The CSQ was developed by Cal W. Downs and Michael Hazen (1977) in an attempt to discover the relationship between communication and job satisfaction. Based on literature reviews and interviews with workers, they developed a questionnaire with 88 items which was administered to 225 employees working in a variety of organizations.  Subsequent item validity analysis indicated that 83 of the 88 items significantly differentiated between satisfied and dissatisfied employees; factor analysis of these items yielded 10 factors which accounted for 61% of the total variance. 

On the basis of these analyses, Downs and Hazen revised the questionnaire to 40 items--five for each of the eight factors which correlate most with communication satisfaction—and the revised questionnaire was administered to 510 employees at four organizations.  The CSQ-II was found to be both reliable and valid by the original authors and other researchers concerned with defining and assessing communication satisfaction (Downs & Hazen, 1977; Hecht, 1978a; Crino & White, 1981; Clampitt & Girard, 1993).   

Although developed more than 25 years ago, the CSQ remains the dominant measure of communication satisfaction in applied and basic research.  Meta-Comm--consulting firm comprised of Clampitt, Downs, and others--is one of many consulting firms which regularly use the CSQ as a measure of communication effectiveness (Clampitt, 2001), and the CSQ continues as the preferred measure of communication satisfaction in scholarly research (for example, Clampitt & Berk, 2000; Hargie & Lount; 2000; and Mueller & Lee, 2002). 

Thus, the CSQ is one of the two or three measures most often used by students in UWEC's CJ 459--Organizational Communication Analysis in their studies of organizational communication in Chippewa Valley (Wisconsin) business organizations, and is a measure which has been used for my own consulting firm.

The eight CSQ factors are Communication Climate, Supervisory Communication, Organizational Integration, Media Quality, Co-worker Communication, Corporate Information, Personal Feedback, and Subordinate Communication.  Items relevant to the latter factor would be completed only by managers and supervisors.

The Eight Factors of the CSQ

Communication Climate reflects communication in both the organizational and personal levels.  On one hand, it includes items such as the extent to which communication in the organization motivates and stimulates workers to meet organizational goals and the extent to which it makes them identify with the organization.  On the other hand, it includes estimates of whether or not people’s attitudes toward communicating are healthy in the organization

Supervisory Communication includes both upward and downward aspects of communicating with superiors.  Three of the principle items include the extent to which a superior is open to ideas, the extent to which the supervisor listens and pays attention, and the extent to which guidance is offered in solving job-related problems.

 Organizational Integration revolves around the degree to which individuals receive information about the immediate work environment.  Items include the degree of satisfaction with information about departmental plans, the requirements of their jobs, and some personnel news

Media Quality deals with the extent to which meetings are well-organized, written directives are short and clear, and the degree to which communication is about right.

Co-worker Communication concerns the extent to which horizontal and informal communication is accurate and free flowing.  This factor also includes satisfaction with the activeness of the grapevine.

Corporate Information deals with the broadest kind of information about the organization as a whole.  It includes items on notification about changers, information about the organization’s financial standing, and information about the overall policies and goals of the organization. 

The personal feedback dimension contains questions about supervisors’ understandings of problems faced on the job and whether or not employees feel the criteria by which they are judged are fair.

This portion is filled out only by those with supervisory responsibilities, does not appear on the form filled out by nonsupervisory employees, and may be omitted entirely.  It taps receptivity of employees to downward communication and their willingness and capability to send good information upward,  Superiors are also asked whether they experience communication overload,

Using data from the CSQ to analyze organizational communication

Clampitt (2000) notes “While the CSQ may not provide all the details necessary for specific action plans, it does provide a wonderful overview of the potential problem areas that can be further investigated.”   The ICA Communication Audit and the Organizational Communication Audit ask respondents to rate the how much information they receive and how much they wish to receive from each type, source, or medium of communication, and the “gaps” between what is received and what is wanted is often accepted as a measure of the need for improvement. 

There are several ways to determine needs for improvement.  First, researchers may rank-order the items or eight factors and assume that those with the lowest means are the areas which most need improvement.  Second, researchers may compare results from their organization to those in the CSQ data bank (Clampitt, 2001).  Third, researchers may apply specific models to determine which types of communication are needed by the specific organization and determine which essential factors need improvement.

Although the normative data available from the CSQ data bank can provide insights which help interpret data, I tend to agree with those who believe that norms can be misleading (see ESS's Survey Norms: Good or Bad?   I personally begin by rank ordering the items by score and discuss the results in terms of the specific mission, goals, and needs of the organization being analyzed. *

Communication needs of organizations vary, in accordance with an organization's mission, environment, and technology.  If job satisfaction is a high priority, Supervisory Communication is typically the most important CSQ factor (Clampitt, 2000).  If productivity is the key issue, Personal Feedback and Communication Climate are the key issues.  Horizontal communication is essential to organizations which must innovate and adapt to environmental factors, but impedes the specialization and efficiency required for organizations in a more stable environment. 

 ________________________
  *Note to UWEC students: this is why Organizational Communication majors and minors are required to study organizational theory in the Organizational Communication Systems course).  

Basic References

 Clampitt, P. G. (1988).  "Downs/Hazen Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire."
   In C. W. Downs. Communication Audits (pp. 112-132).  Glenview IL: Scott-Foresman.

This concise article offers insights on the development and application of the Communicatioin Satisfaction Questionnaire, and about the CSQ data bank Clampitt established at UW-GB.  The complete CSQ is presented in this chapter.

 Clampitt, P. G.  (2001).  Communicating for managerial effectiveness (2nd ed.).  Thousand
         Oaks CA: SAGE.

An up-to-date report on CSQ norms from Clampitt's data bank is included as an appendix.  A new edition is in process..

 Crino, M. D., & White, M. (1981).  "Satisfaction in Communication: An Examination of the
        Downs-Hazen Measure."  Psychological Reports, 49, 831-838.

As the title suggests, an analysis of the reliability and validity of the CSQ.

 Downs, C. W. (1994) "Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire"  In R. B. Ruben; P.
       Palmgreen; & H. E. Sypher (Eds.).  Communication research measures: A sourcebook.
       (pp. 114-119).  New York: Guilford.

Concise explanation and presentation of the CSQ.

 Downs, C. W. & Hazen, M. (1977).  "A Factor Analysis of Communication Satisfaction."
        Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63-74.

Original article presenting the research which developed the CSQ.

Additional References

Clampitt, P. G, & Berk, L. (2000). A communication audit of a paper mill.  In O. Hargie & D.Tourish (Eds.).  Handbook of communication audits for organisations. (pp. 225-238). London:Routledge.

Clampitt, P. G. & Downs, C. W. (1993).  Employee perceptions of the relationship between communication and productivity: A field study.  Journal of Business Communication,30, 5-28.

Greenbaum, H. H.; Clampitt, P.; & Willihnganz.  (1988).  "Organizational Communication: An Examination of Four Instruments."  Management Communication Quarterly, 2(2), 245-282.

Hargie, O. &  Lount, M. (2000).  Auditing communication practices in the Church: a study of a Catholic diocese.  In O. Hargie & D. Tourish (Eds.).  Handbook of communication audits for organisations. (pp. 239-254). London: Routledge.

Hecht, M. L.  (1978a). Measures of communication satisfaction.  Human Communication Research, 4,  350-368.

Hecht, M. L.  (1978b). Toward conceptualization of communication satisfaction.  Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 47-62. 

Mueller, B. H. & Lee, J. (2002).  Leader-Member Exchange and organizational communication in multiple contexts.  Journal of Business Communication, 39, 220-244.

Varona, F. (1996).  Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in three Guatemalan organizations.  Journal of Business Communication, 33, 111-140.