Theoretical bases of Mosey's group interaction skills

Headnote

ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this article is to review and analyse the theoretical foundations of Mosey's concepts of five levels of group interaction skill development: parallel, project, egocentric cooperative, cooperative and mature group levels. The organization and synthesis of these conceptual levels of group interaction skills are developed into a schema for validating Mosey's concepts and associated ages. The literature includes 25 years of publication of Mosey's concepts. Approaches to content, construct and criterion validity methods of examination of group interaction skill concepts are reviewed. Empirical methods for future validity studies of the tool are proposed. Three new assumptions regarding the relationship of factors of group interaction skill are presented: ( 1 ) most people function at two levels of developmental group interaction; (2) there is a relationship between the nature of the activity and the level of function; (3) adults function at lower developmental levels of group interaction if the activity requires it.

Key words: occupational therapy theory, Anne Cronin Mosey, group interaction skill, social developmental levels.

When terms such as parallel play, cooperative play and egocentric-choice play appear in popular literature (Stich, 1994), it is apparent that basic skill concepts used by occupational therapists and educators have become integrated into everyday knowledge. Application of these concepts, parallel, project and egocentric-cooperative group interaction levels, to the discussion of friendship's ages and stages in childhood leads one to reflect on the theoretical sources, validity and professional application of such principles to activity group treatment as described by Mosey (1968, 1970a and 1970b, 1973, 1986).

This article has a three-fold purpose: first, to search for the theoretical foundations of the concepts of Mosey's five levels of group interaction and analyse their conceptual integrity; second, to organize and synthesize the major concepts into a concise table preliminary to development of a tool to measure group interaction skills; third, to propose conceptual and statistical methods to validate the sequence of group concepts, behaviours and age ranges presented by Mosey (1968, 1970a and 1970b, 1973, 1986). In presenting the theoretical foundations of Mosey's group interaction skills, Parten's concepts and assumptions (1932) are highlighted and compared with Mosey's. Concepts requiring clarification support the need for validity studies.

Theoretical foundations

Between 1968 and 1973, Mosey published two books and two articles describing the developmental levels of group relationships of children, adolescents and adults by examining the issues of group interactive skills, group activities and group therapeutic interventions for occupational therapy treatment (1968, 1970a and 1970b, 1973). Mosey's concepts included the developmental levels of parallel (18 months-2 years), project (2-4 years), egocentriccooperative (5-7 years), cooperative (9-12 years) and mature (15-18 years) group levels (Figure 1).

Mosey's group skill levels were drawn from a consolidation of theoretical concepts previously proposed by Lifton (1966), Parten (1932) and Pikunas (1957). This literature in education and child psychology originally analysed and proposed names for various stages of play, inspiring several labels for Mosey's five stages of developmental group levels.

Parten's concepts

Although Mosey used concepts from numerous sources, she drew most heavily on Parten (1932) for Parten's individual concepts, for her construct or combination of concepts, and for her research on the association of age groups and concepts. Parten (1932) was the only source of the concepts Mosey used who employed an empirical study to examine the relationships of these rankordered conceptual levels of group development. For these reasons, Parten is considered Mosey's most influential and strongest source.

Parten (1932) studied the categories of children's play in groups, and wrote a combined theoretical and empirical article about social participation among pre-school children. She observed and named three types or categories of group play: parallel, associative and cooperative. Parten defined parallel activity as playing beside rather than with other children (1932). She described associative play as activity with other children in which the child's interest is primarily in association with others rather than in the activity, where children frequently choose activities other children like in order to attract other children to play together. Parten described cooperative play as organized activity for the purpose of making a product, building a structure, playing an imaginative role or striving to attain some competitive goal (1932).

Parten (1932) studied six children at each of five age ranges: 2-2.5, 2.5-3, 3-3.5, 3.5-4 and 4-4.5 years, with 60 observations of each child, measuring the number of times children engaged in each type of group play. Parten illustrated her study in the graph, `Social participation and age' (see Figure 1). According to the study, the two youngest age groups, 2-2.5 and 2.5-3 years of age, most frequently engaged in parallel play, participated in some associative play and interacted least in cooperative play.

Children aged 3-3.5 and 3.5-4 years of age in this study manifested their greatest level of participation in associative play; however, they participated in all three types of group play to some degree. Children aged 4-4.5 years participated in all three kinds of play. As might be expected, 4-year-olds participated more than the younger children in cooperative play (1932). It is important to observe that children of all age ranges in this study interacted with others in their group in two or more categories of play, but in varying proportions of participation.

FIGURE 1:

Parten (1932) also found a gradual shift upward towards more complex types of participatory play across the five age groups, as well as a moderate correlation between age and social participation across the five groups (r = 0.61). This analysis suggests that Parten's categories represent a gradual developmental distinction of stages of participation in play. The gradual overlap of activities of increasing difficulty in each cluster of Parten's age levels, and the ranges of ages described in the graph and in the previous paragraph appear to provide a stronger picture of a continuous developmental trend than does the statistical correlation of 0.61.

A limitation of Parten's study is that it was conducted with children from the Nursery School of the Institute of Child Welfare of the University of Minnesota 60 years ago. This group of children on welfare may not be representative of the average child. It is also possible that children in 1932 may have had different norms and cultural values from children of today.

Mosey's concept selection

In three early references Mosey used the term `group interaction skills' to describe five group levels in a developmental frame of reference entitled `recapitulation of ontogenesis' (1968, 1970b, 1986). The label `group interaction skills' was used to distinguish social skills from other performance skills. Mosey (1970a) referred to the group interaction skill levels as concepts that have been used to describe various types of developmental treatment groups by writers such as Parten (1932), so that these terms may be used interchangeably.

In describing the continuum of group interaction skills, Mosey employed two terms from Parten, parallel and cooperative play, for two of her group interaction skill levels. Mosey also drew from other sources - Gesell (1940), Gesell and Amatruda (1969) and Pikunas (1957) - who used Parten's terms of parallel, associative and cooperative play descriptively as adjectives. However, Mosey applied the cooperative level of interaction to ages 9-12 years; whereas Parten applied this level to pre-school children. Gesell and Amatruda (1969) included a reference to group projects in their description of associative play, which may account for Mosey's use of the label `project group' for her second level of group interaction instead of Parten's label of associative play.

Mosey used the term `mature group', taken from Lifton's work (1966), to describe her highest level of group interactive skill. Lifton described mature group members as self-directed, patient, sensitive to the feelings of others and able to express emotions in socially acceptable ways. According to Lifton, the mature group accepts the fact that people are different and that making progress takes time.

In her description of the mature group, Mosey (1970a) incorporated an outline of task and social emotional roles as characterized by Parsons and Bales (1955). This categorization describes a high level of expectation in the ability of 15-18-year-olds to relate to others in a group in a mature manner with established performance levels. The descriptors for this group level appear to be too advanced for teenagers.

After pulling together the labels of parallel, project, cooperative and mature group interaction levels, Mosey coined the expression `egocentriccooperative group' skill to label her third group level, which bridges the project group level and the cooperative group level (K. Worrell, personal communication, 16 February 1994). Mosey believed that growth from the project level to a cooperative level of group interaction was too great a change in interaction skills. She also observed that development of cooperative skills was achieved through a preliminary effort to cooperate with others based on activities that benefit the initiator as well as others. Thus, Mosey selected these five major concepts to distinguish levels of group interaction skill development. Her labels and associated age ranges are outlined as follows from her writings in Table 1.

Definition of concepts of Mosey's five group interaction skills

The five developmental group levels have been described by Mosey in detail in a number of publications (1968, 1970a and b, 1973, 1986). These descriptions of concepts are presented in Table 1 so that their concept validity can be analysed in preparation for understanding the synthesized chart presented later. Portions of the definitions are given verbatim from Mosey, whereas others have been collapsed for brevity.

TABLE 1:

A parallel group is an aggregate of individuals who are working or playing in the presence of others with minimal sharing of tasks and with some mutual stimulation. The skills needed to participate in this level group include an awareness of others and some verbal or nonverbal interaction with fellow group members (Mosey, 1986).

A project group is characterized by membership involvement in short-term tasks requiring some shared interaction, cooperation and competition, with perception of the task as paramount and with minimal interaction outside the task. The skills needed to participate in this level group include the ability to engage in short-term tasks, to seek and give assistance to others willingly and adequately, and to understand that one must help others in order to receive help from others (Mosey, 1986).

An egocentric-cooperative group is characterized by group members selecting, implementing and executing relatively long-term tasks through joint interaction and individual response based on enlightened self-interest; the individual recognizes that his or her rights and needs will be acknowledged through respect and recognition of the rights and needs of others. Acquisition of this skill is indicated by the ability to identify group norms and goals, use of this knowledge as a guide to action, some experimentation with various group membership roles, perception of self as a group participant with a right to belong to groups and the ability to meet the esteem needs of others (Mosey, 1986).

A cooperative group is characterized by homogeneous membership and mutual need satisfaction to the extent that the task is often considered to be secondary to need fulfilment. Learning of this skill is acquired through interaction in an environment where there are compatible participants who are developmentally ready to engage in a cooperative group (Mosey, 1986).

A mature group is characterized by heterogeneous membership consisting of participants who are flexible enough to take on a variety of roles, being comfortable with both higher-level and lower-level group skill positions. There is a balance between task accomplishment and the satisfaction of group members' needs (Mosey, 1986).

Mosey (1986) also discussed four relevant topics across each of the five levels: developmental group issues, roles and behaviours, activities and environment, and the leader's role. The salient points in each of these topics were extracted and synthesized into a figure summarizing the functional skills pertinent to each group interaction skill level (Figure 2). It was the intention of the author to operationalize the definitions of the concepts through this synthesis of these group interaction skill functions or behaviours. It is hoped that this synthesis captures the most essential elements of Mosey's group developmental skills. Constructing this synthesis across Mosey's four points of discussion for each of the five group interaction skills provides four scales for measuring the developmental social levels of group participants.

In describing the leader's role with the parallel group, it can be noted that Mosey incorporated concepts from Maslow's basic needs (1954) (Figure 2, last column).

Con of Mosey's group interaction skill levels and Parten's categories of social

There are several major differences between Mosey and Parten's concepts, age ranges and assumptions for group skill performance. Some of these differences raise questions about the validity of concepts regarding group interaction, which will be discussed here.

Concept labels

Whereas Mosey's labels specifically focused on group interaction skill as a part of the developmental frame of reference called `recapitulation of ontogenesis' (1970a, 1970b and 1986), Parten's labels addressed types of play called `categories of social participation' (1932) rather than levels or stages of groups. Here Mosey expanded on Parten's work in venturing to identify the group interaction skills as a social growth continuum fostered by groups.

Closer scrutiny of four of Mosey's five group interaction labels reveals that they emphasize social participation: parallel, egocentric cooperative, cooperative and mature group skills. There is a similar emphasis on social participation in Parten's three categories: parallel, associative and cooperative play. However, Mosey's project group level carries more of an activity focus, in contrast to the other four labels with their social-interactive emphasis. This difference between an activity label, 'project', and the four social interaction labels of parallel, egocentric cooperative, cooperative and mature, calls for empirical investigation of the nature of group interaction following the parallel play stage. Initial observations appear to demonstrate passing 'associations' as the children move out of the parallel stage, rather than joint 'projects', as a label for this stage.

FIGURE 2:

Age ranges

Mosey's major contribution to the group interaction skill theory was the addition of adolescent ages and skills of social interaction, whereas Parten's most significant contribution was empirically testing social interaction concepts in pre-school children. It is difficult to compare Mosey and Parten's age ranges because they are organized differently. Parten studied children ranging from 2 to 4.5 years, whereas Mosey conceptualizes ages ranging from 18 months to 18 years. While Parten's age ranges are continuous, Mosey's age ranges are only continuous initially: 18 months-2 years; 2-4 years; 5-7 years. The last two ranges, 9-12 years and 15-18 years, are separated by gaps of 2 and 3 years, respectively. Although the sequence of group interaction skill levels has not been questioned in clinical or educational environments, the accuracy and specificity of the age ranges as stipulated by Mosey need to be examined empirically. In addition, because these ages ranges were organized in 1932 (Parten) and 1968 (Mosey), they need to be reviewed. Children currently attend pre-school groups from an early age in large numbers; thus a new examination of these ages ranges is needed. The author's preliminary observations of 20 pre-school groups raise some questions about Mosey's age ranges. These ages may be associated with Mosey's designated group skill levels in therapist and teacher-led groups, but may not pertain to groups at free play. The author is in the process of examining these questions of ages and group interaction skill labels in groups at free play.

Assumptions and postulates

Mosey's major assumption of her stages of group interaction skill is that: `Through the acquisition of the various group interaction level skills, the individual learns to take appropriate group membership roles, engage in decisionmaking, communicate effectively, recognize group norms and interact in accordance with these norms, contribute to goals attainment, work toward group cohesiveness and assist in resolving group conflict' (1970a: 201). In explaining each group level, Mosey describes the movement in group interaction in a positive direction, as might be expected for a developmental frame of reference. Although she states that it was to treat deficiency in group interaction skill that she formulated the concept of developmental groups (1970b), it is only in her 1986 discussion of the specific group levels that she addresses dysfunction at two of the levels, the parallel and mature levels, by referring to indicators of `lack of learning' of a particular skill (Mosey, 1986: 435, 436). Further indicators of need to learn the other skills levels could provide guidelines or postulates regarding change as to when to treat each deficiency, because frames of reference need to identify both positive strengths of a theory's concepts, and deficiencies and interventions for areas in need of treatment.

Another major assumption that Mosey seems to make is that the developmental theoretical construct she organized for five levels of group performance for persons without disabilities can also be applied to persons with disabilities. This extrapolation seems to make a conceptual leap; however, that leap is based on the observations of occupational therapy clinicians who had and have noted group function of psychiatric patients to be at various levels of performance. These perceptions of persons with cognitive disabilities seem to be in keeping with the labels and age ranges of Mosey's first three levels of interaction: parallel, project and egocentric-cooperative group levels of function. These patterns of levels have been used successfully for adult populations by psychosocial occupational therapists for years. It has also been noted in research by Allen (1985) that psychiatric patients usually function at the fourth cognitive level, on a scale of 1 to 6. It also seems to make sense that, within the Mosey model, if patients can function at the cooperative and/or mature levels, they would not need group treatment.

Parten's (1932) major assumption, like Mosey's, is in a positive direction. In her summary Parten states that: `Positive social participation increased over twenty observation periods, while negative participation decreased for the group as a whole' (1932: 267). Whereas Parten's conclusion is based on empirical research, Mosey's is based on several principles summarized from traditional developmental literature based on therapists' clinical observations. Her article `The concept and use of developmental groups' synthesized these principles. These assumptions relate to the sequential nature of development, the altering of deviations in development and the simulation of an environment believed to be responsible for development of adaptive skills (Erikson, 1950; Flavell, 1963; Ayres, 1964; Overly, 1968). Parten was able to conclude from her research that `social participation is dependent, to a large extent, upon the age of the children' (Parten, 1932: 268), thus confirming social developmental theory in pre-school children.

Parten's (1932) reference to negative participatory behaviours among children in groups, and Mosey's mention of areas of lack of learning in group interaction, speak to the realities of limitations and difficulties in progress occurring in developmental group skill levels. The bulk of their writings, however, indicate the expectation of a largely positive direction fostered by the efficacy of groups to move children and adults toward positive participation and interaction through the guidance and intervention of group leaders, teachers and through interaction with one another.

Current use of Mosey and Parten's group concepts

Both Mosey's (1986) and Parten's (1932) concepts of participation and interaction can be found in recent occupational therapy literature. Bruce and Borg (1993) and Cole (1993) considered Mosey's outline of the ability to participate in various levels of groups so essential to their texts that they included these adaptive skills in the appendices of their books. In addition, Cole (1993) reprinted Mosey's article, `The concept and use of developmental groups' (1970b) in toto in another appendix. Early (1993) devotes several pages to Mosey's discussion of the development of group skills, incorporating an outline of Mosey's (1973) five levels of group skill. During 1982-95, five groups of researchers referred to Mosey's group interaction work in the review of literature for their studies (Howe and McDermott, 1982; Schwartzberg et al., 1982; DeCarlo and Mann, 1985; Duncombe and Howe, 1985; Falk-Kessler et al., 1991). Parten's (1932) concepts of parallel, associative and cooperative play are presented in Willard and Spackman's Occupational Therapy in an outline providing definitions of Parten's terms (Hopkins and Smith, 1993).

In 1993, Parten's (1932) concepts were again examined in Saracho's study of factor analysis of young children's play. Employing five of Parten's social participation categories, in conjunction with other measures to examine play behaviours, Saracho's research strengthened the validity of Parten's (1932) concepts.

Salo-Chydenius (1996) presented a case study of a man with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia involved in a social skills training programme. She developed a survey, the Group-Interaction Skills Survey (1994), incorporating indicators from Mosey's texts of five levels of group interaction skills. She was able to measure change in 10 out of 13 indicators derived from Mosey's texts across 11 sessions.

Since 1968, occupational therapists have been exposed to both Mosey's (1968, 1970a and b, 1973, 1986) and Parten's concepts (Saracho, 1993) through their educational curriculum, the former in mental health, and the latter in paediatric occupational therapy. In these two areas of practice, the outlines of play participation and group interaction skills provide a mental template for assessment that is often unconscious, but cognitively imprinted as a foundation for evaluation of average group developmental levels in occupational therapy groups. Yet, Mosey's concepts continue to await adequate empirical study.

Newly proposed assumptions related to group interaction skill concepts

A set of three assumptions presented here are based on analysis of the conceptual literature and on preliminary field observations of free play in young children's groups. Although often unstated, these assumptions are based on analysis and observations of group interaction of children and adults by occupational therapy group process educators and therapists as part of the set of beliefs regarding the development of social participation in groups. They are presented here for consideration and will need to be empirically validated at a future time.

Assumption 1

Aside from children and adults who have only reached the first group interaction level, the parallel stage, people are usually comfortable in interacting with others within at least two adjacent developmental group levels. For example, clinical and natural observation of adults shows a trend toward frequent interaction at the cooperative and mature levels. When adults relax and enjoy activities with peers, they are interacting at a cooperative level, with enjoyment of the relationship for its own sake, in a spirit of camaraderie. When adults work with other adults who are hierarchically their subordinates or superordinates, and when they relate socially to parents, elders or children, they are interacting with mature group skills, teaching, coaching and/or listening to others. Thus, it appears that relating in groups with varying group interaction skills serves different purposes; such as, for adults in cooperative groups, the satisfaction lies in being a colleague or friend, and in mature groups it lies in being a mentor.

In preliminary observations made by the schema developers and reviewers, it has also been noted that other younger age groups generally interact at two adjacent developmental age levels. The rationale for frequent performance of group skills at two levels may also be dependent on the activity eliciting a certain type of interaction, as is presented in the second assumption.

Assumption 2

There is a relationship between the activity selected and the type of interaction which occurs as a result. Activities that require participants to become engaged in an occupation that demands their full attention while they sit or stand near other participants are per force involving them in a parallel activity: for example, accountants at work in an open office at individual parallel desks. By contrast, if an activity demands teamwork or play as a unit, cooperative level interaction will be needed, such as in joint planning in quality assurance groups of insurance salespeople in a conference room.

Assumption 3

Sometimes adults participate in groups at beginning levels of interaction, such as parallel or project/associative, if they are engaged in an activity that requires or allows that type of interaction. Watching television, seeing a movie, or listening to a presentation side by side are examples of parallel or associative group activities enjoyed by some adults as companionable, yet only partially interactive.

These new assumptions require validation, which the author hopes to undertake in the future.

Need for validation of Mosey's group interactive skills

There are a number of gaps or discrepancies in Mosey's group interaction skill frame of reference that warrant empirical investigation. The gaps in age ranges between 7 and 9 and 12 and 15 years of age need to be accounted for (see Table 1 or Figure 2). The differences between Mosey's theoretical age ranges and Parten's observed age ranges need to be empirically examined. Groups of children need to be studied to update differences between children of today and children of 60 years (Parten, 1932) and 30 years ago (Mosey, 1968).

The concepts of associative play or interaction (Parten, 1932) and project group skill (Mosey, 1968) used to describe the level of group development following parallel play emphasize important differences between concepts focused on social skills versus activity skills. Preliminary field visits to groups of 3-year-olds reveal children in free play exploring loosely organized activities that do not fit the description of a project. As Parten pointed out, frequently the activity is secondary to using the activity to interact with other children. Yet Mosey (1970a and b, 1986) states that the task is paramount, so these two perspectives need to be empirically observed. It must also be remembered that Mosey was talking about adults with disabilities when she chose the label project group.

The three newly proposed assumptions also need to be empirically evaluated. Because they can serve as postulates regarding change in the treatment process, their validity as therapeutic principles for assessment and intervention ought to be assessed.

Mosey (1968, 1970a and b, 1973, 1986) also added the mature level of group interaction skill with a spectrum of complex maintenance, task and individual roles developed by Parsons and Bales (1955). While adolescents aged 15 to 18, as designated by Mosey, are capable of trying on and fulfilling these roles, the label 'mature' used to describe this group may be questioned. Perhaps it would be best to extend this age range from 15 years to adulthood.

Process of validating the conceptual framework

If a continuum is to become a scale, its content validity, criterion-related validity and construct validity must all be examined (Guion, 1980). These three methods of examining validity are needed in seeking empirical confirmation and clarification of Mosey's group interaction skills as a scale, and will be reviewed here.

Content validity

Content validity has been addressed initially by the review of the literature set forth earlier in this paper (Mosey, 1968, 1970a and 1970b, 1973, 1986), comparing and contrasting sources and perceptions of Mosey with other authors. This process of validating Mosey's concepts of group interaction skill was carried out by the author in conjunction with S. White and P. Swarbrick (personal communication, March 1994; see Figure 2), as described previously.

To empirically test the validity of Mosey's (1986) outline of group interactive skill development, the author organized the Mosey five group levels across four factors of age, developmental issues, activities, and therapist's methods of intervention into a schema (Figure 2) which outlines four continuums operationalizing the four factors into five scale levels. As indicated above, two master clinicians specializing in mental health occupational therapy were invited to examine this schema for face validity (personal communication, March 1994) in order to give their suggestions for refinements of the schema while scrutinizing its content validity (see Figure 2). These experts in group clinical treatment and academic group theory gave several recommendations that were incorporated into the figure as it appears here.

The author has used this schema as the basis to develop a tool to observe the factors and concepts of group interaction skill by rank-ordering behaviours using a Likert scale. This tool will be used for the purpose of observing group interaction skills in children and adolescents in the future. The descriptors selected are based on topics Mosey includes in her discussion of group interaction skill (1986). Preliminary field observations of children in camps and pre-school settings indicated where revisions of wording of the schema needed to be made. These preliminary observations have also assisted the author in developing the three new assumptions regarding the schema of group interaction skills, which can then be tested as hypotheses in the future in occupational therapy groups.

Construct validity

Construct validity of Mosey's developmental continuum of the group interaction skills was originally incorporated by Mosey as one of seven performance area and component skills in a theoretical structure as the basis of the developmental frame of reference for treatment: recapitulation of ontogenesis (Mosey, 1968, 1970a and b, 1973, 1986). The outline of the seven major skill continuums was updated by Mosey in 1986, describing skills in great detail; this provided a more comprehensive account of the five group interactive skills. The fact that the description of the group interaction skill concepts in the continuum of Mosey lent themselves so easily to organizing the structure of Figure 2 illustrates how the concepts are structurally interrelated, thus strengthening their construct validity.

The schema has been refined a number of times, and it is expected that it will need further adjustment as other experts and empirical observers are included in the study in progress. Both students and the author have undertaken preliminary observations of children in order to field test the schema as it has been organized, with conceptual, and observational but officially nonempirical input. The emphasis of the observations of this author has been, like Parten's (1932) work, of children in free play so as to minimize the number of intervening variables influencing the environments.

The fact that Bruce and Borg (1993) and Cole (1993) reprinted intact the outline of Mosey's seven skill developmental continuums, including group interaction skills, in their group and frame of reference texts, confirms the place these skills hold among general developmental constructs in occupational therapy. The construct of ages proposed needs to be empirically validated in conjunction with the schema's theoretical rank-ordered developmental behaviours.

Criterion validity

To establish the criterion validity of Mosey's (1986) five levels of group interaction skills (see Figure 2), the author plans to replicate results of studies such as Parten's (1932) with six levels of participation in play groups (1932), Saracho's (1993) with her Play Rating Scale and Salo-Chydenius' (1996) with her Group Interaction Skills Survey. This will be carried out by a study parallel to these three studies by examining the validity of Mosey's five levels of group social development, as organized in the schema in Figure 2. The four scales of the schema need to be organized into a Likert scale for measuring or ranking group interaction skills.

The process of validation has also been studied as suggested by several researchers (Berk and DeGangi, 1979; Benson and Clark, 1982; Miller, 1989; Cohen et al., 1992; Burns and Grove, 1993; Coster et al., 1995). A multi-step process of instrument development is needed to focus on the validity of identifying these levels of group interaction skill within a tool. These preliminary observations are in the process of being validated by three validity studies: (1) observation of pre-school groups by one observer to associate ages with levels of group behavioural function; (2) observations of pre-school groups by two observers to select concepts for a group level of function scale; and (3) review by a panel of occupational therapy group leader experts of the items of the group levels of function scale.

These validity studies will then be followed by studies of reliability of the scale. In this way, the schema of Figure 2 can be tested and revised.

Summary

Mosey has developed a structured theoretical base to describe the group interaction skills of various age ranges of children and adolescents in groups, through discussion of their interactional issues, their activities and the interventions of the therapist. The parameters of the foundation of this group interaction skill development are defined and organized with relative integrity of structure. An exception to this integrity of concepts that the author wishes to explore is the ages and their associated labels of levels of group interaction skill from the Mosey model.

The dimensions of Mosey's group interaction skills (1968, 1970a and b, 1973, 1986) include social, psychological and cognitive performance components. Factors identified as part of group interaction skills need to be validated or clarified for clinical application in assessing social and group functional performance, as well as in planning appropriate levels of treatment.

Although group interaction skill components have been considered for 30 years to have face validity (Mosey, 1968), the author/investigator wishes to confirm the concepts, age ranges, interaction skills, activities and methods of intervention by leaders in groups of ordinary children and adolescents. Subsequently, with the development of these norms from groups of children without identified disabilities, the traditional and newer populations assisted by occupational therapists will also be studied in order to determine the range of their group interaction skill levels. The discoveries of these investigations will be reported on from time to time as empirical validity of the concepts and assumptions of the five levels of group interaction skill development is confirmed, expanded or modified.

Acknowledgment

Marie-Louise Blount, AM, OTR, FAOTA, Director of the Professional Program of the Department of Occupational Therapy at New York University, and co-editor of Occuptional Therapy in Mental Health, provided clarification of ideas and editorial assistance for this manuscript.

References

References

References

Allen CK (1985). Occupational Therapy for Psychiatric Diseases: Measurement and Management of Cognitive Disabilities. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

References

Ayres J (1964). Perceptual motor dysfunction in children. Paper presented at the Ohio Occupational Therapy Association Conference.

Benson J, Clark F (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. American Jour

nal of Occupational Therapy 36: 789-800.

Berk RA, DeGangi G (1979). Technical considerations in the evaluation of pediatric motor scales. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 33: 240-4. Bruce MA, Borg B (1993). Psychosocial Occupational Therapy. Frames of Reference for Inter

vention. 2nd edn. Thorofare, NJ: Slack.

Bums N, Grove SK (1993). The Practice of Nursing Research. Conduct, Critique and Utilization. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders.

Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME, Smith DK (1992). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

References

Cole MB (1993). Group Dynamics in Occupational Therapy. The Theoretical Basis and Practice Application of Group Treatment. Thorofare, NJ: Slack. Coster W, Tickle-Degnen L, Armenta L (1995). Therapist-child intervention during sensory integration treatment: Development and testing of a research tool. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 15:17-35.

DeCarlo JJ, Mann WC (1985). The effectiveness of verbal versus activity groups in improving self-percentions of interpersonal communication skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 39 (1): 20-7.

Duncombe LW, Howe MC (1985). Group treatment: Goals, tasks and economic implications.

American Journal of Occupational Therapy 49 (3): 199-206. Early MB (1993). Mental Health Concepts and Techniques for the Occupational Therapy Assistant. 2nd edn. New York: Raven.

Erikson E (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: WW Norton. Falk-Kessler J, Momich C, Perel S (1991). Therapeutic factors in occupational therapy groups.

American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45 (1): 59-66. Flavell J (1963). The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand. Gesell A (1940). The First Five Years of Life: A Guide to the Study of the Preschool Child. New York: Harper.

References

Gesell A, Amatruda CS (1969). Developmental Diagnosis: Normal and Abnormal Child Development. New York: Harper.

Guion RM (1980). On trinitarian doctrines of validity. In Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME, Smith DK (eds) (1992) Psychological Testing and Assessment. An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. 2nd edn. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, pp. 385-98. Hopkins HL, Smith HD (1993). Willard and Spackman's Occupational Therapy. 8th edn.

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

Lifton WM (1966). Working with Groups: Group Process and Individual Growth. New York: John Wiley.

Maslow AH (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. Miller LJ (1989). Developing Norm-referenced Standardized Tests. New York: Haworth. Mosey AC (1968). Recapitulation of ontogenesis. A theory for practice of occupational thera

py. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 22: 426-33. Mosey AC (1970a). The concept and use of developmental groups. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 4: 272-5.

Mosey AC (1970b). Three Frames of Reference for Mental Health. Thorofare, NJ: Slack. Mosey AC (1973). Activities Therapy. New York: Raven Press. Mosey AC (1986). Psychosocial Components of Occupational Therapy. New York: Raven. Overly K (1968). Developmental theory and occupational therapy - Considerations for research. Paper presented at the American Occupational Therapy Convention, Portland, Oregon.

References

Pa,ons T, Bales R (eds) (1955). Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press

References

Parten MB (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 27: 243-69.

References

Pikunas J (1957). Fundamental Child Psychology. Milwaukee: Bruce. Salo-Chydenius S (1996). Changing helplessness to coping: An exploratory study of social skills training with individuals with long-term mental illness. Occupational Therapy International 3: 174-89.

Saracho ON (1993). A factor analysis of young children's play. Early Child Development and

Care 84: 91-102.

Schwartzberg SL, Howe MD, McDermott A (1982). A comparison of three treatment group formats for facilitating social interaction. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health 2 (4): 1-17.

References

Stich S (1994) Nobody likes me. Rc 9 (188): 190-1.