychological Trainee
Department of Psychology and Neuropsychology
Health South Rehabilitation Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida
193

The Impact of A Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of A Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Florida State University

The Graduate School

The Impact of a Work-Related Interpersonal

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

THE IMPACT OF A WORK-RELATED INTERPERSONAL

A Dissertation submitted to the

This dissertation is dedicated to

science and practice including psychotherapy, psychodiagnostic assessment,

Employability Skills and American Schooling...........................

Statement of the Problem............................................................

Floridas Comprehensive Guidance Model................................

Purpose of the Study ...................................................................

Evaluation Standards and Research Questions........................

Significance of the Study ............................................................

Definition of Terms ......................................................................

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................

Work-Related Interpersonal Communication Skills ..................

Developing Interpersonal Communication Skills......................

A Strategy for Implementing Interventions in the Schools ......

Study Design and Procedures ...................................................

Data Analysis Outputs .................................................................

Data Analysis Outcomes .............................................................

Results of Outputs .......................................................................

Results of Outcomes ...................................................................

Conclusions and Discussion ......................................................

Limitations of the Study ..............................................................

Directions for Future Research...................................................

Implications for the Improvement and Implementation of the

B. Consent and Assent Forms ...................................................

D. Charter Schools Formula for Reported SES Levels ...........

E. Critical Incident Blank Sample Rater Training Materials.....

F. Curriculum Domains, Competencies, & Learning Objectives

G. Sample Lesson Plan, Overhead Transparencies, and

H. Curriculum in Terms of Floridas School Counseling and

I. The relationship between the GPJ Work-Related

J. The relationship between the GPJ Work-Related

K. Measure Administration Scripts ............................................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................

Table 3.1: Sample Demographics .........................................................

Table 3.2. GPJ Curriculum Domains and Competencies ......................

Table 4.1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Regression Analysis of

Table 4.2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Repeated Measures

Table 4.3: Paired-Samples T-test for Differences in Means between the

Table 4.4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Participant

Table 4.5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Repeated Measures

Table 4.6: Paired-Samples t-test Comparisons for In-Class Collegial

Table 4.7: Means, Standard Deviations, and Repeated Measures Analysis

Table 4.8: Paired-Samples t-test Comparisons for Collegial

Table 4.9: Paired-Samples t-test Comparisons of the Estimated Means

Table 4.10: Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Participant

Figure 1.1: Components of Comprehensive Counseling and Guidance

Figure 2.1: The Johari Window..............................................................

Figure 2.2: Assertiveness Continuum ...................................................

Figure 2.3: Conflict Management Stances ............................................

Figure 2.4: Four Basic Steps in Inventing Options.................................

Figure 3.1: Cohens Kappa Formula......................................................

Figure 3.2: Time Line of Sessions across a Seven-Week Instruction....

Figure 3.3: Interpersonal Communication Skills Instruction Sessions

Figure 3.4: Quasi-experimental single-group design .............................

Figure 4.1: Estimated Means of the Critical Incident Blank ...................

Figure 4.2: Means for in-class collegial workgroups and out-of-class

The present study evaluated the impact of a work-related interpersonal skills