Use of the Brazilian version of the Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies Interview (INSI) in a child and adolescent sample: a pilot study

Figueiredo, Tiago; Fortes, Dídia; Ayrão, Vanessa; Bernardes, Camila; Oliveira, Natália; Soares, Rejane; Costa, Raquel Quimas Molina da; Sudo, Felipe; Tripp, Gail; Serra-Pinheiro, Maria Antonia; Mattos, Paulo

doi:10.47626/2237-6089-2020-0136

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 44 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.47626/2237-6089-2020-0136 copy

Use of the Brazilian version of the Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies Interview (INSI) in a child and adolescent sample: a pilot study

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Introduction

Interpersonal negotiation skills (INS) comprise actions used to solve social situations between interacting individuals involving different needs or desires. These abilities are part of one’s social competence and may be impaired in some psychiatric conditions. There are few validated psychometric tools for measuring INS in the literature. This pilot study aimed to investigate some basic psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies Interview (INSI) in children and adolescents.

Methods

We developed a new version of the INSI adapted to the Brazilian culture using eight different dilemmas in dyadic situations (with peers and adults), presented visually as drawings on cards. A group of psychologists and psychiatrists chose and adapted the dilemmas formerly proposed by the original version. The same scoring criteria as for the original instrument were used. A total of 20 children and adolescents were included in this pilot study. We investigated test reliability using measures of interrater reliability, test-retest, and internal consistency. The content validity of the INSI was also evaluated by comparison with scores from the Child Behavior Checklist-Revised (CBCL).

Results

Internal consistency and test-retest evaluations were acceptable (rater 1: α = 0.77; rater 2: α = 0.72); the reliability of the instrument was excellent (K = 0.078; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.99); and content validity was strongly significant (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Preliminary results suggest that this version of the INSI has good interrater reliability and internal consistency and constitutes a promising tool to assess social competence.

Social skills; psychometrics; pilot projects; social issues

Step	Description
Step 1: Definition and comprehension of problem	This step evaluates the ability to define with accuracy the nature of the social problem. This step changes from a definition that focuses on physical and concrete aspects of the problem (e.g., “He is jealous of the new friend”) to one concerned more with interpersonal relationships (e.g., “They have a problem and need to decide whether to take a new friend with them”). The manner in which the problem is defined helps clarify the goal of the negotiation process.
Step 2: Identifying the emotions generated by the dilemma exposed	This step evaluates the ability to identify and name the emotions generated by the conflict situation. This is an important step to be assessed because it enables evaluation of the primitiveness (e.g., “he is sad”) or complexity (e.g., “he is distressed”) of emotion processing and helps to assess the participant’s assertive skills.
Step 3: Generating strategies and selecting a specific strategy	This step refers to the ability to think of more than one potential strategy that may solve the problem presented. It can be useful in assessing flexibility (coordinating reciprocal social perspectives) or insistence on the same pattern (simple physical strategies), and also to assess the ability to choose a particular strategy. This capacity depends on the ability to anticipate the consequences of the alternatives and to plan further alternatives that may be implemented, if necessary, to accomplish the goal. It is possible to capture some patterns of plans that change from little ability to plan longer consequences (avoidant, impulsive) to more complex strategies that consider longer outcomes (attending both perspectives).
Step 4: Justification of strategy and evaluating the outcomes	This final step refers to the ability to evaluate the outcomes of specific negotiation strategies and processes based on verbal justification of the strategy selected. This step is important to assess the conscious choice process and to evaluate whether the subject considered any perspective to maintain the relationship.

Scoring category	Numeric score value
Definition and comprehension of problem	0 – No reference to the problem; Comprehends the problem with wrong assignments; just repeats the interviewer’s narration; 1 – Understands the problem from a one-way perspective; one perspective is neglected; 2 – Considers both perspectives, but focuses on just one perspective (one of the two persons has priority); 3 – Understands the dilemma as a shared problem and considers both perspectives/needs/desires;
Identifying the emotions generated by the dilemma exposed	0 – Does not refer to any emotions or refers to incongruent feelings; 1 – Simple and unidimensional feelings expressed in a self-protective way; 2 – Simple and one-dimensional feelings expressed in an empathic way; 3 – Complex or multiple feelings that consider the other’s needs/perspective.
Generating strategies and selecting a specific strategy	0 – Physical, noncommunicative methods 1 – One-way strategies or requests; one-way commands and assertions; 2 – Reciprocal communication including trades, exchanges, verbal persuasion, suggestions that convince and protect subjective interests; 3 – Strategies that focus on collaboration, need for integration of the interests.
Justification of strategy and evaluating the outcomes	0 – No justification or anticipation of consequences are expressed/considered; 1 – Self-protective justification; 2 – Empathic concerns without considering long-term consequences to the relationship; 3 – Expression of concerns for long-term effects on the relationship.

Variable	Result (n = 20)
Sex
Male	13 (65%)
Female	11 (35%)
Age range	8-17
IQ scores	104.7 (11.33)
Psychiatric problems
ADHD	13
ODD	1
Anxiety symptoms	13
Depressive symptoms	6
Learning disorders	8

Items/rater	Mean (SD)	ICC	95%CI	SEM
Dilemma 1
Comprehension
R1	1.9 (0.94)	0.71	0.28-0.88	0.74
R2	1.95 (0.86)
Strategy
R1	1.66 (0.91)	0.54	-0.04-0.81	0.91
R2	2.04 (0.86)
Justification
R1	1.19 (0.98)	0.69	0.22-0.87	0.82
R2	1.23 (0.99)
Emotions
R1	1.42 (0.74)	0.51	-0.15-0.80	0.87
R2	1.71 (1.00)
Dilemma 2
Comprehension
R1	1.71 (0.78)	0.40	-0.48-0.75	0.92
R2	1.51 (0.81)
Strategy
R1	1.80 (0.68)	0.30	-0.68-0.71	0.93
R2	2.04 (0.86)
Justification
R1	1.66 (0.79)	0.72	0.30-0.88	0.67
R2	1.66 (0.96)
Emotions
R1	1.76 (0.76)	0.68	0.23-0.87	0.69
R2	1.52 (0.92)
Dilemma 3
Comprehension
R1	1.47 (0.87)	0.19	-1.00-0.67	1.04
R2	1.28 (0.56)
Strategy
R1	1.85 (0.91)	0.70	0.24-0.89	0.77
R2	1.80 (0.98)
Justification
R1	1.33 (0.65)	0.67	0.19-0.87	0.68
R2	1.42 (1.07)
Emotions
R1	1.66 (0.73)	0.72	0.32-0.88	0.62
R2	1.47 (0.87)
Dilemma 4
Comprehension
R1	1.38 (0.67)	0.61	0.04-0.84	0.64
R2	1.23 (0.70)
Strategy
R1	1.95 (0.97)	0.28	-0.74-0.71	1.24
R2	2.23 (0.99)
Justification
R1	1.74 (1.03)	0.64	0.09-0.85	0.94
R2	1.38 (1.07)
Emotions
R1	1.76 (0.62)	0.69	0.26-0.87	0.53
R2	1.28 (0.65)
Comprehension (total score)
R1	6.42 (2.13)	0.63	0.09-0.85	1.86
R2	6.00 (1.87)
Strategy (total score)
R1	7.28 (1.95)	0.79	0.15-0.93	1.57
R2	5.71 (2.96)
Justification (total score)
R1	5.66 (2.41)	0.76	0.42-0.90	2.05
R2	4.40 (3.54)
Emotions (total score)
R1	6.61 (2.45)	0.58	-0.02-0.83	2.73
R2	4.40 (3.54)
INSI total score
R1	26.38 (6.27)	0.98	0.97-0.99	1.34
R2	25.85 (6.47)

Associação de Psiquiatria do Rio Grande do Sul Av. Ipiranga, 5311/202, 90610-001 Porto Alegre RS/ Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 51) 3024 4846 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: trends@aprs.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Tiago Figueiredo Rua Diniz Cordeiro, 30, Botafogo 22281-100 - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil Tel.: +5521980061420 E-mail: tiagofigueiredosf@gmail.com