The development of techniques for measuring complex task performance continues to be a problem area both in government and industrial contexts. This problem becomes even more critical as emphasis moves from individual, to group and/or team performance. This paper suggests a variety of measurement techniques that have been applied to the assessment of individual complex performance, and comments on the use of these (and similar) techniques with respect to the measurement of team performance. The measures are derived from the study of “Complexity Theory” (cf. Streufert and Swezey, 1986), and include consideration of both strategic and general planning activity, as well as the diversity of action required in complex team performance situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD.H.WaagW.L.BellH.H. (1992). Training Technologies Applied to Team Training: Military Examples. In SwezeyR.SalasE. (Eds.). Teams: Their training and performance, (pp. 283–327). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corp.
2.
DensonR.W. (1981). Team Training: Literature review and annotated bibliography (AFHRL-TR-80-40, A9-A099994). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Logistics and Technical Training Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.
3.
DickinsonT.L. (1969). The effects of work interaction and its interplay with task organization on team and member performance (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts International, 30 (4–B), 1937–1938.
4.
DieterlyD.L. (1988). Team performance requirements. In GaelS. (Ed.), The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and government (Vol. 1, pp. 486–492). New York: John Wiley.
5.
DyerD.J. (1992). An index for measuring naval team performance. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA. (1356–1360).
6.
FowlkesJ.E.LaneN.SalasE.OserR.PrinceC. (1992). Targets for aircrew coordination training. Proceedings of the 14th Interservice Industry Training Systems Conference. San Antonio, TX. (342–352).
7.
GersickC.J.G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Towards a new model of group development. Academy of Management Review, 31, 9–41.
8.
GlickmanA.ZimmerS.MonteroR.GueretteP.CampbellW.MorganB.SalasE. (1987). The evaluation of teamwork skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training (Tech. Rep. No. 87–016). Orlando, FL: U.S. Naval Training Systems Center.
9.
HackmanJ.R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness (Tech. Rep. No. 2). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
10.
JohnstonW.A. (1966). Transfer of team skills as a function of type of training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 89–94.
11.
McRaeA.V. (1966). Interaction content and team effectiveness (HUMRRO-TR-66-10, AD-637 311). Alexandria, VA: George Washington University, Human Resources Research Office.
12.
ModrickJ.A. (1992a). The role of complexity in human performance, memory, and training. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA. (1163–1165).
13.
ModrickJ.A. (1992b). Review of concepts and approaches to complexity. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA. (1166–1170).
14.
MorganB.B.Jr.GlickmanA.S.WoodardE.A.BlaiwesA.S.SalasE. (1986). Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (Tech. Rep. No. NTSC TR-86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
15.
MorganB.B.SalasE. (1988). A research agenda for team training and performance: Issues, alternatives, and solutions. Proc. Interserv. Indust. Train. Sys. Conf.10:560–65.
16.
NaylorJ.C.DickinsonT.L. (1969). Task structure, work structure, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 167–177.
17.
NievaV.F.FleishmanE.A.RieckA.M. (1978). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships. Washington, DC: ARRO.
18.
O'NeilH.F.BakerE.KazlauskasE. (1992). In SwezeyR.SalasE. (Eds.) Teams: Their training and performance.Norwood, NJ: ABLEX PubUshing Corp.
19.
PrinceA.BrannickM.PrinceC.SalasE. (1992). Team process measurement and implications for training. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36fh Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA. (1351–1355).
20.
StreufertS. (1992). Personal communication.
21.
StreufertS.NogamiG. (1992). Cognitive Complexity and Team Decision Making. In SwezeyR.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance, (pp. 127–151) Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corp.
22.
StreufertS.SwezeyR.W. (1986). Complexity, managers, and organizations.Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
23.
SwezeyR.W. (1984). A cognitive complexity based simulation for management assessment and training. In HendrickH.W.BrownO.Jr. (Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management.North Holland: Elsevier Scientific Publishers B.V.
24.
SwezeyR.W.SalasE. (1992). Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corp.
