Stages of Concern Questionnaire

Hall, G. E., et al. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire. ERIC ED 147 342.

Comments: The 35-item Stages of Concern (SoC) measures current concerns about a specific innovation. The same 35 items may be used for any innovation. The only change that would need to be made would be to change the introductory page. No additional changes are necessary. Therefore, the SoC may be used in a wide variety of situations with numerous groups.

Scale Construction: The first pilot instrument that was developed to measure the concerns about a specific innovation used open-ended statements and a forced rank order. A Q-sort procedure was used by a panel of judges to group over 400 items into eight categories (the seven stages of concern and an unacceptable category). This procedure generated 195 items that were field tested by teachers and university faculty. The results of item correlations and factor analyses yielded seven factors. A panel of judges chose 35 items from each of the seven factors of the 195-item SoC. The new version of the SoC was given to 171 elementary teachers and college faculty to establish the test-retest reliability of the SoC over a one-week interval. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have been conducted. Detailed information about the development of the SoC is included.

Stages of Concern: There are seven stages of concern with five items for each stage. Stage 0 consists of items 3, 12, 21, 23, and 30. Stage 1 consists of items 6, 14, 15, 26, and 35. Stage 2 consists of items 7, 13, 17, 28, and 33. Stage 3

consists of items 4, 8, 16, 25, and 34. Stage 4 consists of items 1, 11, 19, 24, and 32. Stage 5 consists of items 5, 10,

18, 27, and 29. Stage 6 consists of items 2, 9, 20, 22, and 31. Definitions are provided for each of the seven stages.

Sample: In 1975, 646 people from elementary schools and universities who had experience with teaming or modules responded to the survey. Their responses were used to determine percentile scores.

Reliability: Alpha coefficients for a stratified sample of 830 teachers and professors were 0.64 for stage 0; 0.78 for stage 1; 0.83 for stage 2; 0.75 for stage 3; 0.76 for stage 4; 0.82 for stage 5; and 0.71 for stage 6. Test-retest reliability (Pearson) for 132 people over a two-week interval were 0.65 for stage 0; 0.86 for stage 1; 0.82 for stage 2; 0.81 for stage 3; 0.76 for stage 4; 0.84 for stage 5; and 0.71 for stage 6.

Validity: Information is provided about various validity studies that were conducted over several years. Intercorrelation matrices, information obtained using interview data, and predicted differences among groups support the validity of the SoC.

Factor Analysis: A principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation yielded seven factors.

Data Analysis: Correlations between varimax factor scores and scale scores are reported as well as correlation of peak stage estimates and rank order of SoC percentile scores. Profile interpretation is provided for the typical nonuser and the single peak user.


Eisenbart, K. S. (2009). Criteria for teacher assignments to a high school leadership program. EdD dissertation, Pepperdine University.

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal 6:207–26. Hall, G. E., et al. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education 26:52–56.

Lee, S. T. (2010). Stages of concern of faculty implementing student learning outcomes and assessment as mandated transformational change. EdD dissertation, University of La Verne.

Lopez, R. M. (2010). The impact of the principal’s instructional leadership on the change process of teachers involved in a performance pay program. EdD dissertation, University of Arizona.

Payne, E. T. (2010). Implementing walkthroughs: One school’s journey. EdD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

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. EdD dissertation, Pepperdine University.

SoC Questionnaire

1. I am concerned about students’ attitudes toward this innovation.
2. I know of some other approaches that might work better.
3. I don’t even know what innovation is.
4. I am concerned about not having enough time to organize myself each day.
5. I would like to help other faculty in their use of the innovation.
6. I have very limited knowledge about the innovation.
7. I would like to know the effect of reorganization on my professional status.
8. I am concerned about conflict between my interests and my responsibilities.
9. I am concerned about revising my use of the innovation.
10. I would like to develop working relationships with both our faculty and outside faculty using this innovation.
11. I am concerned about how the innovation affects students.
12. I am not concerned about this innovation.
13. I would like to know who will make the decisions in the new system.
14. I would like to discuss the possibility of using the innovation.
15. I would like to know what resources are available if we decide to adopt this innovation.
16. I am concerned about my inability to manage all the innovation requires.
17. I would like to know how my teaching or administration is supposed to change.
18. I would like to familiarize other departments or persons with the progress of this new approach.
19. I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.
20. I would like to revise the innovation’s instructional approach.
21. I am completely occupied with other things.
22. I would like to modify our use of the innovation based on the experiences of our students.
23. Although I don’t know about this innovation, I am concerned about things in the area.
24. I would like to excite my students about their part in this approach.
25. I am concerned about time spent working with nonacademic problems related to this innovation.
26. I would like to know what the use of the innovation will require in the immediate future.
27. I would like to coordinate my effort with others to maximize the innovation’s effects.
28. I would like to have more information on time and energy commitments required by this innovation.

29. I would like to know what other faculty are doing in this area.
30. At this time, I am not interested in learning about this innovation.
31. I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or replace the innovation.
32. I would like to use feedback from students to change the program.
33. I would like to know how my role will change when I am using the innovation.
34. Coordination of tasks and people is taking too much of my time.
35. I would like to know how this innovation is better than what we have now.

Scoring: A seven-point scale is used. Not true of me now is 0 to 1; Somewhat true of me now is 3 to 4; and 6 to 7 is Very true of me now. High numbers represent high concern, whereas low numbers represent low concern. Raw scores are converted into percentile scores. The SoC may be scored by a computer program. The easiest way to interpret the SoC is to find the highest (peak stage score) stage score. Profiles can be generated for individuals and groups. Guidelines for interpreting the SoC are included.