Performance constructs are discussed within the context of complex and dynamic command and control (C2) team performance. Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) team members function in an information-rich environment, exchanging updates through an array of visual displays and communication channels. In combat, they face challenges of limited resources, ambiguous information, time pressure, and enemy interference. Subsequently, accurate assessment of communication, coordination, and decision making in AWACS teams can be difficult and time-consuming. Theoretical predictions arising from laboratory tasks must ultimately face the test of external validity using criterion measures of performance. This paper describes some of the challenges in developing criterion measures of performance and situation assessment within a dynamic and complex task requiring high expertise and teamwork. Results from two studies are briefly described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowersC. A.BakerD. P.SalasE. (1994). Measuring the importance of teamwork: The reliability and validity of job/task analysis indices for team-training design. Military Psychology, 6, (4) 205–214.
2.
BowersC.SalasE.PrinceC.BrannickM. (1992). Games teams play: A method for investigating team coordination and performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 24, 503–506.
3.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.OserR.FlanaganD. L. (1992). Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. In SwezeyR. W.SalasE., (Eds.) Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 355–377) Ablex Publishing Corp, Norwood: NJ.
4.
DalrympleM.SchiflettS. (1996). Measuring situational awareness of AWACS weapons directors. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Situational Awareness in the Tactical Air Environment, Patuxent River, MD, June.
5.
EddyD. (1989). Selected team performance measures in a C3 environment: An annotated bibliography. USAFSAM School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM-TR-87-25).
6.
FowlkesJ.LaneN.SalasE.FranzT.OserR. (1994). Improving the measurement of team performance: The TARGETs methodology. Military Psychology, 6, 47–61.
7.
FreebergN. E.RockD. A. (1987). Development of a small-group team performance taxonomy based on meta-analysis. Educational Testing Services. 1–94.
8.
FleishmanE. A.ZaccaroS. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. In SwezeyR. W.SalasE., (Eds.) Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 31–56) Ablex Publishing Corp, Norwood: NJ.
9.
HollenbeckJ. R.IlgenD. R.SegoD.HedlundJ.MajorD. A.PhillipsJ (1996). The multi-level theory of team decision-making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology.
10.
HollenbeckJ.IlgenD.SegoD. (1994). Repeated measures regression: Enhancing the power of leadership research, Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 3–23.
11.
JamesL. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 212–229.
12.
KozlowskiS.GullyS.McHughP.SalasE.Cannon-bowers (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol 3, 253–291.
13.
LibickiM. C. (1994). What is information warfare? National Defense University: Center for Advaced Concepts and Technology: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14.
MathieuJ.GoodwinG. F.HeffnerT. S.BornD. H. (1997). The co-evolution of team processes and situational demands as related to team performance. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
15.
OrasanuJ.SalasE. (1996) Team decision making in complex evironments. In KleinG.OrasanuJ.CalderwoodR. (Eds.), Decisionmaking in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16.
RegianJ. W.ElliottL. R.(in review). Intelligent Tutoring for team performance: Theory-based development of an enhanced platform for team training and perfomrance research. Technical report in review, Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB.
17.
RousseauD. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In CummingsL. L.StawB. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 7.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
18.
RouseW.Cannon-BowersJ.SalasE. (1992). The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 1296–1308.
19.
SchiflettS.StromeD.EddyD.DalrympleM. (1990). Aircrew Evaluation Sustained Operations Performance (AESOP): A triservice facility for technology transition. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM-TP-90-26).
20.
SaavedraR.EarleyP. C.Van DyneL. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, (1), 61–72.
21.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ.JohnstonJ. (in press). How can you turn a team of experts into an expert team? Emerging training strategies. To appear in ZsambokCKleinG. (Eds.) Naturalistic Decision Making, Hillsdale, NJ.
22.
SalasE.PrinceC.BakerD. P.ShresthaL. (1995). Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training. Special Issue: Situation awareness. Human-Factors, 37(1) 123–136.
23.
SalasE.BowersC. A.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (1995). Military team research: 10 years of progress. Special Issue: Team processes, training, and performance. Military Psychology, 7, (2) 55–75.
24.
StoutR.SalasE. (1996). Team situational awareness: Is this old wine in a new bottle?Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Philadelphia, PA.
25.
SundstromE.de-MeuseK. P.FutrellD. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. Special Issue: Organizational psychology. American Psychologist, 45, (2) 120–133.
