What a systematic review found about university belonging measures

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Correction, 7 September 2026: The earlier briefing omitted five authors and reordered the others. We have corrected the full attribution and the account of the authors’ recommendation, which our previous FAQ softened. This review uses selected publisher-indexed sections; we could not read the complete paper.

What the review found

Michael J. Priestley, Hina Naela, Rebecca Upsher, Hannah R. Slack, Juliet Foster, Jiani Chen, Xinyu Wang and Nicola C. Byrom reviewed quantitative belonging measures used in undergraduate higher education.

Their search covered six databases through June 2023 and included 485 studies using 198 measures; 76% of measures appeared only once. The review found limited content-validity evidence. The University Belonging Questionnaire met only partial requirements. Assessment under the COSMIN framework stopped where content validity was not established, so this was not a complete psychometric evaluation of every scale.

The authors recommend against using the reviewed scales in their current state and call for better-developed measures. That is stronger than advice simply to continue benchmarking with caution. The main search predates newer instruments; a supplementary update identified further work. The evidence base was also predominantly from the United States.

What to examine in your own survey

Our suggested response is to document precisely what a local score is intended to mean. Identify the original instrument, every wording change and the evidence supporting its use with your students. Distinguish a conversation prompt from a measure used to compare groups or evaluate an intervention.

Adding an open question does not repair an invalid scale. Comments can provide accounts to discuss, but they do not establish a score’s validity or prove what caused it to change. Treat survey design, interpretation and follow-up as separate decisions requiring evidence.

If an existing report makes a strong claim from a belonging score, review that claim before carrying it into a benchmark or strategy document. These are our practical suggestions; they do not replace the authors’ recommendation or constitute a validated measurement approach. See what student voice includes for different ways to involve students in defining the questions that matter.

Reference

Priestley, M. J., Naela, H., Upsher, R., Slack, H. R., Foster, J., Chen, J., Wang, X. and Byrom, N. C. (2026). How to measure belonging in higher education: a systematic review. Studies in Higher Education. Published online 17 March 2026. Publisher article; university repository.