This paper presents initial information on the development and validation of three team task analysis scales. These scales were designed to quantitatively assess the extent to which a group of tasks or a job is team based. During a 2-week period, 52 male students working in 4-person teams were trained to perform a complex highly interdependent computer-simulated combat mission consisting of both individual- and team-based tasks. Our results indicated that the scales demonstrated high levels of interrater agreement. In addition, the scales differentiated between tasks that were predetermined to be individual versus team based. Finally, the results indicated that job-level ratings of team workflow were more strongly related to team performance than were aggregated task-level ratings of team-relatedness or team workflow. These results suggest that the scales presented here are an effective means of quantifying the extent to which tasks or jobs are team based. A research and practical implication of our findings is that the team task analysis scales could serve as criterion measures in the evaluation of team training interventions or predictors of team performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arthur, W., Jr. (1998). Cognitive task analysis: Can we increase the efficiency of current methods? (INTTECH Contract F41624-97-C-5030). San Antonio, TX: Metrica.
2.
Arthur, W., Jr., Doverspike, D., & Barrett, G. V. (1996). Development of a job analysis-based procedure for weighting and combining content-related tests into a single test battery score. Personnel Psychology, 49, 971–985.
3.
Arthur, W., Jr., Villado, A. J., & Bennett, W., Jr. (in press). Innovations in team task analysis: Identifying task elements, tasks, and jobs that are team-based. In W. Bennett, Jr. (Ed.), The future of job analysis.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Artman, H. (2000). Team situation assessment and information distribution. Ergonomics, 43, 1111–1128.
5.
Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1997). Principles for measuring teamwork: A summary and look toward the future. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 331–355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Baker, D. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1998). Team task analysis: Lost but hopefully not forgotten. Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 35(3), 79–83.
7.
Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors influencing small-unit cohesion in Norwegian Navy officer cadets. Military Psychology, 4, 1–22.
8.
Binning, J. F., & Barrett, G. V. (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A conceptual analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 478–494.
9.
Bowers, C. A., Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1994). Measuring the importance of teamwork: The reliability and validity of job/task analysis indices for team-training design. Military Psychology, 6, 205–214.
10.
Bowers, C. A., Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (1993). Assessment of coordination demand for aircrew coordination training. Military Psychology, 5, 95–112.
11.
Brannick, M. T., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1997). Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
13.
Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Jr., Edwards, B. D., Miyashiro, B., Tubre, T. C., & Tubre, A. H. (2004). Criterion-related validity of different operationalizations of group ability as a function of task-type: Comparing the mean, maximum, and minimum. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1521–1549.
14.
Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Jr., & Gettman, D. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1022–1033.
15.
Dieterly, D. L. (1988). Team performance requirements. In S. Gael (Ed.), The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and government(pp. 766–777). New York: Wiley.
16.
Dyer, J. L. (1984). Team research and training: A state of the art review. In F. A. Muckler (Ed.), Human factors review (pp. 285–323). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Jr., & Bell, S. T. (in press). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology.
18.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Justice. (1978). Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290–38315.
Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R. C., Guerette, P. J., Campbell, W. J., Morgan, B. B., et al. (1987). The evolution of team skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training (NTSC Tech. Rep. No. 87-016). Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
21.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
Jaccard, J., & Becker, M. A. (2001). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
23.
Klimoski, R. J., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor. Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.
24.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.
25.
Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodward, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement of team behaviors in a navy environment (NTSC Tech. Rep. No. 86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
26.
Pine, D. E. (1995). Assessing the validity of job ratings: An empirical study of false reporting in task inventories. Public Personnel Management, 24, 451–460.
27.
Rasker, P. C., Post, W. M., & Schraagen, J. M. C. (2000). Effects of two types of intra-team feedback on developing a shared mental model in command and control teams. Ergonomics, 43, 1167–1189.
28.
Rosenberg, K. M. (1990). Statistics for behavioral sciences.Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
29.
Salas, E., Burke, S. C., Bowers, C. A., & Wilson, K. A. (2001). Team training in the skies: Does crew resource management (CRM) training work. Human Factors, 43, 641–674.
30.
Sanchez, J. I., & Fraser, S. L. (1992). On the choice of scales for task analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 545–553.
31.
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (1989). Determining important tasks within jobs: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 336–342.
32.
Sanchez-Ku, M. L., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2000). A dyadic protocol for training complex skills: A replication using female participants. Human Factors, 42, 512–520.
33.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.
34.
Swezey, R. W., Owens, J. M., Bergondy, M. L., & Salas, E. (1998). Task and training requirements analysis methodology (TTRAM): An analytic methodology for identifying potential training uses of simulator networks in teamwork-intensive task environments. Ergonomics, 41, 1678–1697.
35.
Tesluk, P., Mathieu, J. E., Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks, M. (1997). Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. T. Brannick, C. Prince, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 197–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
