Stages of Concern Questionnaire

Abstract

The Stages of Concern (SoC) Questionnaire is a standardized, 35-item instrument developed to measure the current psychological concerns experienced by individuals regarding the adoption and implementation of a specific innovation. Grounded in the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), the SoC is highly versatile. The same 35 items can be utilized across various innovations and professional settings, requiring only a modification of the introductory page to specify the innovation under study. This adaptability allows the SoC to serve as a key diagnostic tool for researchers and practitioners managing organizational or educational change processes.

Keywords

Stages of Concern Questionnaire, Concerns Based Adoption Model, innovation adoption, educational change, scale construction, psychological measurement, factor analysis, organizational change.

Authors

Gene E. Hall, et al.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Stages of Concern (SoC) Questionnaire is to provide a standardized, quantitative measure of the affective state of individuals—such as teachers, faculty, or administrators—as they encounter, learn about, and implement a new program or organizational change. By accurately identifying the specific concerns an individual holds, the instrument enables researchers and change facilitators to design targeted support and interventions.

The scale is structured to diagnose where an individual falls across seven developmental stages of concern. This diagnostic capability is crucial for understanding the progression of change readiness, moving from self-focused concerns (e.g., impact on personal status) to task-focused concerns (e.g., management and efficiency) and finally to impact-focused concerns (e.g., student outcomes and refinement of the innovation).

Construct

The SoC Questionnaire measures the psychological construct of “Stages of Concern,” which is central to the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM). This model posits that individuals experience predictable, developmental stages of psychological concern when confronted with a major change or innovation. The scale is comprised of seven stages, each represented by five items:

• Stage 0 (Unconcerned): Items 3, 12, 21, 23, 30. Lack of interest or engagement.
• Stage 1 (Informational): Items 6, 14, 15, 26, 35. General desire for basic information about the innovation.
• Stage 2 (Personal): Items 7, 13, 17, 28, 33. Concerns about self-impact, such as status, role changes, and required commitment.
• Stage 3 (Management): Items 4, 8, 16, 25, 34. Concerns about organization, scheduling, time management, and logistics.
• Stage 4 (Consequence): Items 1, 11, 19, 24, 32. Focus shifts to the innovation’s impact on students and performance outcomes.
• Stage 5 (Collaboration): Items 5, 10, 18, 27, 29. Desire to coordinate efforts and work with others to maximize the innovation’s effect.
• Stage 6 (Refocusing): Items 2, 9, 20, 22, 31. Interest in modification, replacement, or enhancement of the innovation based on experience.

Validity

Extensive validity studies were conducted over several years to establish the soundness of the SoC. Support for the scale’s validity comes from multiple sources, including the analysis of intercorrelation matrices among the seven subscales, which demonstrated the distinctiveness of the constructs.

Further validation was achieved through the correlation of SoC scores with qualitative interview data and the scale’s ability to differentiate between groups expected to exhibit distinct concern profiles. The structural consistency derived from the factor analysis also supports the theoretical framework of the seven stages, confirming that the instrument measures the intended dimensions of concern regarding innovation.

Reliability

The reliability of the SoC has been assessed using both internal consistency measures and test-retest stability. For internal consistency, Alpha coefficients were calculated using a stratified sample of 830 teachers and professors, yielding coefficients that were generally acceptable to strong across the stages:

• Stage 0: 0.64
• Stage 1: 0.78
• Stage 2: 0.83
• Stage 3: 0.75
• Stage 4: 0.76
• Stage 5: 0.82
• Stage 6: 0.71

Test-retest reliability was established using Pearson correlations for 132 individuals measured over a two-week interval. These coefficients demonstrated strong stability: Stage 0 (0.65), Stage 1 (0.86), Stage 2 (0.82), Stage 3 (0.81), Stage 4 (0.76), Stage 5 (0.84), and Stage 6 (0.71).

Factor Analysis

The initial development phase involved a rigorous process, including the application of a Q-sort procedure by a panel of judges who grouped over 400 potential items into the seven theoretical stages of concern, plus an unacceptable category. This eventually led to a 195-item instrument that was field tested.

The final 35-item version was confirmed through a principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation. This analysis successfully yielded seven distinct factors, providing statistical evidence for the instrument’s multidimensional structure and aligning precisely with the seven proposed stages of concern derived from the CBAM theory.

Instrument

Test Type: Standardized self-report questionnaire (Psychometric scale)

Format: 35 items, scored on a seven-point scale where 0 to 1 represents “Not true of me now,” 3 to 4 represents “Somewhat true of me now,” and 6 to 7 represents “Very true of me now.” Higher numbers indicate higher concern.

Language Available: Primarily English (as documented in the foundational manual).

Population Group: Educators, administrators, university faculty, and other professionals involved in or affected by organizational or educational change processes.

Age Group: Adults (professional working population).

Population Details: The sample used to develop the normative data (percentile scores) in 1975 consisted of 646 individuals from elementary schools and universities who had experience with specific innovations, such as teaming or modules.

Test Methodology: Raw scores are converted into percentile scores for interpretation. Data analysis includes reporting correlations between varimax factor scores and scale scores, as well as correlations of peak stage estimates. Profile interpretation, focusing on the highest score (peak stage score), is provided for both typical nonusers and single peak users.

Keywords

Educational psychology, organizational change management, CBAM model, concerns measurement, psychometric properties, scale reliability, innovation implementation, professional development.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was formally published in 1977. The original manual, Hall, G. E., et al. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire, is documented as an ERIC resource (ED 147 342). The original PDF can be downloaded here: ERIC ED 147 342. Permissions and current fee structure should be verified through the authors or the current copyright holders of the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) materials.

Reference’s

Hall, G. E., et al. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire. ERIC ED 147 342.

Eisenbart, K. S. (2009). Criteria for teacher assignments to a high school leadership program. EdD dissertation, Pepperdine University.

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal 6:207–26.

Hall, G. E., et al. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education 26:52–56.

Lee, S. T. (2010). Stages of concern of faculty implementing student learning outcomes and assessment as mandated transformational change. EdD dissertation, University of La Verne.

Lopez, R. M. (2010). The impact of the principal’s instructional leadership on the change process of teachers involved in a performance pay program. EdD dissertation, University of Arizona.

Payne, E. T. (2010). Implementing walkthroughs: One school’s journey. EdD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Salato, R. M. (2012). Response to instruction and intervention: Teachers’ perceptions of the implementation in the Beaumont Unified School District as measured by the Concerns Based Adoption Model. EdD dissertation, Pepperdine University.

Items of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. I am concerned about students’ attitudes toward this innovation.
2. I know of some other approaches that might work better.
3. I don’t even know what innovation is.
4. I am concerned about not having enough time to organize myself each day.
5. I would like to help other faculty in their use of the innovation.
6. I have very limited knowledge about the innovation.
7. I would like to know the effect of reorganization on my professional status.
8. I am concerned about conflict between my interests and my responsibilities.
9. I am concerned about revising my use of the innovation.
10. I would like to develop working relationships with both our faculty and outside faculty using this innovation.
11. I am concerned about how the innovation affects students.
12. I am not concerned about this innovation.
13. I would like to know who will make the decisions in the new system.
14. I would like to discuss the possibility of using the innovation.
15. I would like to know what resources are available if we decide to adopt this innovation.
16. I am concerned about my inability to manage all the innovation requires.
17. I would like to know how my teaching or administration is supposed to change.
18. I would like to familiarize other departments or persons with the progress of this new approach.
19. I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.
20. I would like to revise the innovation’s instructional approach.
21. I am completely occupied with other things.
22. I would like to modify our use of the innovation based on the experiences of our students.
23. Although I don’t know about this innovation, I am concerned about things in the area.
24. I would like to excite my students about their part in this approach.
25. I am concerned about time spent working with nonacademic problems related to this innovation.
26. I would like to know what the use of the innovation will require in the immediate future.
27. I would like to coordinate my effort with others to maximize the innovation’s effects.
28. I would like to have more information on time and energy commitments required by this innovation.
29. I would like to know what other faculty are doing in this area.
30. At this time, I am not interested in learning about this innovation.
31. I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or replace the innovation.
32. I would like to use feedback from students to change the program.
33. I would like to know how my role will change when I am using the innovation.
34. Coordination of tasks and people is taking too much of my time.
35. I would like to know how this innovation is better than what we have now.