The after-action review (AAR), also termed debrief, is a training approach that commonly encompasses some form of technology, but technology is largely a tangential consideration, which serves as the impetus for this review. Based on a systematic review of 91 empirical studies (113 AARs), a variety of nuances are identified about (1) where in the AAR technology is used, and the (2) users, (3) type, and (4) use of that technology. Technology is indeed common to AARs, but typically relegated to either aid in the task performance episode (92%) or in the provision of task feedback (52%). More broadly, the findings from the present review reflect the inherent complexity of determining how best to use technology in AARs with little extant guidance. These findings are followed by a set of six recommendations that will ideally spur greater use of technology in AARs to address longstanding issues that attenuate its effectiveness.
AnnettJ. (1969). Feedback and human behaviour: The effects of knowledge of results, incentives and reinforcement on learning and performance. Penguin Books.
AuerbachM.PattersonM.MillsW. A.KatznelsonJ. (2021). The implementation of a collaborative pediatric telesimulation intervention in rural critical access hospitals. AEM Education and Training, 5(3), e10558. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10558
6.
BakerD. P.SalasE. (1997). Principles and measuring teamwork: A summary and look toward the future. In M. T. Brannick E., & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 331–355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
8.
BarkerL. T.BondW. F.VincentA. L.CooleyK. L.McGarveyJ. S.VozenilekJ. A.PowellE. S. (2020). A novel in situ simulation framework for introduction of a new technology: The 3-Act-3-Debrief model. Advances in Simulation, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-020-00145-x
9.
BellB. S.TannenbaumS. I.FordJ. K.NoeR. A.KraigerK. (2017). 100 Years of training and development research: What we know and where we should go. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 305–323. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000142
10.
BeloteM. J. (2015). A comparative evaluation of the learner centered grading debriefing method in nursing education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
11.
BoetS.BouldM. D.BruppacherH. R.DesjardinsF.ChandraD. B.NaikV. N. (2011). Looking in the mirror: Self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises. Critical Care Medicine, 39(6), 1377–1381. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820eb8be
12.
BoetS.BouldM. D.SharmaB.ReveesS.NaikV. N.TribyE.GrantcharovT. (2013). Within-team debriefing versus instructor-led debriefing for simulation-based education: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery, 258(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31829659e4
13.
BragardI.FarhatN.SeghayeM. C.KaramO.NeuschwanderA.ShayanY.SchumacherK. (2019). Effectiveness of a high-fidelity simulation-based training program in managing cardiac arrhythmias in children: A randomized pilot study. Pediatric Emergency Care, 35(6), 412–418. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000000931
14.
BrownK. G.SitzmannT. (2011). Training and employee development for improved performance. In ZedeckS. (Ed.), APA Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 469–503). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12170-016.
Cannon-BowersJ.BowersC. (2010). Synthetic learning environments: On developing a science of simulation, games, and virtual worlds for training. In KozlowskiS. W. J.SalasE. (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 229–261). Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
17.
CascioW. F.AguinisH. (2011). Applied psychology in human resource management. Pearson Education.
18.
ChaffinD.HeidlR.HollenbeckJ. R.HoweM.YuA.VoorheesC.CalantoneR. (2017). The promise and perils of wearable sensors in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115617004
19.
ChengA.EppichW.GrantV.SherbinoJ.ZendejasB.CookD. A. (2014). Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education, 48(7), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12432
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006.
22.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299088
23.
CoppensI.VerhaegheS.Van HeckeA.BeeckmanD. (2018). The effectiveness of crisis resource management and team debriefing in resuscitation education of nursing students: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(1-2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13846
24.
CoreM. G.LaneH. C.Van LentM.GombocD.SolomonS.RosenbergM. (2006). Building explainable artificial intelligence systems. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 1766–1773. https://cdn.aaai.org/IAAI/2006/IAAI06-010.pdf
25.
CouperK.SalmanB.SoarJ.FinnJ.PerkinsG. D. (2013). Debriefing to improve outcomes from critical illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine, 39, 1513–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-2951-7
26.
DeRueD. S.NahrgangJ. D.HollenbeckJ. R.WorkmanK. (2012). A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028
27.
DineC. J.GershR. E.LearyM.RiegelB. J.BelliniL. M.AbellaB. S. (2008). Improving cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and resuscitation training by combining audiovisual feedback and debriefing. Critical Care Medicine, 36(10), 2817–2822. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318186fe37
28.
DriskellJ. E.RadtkeP. H.SalasE. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.7.4.297
29.
DusajT. K. (2014). A randomized control study comparing outcomes in student nurses who utilize video during simulation debriefing as compared to those who utilize traditional debriefing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
30.
EddyE. R.TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 975–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12041
31.
EdelsonD. P.LitzingerB.AroraV.WalshD.KimS.LauderdaleD. S.HoekT. L.BeckerL. B.AbellaB. S. (2008). Improving in-hospital cardiac arrest process and outcomes with performance debriefing. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168(10), 1063–1069. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.10.1063
32.
EdwardsT. F. (2016). An examination of undergraduate sophomore-level nursing students’ personal reflection ability following high-fidelity simulation and video-assisted debriefing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.
33.
EllisS.DavidiI. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857
34.
EllisS.GanzachY.CastleE.SekelyG. (2010). The effect of filmed versus personal after-event reviews on task performance: The mediating and moderating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017867
35.
EllisS.MendelR.Aloni-ZoharM. (2009). The effect of accuracy of performance evaluation on learning from experience: The moderating role of after-event reviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(3), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00450.x
36.
EppsC.WhiteM. L.TofilN. M. (2013). Mannequin based simulators. In LevineA. I.D. JrS.SchwartzA. D.SimA. J. (Eds.), The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation (pp. 209–232). Springer.
37.
FernandezA. E. (2014). Meta-analysis of simulation debriefing research (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.
38.
FreseM.ZapfD. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In TriandisH. C.DunnetteM. D.HoughL. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 271–340). Consulting Psychologists Press.
39.
GalvaoJ. R.MartinsP. G.GomesM. R. (2000). Modeling reality with simulation games for a cooperative learning. Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference, 1692–1698. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2000.899158
40.
GardnerA. K.KosemundM.HoggD.HeymannA.MartinezJ. (2017). Setting goals, not just roles: Improving teamwork through goal focused debriefing. American Journal of Surgery, 213(2), 249–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.09.040
41.
GlerumD. R.JosephD. L.McKennyA. F.FritzscheB. A. (2021). The trainer matters: Cross-classified models of trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 281–299. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000503
42.
GoffmanD.HeoH.PardananiS.MerkatzI. R.BernsteinP. S. (2008). Improving shoulder dystocia management among resident and attending physicians using simulations. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 199(3), 294.e1–294.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.05.023
43.
GrandJ. A.PearceM.RenchT. A.ChaoG. T.FernandezR.KozlowskiS. W. (2013). Going DEEP: Guidelines for building simulation-based team assessments. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(5), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000957
44.
GuimondM. E.ForemanS. E.WerbM. (2019). Evaluation of an unfolding obstetric experience simulation in an undergraduate nursing program. Nurse Education Today, 79, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.05.003
45.
HamadG. G.BrownM. T.Clavijo-AlvarezJ. A. (2007). Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery. American Journal of Surgery, 194(1), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.027
46.
HamiltonN. A.KieningerA. N.WoodhouseJ.FreemanB. D.MurrayD.KlingensmithM. E. (2012). Video review using a reliable evaluation metric improves team function in high-fidelity simulated trauma resuscitation. Journal of Surgical Education, 69(3), 428–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.09.009
47.
HanounS.NahavandiS. (2018). Current and future methodologies of after action review in simulation-based training. 2018 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon).
48.
Harris-WatsonA. M.LarsonL. E.LauharatanahirunN.DeChurchL. A.ContractorN. S. (2023). Social perception in Human-AI teams: Warmth and competence predict receptivity to AI teammates. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107765
HowardM. C.MarshallC. J. (2019). Virtual reality training in organizations. In LandersR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp. 347–383). Cambridge University Press.
51.
HughesA. M.GregoryM. E.JosephD. L.SoneshS. C.MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.BenishekL. E.KingH. B.SalasE. (2016). Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1266–1304. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000120
52.
HungH.Gatica-PerezD. (2010). Estimating cohesion in small groups using audio-visual nonverbal behavior. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 12(6), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2010.2055233
53.
JarrettS. M.GlazeR. M.SchurigI.MuñozG. J.NaberA. M.McDonaldJ. N.Bennett JrW.Arthur JrW. (2016). The comparative effectiveness of distributed and colocated team after-action reviews. Human Performance, 29(5), 408–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662
54.
JohnsonC.GonzalezA. J. (2008). Automated after action review: State-of-the-art review and trends. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, 5(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F154851290800500202
55.
JordanM. I.MitchellT. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415
56.
KeiserN. L.Arthur JrW. (2021). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1007–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000821
57.
KeiserN. L.Arthur JrW. (2022). A meta-analysis of task and training characteristics that contribute to or attenuate the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief). Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 953–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09784-x
58.
KimJ.LeeO. (2020). Effects of a simulation-based education program for nursing students responding to mass casualty incidents: A pre-post intervention study. Nurse Education Today, 85, 104297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104297
59.
KimY. J.YooJ. H. (2020). The utilization of debriefing for simulation in healthcare: A literature review. Nurse Education in Practice, 43(102698). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102698
60.
KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279113
61.
KirschnerP. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
62.
KlonekF.GerpottF. H.Lehmann-WillenbrockN.ParkerS. K. (2019). Time to go wild: How to conceptualize and measure process dynamics in real teams with high-resolution. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(4), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619886674
63.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.ChangC.-H.FernandezR. (2016). Team dynamics: Using “big data” to advance the science of team effectiveness. In TonidandelS.KingE.CortinaJ. (Eds.), Big data at work: The data science revolution and organizational psychology (pp. 273–309). Routledge Academic.
64.
KraigerK.FordJ. K. (2021). The science of workplace instruction: Learning and development applied to work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8, 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-060109
65.
KraigerK.FordJ. K.SalasE. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311
66.
KringJ. P. (2004). Communication modality and after action review performance in a distributed immersive virtual environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
67.
LandersR. N.MarinS. (2021). Theory and technology in organizational psychology: A review of technology integration paradigms and their effects on the validity of theory. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8, 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-060843
LangerM.Schmid MastM.MeyerB.MaassW.KönigC. J. (2019). Research in the era of sensing technologies and wearables. In LandersR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp. 806–835). Cambridge University Press.
70.
LeeM. N.KimS. J.KangK. A.KimS. (2020). Comparing the learning effects of debriefing modalities for the care of premature infants. Nursing & Health Sciences, 22(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12662
71.
LucianoM. M.MathieuJ. E.ParkS.TannenbaumS. I. (2018). A fitting approach to construct and measurement alignment: The role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organizational Research Methods, 21(3), 592–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117728372
72.
MakS.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2019). Virtual teams: Conceptualization, integrative review, and research recommendations. In LandersR. N. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp. 441–479). Cambridge University Press.
73.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
74.
MathieuJ. E.WolfsonM. A.ParkS.LucianoM. M.Bedwell-TorresW. L.RamsayP. S.KlockE. A.TannenbaumS. I. (2022). Indexing dynamic collective constructs using computer-aided text analysis: Construct validity evidence and illustrations featuring team processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(4), 533–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000856
75.
MatusikJ. G.HeidlR.HollenbeckJ. R.YuA.LeeH. W.HoweM. (2019). Wearable Bluetooth sensors for capturing relational variables and temporal variability in relationships: A construct validation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000334
76.
McNeeseN. J.DemirM.CookeN. J.MyersC. (2018). Teaming with a synthetic teammate: Insights into human-autonomy teaming. Human Factors, 60(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817743223
77.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DeChurchL. A.Jimenez-RodriguezM.WildmanJ.ShufflerM. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002
78.
MorganP. J.Cleave-HoggD.DesousaS.Lam-McCullochJ. (2006). Applying theory to practice in undergraduate education using high fidelity simulation. Medical Teacher, 28(1), e10–e15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600568488
79.
MorganP. J.TarshisJ.LeBlancV.Cleave-HoggD.DeSousaS.HaleyM. F.Herold-McIlroyJ.LawJ. A. (2009). Efficacy of high-fidelity simulation debriefing on the performance of practicing anaesthetists in simulated scenarios. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 103(4), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aep222
80.
MorrisonJ. E.MelizaL. L. (1999). Foundations of the after action review process (Special Report 42). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
81.
MosherC. J.MortonA.PalaganasJ. C. (2021). Perspectives of engagement in distance debriefings. Advances in Simulation, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-021-00192-y
82.
NguyenN.WatsonW. D.DominguezE. (2019). Simulation-based communication training for general surgery and obstetrics and gynecology residents. Journal of Surgical Education, 76(3), 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.10.014
83.
NoeR. A. (2013). Employee training and development (6th ed.). Irwin-McGraw.
84.
OdenK. B. (2008). Distributed team training: Effective team feedback (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
85.
O’DonnellJ. M.Goode JrJ. S.HenkerR. A.KelseyS.BircherN.PeeleP.BradleJ.EngbergR.CloseJ.Sutton-TyrrellK. (2012). An ergonomic protocol for patient transfer that can be successfully taught using simulation methods. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(1), e3–e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2010.05.003
86.
OlsonS. L. (2013). Debriefing after high-fidelity simulation and knowledge retention: A quasi-experimental study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
87.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2022). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors, 64(5), 904–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
88.
O'NeillT. A.FlathmannC.McNeeseN. J.SalasE. (2023). Human-autonomy teaming: Need for a guiding team-based framework?Computers in Human Behavior, 146(107762). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107762
89.
PatelS. M.MillerC. R.SchiaviA.ToyS.SchwengelD. A. (2020). The sim must go on: Adapting resident education to the COVID-19 pandemic using telesimulation. Advances in Simulation, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-020-00146-w
90.
PentlandA. S. (2007). Automatic mapping and modeling of human networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 378(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2006.11.046
91.
QuarlesJ.FishwickP.LampotangS.FischlerI.LokB. (2010). A mixed reality approach for interactively blending dynamic models with corresponding physical phenomena. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), 20(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/1842722.1842727
92.
QuarlesJ.LampotangS.FischlerI.FishwickP.LokB. (2008). Collocated AAR: augmenting after action review with mixed reality. 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality.
93.
Qudrat-UllahH. (2007). Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback: The case of renewable resource management. Simulation & Gaming, 38(3), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046878107300669
RobertsonB.SchumacherL.GosmanG.KanferR.KelleyM.DeVitaM. (2009). Simulation-based crisis team training for multidisciplinary obstetric providers. Simulation in Healthcare, 4(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0b013e31819171cd
96.
RohY. S.KellyM.HaE. H. (2016). Comparison of instructor-led versus peer-led debriefing in nursing students. Nursing & Health Sciences, 18(2), 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12259
97.
SalasE.DiazGranadosD.KleinC.BurkeC. S.StaglK. C.GoodwinG. F.HalpinS. M. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 50(6), 903–933. https://doi.org/10.1518%2F001872008X375009
98.
SalasE.TannenbaumS. I.KraigerK.Smith-JentschK. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1529100612436661
99.
SandersM. J. (2005). The effect of immediate feedback and after-action reviews (AARs) on learning, retention and transfer (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
100.
SawyerT.EppichW.Brett-FleeglerM.GrantV.ChengA. (2016). More than one way to debrief: A critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simulation in Healthcare, 11(3), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148
101.
SawyerT.Sierocka-CastanedaA.ChanD.BergB.LustikM.ThompsonM. (2012). The effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing versus oral debriefing alone at improving neonatal resuscitation performance: A randomized trial. Simulation in Healthcare, 7(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182578eae
102.
ShockleyK. M.GabrielA. S.RobertsonD.RosenC. C.ChawlaN.GansterM. L.EzerinsM. E. (2021). The fatiguing effects of camera use in virtual meetings: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1137–1155. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000948
SitzmannT. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
105.
SitzmannT.ElyK. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421–442. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0022777.
106.
Smith-JentschK. A.Cannon-BowersJ. A.TannenbaumS. I.SalasE. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39(3), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496408317794
107.
Smith-JentschK. A.ZeisigR. L.ActionB.McPhersonJ. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). American Psychological Association.
108.
SoucisseM. L.BoulvaK.SiderisL.DroletP.MorinM.DubéP. (2017). Video coaching as an efficient teaching method for surgical residents—A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Surgical Education, 74(2), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.09.002
109.
StahlS. E.AnH. S.DinkelD. M.NobleJ. M.LeeJ. M. (2016). How accurate are the wrist-based heart rate monitors during walking and running activities? Are they accurate enough?BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 2(1), e000106. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000106
110.
StephanianD.SawyerT.ReidJ.StoneK.RobertsJ.ThompsonD.PendergrassT. (2015). Synchronous mobile audio-visual recording technology (SMART) cart for healthcare simulation debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 46(6), 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046878115617711
111.
SzyldD.RudolphJ. W. (2014). Debriefing with good judgment. In LevineA. I.D. JrS.SchwartzA. D.SimA. J. (Eds.), The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation (pp. 85–93). Springer.
112.
TannenbaumS. I.CerasoliC. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0018720812448394
113.
TomczakD. L.BehrendT. S. (2019). Electronic surveillance and privacy. In LandersR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp. 708–742). Cambridge University Press.
114.
VentreK. M.SchwidH. A. (2014). Computer and web based simulators. In LevineA. I.D. JrS.SchwartzA. D.SimA. J. (Eds.), The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation (pp. 85–93). Springer.
115.
VerkuylM.AtackL.McCullochT.LiuL.BettsL.LapumJ. L.HughesM.MastrilliP.RomaniukD. (2018). Comparison of debriefing methods after a virtual simulation: An experiment. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 19, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.03.002
116.
VilladoA. J.Arthur JrW. (2013). The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031510
117.
VoirinG. (2015). Working garment integrating sensor applications developed within the PROeTEX project for firefighters. In Kinder-KurlandaK.Ehrwein NihanC. (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in the workplace (Vol. 333, pp. 25–33). Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13452-9_2
WagnerJ.LingenfelserF.BaurT.DamianI.KistlerF.AndréE. (2013). The social signal interpretation (SSI) framework: Multimodal signal process and recognition in real-time. In proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on multimedia (pp. 831–834). ACM Press. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2502081.2502223.
120.
WaldmanD. A.WangD.StikicM.BerkaC.KorszenS. (2015). Neuroscience and team processes. In WaldmanD. A.BalthazardP. A. (Eds.), Organizational neuroscience (pp. 277–294). Emerald Books. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/S1479-357120150000007012.
121.
WangY.TianJ.YazarY.OnesD. S.LandersR. N. (2022). Using natural language processing and machine learning to replace human content coders. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000518
122.
WelkeT. M.LeBlancV. R.SavoldelliG. L.JooH. S.ChandraD. B.CrabtreeN. A.NaikV. N. (2009). Personalized oral debriefing versus standardized multimedia instruction after patient crisis simulation. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 109(1), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e3181a324ab
123.
WhiteJ. C.RavidD. M.SideritsI. O.BehrendT. S. (2022). An urgent call for I-O psychologists to produce timelier technology research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 15(3), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.26
124.
ZhangY.OlenickJ.ChangC. H.KozlowskiS. W. J.HungH. (2018). Teamsense: Assessing personal affect and group cohesion in small teams through dyadic interaction and behavior analysis with wearable sensors. Proceedings of the ACM Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264960
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
