Relations between social skills and high-risk sexual interactions among adolescents. Current issues and future directions.

Nangle et al. (1993) wrote a narrative review. They looked at studies linking teen social skills to risky sex. They wanted to know which skills matter and how to measure them.

The authors did not run new experiments. They summed up what was known and pointed out gaps.

The review found no clear tools. No one agreed on which social skills reduce sexual risk. Studies used different labels and weak tests.

The team said we need sharper tests and tighter links between skill and risk.

Wang et al. (2013) later counted big gains for social-skills training in autism. Their meta-analysis of single-case studies shows the field did build the data set W et al. asked for.

Hutchins et al. (2020) found moderate effects in schools, but generalization stayed low. This echoes W et al.'s worry that skills may not move to real teen moments, including sexual ones.

Szempruch et al. (1993) wrote the same year on the same problem: how to make skills last. Together the two 1993 reviews form a snapshot: everyone knew measurement and generalization were weak; the field then spent decades fixing it.

If you write sex-ed or social-skills goals for teens, first pick an assessment that spells out exact behaviors. Tie each goal to a real-life sexual risk, such as saying no without alienating peers. Then plan for generalization: practice in real places, with real people, and track if the skill travels beyond your session.