Content uploaded by Paul Speer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Speer on Mar 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Validation of A Brief Sense
of Community Scale:
Confirmation of the Principal
Theory of Sense of Community
N. Andrew Peterson
Rutgers University
Paul W. Speer
Vanderbilt University
David W. Mc Millan
Nashville, TN
First-order and second-order models of sense of community (SOC) were
tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data gathered from a
random sample of community residents (n 5293) located in the
midwestern United States. An 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale
(BSCS) was developed to represent the SOC dimensions of needs
fulfillment, group membership, influence, and shared emotional
connection. The CFA results for the BSCS supported both the scale’s
hypothesized first-order and second-order factor structure. The overall
BSCS scale and its subscales were also found to be correlated as expected
with community participation, psychological empowerment, mental
health, and depression. Findings provide empirical support for the BSCS
and its underlying multidimensional theory of SOC. Implications of the
study are described and directions for future research discussed. &2007
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
This research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the University of Iowa’s Prevention Research Center
(grant number: U48/CCU720075). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
Correspondence to: N. Andrew Peterson, School of Social Work, Rutgers University, 536 George Street,
303A, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. E-mail: andrew.peterson@ssw.rutgers.edu
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 36, NO. 1, 61–73 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
&2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20217
Sense of community (SOC) is a key theoretical construct for community psychology
and other disciplines. Sense of community refers to the fundamental human
phenomenon of collective experience, and it has been studied in a variety of contexts
such as neighborhoods (Brodsky & Marx, 2001; Colombo, Mosso, & DePiccoli, 2001;
Kingston, Mitchell, Florin, & Stevenson, 1999; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, &
Chavis, 1990), psychosocial rehabilitation programs (Herman, Onaga, Pernice-Duca,
Oh, & Ferguson, 2005), community organizations (Hughey, Speer, & Peterson, 1999),
workplaces (Pretty & McCarthy, 1991), and faith institutions (Miers & Fisher, 2002), as
well as with youth (Bateman, 2002; Pretty, Andrewes, & Collett, 1994; Vieno, Perkins,
Smith, & Santinello, 2005), immigrant communities (Sonn, 2002), firefighters
(Cowman, Ferrari, & Liao-Troth, 2004), and an international community of interest
(Obst, Zinkiewicz, & Smith, 2002). This breadth of application highlights the
importance of the construct to a diverse array of settings and populations in
community-based research and practice.
Sense of community, often referred to as psychological sense of community, has been
predominantly associated with the McMillan and Chavis (1986) model, although other
conceptual frameworks and several measures have also been proposed (Bishop,
Chertok, & Jason, 1997; Buckner, 1988; Cantillon, Davidson, & Schweitzer, 2003;
Davidson & Cotter, 1986, 1993; Glynn, 1981; Hughey et al., 1999; Long & Perkins,
2003). Alternative conceptions and measures notwithstanding, the Sense of Commu-
nity Index (SCI; Perkins et al., 1990; see Long & Perkins, 2003, for a more detailed
discussion of the development of the SCI), or some adaptation of it, has been utilized
by much of the empirical work that has measured SOC (e.g., Brodsky, O’Campo, &
Aronson, 1999; Kingston, et al., 1999; Mahan, Garrard, Lewis, & Newbrough, 2002;
Peterson & Hughey, 2004; Peterson & Reid, 2003; Pretty, McCarthy, & Catano, 1992;
Pretty, Conroy, Dugay, Fowler, & Williams, 1996; Speer, 2000; Speer, Jackson, &
Peterson, 2001). The SCI was intended to be a brief assessment of the four dimensions
of SOC as articulated in McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) model. These dimensions
include needs fulfillment (a perception that members’ needs will be met by the
community), group membership (a feeling of belonging or a sense of interpersonal
relatedness), influence (a sense that one matters, or can make a difference, in a
community and that the community matters to its members), and emotional
connection (a feeling of attachment or bonding rooted in members’ shared history,
place or experience).
Although popular, a series of recent studies has raised compelling questions
about the validity of the SCI, as well as other existing measures of SOC, and
the McMillan and Chavis (1986) model itself (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999; Long &
Perkins, 2003; Obst & White, 2004; Proescholdbell, Roosa, & Nemeroff, 2006;
Tartaglia, 2006). Chipuer and Pretty (1999) tested the factor structure of the SCI by
conducting principal components factor analysis of data from adults and youth using
both neighborhoods and workplaces as referents. Chipuer and Pretty reported
that SCI items tended to load on different or multiple subscales in different
samples, indicating that items generally did not converge as expected based
on the McMillan and Chavis (1986) model. In addition, Chipuer and Pretty
(1999) reported weak reliabilities for the overall SCI scale as well as for the
hypothesized subscales. Rather than revising the SCI or suggesting changes to the
McMillan and Chavis (1986) model, Chipuer and Pretty (1999) recommended
using the SCI as a one-factor instrument until better items could be developed and
validated.
62 Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
Long and Perkins (2003) described similar problems with the items of the SCI. As
a methodological improvement, they applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test
both the 1-factor and hypothesized 4-factor models for the SCI using data from the
original Perkins et al. (1990) study. Their goodness of fit indices suggested poor fit for
both the 1-factor and 4-factor solutions. Rather than developing and testing new items,
Long and Perkins (2003) returned to the original dataset to conduct exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) and CFA of SCI items, along with additional items that were not
formerly part of the SCI, to find a better fitting model for the Perkins et al. (1990) data.
Because of their analyses, Long and Perkins (2003) recommended abandonment of
the original SCI in favor of the Brief Sense of Community Index (BSCI)—an 8-item
scale combining five original SCI items with three other face-valid items. These eight
items were configured to correspond to a new dimensional structure for SOC, which
included social connections, mutual concerns, and community values. As noted by
Obst and White (2004), however, little theoretical justification was provided by Long
and Perkins (2003) for their new dimensional structure.
Obst and White’s (2004) study also used CFA to test the SCI. Consistent with Long
and Perkins (2003), they found that the hypothesized factor structure of the SCI did
not adequately fit their data. Unlike Long and Perkins (2003), however, Obst and
White (2004) suggested retaining many of the SCI items with the 4-factor structure of
McMillan and Chavis (1986). To preserve the 4-factor model, Obst and White (2004)
shifted SCI items to different subscales based on CFA indicators. At issue with their
study is whether Obst and White too failed to provide sufficient conceptual justification
for their reassignment of SCI items. Methodologists have cautioned that CFA
indicators should be used only if the modifications can also be interpreted
substantively (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999; MacCallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz,
1992). Accordingly, it would seem reasonable to expect the content of Obst and
White’s (2004) reassigned items to fit conceptually with the intended meaning of the
underlying dimension. Yet, their shift of many SCI items could not be justified on
conceptual grounds. This incongruity between the meaning of Obst and White’s
reassigned items and the meaning of McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) dimensions of SOC
calls into question the usefulness of this approach to improve the SCI and fails to
provide empirical support for the underlying multidimensional theory of SOC.
Elsewhere, Proescholdbell et al. (2006) conducted a study to develop and test a
new multidimensional measure of SOC. They argued that although most researchers
consider SOC as a multidimensional construct, most existing measures of SOC, such as
the SCI, have been validated only as unidimensional instruments. In a study of SOC
among gay men, Proescholdbell et al. (2006) examined new and existing items from
several SOC measures, including the SCI, to develop a scale that was intended to assess
each of the four dimensions of the McMillan and Chavis (1986) model. Using both EFA
and CFA, Proescholdbell et al. (2006) found that a 3-factor model for SOC best fit their
data. The model included one factor for the influence dimension, another for
emotional connection, and a third factor that combined the two dimensions of needs
fulfillment and membership. They concluded that because no quantitative study to
date has empirically distinguished the needs fulfillment and membership dimensions,
the McMillan and Chavis (1986) model should be revised to collapse these dimensions
into one component of SOC. In addition, Proescholdbell et al. (2006) examined
whether their three-component measures could be combined to create a single overall
measure of SOC. Rather than using CFA procedures to test a second-order model for
the scale, however, they pointed to simple correlations between the factors (ranging
SOC Measurement 63
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
from .38 to .61) as evidence supporting the strategy of combining component subscales
into a single overall measure of SOC.
Tartaglia (2006) also conducted a study to test the multifactor structure of an
existing measure of SOC. Similar to Chipuer and Pretty (1999), Long and Perkins
(2003), and Obst and White (2004), Tartaglia (2006) asserted that a good approach to
advance SOC research is to examine the multidimensional structure of scales that have
already been shown to be useful as unidimensional measures of SOC. Appling both
EFA and CFA to examine the structure of the 18-item Italian Sense of Community
Scale (ISCS), Tartaglia (2006) found support for a 3-factor model, which included one
factor that combined McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) concepts of needs fulfillment and
influence, another factor that involved the concept of place attachment, and a third
factor that was labeled social bonds. However, Tartaglia did not provide evidence such as
a second-order CFA to demonstrate that the three ISCS factors could be considered as
representing one underlying SOC construct.
Present Study
At present, it would seem that SOC research has arrived at a critical juncture. As noted
by Vieno et al. (2005), no study to date has empirically confirmed the 4-factor model of
SOC as conceptualized by McMillan and Chavis (1986). In addition, as argued by Long
and Perkins (2003), research and evaluation studies of SOC are in need of brief,
validated measures of the construct that may be conveniently and efficiently
administered in applied community contexts. An important direction for future
research, therefore, is to develop and test original items for inclusion in a new, brief
measure of SOC based on the McMillan and Chavis model. This approach might result
in items that better represent the meaning of McMillan and Chavis’ dimensions as well
as demonstrate expected empirical relationships.
In the current study, we tested a brief measure for SOC that included completely
new items that were designed to be consistent with the McMillan and Chavis (1986)
model. Both the first and second-order factor structure of the SOC measure was
evaluated using CFA. We then further examined the validity of the BSCS by examining
its relationship to a set of variables (i.e., community participation, empowerment, mental
health, and depression) that might be differentially associated with the dimensions of
SOC. We expected, based on previous research, that SOC would be positively related
with participation in community groups and activities (Speer, 2000; Speer & Peterson,
2000; Peterson & Reid, 2003), empowerment (Itzhaky & York, 2000), and mental health
(Taylor & Taylor, 1996; Bailey & McLaren, 2005), and that SOC would be negatively
related with depression (Parker et al., 2001). Because of the influence of the McMillan
and Chavis (1986) model, as well as the need for a brief measure of SOC that can be easily
applied in community-based research and practice, this research was needed to further
address methodological and theoretical issues associated with the study of SOC.
METHOD
Participants
Participants in this research were interviewed as part of a larger study evaluating
a community health promotion initiative in the midwestern United states. Three-
hundred eight randomly selected residents participated in the survey (response
64 Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
rate 576%). Of these individuals, 293 completed all BSCS items and were included in
the present study. This remaining sample (n5293) was 57% female, 1.3% Hispanic,
and 98.7% White, non-Hispanic. Approximately 11% were between the ages of 18–35,
32% were between 36–50 years, 20% were between 51–60 years, 19% were between
61–70 years, and 19% were age 71 or older. Thirteen percent reported an annual
household income of less than $20,000, 23% reported income between $20,000
and less than $35,000, 22% reported income of $35,000 to less than $50,000,
29% reported income $50,000 to less than $75,000, and 13% reported income
of $75,000 or more. Educationally, 6% had less than high school, 34% had completed
high school, 20% had some college, 13% had earned an associate’s degree, 18% had
earned a bachelor’s degree, and 9% had earned a graduate degree.
Measures
Sense of community. The measure of SOC used in this study was an 8-item scale, henceforth
referred to as the Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS), designed to assess the
dimensions of needs fulfillment, group membership, influence, and emotional connection
as defined in the McMillan and Chavis (1986) model. Items of the BSCS were created
primarily by the lead author of the scale’s underlying theory (i.e., McMillan). Consistent
with recommendations in the SOC literature (Peterson, Speer, & Hughey, 2006), only
positively worded items were included in the BSCS. In addition, all BSCS items were
designed to reference respondents’ neighborhood and used a 5-point, Likert-type
response option format ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Cronbach’s alpha for
the overall BSCS was .92 (M53.81, SD 5.79). Alphas among the subscales were .86 for
needs fulfillment (M53.65, SD 5.98), .94 for group membership (M54.18, SD 5.92),
.77 for influence (M53.50, SD 5.87), and .87 for emotional connection (M53.91,
SD 5.89). The BSCS items used in this study are shown in the Appendix.
Community participation. The measure of community participation used in this study
was an 8-item scale that assessed civic involvement and participatory behaviors in
community-action activities. Items asked respondents to indicate their frequency of
participation in a variety of community groups and events (e.g., signed a petition,
written a letter to influence local policies, attended a public meeting to pressure for a
policy change) over a three-month period. Respondents answered the items using a
4-point scale ranging from not at all to five times or more. Speer and Peterson (2000)
found support for the validity of the community participation scale. Their factor
analysis suggested that the scale’s items could be considered as representing one
underlying participation dimension. In addition, they found that the community
participation scale was related as expected with membership in community
organizations, perceptions of involvement among institutions in the community,
and sense of community. Cronbach’s afor the community participation scale in this
study was .80 (M51.46, SD 5.51).
Psychological empowerment. The revised version of the Sociopolitical Control Scale
(SPCS-Revised; Peterson et al., 2006; Zimmerman & Zahniser, 1991) was used to
assess the intrapersonal component of psychological empowerment. The 17 items of
the SPCS-R were designed to measure self-perceptions of an individual’s abilities to
organize people and influence policy decisions in a local community. Support for both
the content and construct validity of the SPCS-R was found in the Peterson et al.
SOC Measurement 65
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
(2006) study. In that study, factor analysis confirmed the underlying structure of the
SPCS-R, and further tests demonstrated that the SPCS-R was related in expected
ways with measures of community involvement. For this study, the 17 items were
combined to provide a single measure of empowerment. Cronbach’s afor the SPCS-
Revised in this study was .92 (M52.83, SD 5.78).
Mental health. The 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12; Ware, Kosinski, &
Keller, 1996), a self-report measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), was
also administered to participants of the study. The SF-12 was designed to examine
multidimensional health constructs of well-being and personal evaluation of health
for the general population and those with chronic diseases. Two summary subscales
may be derived from the SF-12, including a mental health summary subscale and a
physical health summary subscale. Both subscales of the SF-12 have been reported
as having strong reliability and validity, and they have been applied extensively in
health-related studies. In this study, we used the mental health summary subscale of
HRQoL for our measure of mental health.
Depression. The abbreviated version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) was included in this study. This 7-item
version (Krause, 1986, 1995) of the CES-D was used to assess cognitive aspects of
depression, or depressed affect, as well as somatic manifestations of depression.
Items referenced how frequently respondents experienced specific depressive
symptoms, such as depressed mood and sleep disturbances, during the previous
week. The shortened version of the CES-D has been demonstrated to be reliable and
valid with adult populations (Krause, 1995).
Procedures
Using multiple sources (e.g., a household telephone directory in electronic format), all
residences with phone numbers in the study area were selected as the sampling frame.
A simple random sample was then selected. The survey was administered face-to-face
by trained surveyors through interviews typically lasting between 45 and 90 minutes.
RESULTS
The objectives of this study were to test the factor structure of a brief measure of SOC
(i.e., the BSCS) and examine its relationship with a set of theoretically relevant
variables. Two sets of analyses, CFA and partial correlation analysis, were performed.
First, a series of CFAs were conducted using AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999).
Two first-order models were tested: (a) Model 1, the 1-factor BSCS, and (b) Model 2,
the 4-factor BSCS. In addition, we tested the hypothesized second-order structure of
the BSCS (Model 3) in which four dimensions (i.e., needs fulfillment, group
membership, influence, and emotional connection) were hypothesized as representing
one underlying SOC construct. Second, we computed partial correlations between
BSCS subscales and a set of theoretically relevant variables that included community
participation, empowerment, mental health, and depression. Demographic variables
(i.e., age, gender, education, and income) served as covariates in the partial correlation
analysis.
66 Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
Table 1 presents fit indices for the CFAs performed in our study. The 1-factor
solution for the BSCS (Model 1) provided a poor fit to the data from the sample. As
can be seen in Table 1, the discrepancy w
2
for Model 1 was statistically significant; the
discrepancy-to-df ratio value was greater than 2.0; and the values for the Goodness-of-
Fit Index (GFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were
below .90, indicating poor fit for the 1-factor solution. In addition, the root mean
square of error approximation (RMSEA) for Model 1 was well beyond the .08
threshold for acceptable model-to-data fit. Contrary to the 1-factor solution, the 4-
factor solution for the BSCS (Model 2) provided a good fit to the data. As shown in
Table 1, the discrepancy w
2
for Model 2 was not statistically significant at the .01 level;
the discrepancy-to-df ratio value was less than 2.0; and the values for the GFI, TLI,
and CFI were all above .90, indicating good fit for the 4-factor solution. In addition,
the RMSEA for Model 2 was within the threshold for acceptable fit.
The values for the Bayes Information Criterion (BIC) and Aikake Information
Criterion(AIC)showninTable1areusefultocomparethefitofsingle-factorversus
multifactorial models. As can be seen in Table 1, there was a large difference in BIC values
between Models 1 and 2 (BIC difference 5189.378), with Model 2 having the lower BIC
value. Accordingly to Raferty (1993), a BIC difference greater than 9.2 may be considered
as conclusive evidence in support of the model with the lower BIC value. Thus, these results
show that the multifactorial model (Model 2) provided a better fit to the data than the
single-factor model (Model 1). The AIC results showed a similar pattern. When interpreting
the AIC, however, the solution in which the AIC model value closest to the AIC saturated
value is considered as providing the better fit to the data. Table 1 shows that the model AIC
value was closest to saturated AIC value for the multifactorial solution (Model 2), indicating
that this 4-factor model provided a better fit to the data than the 1-factor model.
Fit indices for the second-order CFA of the BSCS (Model 3) are also presented in
Table 1, whereas both first-order and second-order standardized regression weights
are shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen in Table 1, the discrepancy w
2
for Model 3 was not
statistically significant at the .01 level; the discrepancy-to-df ratio value was less than
2.0; and the values for the GFI, TLI, and CFI were all above .90, indicating good fit for
Table 1. Overall Fit Statistics for Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS)
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Models
Measures of fit 1-Factor BSCS 4-Factor BSCS Second-order BSCS
Discrepancy w
2
249.405 25.946 28.032
df 20 14 16
p-value o.001 .026 .031
Discrepancy/df 12.470 1.853 1.752
GFI .834 .979 .977
AGFI .702 .945 .949
TLI .825 .987 .989
CFI .875 .993 .993
RMSEA .198 .054 .051
BIC 340.288 150.910 141.636
AIC model 281.405 69.946 68.032
AIC saturated 72.000 72.000 72.000
SOC Measurement 67
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
Model 3. The RMSEA for Model 3 was also within the threshold for acceptable fit.
Furthermore, the standardized regression weights in Fig. 1 indicate that each of the
BSCS items had strong loadings for the hypothesized dimension, and that each
dimension had strong loadings on the hypothesized second-order SOC construct. All
first and second-order loadings were significant at the .01 level. As can be seen in Fig.
1, the first-order standardized regression weights were .75 or greater as aligned with
the BSCS’s hypothesized multidimensional framework, whereas the second-order
standardized regression weights were .68 or greater. These results provide support for
the hypothesized structure of the BSCS in which the scale’s items were thought to
.99
Second-
Order
BSCS
BSCS2
BSCS4
BSCS3
BSCS5
BSCS6
BSCS7
BSCS8
BSCS1
Needs
Fulfillment
Membership
Influence
.77
.97
.95
.93
.68
.94
.85
.84
.75
.92
.85
Emotional
Connection
Figure 1. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS).
Table 2. Correlations Between Demographics and the Overall Brief Sense
of Community Scale (BSCS) and BSCS Subscales
Variables Age Gender Education Income
Overall BSCS .19
.06 .03 .01
Needs fulfillment .17
.07 .02 .04
Group membership .19
.08 .01 .00
Influence .06 .02 .09 .07
Emotional connection .21
.03 .04 .00
Note. Gender, 1 5male; 2 5female.
po.01.
68 Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
assess four SOC dimensions (i.e., needs fulfillment, group membership, influence, and
emotional connection) representing one underlying SOC construct.
Table 2 shows correlations between demographic variables (i.e., age, gender,
education, and annual household income) and the BSCS; Table 3 presents partial
correlations between the BSCS and the set of theoretically relevant variables of
community participation, psychological empowerment, mental health, and depression.
Demographics served as covariates in the partial correlation analysis. Bivariate results
shown in Table 2 indicate that only age was significantly associated with the overall
BSCS scale (r5.19, po.01), and with the subscales of needs fulfillment (r5.17,
po.01), group membership (r5.19, po.01), and emotional connection (r5.21,
po.01). The partial correlations shown in Table 3 indicate strong relationships
between the BSCS subscales after controlling for demographics. Partial correlations
between the BSCS subscales ranged from .51 to .84.
Table 3 also shows that the overall BSCS was positively related with community
participation (r5.16, po.01), the intrapersonal component of psychological empow-
erment (r5.22, po.01), and mental health (r5.32, po.01), and negatively related
with depression (r5.25, po.01). In addition, BSCS subscales were generally found
to relate differently to each of the conceptually relevant variables. Community
participation was significantly associated with the SOC dimensions of emotional
connection (r5.19, po.01) and influence (r5.22, po.01), but community participa-
tion was not related with group membership nor needs fulfillment. Empowerment was
found to be significantly associated with emotional connection (r5.25, po.01),
influence (r5.24, po.01), and group membership (r5.18, po.01), but it was not
significantly related with needs fulfillment. Furthermore, all four SOC dimensions
were significantly associated with mental health and depression, with the strongest
relationships between mental health and group membership (r5.33, po.01) and
emotional connection (r5.30, po.01).
DISCUSSION
This study developed a brief measure of SOC (i.e., the BSCS), which was congruent
with the McMillan and Chavis (1986) theory, and tested the validity of that measure.
Results of our study confirmed the first-order and second-order factor structure of the
Table 3. Partial Correlations Between Overall Brief Sense of Community
Scale (BSCS), BSCS Subscales, Community Participation, Empowerment,
Mental Health, and Depression
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Overall BSCS — .79
.91
.84
.90
; .16
.22
.32
25
2. Needs fulfillment .59
.51
.56
.02 .09 .20
.18
3. Group membership — .69
.84
.14 .18
.33
.24
4. Influence — .73
.22
.24
.27
.21
5. Emotional connection — .19
.25
.30
.23
6. Community participation — .35
.04 .01
7. Empowerment — .01 .04
8. Mental health — .72
9. Depression —
Note. Demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, education, and income) served as
covariates.
po.01.
SOC Measurement 69
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
BSCS, thus providing empirical support for the underlying multidimensional model of
SOC as proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986). Our analysis of the first-order factor
structure of the BSCS showed that the 4-factor model provided a better fit to the data
in our study than the 1-factor model. In addition, our analysis of the hypothesized
second-order structure of the BSCS indicated that the four dimensions of SOC (i.e.,
needs fulfillment, group membership, influence, and emotional connection) could be
considered as representing one underlying SOC construct. Further analysis showed
evidence of the measure’s construct validity. The overall BSCS scale and its subscales
were found to be correlated as expected with community participation, psychological
empowerment, mental health, and depression. These results demonstrate robust
empirical support for the validity of the BSCS and its underlying multidimensional
theory of SOC.
Our findings have critical implications for the field of community psychology.
First, they suggest that questions about the McMillan and Chavis theory (1986), which
has held important sway within the discipline for many years, may be based on
measurement weaknesses rather than theoretical shortcomings. Much effort has
recently been made by researchers to salvage a widely used measure of SOC (i.e., the
SCI), but at this point we have more confidence in flaws attributable to measurement
error (Peterson et al., 2006) than uncertainty in the theory. A second implication of our
findings is that SOC is indeed a multidimensional construct. Taken together, these
implications contradict the notion that a one-dimensional SCI can be considered a
valid measure of SOC (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999). They also refute the idea that through
modifying SCI items, via recombining items into new subscales or supplementing
subscales with new items, researchers can create an alternative number of dimensions
that better describe SOC (Proescholdbell et al., 2006; Long & Perkins, 2003; Obst &
White, 2004; Tartaglia, 2006).
We assert that, over time, known measurement weaknesses have resulted in the
frequent use of SOC as a one-dimensional construct, and the cumulative effects of
these efforts to salvage the flawed SCI has served to undermine scholars’ confidence in
the multidimensional nature of this theory. Instead of another attempt at recouping
the SCI, this study started with acknowledging known measurement flaws and
involved the theory’s primary author in item development. In addition, this study
represents one of the most thoroughly executed tests of measurement of SOC
as theorized by McMillan and Chavis (1986). Not only was a first-order model tested,
but also a second-order model to determine the scale’s congruence with theory,
and further tests of construct validity found that the scale converged and diverged with
other measures in expected ways. Our findings suggest a fundamental cause
for the inconsistent findings of recent SOC studies is rooted in measurement
rather than theoretical problems. We advocate that use of a measure that better fits the
construct can help determine whether the theory is valid or in need of revision or
replacement.
Despite the robust findings of our study, more work is needed to test SOC theory
by examining the extent to which these underlying constructs are found with different
referents and in different contexts. Similarly, the BSCS itself needs to be tested with
new populations and settings to assure generalizability of both the measure and the
theory. We assert that specific operational definitions of SOC will depend on the
context in which SOC is measured. The BSCS was applied in this study to midwestern
neighborhood residents; therefore, modifications may be necessary to make this
measure applicable to youth in Western Australia or elderly on the east coast of the
70 Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
United States. Sense of community, as one of the defining phenomena of interest in
our field, still holds much promise for community psychology and other disciplines.
We hope that immediate attention to measurement issues concerning McMillan and
Chavis’ (1986) orienting model of SOC will advance both theory and practice in
community psychology.
APPENDIX.
BRIEF SENSE OF COMMUNITY SCALE (BSCS) ITEMS
a
Concept Item Item wording
NF BSCS1 I can get what I need in this neighborhood.
NF BSCS2 This neighborhood helps me fulfill my needs.
MB BSCS3 I feel like a member of this neighborhood.
MB BSCS4 I belong in this neighborhood.
IN BSCS5 I have a say about what goes on in my neighborhood.
IN BSCS6 People in this neighborhood are good at influencing each another.
EC BSCS7 I feel connected to this neighborhood.
EC BSCS8 I have a good bond with others in this neighborhood.
a
Concepts based on McMillan and Chavis (1986): NF 5Needs fulfillment; B 5membership; IN 5influence;
EC 5emotional connection.
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J.L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.
Bailey, M., & McLaren, S. (2005). Physical activity alone and with others as predictors of sense of
belonging and mental health in retirees. Aging and Mental Health, 9, 82–90.
Bateman, H.V. (2002). Sense of community in the school: Listening to students’ voices. In Fisher,
A.T., Sonn, C.C., & Bishop, B.J. (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research,
applications, and implications (pp. 161–179). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Bishop, P.D., Chertok, F., & Jason, L.A. (1997). Measuring sense of community: Beyond local
boundaries. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 193–212.
Brodsky, A.E., & Marx, C.M. (2001). Layers of identity: Multiple psychological senses of
community within a community setting. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 161–178.
Brodsky, A.E., O’Campo, P.J., & Aronson, R.E. (1999). PSOC in community context: Multi-level
correlates of a measure of psychological sense of community in low-income, urban
neighborhoods. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 659–679.
Buckner, J.C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–791.
Cantillon, D., Davidson, W.S., & Schweitzer, J.H. (2003). Measuring community social
organization: Sense of community as a mediator in social disorganization theory. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 31, 321–340.
Chipuer, H.M., & Pretty, G.M.H. (1999). A review of the Sense of Community Index: Current
uses, factor structure, reliability, and further development. Journal of Community
Psychology, 27, 643–658.
Colombo, M., Mosso, C., & DePiccoli, N. (2001). Sense of community and participation in urban
contexts. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 457–464.
SOC Measurement 71
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
Cowman, S.E., Ferrari, J.R., & Liao-Troth, M. (2004). Mediating effects of social support on
firefighters’ sense of community and perceptions of care. Journal of Community
Psychology, 32, 121–126.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1986). Measurement of sense of community within the sphere of
city. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 608–619.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1993). Psychological sense of community and support for public
school taxes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 59–66.
Glynn, T.J. (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human
Relations, 34, 789–818.
Herman, S., Onaga, E., Pernice-Duca, F., Oh, S., & Ferguson, C. (2005). Sense of community in
clubhouse programs: Member and staff concepts. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 36, 343–356.
Hughey, J., Speer, P.W., & Peterson, N.A. (1999). Sense of community in community organizations:
Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 97–113.
Itzhaky, H., & York, A.S. (2000). Sociopolitical control and empowerment: An extended
replication. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 407–415.
Kingston, S., Mitchell, R., Florin, P., & Stevenson, J. (1999). Sense of community in
neighborhoods as a multi-level construct. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 681–694.
Krause, N. (1986). Social support, stress, and well-being among older adults. Journal of
Gerontology, 41, 512–519.
Krause, N. (1995). Assessing stress-buffering effects: A cautionary note. Psychology and Aging,
10, 518–526.
Long, D.A., & Perkins, D.D. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sense of Community
Index and development of a Brief SCI. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 279–296.
MacCallum, R.C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L.B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance
structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504.
Mahan, B.B., Garrard, W.M., Lewis, S.E., & Newbrough, J.R. (2002). Sense of community in a
university setting: Campus as workplace. In A.T. Fisher, C.C. Sonn, & B.J. Bishop (Eds.),
Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 123–140).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.
Miers, R., & Fisher, A.T. (2002). Being church and community: Psychological sense of
community in a local parish. In A.T. Fisher, C.C. Sonn, & B.J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological
sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 141–160). New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Obst, P.L., & White, K.M. (2004). Revisiting the sense of community index: A confirmatory
factor analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 691–705.
Obst, P.L., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part
1: Understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of
Community Psychology, 30, 105–117.
Parker, E.A., Lichtenstein, R.L., Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A., Steinman, K.J., James, S.A. (2001).
Disentangling measures of individual perceptions of community social dynamics: Results of
a community survey. Health Education & Behavior, 28, 462–486.
Perkins, D.D., Florin, P., Rich, R.C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. (1990). Participation and the
social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83–115.
Peterson, N.A., & Hughey, J. (2004). Social cohesion and intrapersonal empowerment: Gender
as moderator. Health Education Research, 19, 533–542.
72 Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
Peterson, N.A., Lowe, J.B., Hughey, J., Reid, R.J., Zimmerman, M.A., & Speer, P.W. (2006).
Measuring the intrapersonal component of psychological empowerment: Confirmatory
factor analysis of the sociopolitical control scale. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 38, 287–297.
Peterson, N.A., & Reid, R.J. (2003). Paths to empowerment in an urban community:
Neighborhood connectedness and community participation in substance abuse prevention
activities. Journal of Community Psychology, 31 (1), 25–38.
Peterson, N.A., Speer, P.W., & Hughey, J. (2006). Measuring sense of community: A
methodological interpretation of the factor structure debate. Journal of Community
Psychology, 34, 453–469.
Pretty, G.M.H., Andrewes, L., & Collett, C. (1994). Exploring adolescents’ sense of community
and its relationship to loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 346–358.
Pretty, G.M.H., Conroy, C., Dugay, J., Fowler, K., & Williams, D. (1996). Sense of community and
its relevance to adolescents of all ages. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 365–379.
Pretty, G.M.H., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological sense of community among
women and men of the corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351–361.
Pretty, G.M.H., McCarthy, M., & Catano, V. (1992). Exploring environments and burnout:
Gender considerations in the corporation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 701–711.
Proescholdbell, R.J., Roosa, M.W., & Nemeroff, C.J. (2006). Component measures of psychological
sense of community among gay men. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 9–24.
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Raftery, A.E., (1993). Bayesian model selection in structural equation models. In K.A. Bollen &
J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 163–180). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sonn, C.C. (2002). Immigrant adaptation: Understanding the process through sense of
community. In A.T. Fisher, C.C. Sonn, & B.J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of
community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 205–222). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Speer, P.W. (2000). Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: Implications for theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 51–61.
Speer, P.W., & Peterson, N.A. (2000). Psychometric properties of an empowerment scale: Testing
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral domains. Social Work Research, 24, 109–118.
Speer, P.W., Jackson, C.B., & Peterson, N.A. (2001). The relationship between social cohesion
and empowerment: Support and new implications for theory. Health Education & Behavior,
28, 716–732.
Tartaglia, S. (2006). A preliminary study for a new model of sense of community. Journal of
Community Psychology, 34, 25–36.
Taylor, B., & Taylor, A. (1996). A wayfinding perspective in mental health: Generating a sense of
community among people with multiple handicapping conditions. Psychiatric Rehabilita-
tion Journal, 20, 77–81.
Vieno, A., Perkins, D.D., Smith, T., & Santinello, M. (2005). Democratic school climate and sense
of Community in school: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology,
36, 327–341.
Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S.D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction
of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.
Zimmerman, M.A., & Zahniser, J.H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of
perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community
Psychology, 19, 189–204.
SOC Measurement 73
Journal of Community Psychology DOI 10.1002/jcop
