Shared Decision-Making Survey

Abstract

The Shared Decision-Making Survey (SDMS), developed by King and Meshanko in 1992, is a psychological instrument designed to quantify the extent of teacher involvement in administrative and operational decisions within a school district. The underlying theoretical framework posits that high personal stake in a decision correlates directly with a high interest in participation. The survey specifically examines three crucial dimensions of participation: the actual degree of involvement, the desired level of involvement, and the formal procedures or structures that facilitate Shared Decision-Making (SDM). The development of the SDMS was informed by established literature promoting teacher participation, drawing parallels between educational governance and successful practices observed in the corporate world.

Keywords

Shared decision-making, teacher participation, educational governance, school-based management, decentralized management, school administration, teacher empowerment, locus of control.

Authors

King, R. L., Meshanko, E. J.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Shared Decision-Making Survey is to assess and compare the perceptions of various educational stakeholders—teachers, principals, and school board members—regarding the role and influence of teachers in school governance. By measuring both the current reality of involvement (Section I) and the preferred level of involvement (Section II), the instrument provides crucial data for identifying gaps between administrative practice and teacher expectation.

The survey is fundamentally built upon the concept of personal investment, rooted in the idea that if teachers perceive they have a high personal stake in the outcomes of key decisions, their willingness and interest in participation will be maximized. This alignment between personal stake and participatory interest is critical for optimizing democratic practices within educational institutions, influencing areas such as curriculum development, resource allocation, and personnel management.

Construct

The Shared Decision-Making Survey is multidimensional, measuring the construct of teacher participation through three distinct, but related, lenses:

• Actual Participation (Section I): Measures the observed or reported extent to which teachers are currently involved in ten specific decision-making areas (e.g., budgeting, hiring, evaluation procedures).
• Desired Participation (Section II): Measures the idealized or preferred extent to which teachers believe they should be involved in the same set of ten decision-making areas.
• Procedural Involvement (Section III): Assesses the formal and informal mechanisms that allow teacher involvement, ranging from no involvement to established board policy for shared decision-making.

The theoretical basis draws heavily upon concepts such as locus of control regarding professional influence, and corollary terms integral to modern educational administration, including school-site management, school-based management, decentralized management, and shared governance.

Validity

Specific detailed reports on construct, criterion, or content validity were not extensively documented in the initial 1992 conference paper. However, the comprehensive scope of the thirty items, covering major administrative domains (personnel, curriculum, finance, and policy), suggests strong face and content validity. The items were derived from existing literature and philosophies advocating for increased teacher involvement in educational decision-making, ensuring relevance to the target construct.

Reliability

The scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency based on the available data from the developmental study. A Reliability estimate of 0.87 was reported. The specific type of reliability calculation used (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha, split-half reliability) was not explicitly indicated in the foundational paper by King and Meshanko (1992).

Factor Analysis

Information regarding the specific factor structure or results of exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis for the Shared Decision-Making Survey was not provided in the primary source document. The instrument appears to be structured conceptually into three sections (Actual, Desired, Procedure) based on the intended measurement facets, rather than empirically derived factors.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report survey; Quantitative measure of organizational climate and participatory governance.

Format: 30 items across three sections, utilizing 5-point Likert-type scales tailored to the specific context of each section.

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: Educational personnel, specifically K-12 school stakeholders (Teachers, Principals, and School Board Members).

Age Group: Adult professionals.

Population Details: The foundational study utilized a stratified random sample drawn from nine school districts out of 499 total districts in the state of Pennsylvania. The sample included 1,935 teachers, 77 principals, and 81 school board members, totaling 2,093 respondents.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement or involvement across different administrative domains using anchored numerical scales. Section I measures actual participation; Section II measures preferred participation; and Section III measures the formal structure enabling participation.

Keywords

Teacher empowerment, educational administration, school governance, organizational climate, principal leadership, decision-making scale, school policy.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1992

Permissions & Fee: Permissions and fee structure are not specified. Given its origin as a conference paper and subsequent use in academic dissertations, it is likely intended for non-commercial academic research use, though formal licensing details require contacting the original authors or their affiliated institutions.

Reference’s

• King, R. L., and Meshanko, E. J. (1992). Shared decision making in schools: The locus of control. Paper presented at Association of Teacher Educators. Mimeo.
• Marcoline, J. F. (1990). A survey of shared decision-making in Pennsylvania: Comparing teacher and administrative perceptions. PhD dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
• Meshanko, E. (1990). Teacher decision-making: An analysis of teachers, principals, and school board members perspectives. PhD dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Items of the Shared Decision-Making Survey

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

Section I

1. Hiring a faculty member.
2. Selecting new textbooks.
3. Setting or revising school goals.
4. Determine faculty assignments.
5. Determine faculty evaluation procedures.
6. Determine classroom discipline policies.
7. Determine faculty schedules.
8. Determine budget priorities.
9. Determine staff development programs.
10. Determine grading policies.

Scoring: Indicate the extent that teachers in your school district actually participate in the above situations: Not partici- pate = 1; Provide or gather information = 2; Suggest possible alternative decisions = 3; Recommend a decision = 4; and Make the decision = 5.

Section II

11. Hiring a new faculty member.
12. Selecting new textbooks.
13. Setting or revising school goals.
14. Determine faculty.
15. Determine faculty evaluation procedures.
16. Determine classroom discipline policies.
17. Determine faculty schedules.
18. Determine budgeting priorities.
19. Determine staff development programs.
20. Determine grading policies.

Scoring: Please indicate the extent that teachers in your school district would like to participate in these situations: (see previous response scale).

Section III

21. Hiring a new faculty member.
22. Selecting new textbooks.
23. Setting or revising school goals.
24. Determine faculty assignments.
25. Determine faculty evaluation procedures.
26. Determine classroom discipline policies.
27. Determine faculty schedules.
28. Determine budgeting priorities.
29. Determine staff development programs.
30. Determine grading policies.

Scoring: To the extent that teachers are involved in shared decision making, it indicates the procedure that allows for this involvement: No involvement = 1; Informal discussions with administrators = 2; Formal committees organized as the need arises = 3; Ongoing formal committee structure without board policy = 4; and Board policy for shared decision making = 5.