Home1
Psychological tests2
Social Interaction Competence Assessment Scale3

Social Interaction Competence Assessment Scale Test

Designed for people reflecting on how they navigate everyday and formal relationships, the Social Interaction Competence Assessment Scale Test contains 30 questions and takes about 6 minutes. Its result outlines your social-interaction styles and overall competence, helping you notice strengths, habitual approaches, and areas for thoughtful self-reflection.

Questions: 306 minutes

Social Interaction Competence Assessment: situation and reply bubbles

October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published

30,225 views

3,096 completions

2,679 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

2,679 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Personal-Creative StylePCS

Measures how effectively a person uses a personal, creative approach to build trust and resolve difficulties in informal relationships.

example score57/100

57/100Developingexample score

0 – 39Limited

40 – 69Developing

70 – 100Strong

A score of 57 falls in the Developing range, suggesting a generally workable personal-creative style in informal relationships with room to apply it more consistently across situations.

Normative/StereotypicalN

Measures the extent to which a person relies on familiar, normative interaction patterns in informal relationships rather than more individualized approaches.

example score50/100

50/100Balanced Normative Useexample score

0 – 33Flexible/Individualized

34 – 66Balanced Normative Use

67 – 100Highly Stereotypical

A score of 50 suggests a moderate tendency to use familiar social scripts in informal settings, generally supporting smooth interaction while allowing some flexibility for more personal connection.

CounterproductiveC

Measures the degree to which a person’s communication style in informal relationships tends to create obstacles to trust, harmony, and effective problem resolution.

example score61/100

61/100Moderateexample score

0 – 33Low

34 – 66Moderate

67 – 100High

A score of 61 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting occasional patterns in informal interactions that may complicate building trusting, harmonious personal connections.

Personal-Creative StylePCS

Measures how creatively and individually a person adapts their communication style to solve challenges within formal or official relationships.

example score82/100

82/100Personal-creativeexample score

0 – 49Conventional

50 – 74Adaptive

75 – 100Personal-creative

A score of 82 falls in the Personal-creative range, suggesting a strong tendency to use flexible, individualized, and sometimes unconventional approaches in formal interactions.

Normative/StereotypedN

Measures the tendency to rely on established rules and stereotypical norms when interacting in formal relationships.

example score49/100

49/100Balancedexample score

0 – 33Flexible / less rule-bound

34 – 66Balanced

67 – 100Strongly normative

A score of 49 suggests a balanced use of formal norms, combining adherence to rules with some situational flexibility.

CounterproductiveC

Measures the tendency toward ineffective or strained behavior in formal or business interactions that can impede goal achievement.

example score59/100

59/100Moderateexample score

0 – 33Low

34 – 66Moderate

67 – 100High

A score of 59 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting occasional counterproductive patterns in formal interactions that may sometimes complicate cooperation or task progress.

Personal-CreativePC

Measures how flexibly and creatively a person approaches social interactions to solve interpersonal challenges and build relationships.

example score46/100

46/100Moderateexample score

0 – 39Developing

40 – 69Moderate

70 – 100Strong

A score of 46 indicates a moderate personal-creative style, suggesting some flexibility and originality in social situations with room to expand the range of adaptive interaction strategies.

Normative/StereotypicalN

Measures the extent to which a person relies on commonly accepted social norms and stereotyped behavior patterns when handling interpersonal situations.

example score17/100

17/100Low normative relianceexample score

0 – 33Low normative reliance

34 – 66Moderate normative reliance

67 – 100High normative reliance

A score of 17 indicates low reliance on stereotypical social norms, suggesting a tendency to use less conventional or more individually adapted interaction strategies.

CounterproductiveC

Measures the degree to which a person tends to use ineffective or potentially destructive strategies during social interactions.

example score39/100

39/100Moderateexample score

0 – 33Low

34 – 66Moderate

67 – 100High

A score of 39 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting occasional counterproductive reactions in communication that may reduce effectiveness in some challenging situations.

Social Interaction Competence LevelSICL

Measures how effectively a person adapts and responds to challenging social situations using flexible communication strategies.

example score23/60

23/60Basicexample score

15 – 37Basic

38 – 42Developing

43 – 60Personal-creative

A score of 23 falls in the Basic range, suggesting social interaction strategies are more limited and may be less flexible across different contexts.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Team leaders and managers

41%OF USERS

They use it to gauge how effectively they handle workplace conversations, conflict, and collaboration under pressure.

Students and young adults

33%OF USERS

They take it to understand how they come across in new groups and build communication skills for study, internships, and friendships.

Counseling and therapy clients

26%OF USERS

They complete it to identify social situations that feel difficult and pinpoint practical areas to practice and improve.

BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.

Shaded area — where most people score

Dot — the average

You — your score lands on each curve after the test— your score, after the test

Personal and Creative (Informal Relationships Sphere)PaCRS

You?

Average25.3

Typical rangeTypical12.1 – 38.5

Possible0 – 100

Normative/Stereotypical (Sphere of Informal Relationships)NoIR

You?

Average61.8

Typical rangeTypical46.4 – 77.2

Possible0 – 100

Counterproductive (Informal Relationships Sphere)CRS

You?

Average45.3

Typical rangeTypical28.3 – 62.4

Possible0 – 100

Personal-Creative (Sphere of Formal Relationships)PoFR

You?

Average25.6

Typical rangeTypical12.1 – 39.2

Possible0 – 100

Normative/Stereotypical (Sphere of Formal Relationships)NoFR

You?

Average44.7

Typical rangeTypical30.4 – 58.9

Possible0 – 100

Counterproductive (Field of Formal Relationships)CoFR

You?

Average36.7

Typical rangeTypical18 – 55.4

Possible0 – 100

Personal-CreativeP

You?

Average29

Typical rangeTypical13.1 – 44.9

Possible0 – 100

Normative/stereotypicalN

You?

Average26.1

Typical rangeTypical7.7 – 44.6

Possible0 – 100

CounterproductiveC

You?

Average32.3

Typical rangeTypical13.9 – 50.6

Possible0 – 100

Level of social interaction competenceLosic

You?

Average48.4

Typical rangeTypical42 – 54.9

Possible15 – 60

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

This instrument consists of a set of interpersonal interaction situations. Please rate the likelihood that you would choose each behavioral pattern in the situations presented using a 100% scale. That is, the total across the three patterns within each situation must equal 100%. Within a given situation, the percentage values must not be repeated, except for the 0% option. For each pattern (a, b, c), select a percentage. For example, Situation 1: a) 60% (i.e., this is how I would act in 60% of cases), b) 30%, c) 10%. The sum of all selections must equal 100%. There is no time limit, but please respond as quickly as possible.

- I will make contact with students in the other group easily and quickly, but will limit it to working relationships only.
- I will try to establish friendly acquaintances, with the prospect of developing them into friendships.
- Most likely, I will keep to myself in the new group and maintain my existing contacts.
- Decline to participate in the conference because you do not have the knowledge and skills for public speaking.
- Try to impress the audience with your erudition, with little concern for how accessible the information is.
- Try to present the material in the most engaging way possible and in a manner that is clear and accessible to the audience.
- Tell the instructor you do not have your grade record book only after the result has been entered on the grade sheet.
- Tell the instructor right away and, by giving appropriate reasons, arrange to have the result entered in your grade record book the next day.
- Come back to take the assessment another time.

These are 3 of the 30 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Social Interaction Competence Assessment Scale Test - Description and methodology of the test

social competence

social intelligence

People who want to understand how they handle unfamiliar groups, close relationships, public situations, and official contacts can use the Social Interaction Competence Assessment Scale Test. This social interaction competence test focuses on practical communication choices rather than sociability alone, showing patterns of flexibility, rule use, empathy, problem solving, and responses that may support or disrupt trust and cooperation.

What This Assessment Explores

Communication is adjusted to partners, settings, and practical demands, not sociability alone. Scenarios cover groups, contact, empathy, mediation, institutions, problems, and changing plans. This interpersonal skills assessment gives a context-sensitive profile:

Informal relationships show Personal-Creative Style 0-100 (Limited 0-39; Developing 40-69; Strong 70-100), Normative/Stereotypical 0-100 (Flexible/Individualized 0-33; Balanced Normative Use 34-66; Highly Stereotypical 67-100), Counterproductive 0-100 (Low 0-33; Moderate 34-66; High 67-100).
Formal relationships show Personal-Creative Style 0-100 (Conventional 0-49; Adaptive 50-74; Personal-creative 75-100), Normative/Stereotyped 0-100 (Flexible / less rule-bound 0-33; Balanced 34-66; Strongly normative 67-100), Counterproductive 0-100 (Low 0-33; Moderate 34-66; High 67-100).
General interaction shows Personal-Creative 0-100 (Developing 0-39; Moderate 40-69; Strong 70-100), Normative/Stereotypical 0-100 (Low normative reliance 0-33; Moderate normative reliance 34-66; High normative reliance 67-100), Counterproductive 0-100 (Low 0-33; Moderate 34-66; High 67-100).
Overall competence shows Social Interaction Competence Level 15-60 (Basic 15-37; Developing 38-42; Personal-creative 43-60).

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Each situation offers three response options, and selected alternatives are combined into contextual scores; the ranges describe the displayed output, not universal clinical cutoffs or a point value that can be inferred from the range. As a social competence questionnaire, it gives a structured self-report profile rather than a diagnosis, and its scoring is not independently standardized.

The method is conceptually consistent with the Social Interaction Competence Scale (Kodintseva, 2006). Kodintseva’s 2009 dissertation and Rodina’s 2020 discussion address related components of competence, including situational adjustment, interpersonal understanding, and effective communication. This online questionnaire is not presented as a direct adaptation or independently validated reproduction of that instrument.

Interpret results as tendencies across informal, formal, and general situations. A person may show creative flexibility in one context and more normative or counterproductive responses in another. Current circumstances, self-awareness, and response bias can affect answers, so the profile is best read as a focused reflection on interaction patterns rather than a fixed measure of ability.

Author: Ronald E. Riggio

Literature:

Kodintseva, Natalia Mikhailovna. “Experience in Creating a Methodology for Measuring Social Interaction Competence.” Psychological Diagnostics, 2006, no. 3, pp. 27-46.
Kodintseva, Natalia Mikhailovna. “The Relationship Between Social Interaction Competence and the Psychological Characteristics of University Students.” Candidate dissertation, Moscow, 2009, 202 pp.
Rodina, Olga Nikolaevna. “Students’ Social Interaction Competence: Essence, Structure and Content.” Pedagogy. Theory & Practice, 2020, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 148-152. 10.30853/pedagogy.2020.2.3

Updated: 2025-10-02