Objective

The study presented here drew on the Stages of ConcernQuestionnaire (SoCQ) which presents a stage-wise assessment of individual actors’ degrees of concerns regarding an innovation. This instrument has been used in the context of different studies. Regardless of its frequent implementation in innovation and reform processes, the concept and psychometric characteristics of the SoCQ have been a matter of critical debate. This paper therefore aims to assess the psychometrical validity of the Stages of Concern approach and  find out if and how the instrument can be applied to assessing the implementation of school reforms in the context of a school leader survey.

Theoretical framework

The success of implementing school reforms is linked to its coupling of individual school and system levels. Thus, an essential role is attributed to school leaders (Desimone, 2002). Owing to his or her particular function, the school leader acts as a mediator operating between educational administration and individual school (Bonsen, 2010). School leaders are capable of preparing the (organizational) ground for a successful implementation, for instance by determining common long-term goals or structures, processes and procedures for the validation of outcomes (Fullan, 2007). Therefore, school leaders can be regarded as central actors in the support of reforms, and their attitudes may affect teachers, the student population, parents and even the school environment (Hallinger, 2003). Empirical research has demonstrated that school leaders have a strong influence on individual goals and professional convictions of teachers. They can provide teachers with incentives to change and inspire them with a clear vision for change (Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2003). Therefore it is important to investigate how school leaders perceive a reform and how they deal with it.

A model focusing on how individual persons deal with innovation in the field of education is the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM, Hall & Hord, 2011). The main component of the CBAM consists of the Stages of Concern and the relevant instrument, i.e. the SoCQ. This instrument concentrates on actors involved in a reform process, describing their stage-wise dealing with innovation in the course of a change process (Hord & Huling-Austin, 1986). In the past, the SoCQ has been implemented in various longitudinal and cross-sectional studies and it has been established as a viable empirical instrument (e.g. Bitan-Friedlander, Dreyfus, & Milgrom, 2004; Pant, Vock, Pöhlmann, & Köller, 2008) even if it was not always possible to replicate the theoretically assumed model entirely (e.g. Bailey & Palsha, 1992).

The aim of our study is to assess whether the theoretically postulated seven Stages of Concern can be empirically replicated for a CSR in Berlin. Based on findings from other studies which also applied the SoCQto assessing a complex (curricular) reform without confirming all stages (e.g. Cheung, Hattie, & Ng, 2001), the following analyses are also expected to reveal that it is not necessarily possible to model all stages in line with theoretical postulations. As already demonstrated by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1977), stronger connections may emerge between adjacent stages. This approach can also be referred to as a simplex structure (Guttman, 1954). Based on earlier findings (e.g. Cheung et al., 2001), this study aims to contribute to the current knowledge about the simplex structure of the Stages of Concern approach in the context of a CSR and a school leader survey.

Bailey, D. B., & Palsha, S. A. (1992). Qualities of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire and Implications for Educational Innovations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(4), 226–232. Bitan-Friedlander, N., Dreyfus, A., & Milgrom, Z. (2004). Types of "teachers in train-ing": the reactions of primary school science teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(6), 607–619. Bonsen, M. (2010). Schulleitungshandeln [School leadership actions]. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem. (pp. 277–294). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Cheung, D., Hattie, J., & Ng, D. (2001). Reexamining the Stages of Concern Question-naire: A Test of Alternative Models. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 226–236. Desimone, L. (2002). How can Comprehensive School Reform Models Be Succesfullly Implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479. doi:10.3102/00346543072003433 Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 228–256. doi:10.1108/09578230310474403 Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: the Radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). New York: Free press. 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. Austin: The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementig change.: Patterns, Principles and Pot-holes. (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practice of instruc-tional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352. doi:10.1080/0305764032000122005 Hord, S. M., & Huling-Austin, L. (1986). Effective Curriculum Implementation - Some Promising New Insights. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 96–115. doi:10.1086/461482 Pant, H. A., Vock, M., Pöhlmann, C., & Köller, O. (2008). Offenheit für Innovationen. Befunde aus einer Studie zur Rezeption der Bildungsstandards bei Lehrkräften und Zusammenhänge mit Schülerleistungen [Open for innovations. Findings from a study on the reception of educational standards in teachers and correlations with student achievement]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54(6), 827–845.