how do adolescents define depression? - cIRcle - University of ...

Chapter III: Methodology
interactions or action choices of young people based on clinical pair therapy work in young
people (Selman, 2003). In the early 1990s, the work was extended into public schools.
The 4+ Rel-Q consists of 24 questions comprising five subscales that focus on
relationships with both peers and adults: understanding of interpersonal relationships (6
questions); hypothetical interpersonal negotiation (4 questions); social perspective-taking (4
questions); real-life interpersonal negotiation (4 questions); and awareness of personal meaning
of relationships (6 questions) (Schultz & Selman, 2000a; Schultz et al., 2003). Two 4+Rel-Q
subscales represent interpersonal understanding (understanding and social perspective-taking),
two subscales designate interpersonal skills (hypothetical and real-life interpersonal negotiation),
and the fifth subscale represents awareness of (inter) personal meaning (Schultz et al., 2003).
The 4+Rel-Q also provides an overall psychosocial maturity scale that is computed by averaging
the subscales.
In the 4+Rel-Q, there are four multiple-choice responses to each question that pose
dilemmas or common social situations with peers or adults. Each response represents a point in
the continuum of four theoretical developmental levels of psychosocial maturity in the
coordination of social perspectives ranging from egocentric (Level 0) to mutual (Level 3)
(Schultz et al., 2003). Level 0 designates the lowest point in the continuum (no social
perspective-taking) to Level 3 (third-person social perspective-taking; see Table 1 and the
Literature Review for more detailed discussion). Respondents rate each statement on a 4-point
Liked scale ("poor or bad," "average or OK," "good," "excellent"). In addition to rating each
item for each question, the participant is also asked to choose one of the given responses as the
best answer. Each best answer has an assigned developmental value. Higher scores indicate a
more mature level of social perspective coordination.
Previous research has found support for the reliability of the 4+Rel-Q. Schultz and
Selman (2000b) and Schultz et al. (2003) reported that Cronbach's alpha reliabilities on the
4+Rel-Q for the average item-rating score and average best-response score were .82 and .71,
respectively. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha reliabilities for the average rating score and
average best response score were .73 and .62, respectively. Based on previous research where
best-response scores were eliminated from analyses due to low reliabilities (Pedersen, 2004),
only the average rating score was utilized in the present investigation.
53