Viktória Vráblová
Júlia Halamová- Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Institute of Applied Psychology, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia
Assertiveness is a social communication skill and is related to the effectiveness of expressing oneself while respecting others. A lack of assertiveness is associated with various mental illnesses; hence the importance of being able to measure it reliably. The aim of the study was to translate the short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB) into Slovak and subsequently test its factor structure and other psychometric properties. Our convenience sample consisted of 590 respondents from Slovakia, 22.71% of whom were men and 77.29% women. The data analysis consisted of a descriptive analysis, reliability analysis, factor structure analysis, Mokken analysis, and percentile norms. The scale showed good psychometric properties. Unlike the 4-factor solution for distress and performance in the original work, our findings showed that the general factor loadings were very good and that the bifactor model had the best fit in both cases (distress and performance). Mokken analysis indicated that the total scores for distress and perfromance and their constituent subscales can be used as proposed. In conclusion, the Slovak version of the s-SIB can be used as to measure the total score for assertiveness as well as the separate factors – Positive Assertion, Negative Assertion, Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations, and Initiating Assertiveness.
Highlights
– A lack of assertiveness is associated with various mental illnesses.
– The short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB; Arrindell et al., 2002) showed good psychometric properties.
– The general factor loadings of s-SIB were very good.
– The bifactor model of s-SIB had the best fit in both cases (distress and performance).
Introduction
As assertiveness is one of the important developmental tasks in adolescence (Erikson, 1968) and a lack of assertiveness might be associated with various mental illnesses (Lazarus, 1971; Ullrich and Ullrich de Muynck, 1973; Wolpe, 1990; Salter, 2002; Beck et al., 2004), we aimed to choose a reliable and valid instrument to measure assertiveness, translate it to Slovak language and test ist psychometric properties for the further use in research and practice. Hence, there is no whole assertiveness scale translated so far into the Slovak with its psychometric properties analyzed and reported it is of the great importance to do so.
According to Immanuel (2019), assertiveness is a social communication skill and is related to the effectiveness of expressing oneself while respecting others. Therefore, it predicts how well people interact with each other. Furthermore, passive behavior leads people to put their own rights after other peoples’ and is linked to low self-worth. Passive people are unable to say no, and others may take advantage of that. They apologize a lot, remain silent when their rights are being infringed upon, are submissive, etc. Similarly, people with a low self-image (Pascual-Leone and Greenberg, 2007) and low self-compassion (Akin, 2009) are too submissive to protect themselves from their self-critic. In this respect, some scholars talk about self-protection, which is a construct defined similarly to assertiveness. It helps people fight for their rights and needs, set limits, and be assertive (Timulak and Pascual-Leone, 2014). Sarkova et al. (2013) state: “While assertiveness could be seen as a behavior toward the outside world, it is at the same time strongly associated with feelings toward oneself.” Aggressive behavior on the other hand is just as detrimental as passive behavior. In this case, standing up for one’s own rights means curbing someone else’s rights and needs. Therefore, the difference between assertive and aggressive behavior lies in respecting other people (Immanuel, 2019). According to multiple scholars, assertiveness training is positively associated with well-being and academic performance (Paeezy et al., 2010; Parray and Kumar, 2017), self-esteem (Haghigi et al., 2006; Parray and Kumar, 2017), self-realization, happiness, and social adaptability (Romek, 1992). It reduces anxiety (Orenstein et al., 1976; Bouvard et al., 1999; Larijani et al., 2010), depression (Eslami et al., 2016), and aggressivity (Ashouri et al., 2009).
Measuring assertiveness
As Furnham and Henderson (1984) point out, assertive inventories can differ significantly from each other. They found substantial differences when comparing correlational analyzes. In another study (Henderson and Furnham, 1983), they pointed out that the assertiveness measures were multidimensional and suggested making the scale more systematic and psychometrically evaluating it. As none of the assertiveness scales has been translated into Slovak except for one without reporting its psychometric properties (Sarkova et al., 2013), our first aim was to select one for translation. The potential candidates were: the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale (WLAS; Wolpe and Lazarus, 1966), Rathus Assertiveness Scale (RAS; Rathus, 1973), Adult Self-Expression Scale (ASES; Gay et al., 1975), Assertion Inventory (Gambrill and Richey, 1975), Assertion Self-Statement Test (ASST; Bruch et al., 1984), Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (SIB; Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985), the short form version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB; Arrindell et al., 2002), and the Assertive Behavior Inventory (ABI; Immanuel, 2019). Some of these measure passive behavior or aggressive behavior in addition to assertive behavior. We decided to focus on the scales measuring assertive behavior only. Arrindell et al. (1990a) found out that SIB scales (distress and performance) were associated less strongly to the aggression and anger-hostility than with shyness, social fears, or similar analogous counterparts. We also discarded those that were too long for practical reasons. Arrindell et al. (2002) believe that long tests are time consuming, which is a major disadvantage. Especially since in most research studies, batteries of tests are used. Therefore, respondents doing longer tests may find their concentration and performance levels deteriorate significantly or they may even fail to complete the test. So out of the above-mentioned inventories, we chose the s-SIB (Arrindell et al., 2002), which is a short version of the SIB – Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985) used to measure assertiveness only.
The development and analysis of the SIB
The original version of the SIB was developed in the Netherlands (Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985) and consists of 50 items. Participants respond twice per item (stating how nervous or tense they feel and how often they behave in the described way), giving a total of 100 responses. The items fall under four factors – Negative Assertion, Positive Assertion, Initiating Assertiveness, and Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations. There are multiple translations of the original SIB, including French (Bouvard et al., 1999), English (Bridges et al., 1991; Gilbert and Allan, 1994), Spanish (Arrindell et al., 1997), Turkish (Eskin, 1993a, 1996, 2003), Swedish (Eskin, 1993b, 1996, 2003), Persian (Parsa et al., 2015), and Taiwanese (Bridges and Arrindell, 2002). The SIB has good internal consistency, obtained from eight independent samples (0.75–0.97). As regards test–retest reliabilities, the coefficients for distress (how nervous or tense the person is) range from 0.761 to 0.85, and the range for performance (how often) was from 0.32 to 0.73 (Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985; Arrindell et al., 1990b). In support of convergent validity, Arrindell et al. (1990b) found that the SIB distress scales correlated positively and significantly with Social Inadequacy (from the Symptom Checklist-90, also known as SCL-90; Derogatis et al., 1973; Arrindell and Ettema, 1981) and Social Fears (from Fear Survey Schedule-III, also known as FSS-III; Wolpe and Lang, 1974; Arrindell, 1980). Discriminant validity was verified using anxiety, depression, and neuroticism questionnaires (Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985). Factor analyzes revealed consistency in the data sets – two separate factors were produced (distress and performance) and all the factor loadings for the two factors were at least 0.40 (Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985).
The development and analysis of the s-SIB
The short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB; Arrindell et al., 2002) consists of 25 items. As mentioned above, each item requires two responses – about how nervous or tense the participants feel (which measures the level of distress) and how often they behave as described (which measures the level of performance). The items come under four factors – Negative Assertion, Positive Assertion, Initiating Assertiveness, and Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations. As regards distress, the internal consistency reliability for the Overall Measure is 0.90, for Negative and Positive Assertion it is 0.78, for Initiating assertiveness 0.76, and for Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations 0.71. As regards performance, it is 0.85 for the Overall Measure, 0.67 for Negative Assertion and Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations, 0.75 for Positive Assertion, and 0.72 for Initiating Assertiveness. Similarly to the original study, the authors used Fear Survey Schedule-III (Wolpe and Lang, 1974; Arrindell, 1980) to validate the short version of the scale. For distress, the measures were more strongly associated with social fears than non-social fears. And the performance measures were associated less with social fears than the distress measures were. Finally, the s-SIB distress factors were more strongly associated with social fears (as mentioned above) than the other measures. Interestingly, in the s-SIB, Initiating Assertiveness (performance) had the strongest relationship with the Extraversion in Eysenck’s personality dimensions (Eysenck et al., 1985; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1991).
Using the Multiple Group Method (MGM; e.g. Gorsuch, 1983; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), the authors (Arrindell et al., 2002) found that each item loaded on its relevant factor with only one exception. Item 23 – “Refusing to lend something to a near acquaintance” loaded moderately on Negative Assertion (performance) – 0.36, but highly for distress – 0.57. The structure matrix inspection revealed that the 0.36 loading on Negative Assertion (performance) was higher than the loadings of the same item on the other 3 components (0.09, 0.01, 0.06). The short version of scale has been successfully validated in Portugal as well by Vagos et al. (2014). The authors found moderate levels of validity [in relation to the short version of the Rathus assertiveness scale (RAS; Rathus, 1973)], acceptable internal consistency values, and point out that the scale is useful for research in psychology. The s-SIB scale Arrindell et al. (2002) has been translated and used in several languages, such as English (e.g., McLean, 2020) and Dutch (Puijk-Hekman et al., 2017), but without analyzing its psychometric properties.
Aim of the study
The aim of the study was to translate the short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB; Arrindell et al., 2002) into Slovak and subsequently test its factor structure and other psychometric properties. The main purpose was to gain a reliable scale to measure assertivity for researchers in Slovakia.
Materials and methods
Measuring instruments
The Short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB; Arrindell et al., 2002) is a 25-item scale measuring four aspects of assertiveness (factors): Negative Assertion, Positive Assertion, Initiating Assertiveness, and Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations. Negative Assertion is about the ability to display negative feelings. Participants either stand up for their rights in public situations or tolerate the situation; they either ask others to change their behavior or tolerate their irritating behavior and are either able to or unable to refuse requests (for example: “Discussing with someone your impression that they are trying to avoid you.”). Positive Assertion is about dealing with praise from others and giving praise (for example: “Acknowledging a compliment on something you have done.”). Initiating Assertiveness is a skill required in socialization with others – introducing oneself to others, starting a conversation, or expressing one’s opinion (for example: “Telling a group of people about something you have experienced.”). Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations tests the ability to deal with pressure and criticism, recognize one’s failure, and admit limited or no knowledge about a topic (for example: “Telling someone who has justly criticized you that he/she is right.”).
We back translated the s-SIB (Arrindell et al., 2002) and the differences were discussed by the two co-authors and the professional translator and were resolved through consensus. The second author has already translated numbers of scales and questionnaires so she has extensive experience with translations and psychometric analysis studies. Distress (the psychological discomfort participants feel in the situation described) and performance (how often they do what is described) are evaluated on Likert scales ranging from 1 to 5. In relation to distress, 1 means “not at all” and 5 “extremely.” In relation to performance, 1 means “never” and 5 “always.” Arrindell and Van der Ende (1985) advise against using the total score alone when scoring the scale. It is better to use both factors along with the total score or just the factors on their own. The total score and factors´ scores are scored separately for distress and performance. A lower score in distress and a higher score in performance represents more assertive behavior and more adaptive social skills (Parsa et al., 2015).
The research sample
Our primary sample consisted of 590 respondents – 134 men (22.71%) and 456 women (77.29%). Age of respondents ranged from 18 years to 71 years. Mean age was 28.30 years (SD = 9.66). Two hundred and sixty six respondents were single (45.08%), 197 respondents were in a relationship (33.39%), 102 respondents were married (17.29%), and 25 respondents were divorced (4.24%). As for education, 17 respondents reported that they completed primary education (2.88%), 240 respondents had completed secondary education (40.68%), and 333 respondents had a university degree (56.44%). For s-SIB creating norms, we used a different sample – 1,000 respondents of which 241 were men (24.10%) and 759 women (75.9%). Age ranged from 18 to 77 years (mean = 28.29, SD = 11). Four hundred and seventy-four were single (47.4%), 317 in a relationship (31.7%), 163 married (16.3%), 42 divorced (4.2%) and 4 were widowed (0.4%). Primary education completed 41 participants (4.1%), 466 secondary education (46.6%) and 493 had university degree (49.3%). Data were collected online by convenience sampling via social media. All participants gave their online informed consent. Participants were motivated by the opportunity to win a 50€ voucher; one winner was randomly selected after the data collection was complete. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics committee of Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences at Comenius University in Bratislava (8 January 2018 ref.: 2/2018) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Data analysis
We used SPSS Statistics program (version 20.0) to record the data. For statistical purposes we used software R version 4.0.2 [packages Hmisc (Harrell and Harrell, 2019), psych (Revelle, 2015), mokken (Van der Ark, 2012), lavaan (Rosseel, 2012), mirt (Chalmers, 2012) and t series (Trapletti et al., 2020)]. The data analysis consisted of a descriptive analysis, reliability analysis, factor structure analysis, and Mokken analysis (Sijtsma and Molenaar, 2002; Van der Ark, 2012).
Results
Descriptive analysis
In Supplementary material we report the descriptive statistical analysis of the s-SIB distress and performance items. As the items were ordinal a non-normal distribution was assumed. The Jarque-Bera tests (Jarque and Bera, 1980) indicated that the items were far from normal. In such cases, an analysis based on a normal distribution (e.g., Pearson correlation) is not recommended as it would not provide accurate results.
Analysis of reliability and one general factor assumption validation
As mentioned before, the items in our instrument are ordinal. Cronbach’s α is most commonly used to test reliability but it is very inaccurate when used on ordinal scales (e.g., Zumbo et al., 2007). Therefore, McDonald ω test is a better alternative (Dunn et al., 2014). We compare both (Cronbach α and McDonald ω) and validate the assumption of one general factor with hierarchical ω and explained common variance (Rodriguez et al., 2016). All values should be at least 0.70. Looking at Table 1, we can assume that all the reliability values were good. The explained common variance in the bifactor case shows that the use of the total score is recommended.
Table 1. s-SIB – reliability values and explained common variance.
Confirmatory bifactor IRT factor analysis
Items-response theory (IRT) methods were used because they are more accurate for analyzing ordinal variables (Reise et al., 2010) such as ours. This model allows us to test item loadings for the common general factor and for the latent factors. Looking at Tables 2, 3, we can assume that the general factor loadings were very good. But items 3, 5, 13, 17, and 18 have lower loadings in both cases (distress and performance).
Table 2. Bifactor confirmatory IRT model – factor loadings for s-SIB distress.
Table 3. Bifactor confirmatory IRT model – factor loadings for s-SIB performance.
Robust confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory models were used for both scales (s-SIB distress and s-SIB performance): 1-factor model, 4-factor model and bifactor model. We report the CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), and SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual). CFI and TLI values should be greater than 0.90, RMSEA less than 0.10, and SRMR less than 0.08. Based on our results in Table 4, we can see that the distress fit was similar to the performance fit. However, in both cases the CFI and TLI values were less than recommended. If we put item 3 into Initiating Assertiveness, item 13 into Negative Assertion, and remove item 17, we get a better fit for our factor structure in both cases.
Table 4. Fit indices for s-SIB (distress and performance) models.
Mokken analysis
To verify the local autonomy, monotonous homogeneity, and unidimensionality of the PA, NA, PL and IA factors (from the original scale) we used Mokken’s scaling (Sijtsma and Molenaar, 2002; Van der Ark, 2012). This analysis was important because if the factors (PA, NA, PL and IA) were not Mokken’s scales, the raw score of each factorshould not be used (Sijtsma and Molenaar, 2002; Van der Ark, 2012). All coefficients with their respective standard errors for all items were acceptable because ratio was not lower than 0.3 (Kuijpers et al., 2013). Regarding distress, H (coefficient for scalability) across all items wa 0.394 (0.017) and as follows for the factors: PA – 0.497 (0.020), NA – 0.462 (0.021), PL – 0.421 (0.022), IA – 0.483 (0.021). Regarding performance, H across all items was 0.400 (0.018) and as follows for the factors: PA – 0.471 (0.022), NA – 0.477 (0.022), PL – 0.454 (0.023), IA – 0.442 (0.022). Coefficients for all items are provided in Tables 5, 6.
Table 5. Coefficients of item scalability for s-SIB distress.
Table 6. Coefficients of item scalability for s-SIB performance.
Norms
We needed a bigger sample to make Slovak norms for the scale. After collecting the data, we needed to confirm that the hierarchical ω and explained common variance (ECV) in both cases (distress, performance) for bifactor model exceeds 0.7. As for s-SIB distress, hierarchical ω was 0.88 and ECV 0.71. For s-SIB performance, hierarchical ω was 0.88 and ECV 0.73. We provide percentile norms in Table 7.
Table 7. Slovak norms for s-SIB distress and performance.
Discussion
The aim of the study was to translate the short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB; Arrindell et al., 2002) into Slovak and subsequently test its factor structure and other psychometric properties to enable its use for further research and practice. After back translating the s-SIB (Arrindell et al., 2002) into Slovak, we tested the descriptive statistics (skewness, kurtosis, and whether to use Jaque-Bera tests), reliability – Cronbach α (e. g. Zumbo et al., 2007) and McDonald ω (Dunn et al., 2014), factor structure (confirmatory factor analyzes) and scalability – Mokken analysis (Sijtsma and Molenaar, 2002; Van der Ark, 2012) as well as we created the Slovak norms. As expected, we found a non-normal distribution. These rules out an analysis based on normal distribution as it would not provide accurate results. As regards distress, reliability (Cronbach α) for the Overall Measure was 0.93, and 0.79–0.84 for all the dimensions. Regarding performance, it was 0.94 for the Overall Measure, and 0.81–0.85 for all the dimensions. Our values were higher than those in the study conducted by Arrindell et al. (2002), which shows that the Slovak version has very good internal consistency. The authors reported values of 0.90 for the Overall Measure and 0.71–0.78 for all the dimensions for distress and 0.85 for the Overall Measure and 0.67–0.75 for all the dimensions for performance. The reliability coefficients of the s-SIB were also a bit higher in Slovakia than in Portugal (Vagos et al., 2014), ranging from α = 0.68 to α = 0.94. To be sure the results are accurate, we conducted a McDonald ω test (Dunn et al., 2014). Again, the results showed very high internal consistency (0.95 in both cases).
We also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. In comparison to the 4-factor solution in both cases (distress and performance) in the study conducted by Arrindell et al. (2002), our findings show that general factor loadings in Slovakia were very good and that the bifactor model had the best fit in both cases (distress and performance). The authors of the original study (Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1985) advised against using the total score of the scale on its own. They recommended using the factors and total score together or just the factors on their own. In our study, we validated the assumption of one general factor with explained common variance (0.73 for distress and 0.77 for performance) and hierarchical ω (0.89 for distress and 0.90 for performance; Rodriguez et al., 2016). The results showed that it is possible to recommend the use of the total score with the Slovak short version (s-SIB). To verify the monotonous homogeneity, local autonomy, and unidimensionality of the factors, we used Mokken’s scaling (Sijtsma and Molenaar, 2002; Van der Ark, 2012). All the coefficients of the original scale were acceptable (Kuijpers et al., 2013), which means that the raw scores of all the items and factors can be used in both cases (distress and performance). In line with Arrindell et al. (2002), Mokken analysis indicated that the total scores for distress and perfromance and their constituent subscales can be used as proposed.
Development of the norms for Slovak population might be another practical benefit of this article for Slovak researchers, because as we already stated, the main purpose was to gain reliable scale to measure assertiveness in Slovakia. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study using bifactor model to analyze s-SIB. As more studies will be available which use bifactor model of s-SIB, we will be better able to reconciliate the findings where the bi-factor model says there is a strong general factor in the data (Rodriguez et al., 2016) when Mokken analysis in fact says that subcomponents can also be reliably scaled, in addition to the finding that there is no support for a one-factor model.
Limitations and future research
We are also aware that the sample for development of the norms was not representative (age, sex, etc.), but it could still be used as a basis for research. For future research, clinical sample, such as people suffering from anxiety, depression or any other clinical diagnosis might be useful to explore, because scoring high in assertiveness is helping/protecting individuals from being passive/submissive toward his/her needs, stand for themselves or socialize. We also suggest testing the convergent as well as discriminant validity of the scale in future which will be possible only after the translation of different assertiveness scale into the Slovak language.
Conclusion
To conclude, when using the Slovak-language short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (s-SIB; Arrindell et al., 2002), the total assertiveness score can be used on its own or as well as the separate factors scora for Positive Assertion, Negative Assertion, Expression of and Dealing with Personal Limitations, and Initiating Assertiveness.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethical Commitee of Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences at Comenius University in Bratislava. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
VV and JH designed research, wrote the article, interpreted the results, revised the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript. VV performed the statistical analysis. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
Writing this work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency VEGA under Grant 1/0075/19. This work was supported by the Grant of Comenius University UK/243/2022.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1024530/full#supplementary-material
References
Arrindell, W. A. (1980). Dimensional structure and psychopathology correlates of the fear survey schedule (FSS-III) in a phobic population: a factorial definition of agoraphobia. Behav. Res. Ther. 18, 229–242. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(80)90080-7
Arrindell, W. A. M., and Ettema, H. (1981). Dimensionele structuur, betrouwbaarheid en validiteit van de Nederlandse bewerking van de Symptom Checklist (SCL-90): Gegevens gebaseerd op een fobischen een" normale" populatie. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en haar Grensgebieden 36, 77–108.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., and Sica, C. (2002). Introducing a short form version of the scale of interpersonal behaviour (s-SIB) for use in Italy. Psicoterapia Cognitiva e Comportamentale 8, 3–18.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanderman, R., Hageman, W. J. J. M., Pickersgill, M. J., Kwee, M. G. T., Van der Molen, H. T., et al. (1990a). Correlates of assertiveness in normal and clinical samples: a multidimensional approach. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 12, 153–282. doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(90)90004-A
Arrindell, W. A., Sanderman, R., and Ranchor, A. (1990b). The scale for interpersonal behaviour and the Wolpe-Lazarus assertiveness scale: a correlational comparison in a non-clinical sample. Personal. Individ. Differ. 11, 509–513. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90064-X
Arrindell, W. A., and Van der Ende, J. (1985). Cross-sample invariance of the structure of self-reported distress and difficulty in assertiveness: experiences with the scale for interpersonal behaviour. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 7, 205–243. doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(85)90013-X
Arrindell, W. A., Vergara, A. I., Torres, B., Caballo, V. E., Sanderman, R., Calvo, M. G., et al. (1997). Gender roles in relation to assertiveness and Eysenckian personality dimensions: replication with a Spanish population sample. Sex Roles 36, 79–92. doi: 10.1007/BF02766239
Ashouri, A., Torkman Malayeri, M., and Fadaee, Z. (2009). The effectiveness of assertive training group therapy in decreasing aggression and improving academic achievement in high school students. Iranian J. Psychiatry Clin. Psychol. 14, 389–393.
Beck, A., Freeman, A., and Davis, D. (2004). Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders, 2nd Edn. New York: The Guilford Press.
Bouvard, M., Arrindell, W. A., Guérin, J., Bouchard, C., Rion, A. C., Ducottet, E., et al. (1999). Psychometric appraisal of the scale for interpersonal behavior (SIB) in France. Behav. Res. Ther. 37, 741–762. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00187-9
Bridges, R., and Arrindell, W. (2002). The scale for interpersonal behavior: Taiwanese norms and sex differences. Paper presented at the 110th annual convention of the American Psychological Association.
Bridges, K. R., Sanderman, R., Breukers, P., Ranchor, A., and Arrindell, W. A. (1991). Sex differences in assetiveness on the US version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior (SIB). Pers. Individ. Differ. 12, 1239–1243. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90195-H
Bruch, M. A., Haase, R. F., and Purcell, M. J. (1984). Content dimensions of self-statements in assertive situations: a factor analysis of two measures. Cognit. Ther. Res. 8, 173–186. doi: 10.1007/BF01173042
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). Mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–29. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i06
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., and Covi, L. (1973). SCL-90: an outpatient psychiatric rating scale - preliminary report. Psychopharmacol. Bull. 9, 13–27.
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., and Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br. J. Psychol. 105, 399–412. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12046
Eskin, M. (1993a). Reliability of the Turkish version of the perceived social support from friends and family scales, scale for interpersonal behavior, and suicide probability scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 49, 515–522. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199307)49:4%3C515::AID-JCLP2270490408%3E3.0.CO;2-K
Eskin, M. (1993b). Swedish translations of the suicide probability scale, perceived social support from friends and family scales, and the scale for interpersonal behavior: a reliability analysis. Scand. J. Psychol. 34, 276–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1993.tb01122.x
Eskin, M. (1996). Cross-cultural gender differences in the psychosocial correlates of current adolescent suicidal ideation. J. Gender Cult. Health 1, 189–206.
Eskin, M. (2003). Self-reported assertiveness in Swedish and Turkish adolescents: a cross-cultural comparison. Scand. J. Psychol. 44, 7–12. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.t01-1-00315
Eslami, A. A., Rabiei, L., Afzali, S. M., Hamidizadeh, S., and Masoudi, R. (2016). The effectiveness of assertiveness training on the levels of stress, anxiety, and depression of high school students. Iran Red Crescent Med. J. 18:e21096. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.21096
Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult), London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., and Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 6, 21–29. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1
Furnham, A., and Henderson, M. (1984). Assessing assertiveness: a content and correlational analysis of five assertiveness inventories. Behav. Assess. 6, 79–88.
Gambrill, E. D., and Richey, C. A. (1975). An assertion inventory for use in assessment and research. Behav. Ther. 6, 550–561. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(75)80013-X
Gay, M. L., Hollandsworth, J. G., and Galassi, J. P. (1975). An assertiveness inventory for adults. J. Couns. Psychol. 22, 340–344. doi: 10.1037/h0076706
Gilbert, P., and Allan, S. (1994). Assertiveness, submissive behaviour and social comparison. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 33, 295–306. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01125.x
Haghigi, J., Mousavi, M., Mehrabizadeh, H. M., and Beshlideh, K. (2006). The effect of life skills training on mental health and self-esteem of high school female students. J. Educ. Sci. Psychol. 1, 61–78.
Henderson, M., and Furnham, A. (1983). Dimensions of assertiveness: factor analysis of five assertion inventories. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 14, 223–231. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(83)90053-8
Immanuel, E. (2019). Initial development of assertive behavior inventory. Practicum Psychol. 9, 322–338.
Jarque, C. M., and Bera, A. K. (1980). Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals. Econ. Lett. 6, 255–259. doi: 10.1016/0165-1765(80)90024-5
Kuijpers, R. E., Van der Ark, L. A., and Croon, M. A. (2013). Standard errors and confidence intervals for scalability coefficients in Mokken scale analysis using marginal models. Sociol. Methodol. 43, 42–69. doi: 10.1177/008117501348195
Larijani, T. T., Aghajani, M., Baheiraei, A., and Neiestanak, N. S. (2010). Relation of assertiveness and anxiety among Iranian university students. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 17, 893–899. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01607.x
McLean, M. (2020). A Grounded Theory of Women’s Assertive Identity Negotiation. master thesis. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.
Orenstein, H., Orenstein, E., and Carr, J. E. (1976). Assertiveness and anxiety: a correlational study. J. Behav. Ther. Psychiat. Prac. 6, 203–207.
Paeezy, M., Shahraray, M., and Abdi, B. (2010). Investigating the impact of assertiveness training on assertiveness, subjective well-being and academic achievement of Iranian female secondary students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 5, 1447–1450. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.305
Parray, W. M., and Kumar, S. (2017). Impact of assertiveness training on the level of assertiveness, self-esteem, stress, psychological well-being and academic achievement of adolescents. Indian J. Health Wellbeing 8, 1476–1480.
Parsa, P., Parsa, N., Ahmad-Panah, M., and Ghaleiha, A. (2015). Mediating effect of anxiety to perform social skill on the relationship between inter-parental conflict and adolescents' self-efficacy. Europ. J. Soc. Behav. Sci. 13, 258–265. doi: 10.15405/ejsbs.168
Pascual-Leone, A., and Greenberg, L. S. (2007). Emotional processing in experiential therapy: why “the only way is through”. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 75, 875–887. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.875
Puijk-Hekman, S., van Gaal, B. G., Bredie, S. J., Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M. W., and van Dulmen, S. (2017). Self-management support program for patients with cardiovascular diseases: user-centered development of the tailored, web-based program vascular view. JMIR Res. Protocol. 6:e18. doi: 10.2196/resprot.6352
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behav. Ther. 4, 398–406. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(73)80120-0
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., and Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. J. Pers. Assess. 92, 544–559. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
Revelle, W. (2015). Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (Accessed June, 2022).
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., and Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol. Methods 21, 137–150. doi: 10.1037/met0000045
Romek, V. (1992). Assertiveness training as a way out from the conflict between adaptation and self-realization. Int. J. Psychol. 27:305.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Salter, A. (2002). Conditioned Reflex Therapy: The Classic Book on Assertiveness that Began Behavior Therapy. Gretna, LA: Wellness Institute.
Sarkova, M., Bacikova-Sleskova, M., Orosova, O., Madarasova Geckova, A., Katreniakova, Z., Klein, D., et al. (2013). Associations between assertiveness, psychological well-being, and self-esteem in adolescents. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43, 147–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00988.x
Sijtsma, K., and Molenaar, I. W. (2002). Introduction to Nonparametric Item Response Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Timulak, L., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2014). New developments for case conceptualization in emotion-focused therapy. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 22, 619–636. doi: 10.1002/cpp.1922
Trapletti, A., Hornik, K., LeBaron, B., and Hornik, M. K. (2020). Package ‘tseries’. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tseries/tseries.pdf (Accessed June, 2022).
Ullrich, R., and Ullrich de Muynck, R. (1973). “Standardisierung des Selbstsicherheitstrainings für Gruppen” in Behavior Therapy–Verhaltenstherapie. eds. J. C. Brengelmann and W. Tunner (Munich: Urban und Schwarzenberg), 252–260.
Vagos, P., Pereira, A., and Arrindell, W. (2014). Validation of the short version of the scale for interpersonal behavior for Portuguese adolescents. Psicologia 27, 452–461. doi: 10.1590/1678-7153.201427305
Van der Ark, L. A. (2012). New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–27. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i05
Wolpe, J., and Lang, P. J. (1974). “A fear survey schedule for use in behavior therapy” in Behavior Modification Procedure: A Sourcebook (Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co), 228–232.
Wolpe, J., and Lazarus, A. A. (1966). Behavior therapy techniques: a guide to the treatment of neuroses. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Keywords: assertiveness, factor analysis, psychometric analysis, SIB, s-SIB
Citation: Vráblová V and Halamová J (2022) Short version of the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior: Slovak translation and psychometric analysis. Front. Psychol. 13:1024530. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1024530
Edited by:
Kwok Kit Tong, University of Macau, ChinaReviewed by:
Pablo Alejandro Perez-Diaz, Austral University of Chile, ChileWillem Arrindell, Retired, The Hague, Netherlands
Copyright © 2022 Vráblová and Halamová. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Júlia Halamová, julia.halamova@gmail.com