Appendix
Summary of Consumer Satisfaction Measures, 2003-2013
Note: This table is associated with a manuscript of RSWP:
Fraser, M., & Wu, S. (forthcoming). Measure of consumer satisfaction in social welfare and behavioral health: A systematic review. Research on
Social Work Practice.
11/25/2014
Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 1. Assisted Living Family Member Satisfaction Scale ALFMSS 2. Assisted Living Resident Satisfaction Scale ALRSS Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Purpose Study Description Sample Edelman et al. (2006) 6 Subscales: • staff responsiveness (3 items) • safety (5 items) • transportation (3 items) • activities (5 items) • family member impact (5 items) • resident responsibilities (4 items) To examine the family members’ satisfaction with various aspects of assisted living facilities and services. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed surveys (N=436) sent to 204 residents and 232 family members associated with 11 assisted living facilities in Illinois and Indiana. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the goodness-­‐of-­‐fit index (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis coefficient (TLC) were used to test the fit of a 12-­‐factor model of resident satisfaction. Age (M): 60 years Edelman et al. (2006) 12 Subscales : • safety/peace of mind (4 items) • personal attention (3 items) • general satisfaction (4 items) • staff (5 items) • residents (5 items) • knowledge (4 items) • autonomy (4 items) • aides (3 items) • socialization with family (2 items) • transportation (2 items) • privacy (2 items) To examine the resident satisfaction with various aspects of assisted living U.S.-­‐based study. Data Age (M): 86 years a. 40 items collected via mailed surveys Gender: 77% female b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ (N=436) sent to 204 Race/ethnicity: 100% Non-­‐
residents and 232 family Gender: 61% female a. 25 items Race/ethnicity: 99% Non-­‐
b. N/A Hispanic White Income: N/A Income: N/A Other: 72% widowed; 62% < approximation (RMSEA), the goodness-­‐of-­‐fit index (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis coefficient (TLC) were used c. N/A Median α =0.86, α of subscales ranging from 0.60 to 0.83. d. N/A strongly agree (1) to strongly Hispanic White assisted living facilities in mean square error of N/A Reliability ( α or r ) Other: 12% widowed; 75% married; 61% had some college or more. members associated with 11 Illinois and Indiana. The root Validity high school graduate. disagree (4) c. 1–4 d. mean Construct & Convergent validity Authors provide evidence of acceptable convergent validity and use factor analysis to test construct validity Median α = 0.74, α of subscales range from 0.61 to 0.78 . Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose • activities (2 items) Study Description Sample a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Validity Reliability ( α or r ) to test the fit of a 12-­‐factor model of resident satisfaction. 3. Behavior Intervention Rating Scale– Treatment Acceptability BIRS 4.
Children’s Advocacy Center – Nonoffending Caregiver Satisfaction Survey CAC 5. Children's Cowan & Sheridan (2003)* * example study [Von Brock & Elliott (1987); Wilkinson (2005)] 3 Subscales: • Acceptability • Effectiveness • Time to Effect To assess the acceptability of an educational program for children at risk of academic failure. U.S.-­‐based study. Secondary analysis of data collected from parents (n=45) with a child reported as at-­‐risk for academic failure; data also collected from the students’ teachers (n=62). Study included 6 large school districts; 4 districts were in a large Western U.S. city, and 2 were in a mid-­‐size Midwestern city. Bonach, Mabry & Potts-­‐Henry (2010) [Cross et al., 2008] 3 Subscales: • satisfaction with CAC services • satisfaction with the multidisciplinary team (MDT) • overall satisfaction with CAC experience Evaluate nonoffending caregivers’ satisfaction with services received from CAC program in response to allegations of child abuse, particularly sexual abuse U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed survey sent to 26 nonoffending caregivers in a rural community in the Eastern U.S. Analyses use bivariate correlation and linear regression to examine the relationship between program dimensions and satisfaction. To examine U.S.-­‐based, multi-­‐site study. Jones et al. (2007) Parents: Age (M): 37 years Gender: 76% female Race/ethnicity: 87% Caucasian; 13% others. Income: N/A Teachers: Age (M): 41 years Gender: 87% female Race/ethnicity: 96% Caucasian; 4% others Income: N/A Other: Avg. yrs teaching experience: 12 years; 59% bachelor degree; 39% master degree; 2% PhD Children: Age (M): 11 Gender: 58% female Race/ethnicity: N/A Income: N/A Offender: Age (M): 31 Gender: 100% male Race/ethnicity: N/A Income: N/A Other: 46% referral source from child welfare; 38% from police/law enforcement. a. 24 items CAC: a. 6 items b. 6-­‐ point scale -­‐-­‐ strongly disagree =1; strongly disagree = 6 c. 1–6 Validity claim based on prior research: Turco & Elliott (1986a, 1986b). Total scale: 0.97 Subscales: 0.97 for Acceptable 0.92 for effectiveness; .87 for time to effect N/A 0.83 to 0.93 d. mean a. 244 items b. 4 point scale: very satisfied (=4) to very dissatisfied (=1) to not applicable (=0) c. 0–4 d. mean Construct validity Analyses Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Satisfaction Survey-­‐Children 6. Chinese Subjective Outcome Scale -­‐
20 Items CSOS 7. Client Satisfaction Inventory: Short-­‐Form CSI-­‐SF Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Subscales: None Shek (2010) [Shek et al. (2007)] Subscales: None Collins et al. (2005) [McMurtry & Hudson (2000)] Subscales: None Purpose Study Description Sample children's satisfaction with maltreatment investigation Data were collected from face-­‐to-­‐face interviews (N=90) with youth involved in Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) cases at 4 sites. Use hierarchical regression to examine differences in satisfaction between CAC and comparison groups Age (M): 9 years Gender: 78% female Race/ethnicity: 54% White; 30% African American; 9% Latino; 7% others. Income: N/A a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ low satisfaction (1) to great satisfaction (4) c. 1–4 d. mean Validity Authors report construct validity: did not report method. Other: 41% reported sexual abuse (penetration); 20% sustained physical injury. To assess the relationship between satisfaction and program processes and outcomes China-­‐based study. Data collected from a random sample survey (N=3,298) of students from 22 schools in Hong Kong, China. A non-­‐
orthogonal factor extraction procedure (alpha factoring) was used to analyze the responses of the students to the scale items. Pearson correlation was used to test the relationship between objective and subjective outcomes and perceived program effectiveness. N/A To examine satisfaction with housing services. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed surveys (N=76) sent to residents and staff of the HOPE VI housing development services in Boston, MA. Year 1: Age (M): 47 years Gender: 88% female Race/ethnicity: 64% Latino;30% Black; 7% other Income: 38% yearly income < $7749 a.
20 items b.
N/A c.
N/A d.
N/A a. 9 items b. 7-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ none of the time = 1 to all of the time = 7 c. 1–7 d. mean N/A Content & Discriminant Authors claim measure has acceptable content & discriminant Reliability ( α or r ) including reliability and factor analytic procedures indicated little shared variance between the items; therefore, each item was analyzed separately. 0.97 0.89 (Year 2 data is 0.92) Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Sample Other: 52% unemployed 8. Client Satisfaction Questionnaire Miller (2008) [Miller & Slive, 2004] Subscales: None 9.
Client Satisfaction Survey Brooks & Brown (2005) Subscales: None To examine client satisfaction with a walk-­‐in single session therapy service To examine satisfaction with ease of accessing ACORN and with outcomes Canada-­‐based study. Data collected via in-­‐person surveys immediately following a walk-­‐in session or via mailed survey within 1 week of the session. Respondents (N=403) were clients and therapists involved in services at Eastside Family Center Advisory Counsel in Calgary, Alberta. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via telephone survey with 99 welfare clients participating in ACORN's case advocacy program in Los Angeles, CA. Age (M): N/A Gender: 56% female Race/ethnicity: 86% Caucasian; 14% Asian, Japanese, Chinese, or Native American Income: Avg. monthly income $ 1,400. N/A a. 5 items b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied(5) c. 1–5 Validity Reliability ( α or r ) validity, but method not reported. N/A N/A N/A 0.89 N/A N/A d. mean a. 8 Likert items, 1 open-­‐ended item b. 5-­‐point scale: strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree(5) c. 1-­‐5 d. mean 10. Client Satisfaction Survey CSS Murphy et al. (2009) 2 Subscales: • quality of experience (8 items) • program effectiveness (5 items) To examine the client satisfaction with a counseling program Canada-­‐based study. Data were collected from online survey (N=45) and face-­‐to-­‐
face interview (N=43) surveys with clients who received either face to face or online counseling in Canada. ANOVA was used to examine the differences between counseling modalities. Age (M): 42 yrs. online group; 44 yrs. face-­‐to-­‐face group; a. 13 items online; 76% for face-­‐to-­‐
b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) face; c. 1–5 Gender: 73% female for Race/ethnicity: N/A Income: N/A d. mean Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 11. Client Satisfaction: Case Management CSAT-­‐CM Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Hsieh (2006) 4 Subscales: • assessment of client needs; • development of plan of care • case manager’s knowledge of available services Purpose Study Description Sample To examine the relationship between the composite of element-­‐specific satisfaction and global client satisfaction. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews (N=112) with clients of an agency providing case management services for older adults living in a large city in the Midwest. Age (M): 76 years Gender: 81% female Race: 92% African American. Income: 90% annual income < $15,000. Other: Avg. years of education: 10 years; 96% retired. a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring a. 5 items b. 7-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ completely dissatisfied (1) to completely satisfied (7)) c. N/A d. N/A Validity Face Concurrent Author assessed face validity and calculated concurrent validity using correlation method. Reliability ( α or r ) Test–retest reliability: r = 0.81 • availability of the case manager 12. Clients’ Overall Satisfaction Survey 13. Community Satisfaction Scale CSS Smith, Thomas, & Jackson (2004) [Jackson et al., 2000] Subscales: None Collins et al. (2005) Subscales: None To examine satisfaction with the problem gambling counseling service To examine satisfaction with housing services. Australia-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐ face interview survey (N=150) with clients who undertook short-­‐term counseling in the government funded Gambler’s Help Problem-­‐
Gambling Counseling Services in Victoria. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed surveys (N=76) sent to residents and staff of the HOPE VI housing development services in Boston, MA. N/A a. 10 items N/A N/A b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ dissatisfied; neither; satisfied; very satisfied) c. N/A d. N/A Year 1: a. 17 items Age (M): 47 years b. 18 (N/A) Gender: 88% female c. 0–17 Race/ethnicity: 64% d. mean N/A 0.67 N/A 0.94.(Based on author’s prior research : Latino;30% Black; 7% other Income: 38% yearly income < $7749 Other: 52% unemployed 14. Consultation Evaluation Form Wilkinson (2005) To assess satisfaction with conjoint behavioral U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected from a case study by using face-­‐to face parent Case study: A 9-­‐year-­‐ old Caucasian boy diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and a. 12 items b. 7-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) CEF Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales [Erchul, 1987] Subscales: None Purpose Study Description Sample consultation services and teacher interviews. attention-­‐deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree(7) c. 1–7 15. Consumer Reports Effectiveness Score -­‐ 4 Items -­‐ Satisfaction CRES-­‐4 Nielsen et al. (2004) [Seligman, 1995; Freedman et al., 1999] Subscales: None To examine satisfaction with counseling center services 16. Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire-­‐
12; CSQ-­‐12 Boyle et al. (2010) [Eyberg. (1993), Therapy Attitude Inventory] Subscales: None Examine parental satisfaction with the quality, ease of use, and appropriateness of Primary Care Triple P. 17. Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire-­‐8 Denton, Nakonezny, & Burwell (2011)* *example study [Larsen et al., 1979] *CSQ-­‐8 also used in 9 other articles (see Table 2) To examine the general client satisfaction with marriage and family therapy CSQ-­‐8 U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed survey (N=302) sent to former clients of the Counseling & Career Center, Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. U.S.-­‐based study; 2 sites. Face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with 10 children and their families (9 families) who participated in the Triple P intervention in 2 cities. Uses ANOVAs, t-­‐tests, and MANOVA to examine different phases of intervention effects. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with (N=86) clients who participated the marriage and family therapy. Analyses use regression and ANCOVA to Age (M): 24 years Gender:71% female d. mean a. 3 items b. Varied (N/A) c. 0–300 Income: N/A N/A Reliability ( α or r ) (Wilkinson, 2003) Race/ethnicity: 94% White; Other: 33% married Validity d. composite a. 12 items b. N/A c. N/A Concurrent Authors use correlation method to establish acceptable concurrent validity. Authors claim CRES-­‐4 has well-­‐
established validity N/A 0.63 Validity claim based on prior research: (Attkisson & Zwick, 1982, 0.86 0.96 d. summed Meet Team: Age (M):35 years Gender:54% female Race/ethnicity: 63% White; 37% non-­‐White Income: 43% < $19,900; a. 8 items b. 4-­‐point scale , with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction anchor wording Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Subscales: None Study Description examine whether client satisfaction was related to meeting/not meeting the therapist supervision team. Sample 46%=$ 20,000-­‐$59,900; 5% => $ 60,000 Other: Avg. length of marriage: 6 years a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring differs, by item) c. 8–32 d. summed Validity Reliability ( α or r ) Did Not Meet Team: Age (M): 36 years. Gender:53% female Race/ethnicity: 80% White; 20% non-­‐White Income: 25% < $19,900; 55% = $20,000-­‐$59,900; 8% = > $60,000 Other: Avg. length of marriage: 9 years 18. Counseling Evaluation Inventory-­‐
(Client Satisfaction Subscale Version) Fuertes et al. (2006) [Linden, Stone, & Shertzer, 1965] Subscales: None To examine client satisfaction with therapy U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with 51 client–
therapist dyads at 3 university therapy centers in an urban Northeast city. CEI Clients: a. 5 items Age (M):27 years b. 6-­‐point scale strongly disagree(1) to strongly agree (6) Gender:71% female Race/ethnicity: 24% Euro Americans; 33% Asian Americans; 27% African Americans;16% Hispanic Americans c. 5–30 Validity based on prior research of Ponterotto & Furlong (1985) that used factor analyses to confirm validity 0.95 Test-­‐retest reliability of the CEI r = 0.74 d. summed Income: N/A 19. Counselor Rating Form-­‐
Short CRF-­‐S Lawson & Brossart (2003) [Corrigan & Schmidt, 1983] 3 Subscales: • attractiveness • expertness To examine satisfaction with counseling U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected from face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with 20 clients in a community-­‐based counseling center Age (M): 30 years a. 12 items Gender: 65% female b. 7-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ Race/ethnicity: 5% Hispanic/Latino; 5% Asian American, 80% Caucasian; and 5% African Americans; 5% unspecified. not very (1) to very (7) c. 12–84 d. summed N/A 0.88 Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description Sample a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Validity Reliability ( α or r ) Income: N/A • trustworthiness 20. Family Satisfaction Instrument (Final Version-­‐
Section A-­‐
Pretest Vision) 21. General Satisfaction Survey (Hebrew & English) Ejaz et al. (2003) 13 Service Subscales: • admissions • social services • activities • choice • receptionist and phone • direct care and nurse aides • professional nurses • therapy • administration • meals & dining; • laundry • environment • gen. questions Spiro, Dekel, & Peled (2009) [From CSQ (Larsen et al., 1979), the YSQ (Stuntzner-­‐
Gibson et al., 1995), and the Youth Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (Shapiro, Welker, & Jacobson, 1997)] Subscales: None To develop a reliable and valid measure of family satisfaction with care provided to family members living in a nursing home To examine satisfaction at Makom Acher youth shelter. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected from both in-­‐
person surveys and mailed surveys (N=239). Respondents were family members of nursing home residents in Ohio. Factor analyses were used to identify factors that might explain variation in satisfaction across the 13 service element subscales. Family member: a. 60 -­‐items Age (M): 61 years b. Varied (‘‘yes, definitely,’’ ‘‘yes, I think so,’’ ‘‘no, I don’t think so,’’ ‘‘no, definitely not,’’ and ‘‘don’t know’’–‘‘not familiar with service.’’) Israel-­‐based study. Data collected via telephone survey of (N=102) adolescents and young adults who left a youth shelter. Uses Pearson’s product-­‐moment correlation to explore relationships among various client satisfaction scales. Uses multiple regression to develop a model predicting general satisfaction with 7 aspects of shelter Age: 12% 13-­‐14 years Gender: 61% female Race/ethnicity: 86%: Caucasian and 12% African American. Income: N/A Other: 36% receiving both Medicare and Medicaid, 19% receiving Medicaid only, 16% receiving Medicare only, 17% on private pay; 49% had some college or more. 40% 15-­‐16 years 32% 17 years 16% 18-­‐20 years Gender: 53% female Race/ethnicity: N/A Income: N/A Other: After leaving shelter, 69% returned to their families, 13% were placed in group or foster care, and 18% departed to an independent, non-­‐
normative or unknown living arrangement. N/A With the exception of the choice subscale (0.66), all subscales had high alpha coefficients (0.78 and above) Test-­‐retest reliability ranged from 0.49 to 0.88. Face validity Construct validity Authors report face validity based on consulting with shelter staff shelter & steering committee. Construct validity established by using Pearson’s product-­‐moment correlation. N/A c. Varied d. N/A a. 1 b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ (very good, good, about average, and not so good.) c. 1-­‐4 d. summed Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 22. Investigation Satisfaction Scale –Caregiver ISS 23. Making Better Career Decisions MBCD 24. Multimodality Quality Assurance Instrument MQA Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Jones et al. (2007) 2 Subscales: • investigator response (IR: 9 items) • interview experience (IE: 5 items) Purpose Study Description Sample To examine satisfaction with how child welfare investigation was conducted and caregiver level of satisfaction with way investigator interacted with the child. U.S.-­‐based, multi-­‐site study. Data were collected from face-­‐to-­‐face interviews (N=229) with caregivers of Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) cases at 4 sites. Analyses use hierarchical regression to examine the differences in satisfaction between CAC and comparison groups. Israel-­‐based study. Data were collected from telephone interviews (N=73) with clients who had participated in MBCD program during 1997. Age: N/A Gati, Gadassi, & Shemesh (2006) [Gati, 1996] Subscales: None To examine satisfaction with occupational choices Melnick, Hawke, & Wexler (2004) [Melnick & Pearson,2000] Subscales: None To examine treatment satisfaction U.S.-­‐based, multi-­‐site study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐
face interview (N=1,059) with participants and staff in 13 prison-­‐based drug treatment programs across the U.S. Uses exploratory factor analyses to determine optimal way of combining items to form conceptually based scales. Gender: 79% mothers; 6% fathers; 7% female relatives; 3% foster mothers. Race/ethnicity: N/A a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring a. 14 items b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ lowest satisfaction (1) to greatest satisfaction (4) c. 1–4 Validity Construct validity Authors report construct validity; did not report method. Reliability ( α or r ) 0.89 for IR subscale 0.81 for IE subscale d. mean Income: N/A Age (M): 28 years Gender: 64% female Race/ethnicity: N/A Income: N/A Age: 40% 30–40 years Gender: N/A Race/ethnicity: 67% minorities Income: N/A Other: most prevalent substances of abuse were marijuana (32%), alcohol (28%), and cocaine/crack (23%). a. 1 item b. 9-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ low satisfaction (1), to high satisfaction (9) c. 1–9 3 categories -­‐High (8–9 pts) -­‐Moderate (5-­‐7) -­‐Low (1-­‐4) d. summed a. 12 items b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5) c. N/A d. N/A Predictive validity Author found good predictive validity by using 2 groups and 2 time points (6 years ago and present) comparison/ correlation method N/A N/A 0.88 Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 25. Overall Job Satisfaction Scale Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Sikorska-­‐Simmons (2006) [Seashore et al., 1982] 26. Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire Lees & Ronan (2008) [Webster-­‐Stratton, 1999] Subscales: None 27. Parent Satisfaction With Foster Care Services Scale-­‐-­‐
Satisfaction Items (Spanish & English) Kapp & Vela (2004)* *example study [Harris et al., 2000; Kapp & Vela (2003)] 5 Subscales: • contract provider worker competency • state worker competency • cultural competency • empowerment/ client rights • agency quality and outcomes Dumas et al. (2011) PSFCSS 28. Parenting Our Purpose Study Description Sample To examine staff job satisfaction with the work environment. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with residents (n=335) and staff (n=298) in 43 assisted living facilities. Age (M): 43 years To examine the satisfaction of parents of children with ADHD diagnoses who were involved in a public clinic program To examine the parents' overall satisfaction with foster care services. To examine New Zealand-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐
face interviews with 4 high-­‐
risk single mothers whose children were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Study site was a public clinic setting. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected via a telephone survey of (N=184) parents whose children received foster care services from private contract providers in Kansas. Logistic regression was used to explore the determinants of satisfaction. U.S.-­‐based study. Data Gender: 91% female Race/ethnicity: 57% White; 33% Black Income: N/A Other: 68% unmarried; 52% had some college or more. N/A a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring a. 3 items b. 7 point scale -­‐-­‐ strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree(7) c. 3–21 d. summed a. 11 items b. 7-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ least satisfied (1) to most satisfied (7). c. 1–7 d. mean Age: N/A a. 34 items Gender: 79% mothers; 6% fathers; 7% female relatives; 3% foster mothers. Race/ethnicity: N/A b. 3-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ agree (1), unsure (2), disagree 3) c. 1–3 Validity Validity based on prior research of (Fields, 2002). N/A Validity claim based on prior research: (Kapp & Vela, 2003). Reliability ( α or r ) 0.79 N/A 0.94 d. mean Income: N/A Age (M): 32 years a. 8 items N/A 0.70 to 0.99; Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Children to Excellence PACE 29. Post-­‐Program Satisfaction Questionnaire Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description Sample 4 Subscales: • satisfied with group leaders • accepted program goals • found program beneficial; would recommend program satisfaction in a parenting education program Gender: 94% female Strand & Badger (2005) Subscales: None To examine satisfaction with child welfare program collected via 2 face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with (N=124) parents with a child between 3-­‐6 yrs. old. Conducted in 2 Midwest cities. Analyses use ANOVAs to estimate relationships of program dimensions with parent satisfaction. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected from face to face interviews with (N=158) supervisors in child welfare agencies in New York City. Race/ethnicity: 98% Hispanic, 2% Caucasian. Income: (Median): $15,000 to $19,999. Other: 57% married; 43% single. 22% had some college. N/A a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ (higher scores indicate greater extent of satisfaction) c. 1–5 d. mean a. 20 items total; 10 items w/ 3-­‐
point Likert scale; 10 use other scoring b. 3-­‐point scale not really (1), somewhat (2), a lot (3) c. 10–30 Validity Reliability ( α or r ) (avg. alpha 0.95) N/A 0.79 N/A N/A d. summed 30. Program Satisfaction Questionnaire Gao, Luo, & Chan (2012) [Lee & Holroyd,2009] 4 Subscales: • motivation to attend program • positive feedback • helpful aspects of program To examine program processes China-­‐ based study. Data were collected via face-­‐to-­‐
face interviews (N=92) with first-­‐time mothers in a regional teaching hospital Age (M): 29 years a. 11 items Race/ethnicity: 100% Non-­‐
Other: 86% had a college b. 4-­‐ point scale -­‐-­‐ very dissatisfied; dissatisfied; satisfied; very satisfied c. N/A degree or more. d. N/A Hispanic White Income: 65%>¥3000 (monthly); 35% <¥3000 Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Purpose Study Description Sample To examine client–
therapist bonding and goal agreement U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews and mailed surveys with 86 clients whose initial therapy session was with therapist trainee. Clients were assigned to 2 conditions; the Meet condition (n = 46) met the trainee’s supervisory team; the Did Not Meet (n =40) condition did not meet the team. Uses mixed linear model of covariance to test client–therapist relationship among dyads and the extent of satisfaction. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected from face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with residents (N=335) and staff (298) in 43 assisted living facilities. Meet team: Age (M): 35 years Gender: 54% female Race/ethnicity: 63% White; 37% Other. Income: 43% ≤ $19,900; 11% ≥ $60,000. Other: 80% married. a. 11 Age (M): 83 years Validity Reliability ( α or r ) improvement 31. Purdue Live Observation Satisfaction Scale PLOSS 32. Resident Satisfaction Index -­‐-­‐ Short Version RSI 33. Resident Satisfaction Survey Denton, Nakonezny, & Burwell (2011) [Sprenkle et al.,1982] Subscales: None Sikorska-­‐Simmons (2006) [Sikorska-­‐Simmons, 2001] Subscales: None To examine resident satisfaction in assisted living facilities Castle et al. (2004) 2 Subscales: • use of Resident To examine the U.S.-­‐based study. Data use and utility of collected via a mailed survey resident (N=363) of residents of satisfaction licensed nursing homes surveys in licensed (n=266) and assisted living nursing homes and facilities (n=97) in New Satisfaction Survey • usefulness of Resident Gender: 74% female Race/ethnicity: 94% White Income: N/A Other: 70% widowed; 24% had some college or more. Nursing Homes: Age: N/A Gender: 57% female Race/ethnicity: 4% African American; 3% Asian; 88% Caucasian; 3% Hispanic Income: N/A Other: 94% had an associated N/A 0.67 a. 6 items b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ never (1) to always(4) c. 6–24 d. summed N/A 0.67 a. 10 items (4 use; N/A N/A b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ strongly agree (=1) to strongly disagree (= 5) c. 1–5 d. mean 6 utility ) b. Multiple choice c. N/A d. N/A Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Satisfaction Survey Purpose Study Description Sample assisted-­‐living Jersey. degree or more. 74% had long-­‐term care insurance Assisted Living: Age (M): N/A facilities. a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Validity Reliability ( α or r ) Gender: 70% female Race/ethnicity: 2% African American; 3% Asian; 95% Caucasian Income: N/A Other: 91% had an associate degree or more; 62% had long-­‐term care insurance. 34. Client Satisfaction Inventory: Short-­‐Form CSI-­‐SF 35. Satisfaction With End-­‐Of-­‐
Life Care In Dementia Scale Collins et al. (2005) [McMurtry & Hudson, 2000] Subscales: None To examine U.S.-­‐based study. Data satisfaction with collected via mailed surveys Year 1: Age (M): 47 years housing services. (N=76) sent to residents and Gender: 88% female staff of the HOPE VI housing Race/ethnicity: 64% Latino;30% Black; 7% other Income: 38% yearly income < $7749 Other: 52% unemployed Liu, Guarino, & Lopez (2012) [Volicer, Hurley, & Blasi, 2001] Subscales: None To examine family members overall satisfaction with end-­‐of-­‐life care services development services in Boston, MA. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected via a mailed survey (N=239) sent to family members of nursing home residents who died with dementia in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Age (M): 65 years Gender: 71% female Race/ethnicity: 98% Caucasian; 2% others Income: N/A; Other: 13% widowed; 65% married; 72% had some college or more. a. 9 items b. 7-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ none of the time = 1 to all of the time = 7 c. 1–7 d. mean a. 10 items b. 4-­‐point scale strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree(4) c. 10–40 d. summed Content & Discriminant validity Authors claim measure has acceptable content & discriminant validity, but did not report method. Validity based on prior research of (Kiely et al., 2006). 0.89 (Year 2 data is 0.92) 0.90 Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 36. Satisfaction with Management Scale Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Collins et al. (2005) Subscales: None Purpose Study Description Sample To examine satisfaction with housing services. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed surveys (N=76) sent to residents and staff of the HOPE VI housing development services in Boston, MA. Year 1: Age (M): 47 years Gender: 88% female Race/ethnicity: 64% a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring a. 6 items b. 5-­‐point scale (N/A) c. 0–5 d. mean Validity N/A Reliability ( α or r ) 0.83 Latino;30% Black; 7% other Income: 38% yearly income < $7749 Other: 52% unemployed 37. Satisfaction With Specific Aspects of Life at Makom Acher Youth Shelter 38. School Opinion Survey -­‐ Parent Form & Student Form Spiro Dekel, & Peled (2009) [CSQ (Larsen et al., 1979); YSQ (Stuntzner-­‐Gibson et al., 1995), and the Youth Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (Shapiro et al., 1997)] Subscales: None To examine satisfaction of 7 aspects of life in the Makom Acher Youth Shelter. King & Bond (2003) [Queensland Department of Education, 1996] Subscales: None To evaluate satisfaction with public education services. Israel-­‐based study. Data were collected from a telephone survey of (N=102) adolescents and young adults who left a youth shelter in Tel Aviv, Israel. Pearson’s product-­‐moment correlation was used to explore the relationships among the various client satisfaction scales. Multiple regression analysis is used to develop a model predicting general satisfaction with 7 aspects of shelter. Australia-­‐based study. Data were collected using a survey of 714 parents and 1,143 students at 10 schools in Queensland, Australia. Rasch analysis of Likert-­‐type response scales was used to establish benchmark values Age: 12% 13–14 years 40% 15–16 years 32% 17 years 16% 18–20 years Gender: 53% female a. 7 items Authors claim measure has good Race/ethnicity: N/A b. 4-­‐point scale very good, good, about average, and not so good c. 1–4 Income: N/A d. mean N/A face validity and construct validity. Other: After leaving the shelter, 69% returned to their families, 13% were placed in group or foster care, and 18% departed to an independent, non-­‐normative or unknown living arrangement. N/A a. 20 items b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ very dissatisfied (1) – very satisfied (5) c. 1–5 d. mean Concurrent Authors used Rasch analysis to confirm validity. N/A Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 39. Service Element Satisfaction Questionnaires 40. Student Satisfaction Survey 41. Therapist Satisfaction Survey (1-­‐Item Scale) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Hsieh (2012) 5 Subscales: • assessment of client needs; • plan of care development, • case manager’s knowledge of available service • case manager’s ability to obtain services for clients; • availability of the case manager. Westbrook et al. (2012) Subscales: None To examine the relationship between element-­‐
specific satisfaction and global satisfaction. Fuertes et al. (2006) Subscales: None To estimate therapist satisfaction with work with client To assess satisfaction with CBT training Study Description for client satisfaction with public education. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews (N=112) with clients of an agency providing case management services for older adults living in a large Midwest city U.K.-­‐based study. Data were collected from an online survey of (N=94) students who participated in an online cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) at Oxford Cognitive Therapy Centre U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected from face-­‐to-­‐face interviews (N=51) with clients and their therapists at 3 university therapy centers in urban Northeast a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Sample Race/ethnicity: 92% African American. Income: 90% annual income < $15,000. Other: Avg. 10 years of education; 96% retired. N/A Therapists: Age (M): 32 years Gender: 53% female Race/ethnicity: 67% Euro Americans; 24% Asian Americans; 8% African Americans;2% Hispanic Americans Income: N/A Reliability ( α or r ) N/A Test-­‐retest reliability of r =0.81. a. 5 items b. 11-­‐point scale (0-­‐10) c. 0–10 d. mean N/A N/A a. 1 item b. 6-­‐point scale strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6) c. 1–6 d. summed N/A Cannot be calculated for one item. Age (M): 76 years Gender: 81% female Validity a. 5 items b. 7-­‐point scale completely dissatisfied (1) to completely satisfied (7)) c. 1–7 mean Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 42. Treatment Evaluation Inventory—
Short Form TEI-­‐SF 43. Treatment Satisfaction Survey Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description Sample Beavers, Kratochwill, & Braden (2004) [Kelley et al., 1989] Subscales: None Evaluate consumer perceptions of treatment acceptability and treatment effec-­‐
tiveness Multi-­‐site U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐
face interviews with 18 teachers and 32 students with reading difficulties. Students received academic consultation services. Study sites: 6 elementary schools: 2 in Wisconsin and 4 in Ten-­‐
nessee. Analysis used a two-­‐
sample Wilcoxon test to examine the relationship between treatment dimensions and program satisfaction. Teacher: Age : N/A Kern et al. (2011) Subscales: None To examine caregiver satisfaction U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected via face-­‐to-­‐face surveys (N=18) with parents whose children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. To examine the general satisfaction with victim offender mediated dialogue services, and to U.S.-­‐based. Data collected via a mailed survey sent to 197 participants from 4 victim offender mediation services. Uses principal components factor analysis TSS 44. Victim Satisfaction with Offender Dialogue Scale VSODS Bradshaw & Umbreit (2003) 3 Subscales: • mediator skills • experience with meeting Gender: 94% female Race/ethnicity: N/A Income: N/A Other: 44% private school; 56% public school; Avg. 10 yrs. teaching experience Student: Age: Elementary school age (6-­‐12 yrs.) Gender: 38% female a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring a. 9 items b. 5 points -­‐-­‐ strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree(5) c. 9–45 d. summed Validity Validity claim based on prior research: (Kelley et al., 1989) Reliability ( α or r ) 0.85 (cited from Kelley et al., 1989). Race/ethnicity: 78% Caucasian; 12% African American. Income: range from low to high socioeconomic status (SES) N/A Age (M): 39 years Gender: 37% female Race/ethnicity: N/A Income: N/A Other: Avg. yrs. of education: a. 4 items b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ low satisfaction (1) to great satisfaction (5) c. 1–5 d. mean a. 11 items b. 4 point scale: very satisfied (4) to very dissatisfied (1) c. 11–44 N/A N/A N/A 0.87 Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 45. Working Alliance Inventory-­‐Short version; WAI-­‐S Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales the offender • satisfaction with the restitution plan Fuertes et al. (2006)* * example study [Horvath & Greenberg, 1989; Dearing et al., 2005] Subscales: None Purpose Study Description develop a reliable instrument. to estimate the measure dimensionality To examine client-­‐
therapist bonding and goal agreement U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with 51 client–
therapist dyads at 3 outpatient clinics in an urban Northeast Sample 15 years Clients: Age (M): 27 years Gender: 71% female Race/ethnicity: 24% Euro American; 33% Asian American; 27% African American; 16% Hispanic American Income: N/A a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring d. summed Validity claim based on prior research: (Horvath, 1994) and (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989) Authors report prior research showed strong support for the psychometric properties & showed WAI correlated with a variety of parallel outcome measures 0.74 a. 14 items b. 4-­‐ point scale -­‐-­‐ not at all satisfied (0) to a great deal (3) c. 0–3 d. mean Validity based on prior research of Shapiro et al. (1997). 0.85 for original instrument: Revised version: 0.83 for the relationship with the group and 0.84 for the benefits of therapy subscales. Gender: 53% female Race/ethnicity: 67% Euro American; 24% Asian American; 8% African American;2% Hispanic American Income: N/A YCSQ 47. 3-­‐item Kivlighan, London, & Miles (2012) [Shapiro et al., 1997; revised version: Kivlighan & Tarrant, 2001] 2 Subscales: • relationship with group/therapist • benefits of therapy Brenninkmeijer & To examine client satisfaction with group therapy U.S.-­‐based, multi-­‐site study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐
face surveys (N=176) with youth at Children’s Advocacy Centers (CAC) at 4 U.S. sites. Uses hierarchical linear modeling to examine the relationships between group leadership structure, group size, and 2 variables for group satisfaction. Age (M): 15 years To examine Netherlands-­‐based study. Age (M): 38 years Gender: 51% female Race/ethnicity: 48% White; 37% African American, and 15% Native Americans, Latinos, or Asian Americans. Income: N/A Reliability ( α or r ) a. 12 items b. 7-­‐ point scale never (= 1) to always (= 7) c. 12–84 d. summed Therapists: Age (M): 32 years 46. Youth Client Satisfaction Questionnaire -­‐ Revised Version. Validity a. 3 items N/A 0.86 to 0.89 Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Satisfaction Scale‡ 48. 3 Satisfaction Scales -­‐ Swedish to English ‡ 49. 8-­‐item Satisfaction Scale ‡ a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring b. 5 point scale Purpose Study Description Sample Blonk (2012) Subscales: None satisfaction with the content, guidance, and helpfulness of a jobs program Face-­‐to-­‐face interviews of 118 participants (47 in JOBS condition, 33 in the voucher condition, 38 in the control condition) in a suburban city. Gender:70% female Race/ethnicity: 55% Dutch; 12% Antillean; 16% Surinamese; 17% other Income: 85% receive social welfare benefits; Other: Avg. yrs. of education: 15 years. 46% single; 35% divorced; 16% married c. 1–5 Friman (2004) [Västfjäll et al., 2002] Subscales: • unpleasantness/ pleasantness, • deactivation/ activation. Butler, Gomon, & Turner (2004) Subscales: None To examine imagined affective reactions to public transportation. Sweden-­‐based study. Data were collected via face-­‐to-­‐
face interviews (N = 41) with students attending Karlstad University in Sweden. Age (M): 22 years a. 12 items Gender: 63% female b. Bipolar Race/ethnicity: N/A c. 10–90 Income: N/A d. mean Validity Reliability ( α or r ) d. mean N/A 0.71 to 0.93 N/A N/A To examine the extent of satisfaction with 14 aspects of an assisted living program U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews with 23 low-­‐
income residents of an assisted living facility in a rural Northeastern state. Paired t-­‐tests were used to examine change in service satisfaction over time Age (M): 77 years a. 8 items Gender:79% female b. 4 point scale: poor =1, fair =2, good =3, excellent=4 c. 1–4 Race/ethnicity: 97% European American; 3% Native American. Other: 28% divorced; 3% d. mean married; 59% widowed; 28% had some college more. 50. 12-­‐item Satisfaction Survey‡ Dauenhauer et al. (2007) 4 Subscales: • intake process To examine U.S.-­‐based study. Data satisfaction with collected via mailed surveys adult protective (N=58) sent to community services (APS) professionals who had used Age (M): N/A Gender: 83% female Race/ethnicity: N/A a. 12 items b. 4-­‐point scale w/ higher scores indicating greater N/A 0.95 intake = 0.84 assessment =0.80 case Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) 51. Client Satisfaction Measures ‡ Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description Sample • assessment • case management • overall satisfaction APS within the past year in Income: N/A Trotter (2008) [Dufour & Chamberland, 2004] Subscales: None To examine satisfaction with child protective services Australia-­‐based study. Data were collected from face to face interviews of (N=247) family members who received child protection services in Victoria, Australia. N/A Schraufnagel & Li (2010) To examine the satisfaction with mediation services. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via random sample face-­‐to-­‐face survey (N=65) of clients’ experiences with a mediation process or the court process in Florida. Sensitivity analysis was used to test the explanations for clients' satisfaction. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interview (N=288: 177 intervention and 111 control) of families from 3 cohorts in 4 Head Start programs serving African American communities in a Southern U.S. city. N/A Monroe County, NY. Other: 96% had a bachelor's degree or higher; 59% were social workers a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring satisfaction (i.e., poor to excellent, never to always, or very dissatisfied to very satisfied) c. 1–4 d. mean Validity Reliability ( α or r ) management=
0.84 overall satisfaction =0.91 Face validity based on prior research (Dufour & Chamberland, 2004) N/A a. 3 items b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5) c. 0.2-­‐1.0 (3/15-­‐15/15) d. Sum N/A N/A a. 4 items N/A N/A a. 3 items b. 7-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ very poor progress (1) to very good progress (7) c. N/A d. N/A 52. Client Satisfaction Survey-­‐ English & Spanish versions ‡ 53. Parent Satisfaction Survey-­‐ With Head Start Version‡ Subscales: None Mendez (2010) [Items derived from 2003 Family and Children’s Experiences (FACES) study, i.e., survey of families of Head Start children]. 2 Subscales: To examine the satisfaction with Head Start services and with parenting interventions. Age: N/A Gender: 97% female Race/ethnicity: 94% African American. Income: N/A Other: 94% biological mother; 3% adoptive mother; 3% fathers; 67% single; 48% full-­‐time employed. 40% b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ low satisfaction (1) to high satisfaction (4) c. 1–4 d. mean Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description Sample high school diploma, 34% had some college experience. N/A • child (2 items); • family (2 items) 54. Parental satisfaction survey‡ Charbonneau & Van Ryzin (2012) [New York City Department of Education, 2008]. Subscales: None To examine parental satisfaction with the New York City public schools. 55. Participants’ Satisfaction With Schiff, Witte, & El-­‐
Bassel (2003) To examine satisfaction with an HIV/STD intervention. Intervention ‡ 56. Program Satisfaction Questionnaire ‡ Subscales: None Heinze et al. (2010) Subscales: None To examine service satisfaction. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed surveys (N=937) of parents or guardians of students enrolled in New York City public elementary or middle schools. Uses ordinary least square (OLS) regression to explore relationship of parental satisfaction with other variables. U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via mailed survey (N=107) of participants who attended the HIV/STD relationship-­‐based preventive intervention in a primary health care setting in a low-­‐income, inner-­‐city neighborhood in Bronx, New York City. U.S.-­‐based study. Data were collected from face-­‐to-­‐face interviews (N=133) with homeless youth and youth at risk for homelessness receiving services from 6 community agencies in a Midwest metropolitan area. Regression analyses were used to estimate the a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring a. 13 items b. 4-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ strongly disagree/ very unsatisfied = 1; strongly agree/ very satisfied = 4 c. N/A d. N/A Age (M): 37 years Gender: 68% female Race/ethnicity: 52% African American; 41% Hispanic Income: 64% < $5,000 per year Other: 68% had less than a high school education; 61% single; 28% HIV positive. Age (M): 18 years Gender: 68% female other. Income: N/A Face validity Authors claim the measure has acceptable face validity, but did not report method. Reliability ( α or r ) 0.95 a. 3 items b. 5-­‐point scale -­‐-­‐ not at all satisfied/ honest (1) to very satisfied/ honest(5) c. 1–5 d. mean N/A 0.77 a. 11 items N/A 0.88 b. N/A Race/ethnicity: 25% White; 62% Back; 5% Latino; 8% Validity c. N/A d. N/A Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description Sample a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Validity Reliability ( α or r ) relationship between program features and satisfaction. 57. Satisfaction Survey ‡ 58. Sex Offender Client Treatment Satisfaction Survey ‡ Coloma, Gibson, & Packard (2012) Subscales: None Levenson et al. (2009)* *example study [Also Levenson, Prescott ,& D'Amora, 2010; Garrett et al. 2003] 7 Subscales (# items): • treatment content (15); • group process (5); • group therapy (7) • individual therapy (4) • group therapists (9) • program policy (7) • client overall satisfaction with program (5 ) To examine satisfaction with a leadership development program. a. 2 items services in Boston, MA. Age: 42%, 40-­‐49 years; 37%, 50-­‐59 years Gender: 59% female Race/ethnicity: 46% White,; 22% Hispanic/Latino; 21% African American; 10% Asian/Pacific Islander Income: N/A Other: 48% master's degree; 27% bachelor’s degree; 13% some college education, 7% some graduate education, and 2% PhD To investigate the U.S.-­‐based, multi-­‐site study. Age: 80% 26–64 years a. 52 items satisfaction of Data were collected via Gender: 100% male participants in a face-­‐to-­‐face interviews Race/ethnicity: 79% sex offender (N=228) with male sex White; 21% minority race b. varied (3-­‐ or 5-­‐
point Likert scales) c. varied treatment offenders from 3 outpatient program sex offender counseling U.S.-­‐based study. Data collected via face-­‐to-­‐face interviews (N=166) with residents and staff of HOPE VI housing development centers in Florida and Minnesota. Income: 57% <$ 30,000 per year Other: 33% never been married; 28% divorced.59% completed high school or more. N/A N/A N/A Treatment Content Subscale: 0.89 Group Process: 0.81 Group Therapy: 0.70 Individual Therapy:0.40 Group Therapists: 0.91 Program Policy: 0.82 Overall Program Satisfaction: 0.85. b. 5-­‐point scale (5 = highest rating) c. 1–5 d. mean d. summed Measure (‡ exact name is not clear) Reviewed Study [based on work of] Subscales Purpose Study Description Sample a. No. of Items b. Response scale c. Score range d. Scoring Validity Reliability ( α or r ) Note. N/A = not available or not reported * example study = For measures used in multiple studies, we have chosen a single study that provides more recent and complete analytics as an example for inclusion in this summary table. These measures include the CSQ-­‐8, BIRS, WAI-­‐S, PSFCSS, and the Sex Offender Client Treatment Satisfaction Survey.