Table 2.
Codes for problem solving discussion
| PROBLEM SOLVING: The Problem Solving code is the sum of the Problem Definition, Proposed Solutions, and Resolution scales. Individuals with high scores on the problem solving scale demonstrate skills in defining the problem, generating solutions, and/or resolving the discussion. |
| Problem Definition Scale |
| 1 = Person interfered with the other's efforts to define the problem without offering some constructive alternative definition. |
| 2 = No effort was directed toward defining the problem or engaging/organizing the discussion. |
| 3 = Person agreed with the others' definition. |
| 4 = Person actively contributed to the problem definition, although contributions were vague and not particularly collaborative. |
| 5 = Person offered some well specified ideas regarding how to define the problem (for example, some description of when the problem occurs, how often, in what ways the behaviors are problematic, etc.) and/or they offered some vague ideas but were quite skillful in their efforts to be collaborative. |
| Proposed Solutions Scale |
| 1 = No solution proposed. |
| 2 = Very poor solution(s) proposed. |
| 3 = Fair solution(s) proposed with a minimum of detail/thought. |
| 4 = Good solution(s) proposed. |
| 5 = Very good/excellent solution(s) proposed. Demonstrates engagement with the issue and creativity. |
| Resolution Scale |
| 1 = No effort to bring the discussion to a resolution; total disagreement; or dyad has wandered off topic. |
| 2 = Offers or agrees with a quickly formulated resolution that seems hard to believe. |
| 3 = Individual has made some effort to summarize, paraphrase, or reiterate some of the agreements that have been made. However there is no clear “action plan” articulated. If one participant is simply agreeing with the action plan offered by the other, he/she can get no higher than a 3 on this scale. |
| 4 = Clear “action plan” articulated, or the person made some unique contribution to the action plan; the plan seems pretty realistic in light of the problem discussed. |
| OVERALL COMMUNICATION PROCESS: A maximum of one constructive and/or one conflictual code can be assigned to each floor switch (conversational turn). All coding is done while viewing the videotaped conversation so that affect can be included in the evaluation. |
| CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION is coded when any of the following is observed: |
| 1. Displays of affection such as smiling, positive eye contact, mutual laughter, or hugging. |
| 2. Positive listener behavior such as listening empathically, making efforts to elicit the others' point of view, nodding head in a way that indicates listening, reflecting back to the other person what was heard, asking follow-up questions to gather other's perspective, or voicing understanding of the other's position. |
| 3. Positive speaker behavior such as agreeing, proposing compromises, bringing up concerns in a neutral manner, offering suggestions in a way that takes the other's viewpoint into consideration, building on the suggestions of another, keeping the conversation on track, making positive remarks about the other person's behavior, clarifying one's own point of view, expressing oneself clearly when asked to do so by the other, or offering a remark that moves the conversation forward in a constructive direction. |
| CONFLICTUAL COMMUNICATION is coded when any of the following is observed: |
| 1. Negative affect such as angry tone of voice, angry criticism of the other, insults, accusations, swearing, leading questions, and sarcasm. |
| 2. Uncooperativeness and withdrawal - refusing to allow the other person to talk typically by cutting the other person off and/or withdrawing from the conversation. Derailing another's effort to put a problem on the table and discuss it. Refusing to discuss a topic without offering an alternative. Not clarifying thoughts when asked directly to do so. This refusal significantly stalls the conversation. |
| 3. Inappropriate change of topic and off-task behavior. |
| 4. Monologue - one person speaks non-stop for a long period of time. Seems like they are speaking “at” rather than “with” the listener. |
| 5. Speaking for the other; assuming one knows how the other feels without asking. |
| 6. Illogical, incomprehensible or nonsensical statements. |