Congregation Satisfaction Questionnaire

Abstract

The CONGREGATION SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ) is a specialized psychological scale designed to quantify the level of satisfaction experienced by members of Christian and Jewish religious institutions (churches and synagogues). Initial development involved qualitative interviews with clergy and congregation members to identify key areas of satisfaction, resulting in an initial eight dimensions.

The final, revised version of the scale assesses satisfaction across seven distinct dimensions: religious services, church members, church leaders, special programs and activities, religious education for children, religious education for adults, and church facilities. Respondents rate approximately 10 short phrases or words for each dimension using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all descriptive) to 5 (completely descriptive). The CSQ is primarily used as an organizational assessment tool to pinpoint specific areas within the religious institution that require improvement to better serve the needs of the congregation.

Keywords

Congregation Satisfaction, Religious Institutions, Church Assessment, Member Satisfaction, Organizational Psychology, Likert Scale, Religious Education, Community Psychology

Authors

Silverman, W. H., Pargament, K. I., Johnson, S. M., Echemendia, R. J., Snyder, S.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CONGREGATION SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ) is to provide a standardized, multi-dimensional measure of how satisfied members are with various aspects of their church or synagogue. This tool moves beyond simple global satisfaction ratings by breaking the construct down into specific, actionable components.

By measuring satisfaction across areas like leadership, facilities, and educational programs, the scale serves as a practical diagnostic instrument. High scores indicate greater satisfaction, while low scores highlight precise areas—such as the quality of religious services or the condition of church facilities—that are in need of organizational intervention and improvement to increase overall member retention and engagement.

Construct

The scale measures Congregation Satisfaction, which is conceptualized as a multi-faceted construct reflecting a member’s positive subjective evaluation of their religious institution across functional and relational domains. The construct is broken down into seven key dimensions:

• Religious Services
• Church Members (Fellow congregants)
• Church Leaders (Elected or appointed non-clergy leaders)
• Special Programs and Activities
• Religious Education for Children
• Religious Education for Adults
• Church Facilities

The assessment relies on descriptive words and phrases for each dimension, which respondents rate based on accuracy, thus gauging their perceived quality and fit with the religious setting.

Validity

The validity of the CSQ was rigorously examined using both convergent validity and divergent validity analyses, often utilizing the multi-trait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) approach established by Campbell and Fiske (1959). For the convergent validity analysis, participants completed both the detailed CSQ scales and a corresponding single-item measure for each construct. The resulting correlations were statistically significant (p < .001) across all scales, ranging from .32 (Facilities) to .43 (Leaders; Clergy), thereby supporting the scale’s ability to measure the intended constructs.

The assessment of divergent validity yielded mixed but generally supportive results based on three criteria. The first criterion, requiring correlations of the same construct measured by different methods (hetero-method) to be higher than correlations between that construct and any other construct, was met in 95% of cases. While the second criterion showed limited support (met only 31% of the time), the third criterion—using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance to examine the pattern of correlations—was significant (.77). This overall pattern suggests that the CSQ scales measure distinct dimensions of congregation satisfaction, and the instrument is considered valid for its stated purpose. Furthermore, correlations with demographic and religiosity variables (e.g., frequency of prayer, church attendance) were significant, indicating practical relevance.

Reliability

The reliability of the CONGREGATION SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE was assessed primarily through internal consistency and test-retest methods. Initial internal consistency estimates, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, were moderately high, with coefficients for the original eight scales ranging from .80 (Clergy) to .90 (Education), though the Facilities scale was slightly lower at .67.

Following revisions—which included splitting the Education scale into two separate measures (Child and Adult Education), dropping the original Policies and Clergy scales due to poor discrimination, and increasing the Likert scale from 3 to 5 points—internal consistency improved substantially across all seven final scales. The revised alpha coefficients were: Religious Services (.85), Members (.85), Special Programs and Activities (.79), Child Education (.85), Adult Education (.88), Leaders (.82), and Facilities (.94). Test-retest reliabilities, measured over a four-week interval with a subsample (n = 56), were acceptable, ranging from .62 (Clergy, prior to being dropped) to .82 (Policies, prior to being dropped), indicating reasonable stability over time.

Factor Analysis

While the original source content does not explicitly detail a formal statistical factor analysis, the structure of the instrument was derived through a rigorous qualitative and statistical process aimed at establishing distinct dimensions, which serves the function of factor structure. The initial phase involved content analysis of tape-recorded interviews with clergy and members of Christian and Jewish religious institutions, which initially generated eight satisfaction dimensions (Leaders, Members, Facilities, Services, Education, Policies, Special Programs/Activities, and Clergy).

Subsequent refinement based on reliability and discriminatory power led to the final seven-factor structure. Specifically, the original Policies and Clergy scales were eliminated because they failed to adequately differentiate between congregations. Conversely, the original Education scale was factorially split into two distinct and reliable sub-scales: Religious Education for Children and Religious Education for Adults. The final seven dimensions operate as distinct factors in assessing member satisfaction.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Questionnaire / Organizational Assessment Tool

Format: Multi-dimensional inventory using short descriptive words and phrases rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (Original publication language).

Population Group: Members of religious institutions (Christian churches and synagogues).

Age Group: Adults (Mean age of initial sample was 44).

Population Details: Normed on 13 diverse Christian congregations (N=353), ranging in size from 100 to 6,200 members, with varied racial compositions and denominations (e.g., Baptist, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Evangelical).

Test Methodology: Respondents rate how accurately 10 words or short phrases describe their congregation for each dimension. Scoring involves reverse coding of negative items, calculation of mean scores for each item, and aggregation to determine overall dimension scores. Interpretation is based on absolute scores, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.

Keywords

Church Satisfaction, Religious Commitment, Community Psychology, Organizational Development, Psychometrics, Scale Development, Internal Consistency, Divergent Validity, Religious Affiliation

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

Test Year: 1983 (Initial publication of scale and validation).

Permissions & Fee: Information on permissions and fees is not provided in the source content, but the initial manual was an unpublished manuscript (Silverman, Pargament, & Falgout, 1983).

Reference’s

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergence and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 81-105.

Pargament, K. I., Echemendia, R. J., Johnson, S., Cook, P., McGath, C., Myers, J. G., & Brannick, M. (l 987). The conservative church: Psychosocial advantages and disadvantages. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 269-286.

Pargament, K. I., Falgout, K., Ensing, D. S., Reilly, B., Silverman, M., Van Haitsma, K., Olsen, H., & Warren, R. (1991). The congregation development program: Data-based consultation with churches and synagogues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 393-404.

Pargament, K. I., Johnson, S. M., Echemendia, R. J., & Silverman, W. H. (1985). The limits of fit: Examining the implications of person-environment congruence within different religious settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 20-30.

Silverman, M. K., Pargament, K. I., Falgout, K. C. (1983). The congregation development program manual. Unpublished Manuscript, Bowling Green State University.

Silverman, W. H., Pargament, K. I., Johnson, S. M., Echemendia, R. J., & Snyder, S. (1983). Measuring member satisfaction with the church. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 664–677.

Items of the CONGREGATION SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Listed below are several words and phrases that may or may not describe a specific area of your church. Please:

1. Read each word and phrase
2. Decide whether the word or phrase is 1 = not at all descriptive
   2 = somewhat descriptive
   3 = pretty much descriptive 4 = very much descriptive 5 = completely descriptive
3. Draw a circle around one of the five numbers before the word or phrase to show the answer you have selected.

   Religious Services Church Members

   Think of the weekly Think of the majority of the religious services at your people that you know at your church. Indicate how well church. Indicate how well each of the following words each of the following words describes these services. describes these church
   members.

   Church Leaders

   Think about the elected or appointed leaders of your church (do not consider each clergy as a leader in this section). Indicate how well each of the following words describes the church leaders.

   1 2	3	4	5	Interesting	1	2	3	4	5	Close-minded (R)		2	3	4	5	Receptive to
   1 2	3	4	5	Too long (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Uninvolved (R)						new ideas
   1 2	3	4	5	Comforting	1	2	3	4	5	Supportive		2	3	4	5	Creative
   1 2	3	4	5	Confusing (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Easy to get to	1	2	3	4	5	Around when
   1 2	3	4	5	Inspiring						know						needed
   1 2	3	4	5	Dull (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Dedicated		2	3	4	5	Too set in
   2	3	4	5	Useful in daily life	1	2	3	4	5	Willing to listen to problems		2	3	4	5	their ways (R) Inexperienced (R)
   2	3	4	5	Not well	1	2	3	4	5	Active		2	3	4	5	Dedicated
   				planned (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Hard to meet (R)		2	3	4	5	Slow to get
   2	3	4	5	Not enough	1	2	3	4	5	Prejudiced (R)						things done (R)
   				variety (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Complaining (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Well informed
   1 2	3	4	5	Easy to understand								2	3	4	5	Not sensitive to members’ needs
   																(R)
   (R) = reverse code					2								3	4	5	Cliquish (R)

   Special Programs and Activities

   Think about the special programs and activities at your church, such as social events, fundraising activi­ ties, programs for helping needy groups, choir groups, etc. Indicate how well each of the following words describes the special programs and activities.

   Religious Education For Children

   Think about the religious education and training offered by your church for children. Indicate how well each of the following words describes this education and training.

   Religious Education For Adults

   Think about the religious education and training offered by your church for adults. Indicate how well each of the following words describes this education and training.

   l	2	3	4	5	Inadequate (R)	l	2	3	4	5	Well organized	1	2	3	4	5	Qualified
   1	2	3	4	5	Hard to get	l	2	3	4	5	Qualified teachers						teachers
   					involved in (R)	l	2	3	4	5	Poorly taught (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Boring(R)
   l	2	3	4	5	Fun	l	2	3	4	5	Boring (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Interesting
   l	2	3	4	5	Poorly planned	l	2	3	4	5	Interesting	I	2	3	4	5	Weak (R)
   					(R)	l	2	3	4	5	Poorly attended	1	2	3	4	5	Well organized
   l	2	3	4	5	Creative						(R)	1	2	3	4	5	Poorly attended
   I	2	3	4	5	Interesting	l	2	3	4	5	Incomplete (R)						(R)
   l	2	3	4	5	Not well	l	2	3	4	5	Misbehaving	1	2	3	4	5	Meaningful
   					publicized (R)						students (R)	1	2	3	4	5	Incomplete (R)
   l	2	3	4	5	Something for	l	2	3	4	5	Meaningful	1	2	3	4	5	Poorly taught
   l	2	3	4	5	everyone Not well	l	2	3	4	5	Something for all ages	1	2	3	4	5	(R) Useful in daily
   l	2	3	4	5	attended (R) Well run												life

   Church Facilities

   Think of the facilities of your church, such as the building, grounds, sanctuary, classrooms, etc. Indicate how well each of the following words describes these facilities.

   l	2	3	4	5	Pleasant to be in
   l	2	3	4	5	Enough parking
   l	2	3	4	5	In need of repair (R)
   1	2	3	4	5	Neat
   l	2	3	4	5	Attractive
   1	2	3	4	5	Poorly lit (R)
   1	2	3	4	5	Well kept up
   1	2	3	4	5	Not big enough (R)
   1	2	3	4	5	Unsafe neighborhood (R)
   I	2	3	4	5	Too hot or too cold(R)
   1	2	3	4	5	Comfortable to be in
   1	2	3	4	5	Services are hard to hear (R)

   (R) = reverse code