Assessment Instruments

The CSQ-8 is an eight-item measure designed to assess clients' satisfaction with services. Questions range from "To what extent has our program met your needs?" to "Have the services you received helped you to deal more effectively with your problems?" and are answered on a scale of one to four. The instrument has good concurrent validity and internal consistency with alphas between .86 and .94.

Attkisson, C. C. (1987). Client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8). In K. Corcoran & J. Fischer (Eds.), Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook (pp. 120-122). New York: The Free Press.

This four-item instrument is an informal measure of the client's expectancies for treatment, its value, and his or her rating of the therapist. Designed to be administered after the second and final sessions, the questionnaire is based on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Therapists may rate their own abilities by responding to the fourth question on the form. Validity and reliability criteria are not discussed.

Propst, L. R., Ostrom, R., Watkins, P., Dean, T., & Mashburn, D. (1992). Comparative efficacy of religious and nonreligious cognitive-behavioral therapy for the treatment of clinical depression in religious individuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 94-103. *Title assigned by NSATTC staff.

The CRF is thirty-six-item measure of the client's perception of therapist characteristics. Covering the three dimensions of expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness, clients are asked to respond on a 7-point bipolar scale between each word pair of opposing adjectives. Examples of word pairs include "Experienced-Inexperienced" (expertness), "Likeable-Unlikeable" (attractiveness), and Confidential-Revealing" (trustworthiness).

Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Multidimensional perception of counselor behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(6), 471-476.

The Program Evaluation Form is a 4-item questionnaire (with sub-items) that polls attitudes among participants of a parenting workshop. Although specific to a particular venue, this form may serve as a template for adaptation to a variety of evaluative uses. Items rely on Likert-type and open-ended responses and inquire of respondents' reactions to workshop interventions, information provided and intervention effectiveness. Reliability and validity data are not reported.

Austin, M. J. (1982). Evaluating your agency's programs. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

The Psychotherapy Questionnaire is an 84-item inventory consisting of client demographic data (e.g., sex, marital status, income), client rating of the therapy experience ("How much have you benefited from your therapy?") and client assessment of problem management ("On the whole how well do you feel you are getting along now?"). The survey is designed as a follow-up evaluation of the client's experience in therapy. Reliability and validity data are not provided.

Strupp, H. H., Fox, R. E., & Lessler, K. (1969). Patients view their psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

A companion form to the "Psychotherapy Questionnaire (Client)," the 23-item Psychotherapy Questionnaire (Therapist) polls the therapist with questions similar to those asked of the client. Also a follow-up instrument, the survey includes items such as, "How would you characterize your working relationship with this patient?", and "How would you characterize the form of psychotherapy you conducted with this patient (largely supportive to intensive analytical)?" Reliability and validity data are not provided.

Strupp, H. H., Fox, R. E., & Lessler, K. (1969). Patients view their psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

The R-GSSSS is a 34-item instrument designed to measure clients' satisfaction with social services consisting of three areas: (1) relevance, (2) impact and (3) gratification. Based on a one to five rating system, items include "I can tell the social worker the truth without worrying," and "The agency is always available when I need it." The instrument is mean-scored across each of the three subscales and the instrument as a whole. The subscales possess high face validity and internal consistency, with an overall alpha of .95 and subscale alphas ranging between .82 and .86.

Reid, P. N., & Gundlach, J. P. (1994). Reid-Gundlach social service satisfaction scale (R-GSSSS). In J. Fischer & K. Corcoran (Eds.), Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook (2^nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 486-488). New York: The Free Press.

The SEQ, a client's evaluation of a session's impact of emotional positivity or negativity, contains two primary items: "This session was:" and "Right now I feel:". Respondents are asked to place an "X" along each word pair's seven-place response spectrum that best applies to them. For example, in response to the first statement, choices included bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant, valuable/worthless, and comfortable/ uncomfortable. In response to the second item, the choices include happy/sad, calm/ excited, confident/ afraid and quiet/aroused. The instrument is designed to measure two components in each the two dimensions, depth and smoothness (clinical sessions) and positivity and arousal (post-session mood). Together, the four components demonstrate good internal consistency, resulting in alphas of .78 to .91. No test-retest reliability or validity data are provided.

Stiles, W. B. (1987). Session evaluation questionnaire (SEQ). In K. Corcoran & J. Fischer (Eds.), Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook (pp. 306-307). New York: The Free Press.

The SIS is a 17-item scale designed to measure therapeutic impact based on specific session content. Each statement is responded to on a five-point scale from one, "not at all" to five, "very much." The instrument contains three subscales: Task Impacts ("I have figured out possible ways of coping."), Relationship Impacts ("I now feel supported.by my therapist")(both Task and Relationship Impacts comprise the Helpful Impacts subscale), and Hindering Impacts ("I have come to feel abandoned by my therapist"). When the "unwanted thoughts" item (number 11) was dropped, reliability for the Hindering Impacts factor was reported at an alpha of .67. Internal reliability for the Task Impacts factor has an alpha of .84 and the Relationship Impacts factor, .91.

Elliott, R., & Wexler, M. M. (1994). Measuring the impact of sessions in process-experiential therapy of depression: The Session Impacts Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 166-174.

The WAI was constructed to measure the quality of the therapeutic, or otherwise working, alliance. Items from the "WAI (Client Form)" include, "I believe (my counselor) is genuinely concerned with my welfare," and "I am confident in (my counselor's) ability to help me." Reliability for the client version is a reported alpha of .93 and for the counselor version, .87. Subscale alphas range from .68 to .92. Good convergent, concurrent and predictive validities are reported.

Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 223-233.