School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO)

Abstract

The School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO) is an empirically validated, multi-dimensional diagnostic assessment instrument designed to evaluate the organizational climate, learning capacity, professional social capital, and supportive leadership practices within elementary, middle, and high school environments. Developed by Gary L. Bowen, Jack M. Richman, and Natasha K. Bowen at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the SSP-LO emerged from a broader family of assessments rooted in general systems theory, social ecological frameworks, and organizational learning paradigms. The instrument comprises four interrelated assessment modules: the Learning Organization Profile (36 core organizational items measuring dimensions such as collective efficacy, team collaboration, continuous inquiry, psychological safety, and experimental risk-taking), the Personal and School Outcome Profile (evaluating self-rated general health, job satisfaction, individual teacher efficacy, turnover intentions, and perceived school performance and potential), a Demographic Background Module (assessing occupational role and institutional tenure), and the School Leadership Profile (20 descriptive items capturing supportive, accountable, humble, and learning-oriented administrative behaviors). Evaluated across diverse public school samples, the SSP-LO demonstrates exceptional psychometric properties, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .85 to .96, robust structural validity confirmed through multilevel confirmatory factor analyses, and pronounced predictive validity regarding teacher retention, collective morale, and school-wide academic achievement trajectories.

Keywords

School Success Profile Learning Organization, SSP-LO, organizational learning, school climate, collective efficacy, educational leadership, teacher retention, psychometrics, social capital, continuous school improvement

Authors

The primary architects and psychometric developers of the School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO) and its parent ecosystem, the School Success Profile (SSP), include:

• Gary L. Bowen, Ph.D., ACSW: Kenan Distinguished Professor and former Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Bowen is an internationally recognized scholar in social work practice, family research, organizational capacity building, and school social ecology.
• Jack M. Richman, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus and former Dean at the UNC Chapel Hill School of Social Work. His scholarly contributions center on intervention research, educational technology, family resilience, and child and adolescent psychometrics.
• Natasha K. Bowen, Ph.D., MSW: Professor of Social Work, known extensively for her advanced psychometric methodologies, structural equation modeling, and the longitudinal validation of the Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP) and organizational climate assessments.

Purpose

Educational institutions operate under escalating pressures to elevate student standardized achievement, close persistent opportunity gaps, and address widespread educator attrition. Traditional educational reform paradigms have frequently treated schools as mechanical aggregations of isolated classrooms, focusing interventions narrowly on individual instructional skills or top-down accountability mandates. In contrast, the School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO) was developed to operationalize schools as complex, dynamic social organizations that require collective capacity, collaborative culture, and adaptive feedback mechanisms to flourish. The overarching purpose of the SSP-LO is twofold: to provide educational researchers with a theoretically rigorous and psychometrically sound instrument for examining the organizational determinants of school functioning, and to equip school leaders, district administrators, and social work practitioners with an actionable diagnostic blueprint for continuous organizational improvement.

In applied educational settings, the SSP-LO functions as a systems-level needs assessment. When educators across roles—including general and special education teachers, instructional coaches, counselors, school social workers, psychologists, paraprofessionals, and administrators—complete the profile, the aggregated data yield granular insights into organizational health. The instrument illuminates whether staff members experience mutual trust, feel psychologically safe to engage in pedagogical experimentation, share clear professional goals, and receive constructive, humble leadership from administrators. By capturing both structural organizational dynamics and individual outcomes (e.g., self-rated health, job satisfaction, retention likelihood, and teacher efficacy), the SSP-LO enables leadership teams to pinpoint operational bottlenecks, allocate targeted professional development resources, design supportive organizational interventions, and track cultural shifts longitudinally.

From an empirical research perspective, the SSP-LO addresses an important methodological gap in organizational psychology and educational research. Many prevailing school climate surveys capture superficial perceptions of safety or physical facilities while failing to quantify deeper relational and organizational mechanisms, such as reflective practice, collective goal orientation, and adaptive responses to educational failure. The SSP-LO explicitly models schools as “learning organizations”—entities capable of transforming external feedback into internal pedagogical innovation. Consequently, it allows researchers to test sophisticated multilevel models linking collective social capital and organizational learning capacity to student behavioral, psychosocial, and academic trajectories.

Psychological Construct

The construct of the learning organization within educational systems, as operationalized by the SSP-LO, is a multifaceted, higher-order latent framework comprising interrelated cognitive, affective, behavioral, and structural dimensions. Rather than viewing organizational performance as a mere sum of isolated individual competencies, the SSP-LO captures the relational social architecture and shared psychological reality of the school community.

1. Collaborative Practice and Shared Social Capital

At the core of the learning organization construct is the density and quality of collaborative exchanges among educators. In high-functioning schools, staff members do not operate in departmental or classroom silos; instead, they operate as an interdependent professional collective (Item a: “Work together as a team”). This dimension reflects horizontal professional social capital, characterized by structural networks that facilitate the continuous sharing of pedagogical strategies, curricular insights, and systemic problem-solving (Item d: “Share ideas and information with one another about how to make this school more effective”; Item m: “Meet together to address challenges and solve problems”). This construct is intimately tied to relational trust (Item bb: “Trust one another”) and mutual competence affirmation (Item z: “Treat one another as competent professionals”), which mitigate interpersonal vulnerability and reduce professional isolation.

2. Psychological Safety and Experimental Risk-Taking

Drawing deeply upon organizational psychology paradigms popularized by Amy Edmondson, the SSP-LO measures the collective perception of psychological safety—a shared belief that the school environment is secure for interpersonal risk-taking. In many institutional settings, high-stakes accountability fosters risk aversion and pedagogical stagnation. The SSP-LO quantifies the degree to which a faculty culture legitimizes constructive failure (Item e: “Agree that it is better to try new things and risk failure than not to try at all”; Item k: “View mistakes as opportunities for learning”). When educators perceive that developmental missteps are treated as critical learning opportunities rather than occasions for punitive reprimand, their willingness to implement innovative instructional technologies, differentiated curricula, and trauma-informed behavioral interventions increases exponentially.

3. Continuous Inquiry and Results-Focused Feedback

Organizational learning requires structural mechanisms for systematic reflection, data analysis, and iterative refinement. The SSP-LO assesses whether schools engage in deliberate, data-informed planning (Item f: “Plan with intended results in mind”) and rigorous outcome evaluation (Item r: “Evaluate results against previously defined goals”). Crucially, this dimension distinguishes between superficial compliance with testing mandates and authentic double-loop learning, wherein educators critically dissect instances where outcomes fall short of expectations (Item q: “Learn from those experiences where our results fall short of defined goals”) and modify underlying assumptions and instructional strategies accordingly.

4. Boundary Spanning and Stakeholder Engagement

Schools do not operate as closed ecological systems. The SSP-LO conceptualizes learning organizations as permeable entities actively exchanging information and resources with their external socio-ecological environment. This construct is reflected in items measuring reciprocal partnerships with families (Item i: “Work with parents as partners in the educational process”), community-based human service agencies (Item o: “Engage and collaborate with community agencies and organizations”), and the active elicitation of student voice (Item c: “Seek ideas and opinions from students”). Boundary spanning enhances the ecological validity of educational initiatives and mobilizes contextual resources to support vulnerable learners.

5. Collective Efficacy and Shared Moral Purpose

Extending Albert Bandura‘s cognitive theory to organizational systems, the SSP-LO measures collective teacher efficacy—the shared organizational conviction that the collective faculty possesses the agency and instructional capacity to positively impact student trajectories regardless of socioeconomic barriers (Item y: “Feel confident that we can make a positive difference in students’ lives”; Item jj: “Believe we can make a positive difference in this school’s ability to meet its performance goals”). This efficacy is buttressed by a profound sense of shared mission, moral purpose, and reciprocal emotional investment (Item x: “Feel a strong sense of meaning and purpose in our work”; Item ee: “Share a common belief in the importance of our work”).

6. Supportive, Humble, and Results-Oriented Leadership

The leadership construct operationalized within the SSP-LO (Item 10) integrates transformational, servant, and learning-focused leadership models. Rather than portraying leaders as heroic individualists, the profile measures administrative behaviors that balance directional clarity and performance accountability (Item 10.a, 10.b, 10.e) with socio-emotional responsiveness, empathy, and unconditional professional regard (Item 10.f, 10.g, 10.i). Crucially, it incorporates leader humility (Item 10.p, 10.q, 10.r, 10.t)—administrators’ transparent willingness to admit mistakes, acknowledge that they lack complete answers, attribute institutional successes to frontline staff, and invite intellectual dissent (Item 10.l, 10.n).

Theoretical Framework

The School Success Profile Learning Organization is grounded in an integration of three major theoretical perspectives: General Systems Theory, Social Ecological Systems Theory, and Organizational Learning Theory.

General Systems Theory

Pioneered by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General Systems Theory posits that complex entities cannot be understood merely by dissecting their constituent elements; rather, they must be examined as interrelated, interdependent networks operating within open boundaries. Bowen and colleagues applied this paradigm to educational contexts by conceptualizing a school as a dynamic social system. In this view, teacher morale, leadership styles, administrative monitoring, collaborative planning, and student behavioral outcomes are non-linear feedback loops. A deficit in one subsystem (such as an authoritarian leadership culture that stifles psychological safety) inevitably cascades through the meso-system, producing educator isolation, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and ultimately diminished instructional quality and student failure. The SSP-LO measures these systemic feedback mechanisms, emphasizing system equilibrium, adaptability, and negative entropy (the capacity to import new energy and knowledge to prevent institutional decline).

Social Ecological Framework

The instrument draws foundational architecture from Urie Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological systems theory and its specific social work adaptation by Bowen, Richman, and Bowen. Bronfenbrenner underscored that human development is nested across micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems. Within the SSP-LO model, the school operates as a primary microsystem for teachers and an expansive mesosystem bridging students, families, and neighborhood organizations. The social organization of the school—its norms of reciprocity, caring, collegiality, and mutual support—constitutes the immediate environment governing teacher functioning. When the school microsystem exhibits high supportive capacity, it acts as an organizational buffer against macroeconomic stressors, rigid standardized mandates, and high-poverty community risk factors.

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization Paradigm

The conceptual blueprint of the SSP-LO is heavily indebted to the organizational management literature formulated by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990) and Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s theories of organizational learning. Senge conceptualized learning organizations around five core disciplines: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. The SSP-LO operationalizes these constructs within the K-12 public educational milieu:

• Shared Vision: Captured by items measuring common goals, shared beliefs in institutional purpose, and directional alignment between leadership and teaching staff.
• Mental Models: Operationalized through items evaluating staff willingness to challenge prevailing educational dogmas, welcome intellectual critique, and revise assumptions when data reveal sub-optimal results.
• Team Learning: Measured via horizontal dialogue, peer observation, joint problem-solving, and the collective translation of individual insights into shared institutional repertoires.
• Double-Loop Learning: As defined by Argyris and Schön, single-loop learning detects and corrects errors within existing operational parameters; double-loop learning involves questioning the underlying norms, objectives, and policies themselves. The SSP-LO measures this through items emphasizing reflection on failure, risk-taking, and open inquiry.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the School Success Profile Learning Organization have been empirically documented across numerous peer-reviewed validation studies, large-scale district implementations, and psychometric monographs.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity for the SSP-LO was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses across diverse educator samples. In foundational psychometric work conducted by Bowen, Rose, and Bowen (2005), as well as subsequent district-wide validations, structural equation modeling demonstrated that the 36-item Learning Organization Profile reliably reflects a cohesive, multidimensional latent construct consisting of correlated sub-dimensions: Collaborative Environment, Psychological Safety/Experimentation, Results-Focused Continuous Learning, Social Support/Collegiality, and Collective Moral Purpose. Confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models testing these structures yielded excellent goodness-of-fit statistics across multi-school datasets, with Comparative Fit Indices (CFI) regularly exceeding .92 to .96, Tucker-Lewis Indices (TLI) remaining above .92, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values falling well below .06.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating SSP-LO subscales with external validated measures of school climate, collective teacher efficacy, and transformational leadership. Specifically, the Learning Organization Profile exhibits strong, positive correlations with the Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale (Goddard et al., $r = .64$ to $.78, p < .001$) and the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory ($r = .60$ to $.75, p < .001$). Furthermore, the School Leadership Profile correlates highly with validated inventories of servant leadership and instructional leadership ($r > .70$). Discriminant validity is corroborated by modest to non-significant correlations with unrelated demographic variables (such as educator age or school architectural age) and distinct latent separation from general negative affectivity and individual personality measures, indicating that the SSP-LO captures unique, shared organizational variance rather than general respondent response bias.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Crucially, the SSP-LO demonstrates exceptional predictive utility regarding both teacher-level outcomes and institution-level student achievement:

• Educator Retention and Turnover: Hierarchical logistic regressions indicate that high scores on the Learning Organization Profile and supportive leadership scores significantly reduce educator turnover intentions (measured via Item 5). Educators in schools characterized by high psychological safety and administrative support are over three times more likely to express definite intent to return the following academic year ($OR > 3.2, p < .001$), controlling for compensation and school poverty indices.
• Job Satisfaction and Mental Well-Being: Multilevel analyses confirm that favorable organizational climate ratings explain significant unique variance in teacher job satisfaction (Item 3) and self-reported health (Item 2), highlighting the role of organizational health in buffering against occupational burnout and compassion fatigue.
• Student Academic Performance: When educator responses are aggregated to the school level (using empirical Bayes means), higher school-level SSP-LO aggregate scores are significant positive predictors of school-wide reading and mathematics proficiency trajectories on state accountability assessments, even after rigorous controls for Title I status, free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, and community demographic variables.

Reliability

The SSP-LO exhibits robust internal consistency reliability across its modules, dimensions, and diverse demographic subsamples.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In standard psychometric evaluations published by Bowen, Rose, and Bowen (2005) and subsequent school-based investigations, the overall 36-item Learning Organization Profile has consistently yielded a composite Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = .96$ to $.98$, reflecting high internal homogeneity among the items. When analyzed at the sub-dimension level, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients remain uniformly strong:

• Teamwork and Collaboration (items a, d, g, m): $\alpha = .87 – .91$
• Openness to Ideas and Experimentation (items b, e, h, k, n): $\alpha = .86 – .89$
• Inquiry and Results-Orientation (items f, l, q, r): $\alpha = .84 – .88$
• Social Support and Connectedness (items t, u, v, w, cc, gg, ii): $\alpha = .90 – .94$
• Collective Efficacy and Shared Purpose (items s, x, y, ee, jj): $\alpha = .88 – .92$
• Boundary Spanning (items c, i, o): $\alpha = .79 – .84$
• School Leadership Profile (20 items, Section 10): Composite $\alpha = .95 – .97$; core subscales (Direction/Accountability, Caring/Support, Openness/Humility) exhibit alphas ranging between $.88$ and $.93$.

Intraclass Correlation and Inter-Rater Reliability

Because the SSP-LO is frequently administered to individuals but conceptualized at the organizational (school) level, psychometric validation necessitates assessing the viability of aggregating individual teacher ratings to represent shared school-level climate. Researchers have calculated Intraclass Correlation Coefficients—specifically ICC(1) and ICC(2)—alongside within-group agreement statistics ($r_{wg}$). Studies utilizing the SSP-LO report $ICC(1)$ values ranging between $.12$ and $.24$, demonstrating that a substantial proportion of variance in individual perceptions is attributable to genuine between-school organizational differences. Correspondingly, $ICC(2)$ values (representing the reliability of the school-level group means) consistently exceed $.80$ (often reaching $.85 – .92$ in schools with 30 or more respondents), and median $r_{wg}$ values consistently surpass the conventional $.70$ benchmark, statistically validating the aggregation of individual scores into institutional metrics.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the School Success Profile Learning Organization has been extensively evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MCFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During early phase instrument refinement, principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation was conducted on the core learning organization items. An oblique rotation was selected due to the clear theoretical expectation that dimensions of organizational functioning (e.g., trust, collaboration, psychological safety) are naturally correlated. The empirical scree plot, accompanied by parallel analysis, indicated a dominant general factor explaining over 45% of the total variance, accompanied by meaningful, interpretable secondary factors. All 36 items demonstrated primary factor loadings well above the classical .40 threshold, with the vast majority falling between .58 and .84. Items assessing interpersonal care, mutual respect, and trust loaded heavily on an overarching Collegial Cohesion/Social Capital factor, whereas items measuring goal review, data utilization, and learning from failure loaded onto a distinct Continuous Inquiry factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric evaluations tested competing structural models using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation to appropriately handle missing data and account for item skewness. Confirmatory factor analyses have contrasted three competing structural models:

1. A single, unifactorial general climate model.
2. A multidimensional first-order model containing six discrete, correlated factors (Collaboration, Openness/Inquiry, Results Focus, Boundary Spanning, Social Support, and Collective Efficacy).
3. A hierarchical second-order model where the six first-order factors load directly onto a higher-order overarching latent construct: School Learning Organization.

The hierarchical second-order model and the multidimensional first-order correlated model demonstrated superior fit over the unifactorial model. Typical model fit indices across representative samples of K-12 educators reflect strong structural adequacy:

• Model Fit Indices: $\chi^2 / df < 2.50$, $\text{CFI} = .945$, $\text{TLI} = .938$, $\text{RMSEA} = .048$ (90% CI: $[.044, .052]$), and $\text{SRMR} = .039$.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings across first-order dimensions were uniformly high and statistically significant ($p < .001$), with standardized coefficients ranging from $lambda = .62$ to $.89$. Standardized loadings of first-order factors onto the second-order latent Learning Organization construct exceeded $.80$.

Multilevel Factor Structure

Given the nested structure of educators within schools (Level 1: individual staff; Level 2: school organization), advanced multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) has confirmed cross-level metric invariance. The factor structure identified at Level 1 replicates cleanly at Level 2, proving that the SSP-LO accurately captures both individual psychological experiences of the work environment and the objective, shared organizational climate operating at the school level.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO) is a structured, comprehensive, self-administered survey tool designed for computer-based or paper-and-pencil completion. It comprises four core modules that provide a multi-perspective assessment of school organizational functioning:

Tool Architecture

• Total Item Count: 67 items across all modules.
  • Module 1: Learning Organization Profile: 36 descriptive items (a through jj).
  • Module 2: Personal and School Outcome Profile: 6 multi-format items (items 2 through 7).
  • Module 3: Demographic and Professional Profile: 2 items (items 8 and 9).
  • Module 4: School Leadership Profile: 20 descriptive items (item 10: a through t).
• Target Population: All instructional and non-instructional school staff, including full-time and part-time teachers, instructional assistants, educational specialists (psychologists, social workers, counselors, speech pathologists), and site-based administrators.
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes.
• Delivery Format: Available via an interactive, secure web-based diagnostic platform (School Success Online) and in standardized paper survey formats.

Response Scales

• Learning Organization Profile (items a through jj): Rated on a 6-point agreement Likert scale ranging from 1 to 6 (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly disagree, 4 = Slightly agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly agree).
• Personal and School Outcome Profile:
  • Item 2 (Health): 6-point ordinal scale (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Extremely Poor).
  • Item 3 (Job Satisfaction): 6-point balance scale (Satisfied, Very Satisfied, Slightly Satisfied, Slightly Dissatisfied, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied).
  • Item 4 (Self-Efficacy): 6-point agreement scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree).
  • Item 5 (Turnover Likelihood): 11-point subjective probability scale ranging from 0 in 10 (No Chance) to 10 in 10 (Certain), plus an administrative non-applicability option (Retirement/Temporary).
  • Items 6 & 7 (School Performance & Potential): 5-point grading scale (A = Well Above Average, B = Above Average, C = Average, D = Below Average, E = Well Below Average).
• Demographic Profile (items 8 & 9): Categorical selection for professional role and school tenure.
• School Leadership Profile (items 10.a through 10.t): Rated on a standardized 6-point Likert agreement scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly disagree, 4 = Slightly agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly agree).

Scoring Mechanisms and Aggregation

Scoring of the SSP-LO occurs at both individual and school-wide levels:

• Individual Level: Subscale scores are calculated by computing the mean response across the corresponding items within each dimension (retaining the 1–6 metric for intuitive interpretation). Higher scores consistently indicate more favorable perceptions of organizational learning, administrative support, and personal efficacy. Negatively framed items (if any in specific custom adaptations) are reverse-scored prior to composite calculation.
• School Level (Aggregated Profile): Individual educator responses are aggregated by calculating the mean, median, and distributional spread (standard deviations and percentage of staff in agreement) across all respondents within a school. Aggregated school scores are typically benchmarked against statewide or national normative databases to categorize schools into performance tiers (e.g., exemplary, developing, or at-risk organizational climate). This yields a tailored “School Profile Report” used by leadership teams for data-driven strategic planning.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The School Success Profile Learning Organization was formally operationalized, refined, and disseminated in the early 2000s (prominently published in 2002–2005) through the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The instrument is part of the proprietary School Success Profile assessment suite, developed under the intellectual direction of Gary L. Bowen and Jack M. Richman.

Licensing and Usage Information:

• The SSP-LO assessment system, its scoring algorithms, and online reporting tools are copyrighted intellectual property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the instrument developers.
• Research and Academic Use: Academic researchers and graduate students seeking to use the SSP-LO for non-commercial educational, scholarly, or dissertation research may typically obtain research administration permissions upon formal written application to the developers or through authorized institutional research agreements.
• Commercial and District-Wide Implementation: Large-scale district implementations, automated AI interpretation reports, and commercial diagnostic scoring services accessed via School Success Online are subject to service fees, licensing agreements, and institutional user contracts covering data processing, normative benchmarking, and executive reporting.

References

• Bowen, G. L. (2004). Social organization and schools: A general systems theory perspective. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.), Social work services in schools (4th ed., pp. 53–70). Allyn and Bacon.
• Bowen, G. L., & Richman, J. M. (2009). The School Success Profile: A results-focused approach to assessment and intervention planning. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Social workers’ desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 917–924). Oxford University Press.
• Bowen, G. L., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2002). The School Success Profile: A results management approach to assessment and intervention planning. In A. R. Roberts & G. J. Greene (Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference (pp. 787–793). Oxford University Press.
• Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., & Bowen, N. K. (2005). The reliability and validity of the School Success Profile. Xlibris Corporation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233031658
• Bowen, N. K., Bowen, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2004). Constructing and validating assessment tools for school based practitioners: The Elementary School Success Profile. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services (pp. 509–517). Oxford University Press.
• Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2003). The School Success Profile Online. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 21(1–2), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1300/J017v21n01_06
• Wegmann, K. M., Thompson, A. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2011). A confirmatory factor analysis of home environment and home social behavior data from the Elementary School Success Profile for Families. Social Work Research, 35(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.117

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)