Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement of Team Knowledge in the Field: Methodological Advantages and Limitations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Coordination in Human and Primate Groups

Abstract

Team knowledge is seen as an important element in the understanding of coordination processes in teams. Congruent with the taxonomy of coordination mechanisms (cf. Chaps. 2 and 7), the construct of team knowledge refers to shared team-level knowledge structures facilitating implicit processes such as tacit behaviours as well as coordination success. This chapter answers three major questions: (1) What are the challenges of measuring team knowledge in organizational settings compared to more controlled laboratory settings? (2) What concepts of team knowledge exist in the psychological literature, and how are they related to coordination processes? (3) What methods can be applied to measure team knowledge in the field? Although there are several approaches to identifying and measuring team knowledge in a laboratory setting, applications in an organizational context are rare. Thus, this chapter discusses three types of team knowledge: team mental models, team situation models, and transactive memory systems. The advantages and limitations of techniques for capturing team knowledge are discussed and current directions are introduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term “team knowledge” is a defined concept in team as well as group research. Although debates exist regarding the differences between teams and groups, we use the term “team knowledge” synonymously for both. Therefore, team knowledge as it is used here represents the shared knowledge of team/group members.

  2. 2.

    One can argue that the labels of these different types of team knowledge are from a classification by Cooke et al. (2000) and can therefore vary among authors. Team situation models are, like all types of team knowledge, a mental representation of the task and the team. However, the focus here is on this very specific situation. As introduced in Chap. 7, the integrating chapter for Part II of this book, this type of team knowledge may be especially relevant during performance (in-process).

  3. 3.

    Following previous reviews, we conceptualize card sorting as an elicitation tool but highlight that it is also applicable in terms of a structural analysis of shared mental models.

References

  • Austin JR (2003) Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. J Appl Psychol 88:866–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biemann T, Ellwart T, Rack O (2009) Quantifying the similarity of team mental models: shortcomings and advancement. In: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings 2009, AOM Annual Meeting, August 7–11, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Blickensderfer E, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1997) Does overlap of team member knowledge predict team performance? In: Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Albuquerque (September 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese PD, Halverson RR (1996) Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: an examination of work hours, cohesion, and well-being. J Appl Soc Psychol 26:1171–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese PD, Halverson RR (2002) Using random group resampling in multilevel research: an example of the buffering effects of leadership. Leadership Quart 13:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese PD, Halverson RR, Rothberg JM (1994) Within-group agreement scores: using resampling techniques to estimate expected variance. Acad Manage J 13:303–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauner E, Becker A (2004) Wissensmanagement und Organisationales Lernen: Personalentwicklung und Lernen durch transaktive Wissenssysteme [in German]. In: Hertel G, Konradt U (eds) Human resource management im Inter-und Intranet. Hogrefe, Göttingen, pp 235–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RD, Hauenstein NMA (2005) Interrater agreement reconsidered: an alternative to the r wg indices. Organ Res Methods 8:165–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke MJ, Dunlap WP (2002) Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: a user’s guide. Organ Res Methods 5:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke MJ, Finkelstein LM, Dusig MS (1999) On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organ Res Methods 2:49–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse S (1993) Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In: Castellan JN Jr (ed) Individual and group decision making: current issues. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 221–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro SL (2002) Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, r wg(j), hierarchical linear modelling, within- and between-analysis, and random group resampling. Leadership Quart 13:69–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke NJ, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA, Stout RJ (2000) Measuring team knowledge. Hum Factors 42:151–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR (2010) Measuring shared team mental models: a meta-analysis. Group Dyn-Theor Res 14:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eby LT, Meade AW, Parisi AG, Douthitt S (1999) The development of an individual-level teamwork expectations measure and the application of a within-group agreement statistic to assess shared expectations for teamwork. Organ Res Methods 2:366–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards BD, Day EA, Arthur W, Bell ST (2006) Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. J Appl Psychol 91:727–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellwart T, Konradt U (2007a) Measuring shared mental models of expertise location in teams: two validation studies. In: Paper presented at the 2nd Annual INGRoup Conference (interdisciplinary network for group research), July 2007, Lansing, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellwart T, Konradt U (2007b) Explicit and implicit team coordination: Influences of planning and shared mental models on team conflicts and coordination success. In: Paper presented at the 13th Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, May 2007, Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Faraj S, Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manage Sci 46:1554–1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead AB (1998) Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:659–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James DL, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 69:85–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson TE, Lee Y, Lee M, O'Connor D, Khalil M, Huang X (2007) Measuring sharedness of team-related knowledge: design and validation of shared mental model instrument. Hum Resource Develop Intl 10:437–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein KJ, Conn AB, Smith DB, Sorra JS (2001) Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. J Appl Psychol 86:3–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski RJ, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: construct or metaphor? J Manage 20:403–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger K, Wenzel L (1997) Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measures of shared mental models as indicators of team effectiveness. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C (eds) Team performance assessment and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 63–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Langan-Fox J, Code S, Langfield-Smith K (2000) Team mental models: techniques, methods and analytic approaches. Hum Factors 42:242–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque LL, Wilson JM, Wholey DR (2001) Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. J Organ Behav 22:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis K (2003) Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. J Appl Psychol 88:587–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis K (2004) Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: a longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Manage Sci 50:1519–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim BC, Klein KJ (2006) Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. J Organ Behav 27:403–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Brandt CJ, Whitney DJ (1999) A revised index of interrater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Appl Psych Meas 23:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks MA, Zaccaro SJ, Mathieu JE (2000) Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. J Appl Psychol 85:971–986

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marks MA, Sabella MJ, Burke CS, Zaccaro SJ (2002) The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol 87:3–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol 85:273–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (2005) Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. J Organ Behav 26:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed S, Dumville BC (2001) Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. J Organ Behav 22:89–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed S, Klimoski R, Rentsch JR (2000) The measurement of team mental models: we have no shared schema. Organ Res Methods 3:123–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rico R, Sánchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C (2008) Team implicit coordination process: a team knowledge-based approach. Acad Manage Rev 33:163–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Fiore S (2004) Team cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Schvaneveldt RW, Durso FT, Dearholt DW (1989) Network structures in proximity data. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory, vol 24. Academic, New York, pp 249–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Jentsch KA, Mathieu JE, Kraiger K (2005) Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared mental models an safety and efficiency in a field setting. J Appl Psychol 90:532–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout RJ, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Milanovich DM (1999) Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established. Hum Factors 41:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Someren MW, Barnard YF, Sandberg JA (1994) The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber SS, Chen G, Payne SC, Marsh SM, Zaccaro SJ (2000) Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organ Res Methods 3:307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM (1987) Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen B, Goethals GR (eds) Theories of group behavior. Springer, New York, pp 185–208

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM (1995) A computer network model of human transactive memory. Soc Cognition 13:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economic Psychology, University of Trier, D-54286, Trier, Germany

    Thomas Ellwart

  2. Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, 50923, Cologne, Germany

    Torsten Biemann

  3. School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Riggenbachstrasse 16, 4600, Olten, Switzerland

    Oliver Rack

Authors
  1. Thomas Ellwart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torsten Biemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Rack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Ellwart .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Georg-Elias-Müller-Institute for Psychol, University of Göttingen, Goßlerstr. 14, Göttingen, 37073, Germany

    Margarete Boos

  2. , Dept. of Management, Technology, and Eco, ETH Zürich, Kreuzplatz 5, Zürich, 8032, Switzerland

    Michaela Kolbe

  3. , Dept. of Behavioral Ecology, University of Göttingen, Kellnerweg 6, Göttingen, 37077, Germany

    Peter M. Kappeler

  4. , Dept. of Economic Psychology, University of Trier, Campus 1, Trier, 54286, Germany

    Thomas Ellwart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ellwart, T., Biemann, T., Rack, O. (2011). Measurement of Team Knowledge in the Field: Methodological Advantages and Limitations. In: Boos, M., Kolbe, M., Kappeler, P., Ellwart, T. (eds) Coordination in Human and Primate Groups. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15355-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation