Group member satisfaction in GSS environments is an often-examined variable, but researchers have noted the lack of theory in its conceptualization and measurement Our review of published GSS studies in major IS journals (1980 through 1992) corroborated this. We examine task or decision satisfaction from the theoretic perspective of closure. We identify two types of closure: cognitive closure, representing assured knowledge (Kruglanski 1989), and process closure, representing complete activity sequences. We used this framework to generate items to measure task satisfaction in on-going team work. Both withinmeeting as well as between-meeting factors were targeted; items tapped perceptions of decision support and coordination support, corresponding to cognitive and process closure respectively. The instrument was administered to convenience samples in two organizations (n=247). Two scenarios provided a common frame of reference: the first described a task involving multiple meetings, while the second involved a single meeting. Respondents were asked to rate importance of behaviors if they were to feel satisfied that they. and the group, did a good job. Factor analyses suggested a four factor solution explaining around 75% of the variance. Sub-scale reliabilities were between .68 and .78. The factorial structure was consistent with expectations, with items indicative of cognitive closure, process closure and role clarity showing good convergent and discriminant validity. A parsimonious 9-item measure emerged from the analyses. The results suggest that the closure approach is useful to investigate task satisfaction in groups. Need for cognitive closure (defined as need for assured knowledge, Kruglanski 1989) may provide the theoretic link between two variables positively correlated in the GSS studies we reviewed: member decision confidence and satisfaction. Need for process closure may explain why support for between-meeting activities is important (Satzinger and 01fman 1992). Implications for IS research are twofold: (1) the development of theory-based measurement will address a lack noted of IS research in general and GSS research in particular, and (2) the need to include cognitive and process closure-inducing features in GSS design and use could be explicitly considered, perhaps within the task and process structure/support framework proposed by Nunamaker et al. (1991).