What the ATS Graduating Student Questionnaire can reveal about formation
By Christopher M. The
Exit surveys help schools look back on the education students have received. Recent empirical research involving the ATS Graduating Student Questionnaire (GSQ) suggests that its questions
may also offer a starting point for understanding student formation even earlier in the formal learning process—while there is still time to respond.
Your school may already review what your graduates say about their educational experiences, ability to pray, vocational clarity, and working across difference and in diverse contexts.
Connecting those responses is another task. How to understand student data—positive or otherwise? Do they describe a broadly shared experience, or conceal different combinations of
strengths and difficulties? What are the implications for a theological school's approach to evaluating student formation?
A study published last month in the Review of Religious Research (RRR) offers an answer, with
follow-up analysis of the class of 2026 adding more recent evidence that extends beyond a single graduating cohort. Both sets of findings invite schools to reconsider data already collected
and to explore what additional assessment efforts might make those data more useful.
More than one dimension of formation
The authors examined responses from 5,528 graduates at 151 North American theological schools in 2023–24. Using variable- and person-centered techniques, they analyzed data from 36 GSQ
items about perceived personal growth and skill development, alongside 16 items about educational experience and well-being (see Data and Methods). The relational spirituality model provided these researchers a
guiding framework that considers both engagement with the sacred and mature alterity—approaching others' differences with humility—as key markers of spiritual
formation.
Certain items in the GSQ were found to support a general dimension of formation, alongside five more specific ones: social justice commitment, religiousness/spirituality,
intercultural competence, self-identity, and interdisciplinary integration—with self-identity involving vocational clarity, self-confidence, and
self-knowledge, and with interdisciplinary integration including science, ecological concerns, and Christian philosophy.
From their analysis, researchers identified five response profiles according to similar combinations of scores. The two middle-range profiles each present as a mirror of the other. The group
heuristically labeled Faltering reported relatively stronger religious/spiritual formation but weaker social justice commitment and intercultural competence, whereas the
Struggling group showed the reverse. While overall well-being averages were similar across both groupings, the former reported stronger religious/spiritual well-being and the latter
stronger social well-being (see RRR, Table 1).
That middle mirroring pattern contrasts with graduates in the highest-scoring profile, labeled as Thriving, who reported strengths across the dimensions. Their responses show that
religious/spiritual formation and engagement with difference are not mutually exclusive dimensions—and yet, neither guarantees the other.
The labels of Managing (second highest-scoring profile) and Languishing (lowest-scoring group) round out the five profiles described in the paper, which stresses that
statistical patterns should not be taken to mean a fixed typology of theological students (see Discussion). Given that empirically validated studies are always time-bound, it is fair to ask: would this study's general approach reveal the same patterns in another year?
The newest cohort, a familiar pattern
As mentioned in last month's GSQ Webinar, the latest GSQ Total School Profile report cross-tabulates and visualizes data from 5,689
graduates across 141 participating schools in the class of 2026. From that sample, ATS Student Data Services conducted follow-up latent profile analysis de novo, allowing the newer
(2025–26) cohort's response patterns to emerge independently. Yet, the same five broad patterns emerged with very similar combinations of relative strengths and weaknesses as the
original cohort (2023–24).
While empirical differences compared to the class of 2024 were small, response averages this past year were modestly better overall: slightly lower lows, somewhat higher highs—as shown
in Figure 1—with the practical value being continuity, not a claim that student formation has improved across our sector. Rather, ATS schools now have peer-reviewed evidence and
subsequent corroboration to inform a more localized exploration of GSQ-inflected questions regarding student formation.
Figure 1. Estimated profile shares in two graduating cohorts
Each row compares the share associated with one response profile. Blue circles indicate the class of 2024, while orange squares indicate the class of 2026. Any gray lines
connecting the shapes aid comparison between those cohorts, not tracking of individual students.
Putting GSQ findings to work
Each ATS member school owns its assessment strategy and the responsibility to demonstrate "quality assurance for various publics" (from Preamble to the Standards of Accreditation). It is important to choose evaluative methods that align with your school's purpose,
theology, and capacities. Among the many approaches ATS schools take, the GSQ offers another resource to support
evaluation, not as a replacement for institutional judgment, but as a complement to an assessment strategy that is yours. That said, here are some suggestions to consider.
1. Start where you are—the community you comprise, the data you collect. Colleagues involved in assessment might gather periodically to examine related concerns
together. This collective effort extends to the kinds of questions you—and other ATS member schools—are asking. For the data you have, are you looking across the responses you
collect? Regarding interpersonal competencies, for example, the GSQ asks graduates about a range of items, including empathy for those experiencing poverty or oppression, insight into others'
troubles, and social justice concern.
Two things are true at once: reflecting on clusters of items may be more informative than treating each answer in isolation, while certain questionnaire items may be most useful for their
singular purpose. Another approach for smaller programs is to review several comparable graduating cohorts together while keeping response counts visible, as this may offer a steadier picture
than any single-year cohort. These options assume your data collection and analysis practices are regularized enough to pool together your data (and other resources).
2. Connect the measures to your school's purposes. Which dimensions of student learning and formation offer reliable evidence for your institution's formation outcomes, and
which leave gaps? Suppose students consistently report difficulty integrating their learning across disciplines. Faculty could examine that pattern alongside planning more integrative
assignments, while field education colleagues gather more robust feedback. If the additional inputs suggest similar difficulties, that school might reconsider how coursework and supervised
practice connect, when to make an adjustment, and why revisiting the evidence is meaningful.
To be certain, there are limitations to surveys like the GSQ, and any school that relies solely on them should rethink their evaluative strategy. Arguably the best use of survey data is to
start an inquiry: What can we measure this way? What might explain what we are seeing? Are there other ways of knowing? The simple answer to this last question is a
resounding yes, and the authors of the above study call for qualitative evidence to deepen interpretations (see RRR, Practical Implications). Meaning made from these assessments and disciplines connects tools to purpose, mission to identity.
3. Consider local adaptations at certain checkpoints. The study’s authors also suggest that formation assessments occur at midpoints between matriculation and completion. To do
so, a school might identify a relevant group of questions and explore whether asking (a version of) them at a program milestone would shed light on their educational experiences while there
is still time to respond.
Before incorporating or adapting GSQ items locally or at midpoints, consider discussing appropriate use with ATS Student Data
Services. Questions designed to look back over a program at completion may need attention to wording and timing when asked earlier. A pilot could test students' understanding and compare
responses with reflections, portfolios, or supervisory feedback. Suffice to say, repeating questions to the same student does not, by itself, establish a valid measure of developmental
change.
4. Ownership need not mean working alone. A reprise of an earlier point, your colleagues at other institutions may help you compare approaches, interpret an unexpected
pattern, or collaborate on a manageable pilot. ATS offers support for developing member-driven relationships. In particular, the ATS Formation Repository gathers research, tools, and institutional examples; the ATS Assessment
Coordinators resource page includes formation-assessment case studies and a practical evaluation guide; and the ATS Resource Library page on grant initiative-related assessment ties multilevel evaluation to programmatic impact. These ATS-curated options sit alongside many other
resources.
Which formation outcome could your school better understand with evidence already in hand—and what educational decision could that understanding inform? Continue the conversation with
colleagues on Engage ATS or contact ATS Student Data Services at Qmail@ats.edu.
Editor's Note: The full research article by Peter Jankowski, Steven Sandage, David Wang, Christopher The, and Deborah H. C. Gin—available now as an open access pre-print via
DOI: 10.1177/0034673X261477782—will appear in a future printed issue of the Review of Religious Research journal. Only the follow-up analysis in Figures 1 and 2 represents a separate exploration, is not
a repeat of every original analysis, and has not undergone independent peer review.
Supplemental illustration
Figure 2. Formation scores within comparable response profiles
Read each row across the two cohorts to compare its configuration of scores. Colors and numbers represent model-estimated means on a 1–5 scale (see GSQ-E sample for scale anchors). The horizontal-axis abbreviations are SJC, social justice commitment;
R/S, religiousness/spirituality; ICC, intercultural competence; Self, self-identity; and INT, interdisciplinary
integration.
Christopher M. The is director of
student data and research at
The Association of Theological Schools
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
