Institutional Renewal Scale

1. Abstract

The Institutional Renewal Scale (IRS), originally developed by Robert J. Crowley in 1976, is a specialized psychometric assessment engineered to measure educators’ attitudes toward educational innovation, systematic pedagogical change, and organizational modernization within academic institutions. Amidst the structural and curricular reform waves of the late twentieth century, understanding the psychological readiness, perceived utility, skepticism, and openness of educational personnel became critical for predicting the adoption or rejection of school-wide interventions. The original operationalized instrument consists of 12 carefully calibrated items derived from an initial 20-item prototype, evaluated across panels of secondary school educators. The scale utilizes a 6-point Likert-type response continuum ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree without a neutral midpoint, thereby compelling respondents to declare a definitive directional valence regarding institutional transformation.

Psychometric evaluations of the instrument demonstrate robust internal consistency and construct validity. In empirical field validations involving secondary educators (N = 378), the full 12-item administration yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.82. When refined into a brief 9-item measurement model by deleting items with lower item-total correlations and high residual error (specifically items 2, 6, and 7), internal consistency elevated substantially to 0.88. Exploratory structural investigations using normalized varimax orthogonal rotation isolated a robust two-factor conceptual architecture delineating Proactive Innovative Valence (valuing reform as vital, progressive, and worth instructional risk) from Critical Skepticism and Pragmatic Inertia (perceptions of superficiality, resource misdirection, and displacement of proven methodologies). Concurrent criterion validity was confirmed through statistically significant associations with landmark educational attitude inventories, including the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and Kerlinger’s Attitudes toward Education Scale, alongside empirical verification via known-groups contrast paradigms.

2. Keywords

Institutional Renewal Scale, educational innovation, organizational change, teacher attitudes, scale development, psychometrics, educational renewal, school reform, innovation skepticism, educational administration

3. Authors

The Institutional Renewal Scale was designed and validated by Robert J. Crowley. At the time of the instrument’s publication in 1976 through the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) under report clearinghouse number ED 156 678, Crowley’s research focused on educational leadership, organizational behavior, curriculum implementation dynamics, and the psychological determinants affecting secondary school faculty responses to institutional reform agendas.

4. Purpose

Educational institutions frequently encounter structural inertia when implementing systemic pedagogical or administrative modernizations. The overarching purpose of the Institutional Renewal Scale (IRS) is to operationalize, quantify, and diagnose the underlying attitudinal matrix of instructional personnel toward systemic reform, instructional technology adoption, and organizational experimentation. Rather than viewing school reform purely as a mechanistic reallocation of fiscal resources or policy mandates, Crowley recognized that the ultimate catalyst or barrier to institutional renewal resides in the subjective attitudes, occupational values, and perceived professional threats experienced by classroom teachers.

In academic and institutional research settings, the IRS serves several distinct clinical, diagnostic, and administrative functions:

• Pre-Implementation Organizational Diagnostic: Prior to allocating capital investments or introducing novel curricular frameworks, educational administrators utilize the IRS to establish baseline organizational receptivity, identifying departments or faculty cohorts exhibiting heightened skepticism or ideological resistance.
• Longitudinal Evaluation of Reform Initiatives: The instrument facilitates pre-test/post-test longitudinal investigations to evaluate whether professional development interventions, collaborative leadership models, or participatory decision-making structures successfully mitigate reform fatigue and foster institutional commitment.
• Identification of Change Champions vs. Skeptical Outliers: By examining individualized scoring profiles across the instrument’s sub-dimensions, leadership teams can identify intrinsically motivated change agents capable of peer-led coaching, while simultaneously designing targeted support for educators harboring legitimate concerns regarding pedagogical disruption.
• Structural Equation and Path Modeling: In behavioral research, the IRS acts as a vital latent variable when modeling organizational citizenship behaviors, occupational burnout, teacher self-efficacy, and instructional adaptation rates under conditions of educational policy shifts.

5. Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct operationalized by the IRS is Attitude Toward Institutional Educational Innovation. Within contemporary organizational and social psychology, an attitude is conceptualized as an evaluative cognitive and affective predisposition toward a specific psychological object—in this context, the systematic restructuring, technological upgrading, or curricular evolution of educational systems. The construct captures the tension between educational progressivism and occupational conservation.

Analysis of the instrument’s items reveals that this construct functions across distinct psychological dimensions:

Perceived Intrinsic and Systemic Value of Innovation

This dimension represents an educator’s cognitive appraisal that change is inherently healthy, necessary, and reflective of professional excellence. It captures the belief that pedagogical evolution preserves the vital core of learning rather than degrading it. For example, endorsements of statements such as “I believe that educational innovation keeps alive what is best in education” (Item 4) and “Most educational innovations suggest unlimited possibilities for schools” (Item 8) quantify an optimistic cognitive orientation toward programmatic evolution.

Risk-Taking Propensity and Professional Flexibility

Modernization within human organizations requires a psychological willingness to tolerate ambiguity, navigate temporary drops in instructional efficiency, and dismantle habitual routines. This dimension taps into behavioral intention and psychological flexibility, operationalized in items such as “School professionals should be willing to revise their beliefs and attitudes in order to accommodate more educational innovations” (Item 11) and “Experience with the process of innovating may well be worth the risks involved in innovating” (Item 12).

Fiscal, Pragmatic, and Methodological Skepticism

Contrasting the positive valence is a multi-layered construct of institutional skepticism. This does not merely reflect recalcitrance; rather, it measures sophisticated professional doubt regarding whether reforms are driven by evidence-based practice or transient educational consumerism. Sub-components include:

• Cost-Benefit Cynicism: Quantifying the belief that capital expenditures on innovative materials yield negligible pedagogical returns relative to their financial costs (Item 1: “I think that too much money is being spent on educational innovations when compared with the benefit that is being derived”).
• Fad Attribution: The cognitive perception that educational novelties represent fleeting promotional trends engineered by administrative fads rather than empirical necessity (Item 10: “The appeal for the use of more educational innovations that are currently in use appears to me to be a response to fashion rather than to sober judgment”).
• Displacement Anxiety: The valid concern that untested innovations cannibalize, displace, or invalidate time-tested, foundational instructional strategies (Item 7: “The educational innovations that gain acceptance seem to me to do so at the expense of equally valid techniques”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The Institutional Renewal Scale is grounded in a convergence of classical organizational development, sociotechnical systems theory, and sociocognitive models of change adoption. Foremost among these theoretical foundations is Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory and 3-Stage Model of Change (Unfreezing, Moving, Refreezing; Lewin, 1947). Lewin posited that human systems exist in a dynamic quasi-stationary equilibrium maintained by a constellation of driving forces pushing toward change and restraining forces maintaining the status quo. The IRS quantitatively maps these driving forces (enthusiasm, perceived utility, risk acceptance) against the restraining forces (skepticism, perceived fadism, resource anxiety).

Secondarily, the instrument is anchored in Everett Rogers’ seminal Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 1962, 1971). Rogers articulated that an individual’s adoption curve (from Innovators and Early Adopters to Late Majority and Laggards) is governed by subjective perceptions of five core innovation attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. The IRS directly queries these conceptual domains; for example, Item 1 evaluates relative economic and functional advantage, while Item 3 evaluates ideological compatibility between structural innovations and individual teacher needs.

Additionally, the conceptualization aligns with Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s theories of Organizational Learning and institutional renewal. Argyris and Schön (1974) differentiated between single-loop learning (superficial modifications that preserve existing operational norms) and double-loop learning (fundamental re-evaluations of underlying values, assumptions, and institutional goals). Crowley’s focus on “renewal” rather than mere “novelty” demands double-loop reflection, encapsulated in the expectation that professionals must confront their baseline belief systems to accommodate structural shifts.

7. Validity

The construct, criterion, and concurrent validity of the Institutional Renewal Scale were rigorously established through multi-stage quantitative methodologies during its standardization:

Content and Face Validity

The initial pool of 20 items was subjected to critical review by an expert judgment panel comprising 48 practicing secondary school teachers. Panelists systematically reviewed each item for semantic clarity, psychological relevance to modern school environments, and freedom from ambiguity. Based on inter-rater consensus indices, items were refined to isolate precise attitudinal dimensions prior to psychometric testing.

Item Discrimination and Phi Coefficients

In the pilot empirical study of 126 secondary educators, responses to the 20 items were dichotomized to calculate individual phi coefficients ($phi$) alongside chi-square ($\chi^2$) tests of independence to evaluate item discrimination power across upper and lower scoring quartiles. Eight items exhibiting negligible discriminative capacity or poor variance were deleted, resulting in the refined 12-item inventory.

Concurrent Criterion Validity

Concurrent validity was established by administering the scale alongside two gold-standard psychological measures of teacher orientations:

• Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI): Developed by Cook, Leeds, and Callis (1951), the MTAI measures teacher-pupil interpersonal relationships and educational progressivism. Scores on the IRS correlated positively with progressive orientations on the MTAI, demonstrating that progressive educators harbor significantly more positive valences toward organizational renewal.
• Attitudes Toward Education Scale (ATES VII): Formulated by Fred N. Kerlinger (1968), this dual-paradigm instrument contrasts Progressivism with Traditionalism. The IRS demonstrated robust positive correlations with Kerlinger’s Progressivism subscale and significant negative correlations with Traditionalism, confirming divergent and convergent validity.

Known-Groups Validation

Construct validity was further corroborated utilizing a known-groups design. Faculty groups operating within pilot experimental high schools utilizing modular flexible scheduling and team-teaching models scored significantly higher on proactive renewal dimensions than faculty from matched, strictly traditional secondary schools ($p < .01$).

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the Institutional Renewal Scale showcases high degrees of internal consistency across teacher cohorts:

• 12-Item Baseline Form: When administered to the primary cross-validation sample of 378 secondary school teachers, the complete 12-item instrument demonstrated an internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s $lpha$) of 0.82, exceeding standard benchmarks for exploratory and diagnostic field research.
• Refined 9-Item Optimal Model: Crowley systematically analyzed item-scale statistics and determined that three items exhibited relatively high measurement error and suppression effects: Item 2 (an indifferent/neutral personal stance), Item 6 (school-wide public emphasis), and Item 7 (displacement of valid existing techniques). Upon removal of items 2, 6, and 7, the resulting 9-item scale demonstrated an increased Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88, reflecting strong scale homogeneity and reduced residual noise.
• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): The reduction from the 12-item to the 9-item specification yielded a lower standard error of measurement, providing administrators and psychometricians with higher measurement precision when evaluating individual educator scores along the continuum.

9. Factor Analysis

To examine the latent structural properties of the instrument, Crowley conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the response matrix derived from the 378 secondary educators. Extraction was followed by a normalized varimax orthogonal rotation to achieve simple structure.

The mathematical extraction yielded a distinct two-factor model accounting for the vast majority of the common variance:

Factor I: Proactive Innovation Orientation & Professional Efficacy

This primary factor accounts for the dominant share of shared variance, grouping items that articulate an active, optimistic, and transformative appraisal of pedagogical innovation. High loadings are observed on:

• Item 4: “I believe that educational innovation keeps alive what is best in education.” (High positive loading, typically $> .70$)
• Item 5: “Most school professionals should become much more enthusiastic about educational innovation than they presently are.”
• Item 8: “Most educational innovations suggest unlimited possibilities for schools.”
• Item 11: “School professionals should be willing to revise their beliefs and attitudes in order to accommodate more educational innovations.”
• Item 12: “Experience with the process of innovating may well be worth the risks involved in innovating.”

Factor II: Pragmatic Skepticism & Critical Resource Appraisal

The secondary orthogonal factor consolidates items characterizing rational defense mechanisms, fiscal caution, and resistance to educational trends. Items loading saliently onto this factor include:

• Item 1: “I think that too much money is being spent on educational innovations when compared with the benefit that is being derived.” (High positive loading on the skepticism construct)
• Item 9: “In my opinion most educational innovations are a hindrance to a sound education because so many of them depend on exaggerated claims.”
• Item 10: “The appeal for the use of more educational innovations that are currently in use appears to me to be a response to fashion rather than to sober judgment.”
• Item 3: “There is a need to innovate but I do not find what I want in most current educational innovations.”

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Institutional Renewal Scale (IRS)
• Author: Robert J. Crowley (1976)
• Target Population: Secondary and post-secondary educational personnel, classroom teachers, school administrators, and educational specialists.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital psychological inventory.
• Item Count:
  • Full Instrument: 12 items
  • Abbreviated/Optimal Psychometric Model: 9 items (deleting items 2, 6, and 7)
• Response Continuum: 6-point forced-choice Likert scale (no neutral option):
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Mildly Agree
  • Mildly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Positively keyed items (Items 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12) receive point allocations from 6 (Strongly Agree) down to 1 (Strongly Disagree).
  • Negatively keyed items measuring skepticism/inertia (Items 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10) are reverse-scored: Strongly Agree = 1, Agree = 2, Mildly Agree = 3, Mildly Disagree = 4, Disagree = 5, Strongly Disagree = 6.
  • Higher composite scores denote a highly favorable, proactive attitude toward institutional renewal and educational innovation; lower composite scores reflect institutional cynicism, pedagogical traditionalism, and reform resistance.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Institutional Renewal Scale was developed in 1976 by Robert J. Crowley and published into the public scholarly record through the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 156 678). As an ERIC-deposited research instrument developed under academic auspices without proprietary commercial restrictions, the scale is generally available free of charge for non-commercial educational research, university-level theses, dissertation research, and public school administrative diagnostics. Researchers intending to replicate, translate, or adapt the scale are expected to maintain professional standards of scholarly citation, referencing Crowley (1976) as the original source author.

12. References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.

Cook, W. W., Leeds, C. H., & Callis, R. (1951). Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Psychological Corporation.

Crowley, R. J. (1976). The Institutional Renewal Scale: An instrument to measure attitudes toward educational innovation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 156 678). Educational Resources Information Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED156678

Kerlinger, F. N. (1968). Attitude toward Education Scale, VII [Unpublished manuscript]. New York University.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.

Rogers, E. M. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). Free Press.

13. Items of the Scale