Stages of Concern Questionnaire

Abstract

The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) is a 35-item psychometric instrument developed within the conceptual architecture of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) by Gene E. Hall, Archie A. George, and William L. Rutherford at the University of Texas at Austin Research and Development Center for Teacher Education (1977). Designed to assess the developmental affective trajectories of individuals undergoing institutional, curriculum, or systemic innovations, the SoCQ operationalizes change as an individualized, developmental, and multidimensional process rather than an instantaneous organizational event. The questionnaire captures seven discrete dimensions across a developmental continuum: Stage 0 (Unconcerned/Awareness), Stage 1 (Informational), Stage 2 (Personal), Stage 3 (Management), Stage 4 (Consequence), Stage 5 (Collaboration), and Stage 6 (Refocusing). Each stage is measured through five Likert-scale items scored from 0 (“Not true of me now”) to 7 (“Very true of me now”), with raw scores summed and converted into standardized percentile profiles derived from empirical benchmark samples.

Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency across subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .64 to .83 in foundational normative samples (N = 830) and two-week test-retest reliability estimates spanning .65 to .86 (N = 132). Principal components factor analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation empirically confirmed the hypothesized seven-factor structure. Furthermore, decades of cross-sectional and longitudinal research demonstrate sound construct, convergent, and predictive validity, revealing predictable profile shifts as non-users transition into novice and experienced implementers. This article provides an exhaustive examination of the instrument’s theoretical lineage, operationalization, statistical properties, administration guidelines, diagnostic score profiling, and contemporary applications across educational, healthcare, and corporate transformation initiatives.

Keywords

Stages of Concern Questionnaire, Concerns-Based Adoption Model, CBAM, organizational change, educational innovation, teacher professional development, psychometrics, scale development, innovation diffusion, implementation science, affective assessment.

Authors

The Stages of Concern Questionnaire was conceived, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by researchers affiliated with the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at the University of Texas at Austin:

• Gene E. Hall, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Educational Leadership at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and former senior research scholar at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Hall is a primary architect of CBAM and has authored extensively on change leadership, educational systems reform, and the dynamics of policy implementation.
• Archie A. George, Ph.D. — Psychometrician and measurement specialist formerly associated with the University of Idaho and the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at UT Austin. Dr. George led the quantitative scaling, factor analytic procedures, and mathematical conversion algorithms that underpin the SoCQ percentile profiles.
• William L. Rutherford, Ph.D. — Educational researcher and change facilitator whose work focused on the role of school principals, change facilitators, and instructional leaders in sustaining curricular interventions and coaching practitioners through developmental concerns.

Subsequent psychometric refinements and updated manual editions have been supported by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), which integrated into the American Institutes for Research (AIR).

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire is to diagnose, quantify, and map the affective preoccupations, perceptions, reservations, and motivations of practitioners facing or navigating an innovation. Rooted in the premise that organizations cannot change until the individuals within them change, the SoCQ was created to shift the focus of innovation evaluation from mechanistic compliance metrics toward the subjective, cognitive-affective experiences of end-users.

In research contexts, the instrument serves as an empirical measurement device for tracking adoption trajectories over time. Longitudinal designs employ the SoCQ to evaluate whether professional development interventions, leadership coaching, or resource provisioning accelerate the transition of professionals from self-oriented anxieties to impact-oriented execution. In program evaluation and implementation science, the scale provides a rigorous diagnostic framework for identifying systemic failure points; for instance, identifying that a reform has stalled due to unaddressed management bottlenecks (Stage 3) rather than ideological resistance (Stage 2).

In applied organizational and educational settings, the SoCQ operates as an intervention planning tool. Rather than distributing generic training to all personnel, instructional leaders and change facilitators use aggregate and individual SoCQ profiles to deliver targeted interventions. Non-users exhibiting high Informational (Stage 1) concerns benefit from descriptive, non-evaluative overviews of the innovation, whereas individuals exhibiting peak Management (Stage 3) concerns require pragmatic scheduling templates, time-budgeting guidance, and logistical support. By calibrating support mechanisms to verified concerns, leadership minimizes implementation resistance and reduces burnout.

Crucially, the SoCQ was formulated as an “open-frame” instrument. While the 35 questionnaire items remain fixed, the introductory prompt is adapted to specify the target innovation—such as inclusive education practices, enterprise resource software, clinical treatment pathways, or modular curriculum teaming. This structural flexibility allows comparative implementation research across disparate sectors without undermining the psychometric properties of the underlying construct.

Psychological Construct

Within the CBAM framework, a “concern” is defined as the composite representation of feelings, preoccupation, thought, consideration, and interest given to a particular issue or task. Rather than denoting negative worry or anxiety alone, concern represents a dynamic cognitive-affective state that evolves as an individual becomes more familiar with, experienced in, and adept at utilizing an innovation. The construct encompasses seven developmental stages divided into four broad categories: Unrelated, Self, Task, and Impact.

Unrelated Concerns

• Stage 0: Unconcerned (Awareness) — Reflects an individual’s relative lack of interest in or involvement with the specified innovation. An individual at this stage has their attention primarily directed toward other initiatives, tasks, or professional responsibilities. High scores indicate that the innovation is not perceived as a central priority or that the person is minimally aware of its existence (e.g., Item 21: “I am completely occupied with other things”).

Self Concerns

• Stage 1: Informational — Characterized by a general, non-judgmental awareness of the innovation and an active desire to learn more objective facts about it. The respondent is interested in understanding what the innovation is, how it functions, and what resources are required for adoption, without personal anxiety taking precedence (e.g., Item 6: “I have very limited knowledge about the innovation”; Item 15: “I would like to know what resources are available if we decide to adopt this innovation”).
• Stage 2: Personal — Marked by inward-focused uncertainty regarding one’s professional adequacy, status, rewards, and decision-making roles within the reorganized system. The practitioner questions their ability to meet expectations, potential conflicts between institutional demands and personal philosophy, and the consequences of the change on their career standing (e.g., Item 7: “I would like to know the effect of reorganization on my professional status”; Item 33: “I would like to know how my role will change when I am using the innovation”).

Task Concerns

• Stage 3: Management — Centered on the operational, structural, and logistical demands of using the innovation. Preoccupations revolve around time management, efficiency, resource scheduling, coordination of tasks, and administrative burden. High Stage 3 concerns are typical of early adopters attempting to integrate novel procedures into fixed working hours (e.g., Item 4: “I am concerned about not having enough time to organize myself each day”; Item 34: “Coordination of tasks and people is taking too much of my time”).

Impact Concerns

• Stage 4: Consequence — Focuses on the direct impact of the innovation on clients, students, or primary beneficiaries. The professional examines client outcomes, student cognitive and affective responses, and strategies for optimizing positive results through evaluative appraisal (e.g., Item 11: “I am concerned about how the innovation affects students”; Item 19: “I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students”).
• Stage 5: Collaboration — Emphasizes coordinating, integrating, and synergizing one’s own use of the innovation with colleagues and external peers. The individual seeks collective action, cross-departmental sharing, and joint problem-solving to maximize the macro-level impact of the initiative (e.g., Item 10: “I would like to develop working relationships with both our faculty and outside faculty using this innovation”; Item 27: “I would like to coordinate my effort with others to maximize the innovation’s effects”).
• Stage 6: Refocusing — Involves explorations of alternative approaches that could surpass, augment, or replace the innovation. Individuals high on Stage 6 possess strong ideas about major structural modifications or alternative systems that they believe would yield superior outcomes (e.g., Item 2: “I know of some other approaches that might work better”; Item 31: “I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or replace the innovation”).

Theoretical Framework

The SoCQ is anchored in the seminal developmental formulations of Frances F. Fuller (1969), whose foundational research revealed that prospective teachers traverse a predictable hierarchical sequence of concerns: beginning with concerns about Self (survival, adequacy, acceptance), transitioning to concerns about Task (classroom management, pacing, teaching duties), and ultimately maturing into concerns about Impact (student learning, individual differences, instructional efficacy). Hall, Wallace, and Dossett (1973) expanded Fuller’s tri-partite paradigm into the comprehensive Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), positing that any professional confronted with an innovation progresses through analogous psychological phases.

CBAM rests on several key theoretical assumptions:

• Change is a process, not an event: Organizational transformation requires developmental gestation. Adoption occurs over months or years rather than immediately upon executive mandate.
• Change is accomplished by individuals: Systemic outcomes are aggregate manifestations of individual behavior and cognitive shifts. Interventions must target individual psychological needs.
• Change is a highly personal experience: Affective dimensions—perceptions, doubts, and personal priorities—powerfully determine whether an innovation will be embraced, mechanically executed, or actively resisted.
• Concerns evolve developmentally: As users gain competence, concerns systematically move through developmental stages. Self-concerns must be resolved or attenuated before individuals can direct cognitive bandwidth toward task mastery or beneficiary outcomes.

Graphically, CBAM conceptualizes concern progression as a wave pattern across time. In the initial orientation phase, Stage 0, 1, and 2 curves dominate. As implementation begins, these self-concerns subside and Stage 3 (Management) surges to a peak. Once logistical routines become automated, Stage 3 declines, clearing capacity for Stage 4 (Consequence) and Stage 5 (Collaboration) to crest. Finally, mature users may manifest elevated Stage 6 (Refocusing) profiles as they seek innovation modifications or next-generation alternatives.

Validity

The validity of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire has been established across multiple methodologies, including construct, criterion, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validation studies conducted over more than four decades.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established during the instrument’s 2.5-year development phase. An initial pool of over 400 statements was evaluated using a Q-sort methodology by a panel of expert judges to categorize items into the hypothesized stages or an unclassifiable category. This distilled a 195-item trial battery, which was subsequently field-tested across diverse educational cohorts. Item-to-scale correlations and factor analysis validated the theoretical distinctiveness of the seven dimensions, culminating in the refined 35-item scale with exactly five items per stage.

Intercorrelation matrices among the seven subscale scores demonstrate a classic simplex pattern characteristic of developmental developmental stage models: correlations between adjacent stages (e.g., Stage 1 and Stage 2; Stage 4 and Stage 5) are substantially higher than correlations between distant stages (e.g., Stage 1 and Stage 5). This statistical ordering provides robust evidence for the developmental continuum postulated by the theoretical model.

Criterion-Related and Convergent Validity

Hall, George, and Rutherford (1977) verified the convergent validity of the SoCQ through intensive, semi-structured clinical interviews conducted with stratified samples of educators. Independent expert interviewers, blinded to participants’ quantitative SoCQ responses, assigned global stage-of-concern ratings based solely on narrative discourse. Correlational analyses revealed high concordance between interview-derived peak concern stages and the peak percentile scores generated by the 35-item SoCQ.

Predictive and Known-Groups Validity

Known-groups validity has been consistently demonstrated by comparing longitudinal cohorts across varying degrees of innovation exposure. Non-users reliably exhibit profile peaks at Stages 0, 1, and 2, with negligible elevations across Stages 4, 5, and 6. Conversely, seasoned practitioners with multi-year implementation experience display pronounced declines in Stages 1 and 2, subdued Stage 3 concerns, and elevated plateaus across Stages 4 and 5. Furthermore, experimental research confirms that when leadership fails to address Stage 3 administrative concerns, implementation fidelity declines, validating the predictive utility of the scale in implementation science.

Reliability

The reliability of the SoCQ was systematically documented during the original normative investigations utilizing stratified cross-sectional samples of elementary school teachers, secondary educators, and higher education faculty (Hall et al., 1977).

Internal Consistency

In a normative validation sample of 830 educators across multiple institutions adopting team teaching or modular instructional units, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the five-item subscales demonstrated satisfactory to high internal consistency:

• Stage 0 (Unconcerned): α = .64
• Stage 1 (Informational): α = .78
• Stage 2 (Personal): α = .83
• Stage 3 (Management): α = .75
• Stage 4 (Consequence): α = .76
• Stage 5 (Collaboration): α = .82
• Stage 6 (Refocusing): α = .71

The slightly lower coefficient for Stage 0 (α = .64) is psychometrically expected due to the structural heterogeneity of non-engagement items (which capture both passive indifference and active occupation with competing professional initiatives). The remaining subscales meet or exceed standard psychometric benchmarks for affective inventories.

Test-Retest Stability

Stability across time was verified in an independent subsample of 132 practitioners who completed the questionnaire across a two-week interval without intervening professional development or institutional events. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients confirm high temporal stability:

• Stage 0: r = .65
• Stage 1: r = .86
• Stage 2: r = .82
• Stage 3: r = .81
• Stage 4: r = .76
• Stage 5: r = .84
• Stage 6: r = .71

These values demonstrate that the SoCQ measures stable cognitive-affective orientations rather than transient situational mood, while remaining sensitive to systemic organizational change interventions over extended time horizons.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the SoCQ was empirically validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures conducted during instrument development and subsequent replications.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the standardization phase, Hall and colleagues performed a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) followed by orthogonal Varimax rotation on the 195-item pilot version administered to 646 educators. Eigenvalue analysis and scree plot inspection confirmed a clear seven-factor solution that corresponded with the theoretical stages of concern. The seven extracted factors accounted for the substantial majority of common variance. Items with factor loadings ≥ .40 on their target construct, along with low secondary cross-loadings (≤ .25), were retained, producing the finalized 35-item scale (five items per stage).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Subsequent Debates

Subsequent psychometric investigations have subjected the SoCQ to modern confirmatory structural equation modeling. Studies by educational researchers have occasionally noted high latent correlations between Stage 1 (Informational) and Stage 2 (Personal), suggesting an overarching “Early Self-Orientation” second-order factor. Similarly, Stage 4 (Consequence) and Stage 5 (Collaboration) frequently demonstrate moderate shared variance. Nonetheless, multi-group CFA models consistently support the seven-factor specification as the best-fitting operational model when evaluated against alternative one-, two-, or three-factor models, yielding Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values < .06 and Comparative Fit Indices (CFI) > .90 when accounting for correlated uniqueness among adjacent developmental stages.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)
• Foundational Publication: Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977)
• Scale Type: Self-report Likert-format psychometric questionnaire
• Target Population: Teachers, higher education faculty, healthcare practitioners, administrators, and corporate personnel facing institutional or curricular innovation
• Total Item Count: 35 items
• Subscales / Dimensions (5 items each):
  • Stage 0 (Unconcerned): Items 3, 12, 21, 23, 30
  • Stage 1 (Informational): Items 6, 14, 15, 26, 35
  • Stage 2 (Personal): Items 7, 13, 17, 28, 33
  • Stage 3 (Management): Items 4, 8, 16, 25, 34
  • Stage 4 (Consequence): Items 1, 11, 19, 24, 32
  • Stage 5 (Collaboration): Items 5, 10, 18, 27, 29
  • Stage 6 (Refocusing): Items 2, 9, 20, 22, 31
• Response Scale: 8-point Likert rating scale scored 0 through 7:
  • 0 – 1: Not true of me now
  • 2: (Intermediate rating)
  • 3 – 4: Somewhat true of me now
  • 5: (Intermediate rating)
  • 6 – 7: Very true of me now
• Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
  • Raw scale scores are computed by summing the numerical values of the 5 constituent items for each stage (potential range: 0 to 35 per stage).
  • Raw scores are mapped onto standardized normative percentile tables established in the CBAM manuals. Percentiles account for varying scale baselines across stages.
  • Profile Interpretation: Graphic plotting of the 7 percentile scores generates a diagnostic curve. The highest point is designated as the Peak Stage of Concern, identifying the respondent’s primary psychological orientation. The second highest point provides the Secondary Concern, providing clinical nuance into developmental shifts.
  • Typical archetypes include the Nonuser Profile (elevated Stages 0, 1, 2; depressed 4, 5, 6), the Early Adopter / Inexperienced User Profile (peaking at Stage 3), and the Mature Collaborative User Profile (peaking at Stages 4 and 5).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Stages of Concern Questionnaire was originally developed in 1977 at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin, under federal funding from the National Institute of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 342). Subsequent rights, manual distributions, and scoring software were stewarded by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). In 2015, SEDL merged into the American Institutes for Research (AIR).

The SoCQ is accessible for non-commercial educational research, academic dissertations, and institutional evaluations upon obtaining proper permission or acquiring the official manual, Measuring Implementation in Schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (George, Hall, & Stiegelbauer, 2006). Researchers are generally granted reproduction rights for non-commercial scholarly inquiries, provided the introductory instructions state the designated innovation clearly and copyright notices attributing AIR/SEDL are fully preserved. Commercial enterprises and proprietary consulting organizations must obtain formal licensing agreements from the American Institutes for Research.

References

• Eisenbart, K. S. (2009). Criteria for teacher assignments to a high school leadership program (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
• Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006002207
• George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://www.air.org/resource/measuring-implementation-schools-stages-concern-questionnaire
• Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 342). Texas University at Austin Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED147342
• Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248717502600114
• Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.
• Lee, S. T. (2010). Stages of concern of faculty implementing student learning outcomes and assessment as mandated transformational change (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
• Lopez, R. M. (2010). The impact of the principal’s instructional leadership on the change process of teachers involved in a performance pay program (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona). The University of Arizona Campus Repository.
• Payne, E. T. (2010). Implementing walkthroughs: One school’s journey (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). VTechWorks.
• 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 (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). Pepperdine Digital Commons.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)