The validity and reliability of the Institutional Performance Survey (IPS) as an institutional self-study instrument were assessed, with a focus on four types of validity (content, face, construct, and concurrent) and three types of reliability (test-retest, internal consistency, and rater reliability). It was found that IPS appears to reasonably assess most of its constructs/dimensions; however, its use of ambiguous language and weak assessment of five scales are problem areas, and the questionnaire also lacks a "don't know" response category. While IPS may be useful at the beginning of an institutional self-study in identifying institutional strengths and weaknesses, it fails to investigate what an institution's scores on dimensions actually mean and how conditions are related and affect one another. Variables assessed by IPS within the following eight categories are identified: changes in the institutional environment, institutional functioning, revenues, enrollments, institutional culture, strategy, resource allocation, and institutional effectiveness. The IPS is also compared with the Institutional Functioning Inventory, Institutional Goals Inventory, and the Needs Assessment Survey. Appended are the IPS instrument and the IPS 1985 Executive Report, which examines the eight categories/dimensions of the survey. (SW)