Decisional Participation Scale

Abstract

The Decisional Participation Scale (DPS) is a specialized 12-item psychometric instrument developed to quantify and compare the actual rate of decision making participation experienced by educators against their desired level of involvement within the school system. Developed by Alutto and Belasco (1972), the scale allows for the categorization of respondents into three crucial states related to organizational engagement: decisional deprived, at decisional equilibrium, or decisional saturated. This framework provides insight into the psychological contract and organizational climate concerning teachers‘ roles in administrative and policy decisions.

Keywords

Decisional Participation Scale, organizational behavior, teacher participation, decisional deprivation, decisional equilibrium, decisional saturation, school administration, organizational climate, decision making.

Authors

Joseph A. Alutto, James A. Belasco

Purpose

The primary purpose of the DPS is to measure the discrepancy between the level of participation in organizational decision making that an employee (specifically a teacher) currently experiences and the level of participation they prefer or desire. By identifying this gap, researchers and administrators can gauge the extent of organizational fit and potential sources of dissatisfaction or over-engagement among staff.

The scale serves as a diagnostic tool, providing clear metrics for assessing the distribution of power and influence across various organizational decisions, ranging from hiring faculty and budgeting to resolving student problems and setting instructional policies. This empirical data is vital for understanding organizational dynamics within educational settings.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the DPS is the perceived congruence between actual and desired levels of participation in organizational governance—often referred to as Decisional Participation. This construct is operationalized by categorizing individuals into one of three distinct participation states based on their responses to 12 critical areas of school decision making:

• Decisional deprivation: This state occurs when the individual’s current participation level in organizational decisions is significantly less than their preferred level of involvement. This often indicates feelings of marginalization or lack of influence.
• Decisional equilibrium: This represents a balanced state where the individual’s current participation level aligns closely with their preferred level.
• Decisional saturation: This state arises when the individual’s current participation level exceeds the level they desire, potentially leading to burnout or dissatisfaction due to excessive administrative burden.

Validity

While the initial publication by Alutto and Belasco (1972) established the scale’s foundation, subsequent research, particularly the study by Mohrman, et al. (1978), provided important information regarding the instrument’s validity and internal structure. These studies validated the scale’s ability to differentiate between actual and desired participation across various decision types relevant to teachers.

Further use of the DPS in dissertations and organizational studies (e.g., Jones, 2000; Maloney, 2003) supports its application in measuring constructs like teacher empowerment and job satisfaction, lending credence to its construct validity in educational contexts.

Reliability

The reliability of the Decisional Participation Scale was initially assessed using the test-retest reliability method. The estimates derived from this analysis were strong, consistently exceeding 0.80 across all sections of the questionnaire. These high coefficients suggest that the instrument provides stable and dependable measures of an individual’s actual and desired participation rates over time.

Factor Analysis

The factor analysis performed on the 12-item instrument, as detailed in the Mohrman et al. (1978) study, revealed a clear multidimensional structure. Specifically, three primary factors were identified. These factors align with the scale’s dual focus:

• One factor was dedicated solely to measuring the dimension of actual participation.
• The remaining two factors were associated with the concept of deprivation, suggesting that the experience of deprivation might manifest across different clusters of decision types within the school system.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Questionnaire

Format: 12 core questions, each followed by six sub-questions (a-f) designed to elicit information on current involvement, preferred involvement, capacity of involvement, and who holds the final decision authority (presently vs. ideally).

Language Available: English (Original Publication)

Population Group: Educational Professionals / Teachers

Age Group: Adult (Professionals)

Population Details: The initial standardization sample consisted of 454 teachers drawn from two distinct school districts located in western New York State.

Test Methodology: The scale assesses participation gaps. Scoring requires Yes/No responses for general questions and sub-question (c); brief explanations for (a) and (d) are required; and the title of the appropriate person is required for sub-questions (b), (e), and (f). Additionally, for (b), the title of the person next to most often and often is required.

Keywords

Organizational participation, job satisfaction, school governance, organizational psychology, educational administration, psychometric scale, Alutto and Belasco, decisional gap.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Decisional Participation Scale was first published in 1972. Information regarding current usage fees and formal permissions must be sought directly from the authors or the journal publisher (Educational Administration Quarterly) where the original article appeared.

Reference’s

• Alutto, J. A., and Belasco, J. A. (1972). Patterns of teacher participation in school system decision making. Educational Administration Quarterly 9:27–41. (Original publication of the scale).
• Alutto, J. A., and Belasco, J. A. (1974). A typology for participation in organizational decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly 10:117–25.
• Jones, S. M. (2000). Teacher empowerment and teacher morale. EdD dissertation, South Carolina State University.
• Maloney, M. M. (2003). Faculty participation in the decision making process: Its impact upon job satisfaction at Connecticut community colleges. PhD dissertation, University of Bridgeport.
• Mohrman, A. M., et al. (1978). Participation in decision making: A multidimensional perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly 14:13–29. (Key reference for validity and factor analysis).

Items of the Decisional Participation Scale

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

1. When a new faculty member is to be hired in your school or department, would you be involved in making such a decision?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If you do, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in deciding whether or not to hire a new faculty member in a given area?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in deciding whether or not to hire a new faculty member in a given area?
2. When school or department budgets are planned, would you be involved in their preparation?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If you do, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in deciding on departmental or school budgets?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in deciding on departmental or school budgets?
3. When a new textbook is needed for a course in your department of school, would you be involved in making such a decision?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If you do, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in selecting texts for courses?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in selecting texts for courses?
4. When one of your students becomes involved in academic or personal problems, would you be involved in deciding how to resolve the difficulties?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If you do, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in resolving such student problems?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in resolving such student problems?
5. When individual faculty assignments are considered, would you be involved in making such decisions?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If you do, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in designating faculty assignments?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in designating faculty assignments?
6. When a faculty member has a grievance, would you be involved in resolving the problem?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If you do, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you feel presently has the “final say” in resolving faculty grievances?
   6. Who do you feel should have the “final say” in resolving faculty grievances?
7. When new instructional methods (e.g., team teaching) are suggested, would you be interested in making the deci- sion whether to adopt them or not?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If so, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in deciding matters concerning new instructional methods?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in deciding matters concerning new instructional methods?
8. If new building facilities are needed, would you become involved in making such a decision?
   1. If so, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If you do, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” concerning the construction of new facilities?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” concerning the construction of new facilities?
9. When there are problems involving community groups (e.g., T.A., civil rights groups) would you become in- volved in eliminating the difficulties?
   1. If yes, in what capacity?
   2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
   3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
   4. If so, in what capacity?
   5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in determining how such difficulties are resolved?
   6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in determining how such difficulties are resolved?
10. When there are problems with administrative services (clerks, typists, ) would you become involved in resolving such difficulties?
    1. If yes, in what capacity?
    2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
    3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
    4. If so, in what capacity?
    5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” about how such problems are resolved?
    6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” about how such matters are resolved?
11. Would you be involved in any decisions concerning faculty members’ salaries?
    1. If yes, in what capacity?
    2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
    3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
    4. If so, in what capacity?
    5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” in such matters?
    6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” in such matters?
12. Would you be involved in decisions concerning general instructional policy?
    1. If yes, in what capacity?
    2. If you would be involved, with whom would you discuss this matter?
    3. Do you want to be involved in making such decisions?
    4. If so, in what capacity?
    5. Who do you believe presently has the “final say” about instructional policies?
    6. Who do you believe should have the “final say” about instructional policies?