Nonstandardized Tasks
- Hypothetical
- Narrative
- Analog
- Direct   Observation

If you have not previously answered our Nonstandard-ized Task Use questionnaire, please click here.

Hypothetical tasks help professionals assess what children are likely to say or do in everyday social situations. These tasks have proven useful in understanding how school age youngsters use language to interact with peers, particularly when they attempt to negotiate potential conflicts. The protocol that follows can be used to design hypothetical tasks for clinical use; the emphasis here is on tasks that sample peer negotiation in a conflict situation.

1. Select one or more problematic social situations. These situations should be meaningful events in the lives of the children that are being assessed, and ones that pose problems. For example, in peer negotiation a good scenario might involve a child wanting to play basketball after school but her friend wants to ride bikes.
   
   
2. Create a hypothetical story based on the problematic social situation. The story should have one underlying social situation that can be encapsulated in four or five simple sentences. Total number of words in the story should not exceed 50. The following example of a peer negotiation/conflict situation contains four sentences and 43 words (following Timler, 2000).
   
   You are putting together a puzzle during lunch. You have spent much time on the puzzle and are almost finished. A friend comes over and grabs one of the last pieces. Your friend does not want to give you back the puzzle piece.
   
   The video segment on this Web site provides an illustration.
   
   
3. Print each story in large type (e.g., 26 font). Present one story per page. Stories may also be presented using PowerPoint. Audio or video record responses to assist later transcription and analysis.
   
   
4. Create "open-ended" questions that will elicit the social communication behaviors of interests. For example, the following set of "open ended" questions (i.e., Q1-Q6) are designed to elicit multiple strategies and goals for solving social problems that involve peer negotiation.
   
   Q1. What are all the things you can say or do here?
   Q2. What would you say or do first if this happened to you?
   Q3. What would your friend say or do back?
   Q4. What is your goal?
   Q5. Why would you say or do that first?
   Q6. What does your teacher think is the best thing to say or do?
   
   
5. For scoring, create categories that correspond to the possible behaviors that might be demonstrated through the child's responses. For example, the child's responses to questions Q1-Q3 above are assigned to one of the following six strategy categories (following Timler, 2000; Chung & Asher, 1996):
   
   
   1. Pro-social: Responses that accommodate the needs of two or more people by suggesting ways to compromise, asking for more information, or making polite requests. (e.g.," I would ask him/her to play with me and finish the puzzle together.")
      
      
   2. Hostile/Coercive: Responses that directly counteract another person's actions in an unfriendly manner (e.g. "I would grab the puzzle back.").
      
      
   3. Assertive: Responses stating wants/needs in a direct way without saying "please" or stating a social norm (e.g., "I would tell him/her that I need the puzzle piece and to give it back.").
      
      
   4. Passive: Responses giving in or forfeiting one's own interest (e.g., "I would just quit working on the puzzle.").
      
      
   5. Adult Seeking: Responses requesting help from adults (e.g. "I would go ask the teacher for help.").
      
      
   6. Irrelevant Statement: Responses including a statement(s) that is not a strategy, such as restating part of the vignette or making an off topic comment (e.g., "I really like puzzles.").
   
   The responses from questions Q4 - Q6 above would be scored according to one of the following three Goal categories (following Timler, 2000; Chung & Asher, 1996):
   
   
   1. Relationship Goal: Responses that maintain a good relationship with another person (e.g., "I don't want my friend to be mad at me.").
      
      
   2. Self-interest Goal: Responses that pursue one's own needs, or protecting one's own interests --limited or no interest in another's desires (e.g., "I want to finish the puzzle.").
      
      
   3. Irrelevant/Other Statements: Responses that are non-goal statements; typically "off topic" (e.g., "Cause, I like that.").
   
   
   
6. (Optional) Design a "closed-set of possible behaviors" to sample the child's "competence," that is, his/her ideas of what he/she should or could do in the specific social situation. After the child has responded to the "open ended questions," present the child with the "closed set" of choices relating to the story. Conceptually, the open-ended questions will elicit responses that reflect more habitual behaviors; the closed-set will elicit responses that reflect more optimal behaviors. In the following example for peer negotiation, each option in the "closed set" reflects one of the previous scoring categories (listed above in step 5). To illustrate, the following "closed set" of choices might be offered with respect to the above story regarding the puzzle:
   
   "What is the best thing to say or do here?"
   • Tell my friend I need the puzzle piece back. (Assertive Strategy)
   • Grab the puzzle piece back. (Hostile/Coercive Strategy)
   • Ask my friend to help me finish the puzzle. (Prosocial Strategy)
   • Ask the teacher for help. (Adult Seeking Strategy)
   • Let my friend have the puzzle piece. (Passive Strategy)
     
     
   "Tell me why you picked that one. What is your goal?"
   • I want to get the puzzle piece back. (Self-interest Goal)
   • I want my friend to be happy. (Relationship Goal)
   • I don't like puzzles anyway. (Irrelevant Statement)
   
   
   
7. Score the child's responses for the open-ended and closed-set separately. Calculate the proportion of answers per each scoring category. You will gain a sense of how a child would respond in a particular kind of social situation. You can have children without social problems complete your hypothetical tasks to use as a comparison for the children with problems. You can also analyze performance qualitatively by looking for patterns in response.

Return to Hypothetical Tasks

Hypothetical | Narrative | Analog | Direct Observation
Home | Nonstandardized Tasks

University of Washington, Dept. of Speech & Hearing Sciences, Tele-Collaboration Project. © 1999-2001, UW-SPHSC, including all photographs and images unless otherwise noted. Comments: tcollab@u.washington.edu