Behav. Res. & Therapy. Vol 17. pp 63.

49
0 Pergamon Press Ltd 1979. Prmzed m Great Britain

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE WOLPE-LAZARUS

ASSERTIVENESS SCALE

MICHEL HERSEN*, ALAN S. BELLACK,SAMUEL M. TURNER,

MARTIN T. WILLIAMS, KAYLEE HARPER and JOHN G. WATTS
Department of Psychiatry. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. University of Pittsburgh
School of Medicine, Pittsburgh. PA 15261. U.S.A.

(Received 9 June 1978)

Summary-The psychometric properties of the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale (WLAS) were

evaluated with a sample of 100 male and 157 female psychiatric patients. There were no signifi-
cant differences with regard to males and females for total WLAS scores. The WLAS seems
to be internally consistent and has acceptable split-half and test-retest reliabilities. A factor
analysis performed separately for males and females indicates that the 10 most prominent factors
account for about 607; of the accumulated variance. The primary factor, shared by males and
females, was labeled Generaf Expressiueness. There was little evidence for the external validity
of the WLAS when total scores were correlated with performance on a role pIay test. However,
when WLAS factor scores were evaluated in light of role played performance. somewhat better
evidence of the external validity of the WLAS was found in two of the factors for the females.

In the last decade, a substantial portion of the behavioral literature has been devoted
to the assessment and modi~cation of social skill deficits in a large variety of client
and psychiatric populations (for reviews, see: Bellack and Hersen, in press; DeGiovanni
and Epstein, 1978; Heimberg et al., 1977; Hersen and Bellack, 1976a, 1977; Hersen
and Eisler, 1976; O’Leary et al., 1976; Rich and Schroeder, 1976; Van Hasselt et al.,
in press). Following the general tradition of behavioral assessment (Hersen and Bellack,
1976b), the tri-partite system of measurement has been employed in evaluating the be-
havioral deficits of clients and patients, both in the clinic and the laboratory (cf. Hersen
et al., 1978). That is, assessment has consisted of the motoric, self-report, and physio-
logical factors related to social skill.
In developing strategies for evaluating social skill deficiencies, the greatest attention
has been directed to the study of overt behavior; somewhat less attention has been
given to the self-report devices; almost no effort has been expended in measuring physio-
logical responses. Despite the behavior therapist’s penchant and preference for observing
motoric responses, many self-report inventories to assess social skill and assertiveness
have appeared (cf. Bellack and Hersen, 1977). Although some of the inventories have
been well-researched, the vast majority has not. Indeed, some of the scales administered
in current practice have very few empirical data to support their usage. The Wolpe-
Lazarus Assertiveness Scale (Wolpe and Lazarus, 1966) is a prime example.
Devised primarily out of clinical necessity, this 30-item true-false inventory scale was
not constructed by its authors as a research tool. However, despite its originally intended
purpose, the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale (WLAS) has received widespread ac-
ceptance as one of the dependent measures in studies examining the modification of
social skill deficits (cf. Hersen and Bellack, 1977) both in college students (e.g. Kazdin,
1974) and psychiatric patients (Goldsmith and McFall, 1975; Hersen et al., 1973).
In spite of its frequent use, the psychometric properties of the WLAS simply are
not known. The importance of ascertaining the psychometric properties of the self-report
devices routinely used by behavior therapists has been discussed at length in another
publication (see Bellack and Hersen, 1977). Thus, we will try not to belabor the point.
Nonetheless, if conclusions are, in part, based on the casual employment of untested
(perhaps unsound) assessment tools, then the critics of behavior therapy may very well
have a valid point.

* Reprint requests to Michel Hersen, Department of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. PA 15261, U.S.A.
63
44 MICHEL HERSENet al

In two studies (Eisler et al., 1975; Eisler et al., 1973), it was shown that psychiatric
patients judged to be high and low assertive on the basis of role played scenarios
were significantly differentiated on the WLAS, thus suggesting a positive correlation
between overall assertiveness and the WLAS. However, it is most obvious that many
important psychometric concerns regarding the WLAS need to be addressed. Thus.
the present study was conducted to answer some of the psychometric questions, with
the hope of filling in some of the gaps in this literature. Specifically, with a male and
female psychiatric population: (1) Are there male-female differences in total score? (2)
Is the WLAS internally consistent? (3) What are the split-half and test-retest reliabilities?
(4) What is the factorial structure of this Scale? (5) What is the external validity of
the Scale? That is, how do scores on the WLAS relate to specific behavioral components
and judgments of overall assertiveness on a role played test of assertiveness?

METHOD

Subjects
s’s were lOO.male (mean age = 29.37 years; mean years of education = 12.24) and
157 female (mean age = 36.54 years; mean years of education = 11.73) psychiatric day
hospital and inpatients at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pitts-
burgh School of Medicine. There were 58 psychotics, 29 character disorders, and 13
neurotics in the male group; there were 87 psychotics, 38 character disorders, and 32
neurotics in the female group.

Materials and procedures

Each of the 257 s’s was asked to fill out the modified version of the WLAS (American
colloquial expressions substituted for the British) (Eisler et af., 1973) after psychotropic
medication had regulated major symptomatologyt. Then, approximately one week later,
46 of the S’s were requested to once again fill out the WLAS in order to obtain a
measure of test-retest reliability. In addition, of the original 257 S’s, i I4 were videotaped
while responding to the Behavioral Assertiveness Test-Revised (BAT-R) (Eisler er al.,
1975; Hersen et at., 1978). The BAT-R consists of the patient role playing a series
of interpersonal encounters that require the expression of both positive and negative
assertive responses. These responses are scored on a variety of verbal and non-verbal
indices, as well as overall assertiveness, on a 1-5 point scale. Reliabilities for the BAT-R
on specific components and overall assertiveness ranged from 0.72-1.0, with a mean
of 0.86.

RESULTS

Male-female differences
Scores for males on the WLAS ranged from 4 to 27, with a mean of 15.92 and a
standard deviation of 5.65. Scores for females ranged from 2 to 28, with a mean of
16.09 and a standard deviation of 5.61. Comparison of the two groups yielded a t
of 0.24 with 255df (p > 0.05), indicating that there were no significant sex differences
in self-re~rt~ assertiveness.

Item analyses
To ascertain the internal consistency of the WLAS, item-total score correlations were
computed separately for males and females using the Point-Biserial statistic. The result-
ing correlations appear in Table 1. Inspection of the table shows that for males four
items failed to reach statistical significance; three items failed to reach statistical signifi-
cance for the females. On the basis of these analyses, it appears that the WLAS is
internally consistent. Nonetheless, investigators using the WLAS may wish to omit items

t Copies of the modified WLAS are available upon request from the senior authbr.
 Psychometric properties of the Wolpe-Lazarus assertiveness scale 65

Table I. Item--total correlations

for the WLAS

Correlations
Item Male Female

I 0.30s* 0.381*
2 -0.229* -0.356*
3 -0.332’ - 0.232’
4 -0.337: - 0.297’
5 - 0.404; -0.327*
6 0.406* 0.367*
7 -0.194 -0.216*
8 - 0.233* - 0.336’
9 0.336* 0.396*
10 0.351* 0.204*
11 - 0.339* - 0.366*
12 0.5 13* 0.572*
13 - 0.299* -0.2158
14 - 0.374* - 0.464*
15 -0.417* -0.315*
16 -0.373* - 0.380*
17 0.451* 0.403;
18 0.490* 0.452*
I9 0.065 - 0.003
20 0.328* 0.407;
21 0.401* 0.361*
22 -0.353; -0.216’
23 0.334* 0.069
24 0.367* 0.179*
25 0.239* 0.226*
26 - 0.365* - 0.340*
27 -0.143 -0.239’
28 - 0.22s* -0.179*
29 0.372* 0.429*
30 0.189 0.119

* p < 0.05.

19 and 30 when assessing both males and females, inasmuch as these items failed to
reach a statistically significant level.

Reliability
Split-half reliability for the WLAS was evaluated by employing the Kuder Richardson-
Formula 20 statistic. The r for males was 0.845, the r for females was 0.631, and the
overall r was 0.784. These results indicate that the WLAS has moderately high internal
consistency reliability.
Test-retest reliability was estimated using the Pearson Product-Moment correlation.
The r for males was 0.564 (p < 0.002) the r for females was 0.790 (p < O.OOl), and
the overall r was 0.653 (p < 0.001). In light of the relatively small N’s, and in consider-
ation of the severity of the psychopathology manifested by our population tested, the
results suggest acceptable levels of test-retest reliability.

Factor analyses
Separate factor analyses were performed for males and females. Each factor analysis
included a principal components solution and a varimax rotated factor matrix. For
the males, the first 10 factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.07, and accounted for
61.67; of the variance. For the females, the first 10 factors had eigenvalues greater
than 1.09, and accounted for 59.00/b of the variance. Table 2 lists the first 10 factors
separately for males and females. Only items with primary loadings exceeding 0.25 are
listed.
For males, Factor I is labeled General Expressiveness and accounts for 16.1% of
the variance. Factor II is the Ability to Stare Views and represents 7.0% of the variance.
Factor III refers to Behavior with Unfamiliar Persons and comprises 6.0% of the variance.
RRT.17I-,
66 MICHEL HERSEN er ui(.

Table 2. Factor structure of the WLAS

Males Females
Factor items Loadmgs Factor Items Loadings

I I2 -0.397 I 5 0.690
16. I “c, 14 0.301 I7.0”,, II 0.68 I
variance 16 0.598 variance 16 0.273
17 - 0.647 28 0.353
28 0.553
29 -0.684
II 13 0.649 II 2 0.576
7.0”,, 14 -0.255 6.2”,, 4 0.352
variance 20 0.250 variance 7 0.390
32 0.558 15 0.289
22 0.468
III 5 0.305 111 14 -0.391
6.0”,, ll 0.642 5.5”,, I6 - 0.268
vartance IX - 0.285 variance is 0.499
24 -0.401 24 0.629
27 0.259 27 -0.252

IV 3 0.678 IV 23 0.479
5.4”,, 18 -0.421 5.1”” 30 0.665
variance I9 0.432 variance
V 13 -0.319 V I 0.325
4.9”,, 14 -0.413 4.9” ,, 3 - 0.558
variance 21 0.725 variance 9 -0.285
28 0.263 18 0.436
VI 5 - 0.290 VI 14 - 0.308
4.9” ,, 6 0.310 4.5”,, I6 -0.320
variance 9 0.282 variance I7 0.813
IO 0.623 28 - 0.374
19 0.25 I
21 0.334
25 0.398
VII , 0.408 VI1 1 0.301
4x,, Ir! - 0.499 4.2” II 9 0.286
variance 15 0.545 variance 15 - 0.501
17 -0.258 25 0.400
24 0.379 29 0.579
26 0.344
VIII I 0.684 VIII 4 - 0.340
4.4”” 6 0.301 4.0” ‘l IO 0.483
variance 11 0.258 variance 12 0.560
74 0.329 13 -0.258
26 - 0.421 I8 0.33 I
21 0.261
26 - 0.353

IX 7 0.504 IX I 0.297
4.0”,, 13 0.265 3.9”,, 8 -0.327
variance 18 - 0.342 variance I6 -0.251
20 - 0.457 20 0,659
27 0.430
X 2 0.403 X IO 0.313
xi”,, 8 0.773 x6”,, 19 - 0.652
variance 9 - 0.296 vartance
14 0.295

However, item 27 does not fit in very well with our overall label. Factor IV is labeled
Justifiable Complaints and accounts for S.4”,; of the variance. Each of the remaining
factors accounts for less than ST/, of the total variance.
For females, Factor I is labeled General Expressiveness and accounts for 17.07; of
the variance. Factor II is General Passivity and represents 6.27; of the variance. Factor
III refers to Behavior wirh Unfamiliar Persons and comprises 5.57; of the variance. How-
ever, as in the case of the males, item 27 does not fit in very well with our overall
label. Factor IV is Iabeled Response to Being Wronged and accounts for 5.1% of the
variance. Each of the remaining factors accounts for less than 5% of the total variance.
 .uo!le[ndod lDa!qns s!ql 1oJ passasse uaaq IOU aAeq
SWIM W JOsa!uado.ds!ilawoqhd aql awp 01 ‘asmoD JO ln8 ',Qq!qegalJO SIaAal
laq%!q aDuap!Aa plnom uoye[ndod laAa[a%allo3B ‘Qpalqnopun .alduIeslualln3 lno 1(q
Pal!q!qxa 68o[oqledoq3kd JO IaAal q%!q aqi %u!lap!suoD iCllelnD!ued'&I!qwlal Isala
-Isal Pue JIeq-lqds alqeldawz aAeq 01 sleadde SVTM aqi ‘Liq!qEqal01 plIe%alql!M
3a[euraJpue sa~mu JOJ ~1 ~0338~ 01 Quau
-!uold painq!.wo~ stuai!OMI asaql ieql IXJ aql Icqpaladuxal aq plnoqs uo!snlwoD s!ql
‘1aAaMoH =vtuaJ pue sapzruqioq 01 SV~M aqi 2?u!lais!u!urpe
uaqM pau!wo aq plno3OE
Pue 61 sural!‘a[I?XSnOaUa%LUOq alour I? LI! palsalalu!asoqi JOA ~s!s,+?ue uIal! lno icq
pawap!Aa se kJuais!suo~[eulaiu!q%q &LIa!3gnS aA??q01 SUIaaS SV?M aql‘[ElaUa8UI
'sdnol% Jaqw JOJ lyxa sa3ualaJgp apXuaJ-a[I?uI
1aqlaqM augulalap 01 pal!nbaJ aq II!M
sa!Pnls [EUO!l!ppe ‘suo!wlndod luapnis a8a[[o3 ql!m pasn s! ualJo SV?M aql se qDnw
-SW! ‘JaAaMOH 3a103s alms p&al p301 01
qi!M sawalag!p apwaJ-aleur lo~etu ou al\?
aJaq1 leql sleadde 11 ‘slua!lcd~!lle!qzisdJO aldwes luallw lno JO s!saq aql uo
.pa%.mu.ta aheq pInoM Ll!p!le~ pue chI!qe!laJ 'huais!suos piwlaiu!JO slaAa1laq%!q
leql Ala9!1 lsour s! 11 ‘paA!lap L[leD!l!duIa
uaaq a[~% aql peq ‘asJno3 JO .sa!lladold
?liauroq~kd alqeldaDze iClaA!ielalseq ale3s aql l\?qlisa88ns Lpnls s!qlJO shpuy aql
‘uo!i!niu!
[eD!u!ls
Jo S!sEq aql uo palXlllSUO3 SBM SVTM aql 1Eql 1XJ aql JO lqfi![ III
'paiuauwop set ~1 pug Is~olxd ioJ Icl!pqv~ pzulaixaatuos -salw.uaJ
aql
JOJ ‘h3.uu.ms LI[ vnmy!u8!s SBM suosydwo3 lsal I aql JO auou ‘A 1013EJ uo ‘/(lll?U!~
‘lul?3y!u~!s-uou aJaM suos!Jedwoa 6 ??u!u~E?uIaJ aql ‘(~0’0 > d) sauax aA!lt?!%au pue
(so’0 > d) aA!l!sod uo ssauaA!lJass\? []waAo laiea.t% pue ‘(g)‘o > d) saua3s aA!ltGau pue
(so.0 > d) aAg!sod uo uo!ieJnp q3aads ialeai8 ‘( 10’0 > d) sauax aA@au pue ([(JO > d)
aA!l!sod uo SMO[ aql ul?ql 1x1~03 aAa Jaleal8 paxIap!Aa sq8!q aql ‘~1 ~01~~ 10~ ~11~3
-y!Ud!S WM suos!.wdruoD aql JO
~1 8u!u!I?Lual aUON ‘( 10.0 > d) SMO[ aql Ul?ql asuodsai JO
hualel lalloqs e paDuap!Aa sq2!q aql ‘111 ~01x3~ ~03 ~lue3y!~@s set 11 ~01x3 JOJ sues
-!JIeduIo3 aqlJ0 auON .luE3y!u8!s SBM suos!leduroD 11 %u!u~EruaJaqlJO auON .(r@o > d)
aua3s aAge8au aqi uo ssauaA!llasseIlwaAo ialea.8 put (lo.0 > d) saua3s aAge%au pue
(g@() > d) sauax aAg!SOd uo uo!leuoiu! .Ialeal8 ‘SaUaX aA!l!SOd uo (10’0 > d) SMO[ aql
ueql asuodsaJ JO huale[ .Ia]loqsB pasuap!Aa sq%!q aql ‘I 1013~~ uo sa[I?uIaJ aql .IO~
.lue3y!u8!s SCM suos!ledruoD lsal I aql Jo auou ‘A--AI wolx~
uo sapxu aql lOJ .lue3y!u8!s SCM suos!.n?duro3 51 laqlo aql JO auou ‘JaAaMOH $0’0
‘10’0 > d) dnoJ% MO[ aqi ueql sauw aA!le%au put? aA!l!SOd qloq uo asuodsal~o huaie]
lalloqs e paDuap!Aa dnold q&q aql 'I lolled uo sa[euIaqi 10~ 'ssauaA!ilasse[IelaAose
IlaM se ti-1~~1 aql uo saD!pu! IeqlaA-uou put? [eqlaA 01 1Dadsal qi!M palndwo3 alaM
sisalI ‘uaqL 3alo3s 1013t?~
Jo s!seq aqi uo sdnoi% MoI pue q&q olu! ut3pat.u aql le
paz!uroloqzp alaM sapxuaj pue Salem xap3.uaJ pue SaIeur 1oJ Qalexdas pau!uIexa SBM
sasuodsal ~I-Lv~ put! SVyM aql JO SlOl3EJ aAy 1SJy aql Jo d!qsuo!lelal aql ‘Uo!l’ppE UI
uaamlaq d!qsuo!lelalaql ‘salo3sSV~M ~eioiJo s!seq aqluo ‘l.Ioqs UI ‘(SO’0 > d :I8 =jp
:zy_ = 1) ~01 ueql
sapxuaJ SVTM ssauayllasse Ipm~o uo salox Jaq%!q pau!elqo
sapxuaJ SVqM q&q 1eq1 uogdaaxa aqi ql!M ‘lUt?X@!S SBM sisal 1 +lInsaJ aql Jo
auoN xsauaA!llasse IIeIaAo pue ‘uo!le!Dalddc put! ayeId ‘axyduro~ ‘slsanbaJ ‘samlsa8
‘saps ‘uoymop~! ‘hualE[ 'uo!ielnp q3aads 'i3wuo3 arCa:siuauodruo3 x-_~vg %U!MOIIOJ
aql 01 ple8al ql!M paiseliuo3 alaM SVTM aql uo sapxuaJ Mo[ pue q&q pue salmu
~01 pue q%q ‘uaqL .(roo.o> d) sawalagp iu~3y!u%!s papla!d sv?M aql uo sap2waJ
MO! pue q%q pue salw.u
MO[ put? q%q S’upeduroD sisal I awedas ‘sdnoS! MO1 pue
q&q oiu! (saiox SVTM .a.!) uwpaur aql le pazyoloq3!p AIalwedas alaM SapxuaJ pue
salmu ‘sasuodsa1 H-LV$J pue saJo% SVTM aqi JO d!qsuogeIal aql alo[dxa JaqlJnJ 01
‘(~o(yo > d *pgz’o = 1) dnoB pawquIo3 aql pm ‘(‘S’N ‘I 11’0 = A)
salw.uaJ '('s'N 'l~z.0= .4)saIew :%U!MO~~OJ aql papIa!lC y-~v8 aql uo ssauaA!lJasse
I\eJaAOPUE S'tr'lMaql UO alo3s p2lOluaahzlaq suo!lelal~os luauroN-impold uoslead
.il!p~yv’” ~“U”d1X~
L9 a[CX ssauaz!,,asse
sn.mzel-ad[oM 3!JlX”Oq3~Sd
all, JO sa!lJadoJd
68 MICHEL HERSEN et al.

The factorial structure of the WLAS is not overly complex. Essentially. there is one
major factor for males and females which we have labeled General Expressiceness. Of
the remaining three factors that we labeled, one (entitled Behavior with Unfamiliar Per-
sons) is shared by both males and females. The other two factors were different for
males and females. Aside from Factor I (both for males and females), none of the
remaining nine factors identified accounted for more than 7.07, of the accumulated
variance. Again, had the WLAS been empirically derived, it is quite likely that a more
differentiated factor structure would have materialized. Undoubtedly. the factorial struc-
ture of the WLAS for a college level population probably will be different than the
one obtained here for our psychiatric patients.
Probably the most disappoining finding in this study was the absence of substantial
correlation between WLAS scores and BAT-R responding. On the basis of total WLAS
scores and overall assertiveness on the BAT-R, there is minimal evidence for external
validity. Similarly, with respect to the specific components on the BAT-R, little evidence
for external validity of the scale was found. However, aS might be expected, somewhar
better evidence for external validity of the WLAS was obtained when high and low
scoring subjects (in the specific factors) were contrasted with regard to BAT-R respond-
ing. This especially was the case for females in Factors I and IV. But for the males.
little evidence for the external validity of the WLAS was adduced, even when examining
the five factors accounting for the largest accumulated variance.
The relatively poor external validity obtained here for the WLAS is in contrast to
previous studies that have been published (cf. Eisler et al., 1973. 1975). However, the
previous studies were conducted with a different population (all male veteran psychiatric
patients). It may be that with a more homogeneous population, mainly comprised of
character disorders, greater concordance between self reports and motoric behavior is
to be found.
Thus, at this point, although the WLAS seems to be internally consistent and reliable,
its external validity has not yet been established. Perhaps a more satisfactory way of
ascertaining external validity of the scale is to examine actual in do performance rather
than role-played performance as in the BAT-R (see Bellack. Hersen and Turner,
1978). However. such studies as of yet have not been conducted. If the WLAS continues
to be used as frequently as it has in the recent past, many additional psychometric
evaluations will be required before meaningful conclusions may be reached on the basis
of pre-post changes in WLAS scores.

Acknowledyemenr-The authors thank Crlspian Seivenpiper for his help with the statistical analyses and inter-
pretat ions.

REFERENCES
BELLACK A. S. and HERSEN M. (1977) Use of self-report inventories in behavioral assessment. in Behuriorol
Assessment: NW Directions ill Clinical Ps~choloy~~. (Edited by J. D. COHEN and R. P. HAWKINS). Brunner,
Mazel. New York.
BELLACK A. S. and HERSEN M. (Eds.) (in press) Research and Procrice in Social Skills 7raininy. Plenum
Press. New York.
BELLA~K A. S.. HERSEN M. and TURNER S. M. (1978) Role-play tests for assessing social skills: Are they
valid? Behar. Tlterupj* 9. 448461.
DE GIOVANNI 1. S. and EPSTEIN N. (1978) Unbindmg assertion and aggression in research and clinical practice.
Behar. Mod. 2. 173-192.
EISLER R. M.. HERSEN M.. MILLER P. M. and BLANCHARII E. B. (1975) Situational determinants of assertive
behaviors. J. consrtlt. c/in. Ps,whol. 43. 33&?40.
EISLER R. M., MILLER P. M. and HERSEN M. (1973) Components of assertive behavior. J. c/k P.s.whol.
29, 295-299.
GOLDSMITH J. B. and M~FALL R. M. (1975) Development and evaluation of an interpersonal skill-training
program for psychiatric patients. J. ahnorm. Psychol. 84. 51-58.
HEIMBERG R. G.. MONTGOMERY D.. MADSEN C. H. and HEIMBERC J. S. (1977) Assertion training: A review
of the literature. Behar. Ther. 8. 953-971.
HERSEN M. and BELLACK A. S. (1976a) Social skills training for chronic psychiatric patients: Rationale. research
findings, and future directions. Co~np. Psj,chiar. 17. 559-580.
HERSEN M. and BELLACK A. S. (Eds.) (1976b) Behacioral Assessmenr: A Pracrical Handbook. Pergamon. New
York.
 Psychometric properties of the Wolpe-Lazarus assertiveness scale 69

HERSEN M. and BELLACK A. S. (19771 Assessment of social skills. In Hundhook .for Behariorul A.w.umenr.
(Edited by A. R. CIMINERO. K. S. CALHOUN and H. E. ADAMS). Wiley, New York.
HERSEN M.. BELLACI( A. S. and TURNER S. M. (1978) Assessment of assertiveness in female psychiatric patients:
Motor and autonomic measures. J. Brhar. Ther. cup. Psychiar.. 9. 1 l-16.
HERSEN M. and EISLER R. M. (1976) Social skills training. In B&rior Mod(ficurion: Principle.\, I.s.sue\ untl
Applications. (Edited by W. E. CRAIGHEAD. A. E. KAZDIN and M. J. MAHONEY). Houghton-Mifflin. Boston.
HERSEN M.. EISLER R. M.. MILLER P. M., JOHNSON M. B. and PINKSTON S. G. (1973) EfTects of practice.
instructions, and modeling on components of assertive behavior. Behar. Rex. Ther. II, 443451.
KAZDIN A. E. (1974) EfTects of covert modeling and model reinforcement on assertive behavior. J. uhnorm.
PsychoI. 83, 240-252.
O’LEARY D. E.. O’LEARY M. R. and DONOVAN D. M. (19761 Social skill acquisition and psychosocial develop-
ment of alcoholics: A review. Addicr. Behar. 1, 111-120.
RICH A. R. and SCHROEDER H. E. (1976) Research issues in assertiveness training. Psycho/. Bull. 83. 1081-1096.
VAN HASSELT V. B.. HERSEN M. and MILLIOWES J. (in press) Social skills training for drug addicts: A review.
Addict. Behar.
WOLPE J. and LAZARUS A. A. (1966) Behavior Therap!, Techniques. Pergamon. New York.