The Measurement of Team Process

The construct validity of measures of team process was evaluated using predictive, known groups and multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) validation strategies. Military air crews (N = 51) flew two simulated missions. Independent judges provided evaluations of the same six team process variables in both scenarios. An MTMM analysis of judges' ratings treating judges as a method variable showed good convergent and discriminant validity. Judges' mean ratings of the six process variables were correlated with mission effectiveness. Some process measures discriminated between student and instructor teams, thus showing discrimination between known groups. Conversely, an MTMM analysis of ratings treating scenarios as a method showed poor convergent validity. We concluded that important team process behaviors have been identified and can be rated validly but that multiple observations are necessary to assess characteristics of individual teams with any accuracy. The discussion includes implications for practice and future research.

[1]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  P. C. Smith,et al.  Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. , 1963 .

[3]  Michael J. Kavanagh,et al.  Issues in managerial performance: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of ratings. , 1971 .

[4]  C. E. Billings,et al.  Information transfer problems in the aviation system , 1981 .

[5]  J. Hackman.  A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness , 1983 .

[6]  W. Mischel,et al.  Some facets of consistency: Replies to Epstein, Funder, and Bem. , 1983 .

[7]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[8]  H. Foushee,et al.  Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance , 1984 .

[9]  R L Helmreich,et al.  Cockpit Management Attitudes , 1984, Human factors.

[10]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Arthur S Blaiwes,et al.  Measurement of Team Behaviors in a Navy Environment , 1986 .

[12]  P. Bycio,et al.  Situational specificity in assessment center ratings: A confirmatory factor analysis. , 1987 .

[13]  D. P. Baker,et al.  Construct validity of in-basket scores , 1989 .

[14]  J. Komaki,et al.  Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams. , 1989 .

[15]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[16]  James W. Smither,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF USING BEHAVIOR CHECKLISTS ON THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS , 1990 .

[17]  J. Cannon-Bowers,et al.  Aircrew coordination—Achieving teamwork in the cockpit. , 1992 .

[18]  E. Salas,et al.  Games teams play: A method for investigating team coordination and performance , 1992 .

[19]  Janis A. Cannon-Bowers,et al.  Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. , 1992 .

[20]  N. Schmitt,et al.  An exercise design approach to understanding assessment center dimension and exercise constructs. , 1992 .

[21]  E. Salas,et al.  Toward an understanding of team performance and training. , 1992 .

[22]  E. Salas,et al.  Understanding team performance: A multimethod study. , 1993 .

[23]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  TRAINING AND RESEARCH FOR TEAMWORK IN THE MILITARY AIRCREW. , 1993 .

[24]  Catherine E. Volpe,et al.  Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requirements , 1995 .