The purpose of this study is to validate the Group Work Contribution Scale, a scale that was developed for use as a self-assessment at the conclusion of a group project. Specifically, this scale measures the factors related to a learner’s participation within a school-based work team. A two-step validation process was conducted, using first exploratory and then confirmatory factor analysis. A total of 458 undergraduate students participated across two data collection sessions (231 and 227 participants). The refined Group Work Contribution Scale consists of four underlying factors: effort, initiative, responsibility, and backing-up behavior. The final 12-item scale for Group Work Contribution was confirmed via model fit indices.
AggarwalP.O’BrienC. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 255-264. doi:10.1177/0273475308322283
2.
AldenJ. (2011). Assessment of individual student performance in online team projects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(3), 5-20.
3.
BambergerP. A.ErevI.KimmelM.Oref-ChenT. (2005). Peer assessment, individual performance, and contribution to group processes: The impact of rater anonymity. Group & Organization Management, 30, 344-377.
4.
BentlerP. M. (2006). EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
5.
BentlerP. M.WuE. J. C. (2002). EQS for windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
6.
BowerM.RichardsD. (2006, December). Collaborative learning: Some possibilities and limitations for students and teachers. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology?Sydney, New South Wales.
7.
BurtisJ. O.TurmanP. D. (2006). Group communication pitfalls: Overcoming barriers to an effective group experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
ButcherA.StefaniL.TariqV. (1995). Analysis of peer-, self-, and staff-assessment in group project work. Assessment in Education, 2, 165-185. doi:10.1080/0969594950020204
9.
ClarkG. L. (1989). Peer evaluation: An empirical test of their validity and reliability. Journal of Marketing Education, 11(3), 41-58. doi:10.1177/027347538901100308
10.
CohenS. G.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290. doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
11.
ComerD. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48, 647-666. doi:10.1177/001872679504800603
12.
CookR. W. (1981). An investigation of student peer evaluation on group project performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 3(1), 50-52. doi:10.1177/027347538100300114
13.
CoxK. B. (2003). The effects of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict on team performance effectiveness and work satisfaction. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 27, 153-163.
14.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
15.
DickinsonT. L.McIntyreR. M. (1997). A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In BrannickM. T.SalasE.PrinceC. (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 19-43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
DochyF.SegersM.SluijsmansD. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331-350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935
17.
DommeyerC. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social loafers on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations, group behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 175-188. doi:10.1177/0273475307302019
18.
DruskatV. U.WolffS. B. (1999). Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 58-74. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.58
19.
ElliottN.HigginsA. (2005). Self and peer assessment—Does it make a difference to student group work?Nurse Education in Practice, 5, 40-48. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2004.03.004
20.
ErezA.LepineJ. A.ElmsH. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929-948. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x
21.
FelderR. M.BrentR. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative learning. Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75.
22.
FinegoldA. R.CookeL. (2006). Exploring the attitudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in online groups. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 201-215. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.003
23.
FinneyS. J.DiStefanoC. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
24.
FornellC.LarckerD. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. doi:10.2307/3151312
25.
FungD.HoweC. (2012). Liberal studies in Hong Kong: A new perspective on critical thinking through group work. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 101-111. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.002
26.
FungD.ToH.LeungK. (2016). The influence of collaborative group work on students’ development of critical thinking: The teacher’s role in facilitating group discussions. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 11, 146-166.
27.
GabrielM. (2004). Learning together: Exploring group interactions online. Journal of Distance Education, 19, 54-72.
28.
GokhaleA. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7, 22-30. doi:10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2
29.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
30.
HallmarkJ. R.DownsT. M. (1987, November). Group participation in the organization: Social loafing as a limitation of group effectiveness. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Boston, MA.
31.
HanrahanS. J.IsaacsG. (2001). Assessing self-and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20, 53-70. doi:10.1080/07294360123776
32.
HareA. P. (1992). Groups, teams, and social interaction: Theories and applications. New York, NY: Praeger.
33.
HirschfeldR. R.JordanM. H.FeildH. S.GilesW. F.ArmenakisA. A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team members’ mastery of teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 467-474. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.467
34.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
35.
JaquesD. (2000). Learning in groups: A handbook for improving group work (3rd ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
36.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
37.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.SmithK. A. (2006). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
38.
JohnstonL.MilesL. (2004). Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 751-768. doi:10.1080/0260293042000227272
39.
KarakowskyL.McBeyK. (2001). Do my contributions matter? The influence of imputed expertise on member involvement and self-evaluations in the work group. Group & Organization Management, 26, 70-92. doi:10.1177/1059601101261005
40.
KenchP. L.FieldN.AguderaM.GillM. (2009). Peer assessment of individual contributions to a group project: Student perceptions. Radiography, 15, 158-165. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2008.04.004
41.
LejkM.WyvillM. (2001). The effect of the inclusion of self-assessment with peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 551-561.
42.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376. doi:10.2307/259182
43.
McInnisJ.DevlinM. (2002). Assessing learning in Australian Universities: Ideas, strategies and resources for quality in student assessment. Australian Universities Teaching Committee, Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning
44.
McIntyreR. M.SalasE. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In GuzzoR. A.SalasE. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 9-45). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
45.
MolyneuxJ. (2001). Interprofessional teamworking: What makes teams work well?Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15, 29-35. doi:10.1080/13561820020022855
46.
MussnugK. J.HugheyA. W. (1997). The truth about teams. Training for Quality, 5, 19-25. doi:10.1108/09684879710156487
47.
MyersS. A.AndersonC. M. (2008). The fundamentals of small group communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
NorthA. C.LinleyP. A.HargreavesD. J. (2000). Social loafing in a cooperative classroom task. Educational Psychology, 20, 389-392.
49.
PiezonS. L.FerreeW. D. (2008). Perceptions of social loafing in online learning groups: A study of public university and U.S. Naval War College students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 1-17. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v9i2.484
50.
PorterC. O.HollenbeckJ. R.IlgenD. R.EllisA. P.WestB. J.MoonH. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 391-403. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.391
51.
RousseauV.AubéC.SavoieA. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37, 540-570. doi:10.1177/1046496406293125
52.
SalasE.SimsD. E.BurkeC. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork?Small Group Research, 36, 555-599.
53.
SolomonG.SchrumL. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
54.
StangorC. (2004). Social groups in action and interaction. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
55.
StefaniL. A. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 69-75. doi:10.1080/03075079412331382153
56.
StromR. D.StromP. S. (1998). Student participation in the evaluation of cooperative learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22, 265-278. doi:10.1080/1066892980220306
57.
SunwolfSeiboldD. R. (1999). The impact of formal procedures on group processes, members, and task outcomes. In GouranD. S.PooleM. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 395-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
59.
XingW.WadholmR.PetakovicE.GogginsS. P. (2015). Group learning assessment: Developing a theory-informed analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 110-128.
