Crew resource management (CRM) has been the most widely used instructional strategy to enhance teamwork skills within aviation. However, few studies have provided empirical evidence that this strategy results in increased use of teamwork behaviors. The current paper describes 2 evaluation studies of CRM training that were conducted with 96 naval aviators and followed a multiple assessment approach. Results indicated that highly experienced aviators benefited from the training, which focused on increasing the use of several critical teamwork skills. These rare evaluation data suggest that CRM training is a viable strategy for improving teamwork in the cockpit. Implications for team training are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Besco, R. O. (1995). The potential contributions and scientific responsibilities of aviation psychologists. In N. Johnston, R. Fuller, & N. McDonald(Eds.), Aviation psychology: Training and selection (pp. 141–148. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
2.
Besco, R. O. (1997). The need for operational validation of human relations-centered CRM training assumptions: A critical review of curriculum content and training methodology assumptions in crew resource management training. In R. S. Jensen & L. Rakovan(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 536–540. Columbus: Ohio State University.
3.
Bowers, C., Salas, E., Prince, C., & Brannick, M. (1992). Games teams play: A method for investigating team coordination and performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 24, 503–506.
4.
Brannick, M. T., Prince, C., Salas, C., & Stout, R. (1998). Can PC-based systems enhance teamwork in the cockpit? Manuscript submitted for publication.
5.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Prince, C., Salas, E., Owens, J. M., Morgan, B. B., Jr., & Gonos, G. H. (1989). Determining aircrew coordination training effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference 11th Annual Meeting (pp. 128–136). Arlington, VA: National Defense Industrial Association.
6.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas(Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (Eds.) (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings.Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing.
8.
Dwyer, D. J., Fowlkes, J. E., Oser, R. L.Salas, E., & Lane, N. E. (1997). Team performance measurement in distributed environments: The TARGETs methodology. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince(Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 137–153. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
Dynamics Research Corporation. (1990). Development of measures of crew coordination (Tech. Report DAHC35-89-D-0030, Del. Order 0001). Ft. Rucker, AL: Army Research Institute.
10.
Fowlkes, J. E., Lane, N. E., Salas, E., Franz, T., & Oser, R. L. (1994). Improving the measurement of team performance: The TARGETs methodology. Military Psychology, 6, 47–61.
11.
Ginnett, R. C. (1987). First encounters of the close kind: The first meetings of airline flight crews. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
12.
Ginnett, R. C. (1990). Airline cockpit crew. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't) (pp. 427–448). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Gregorich, S. E., Helmreich, R. L., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1990). The structure of cockpit management attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 682–690.
14.
Hartel, C., Smith, K., & Prince, C. (1991, April). Defining aircrew coordination: Searching mishaps for meaning. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.
15.
Helmreich, R. L. (1984). Cockpit management attitudes. Human Factors, 26, 583–589.
16.
Helmreich, R. L., Wilhelm, J. A., & Gregorich, S. E. (1988). Revised versions of the Cockpit Management Attitudes Questionnaire (CMAQ) and CRM seminar evaluation form (Tech. Report 88-3). Austin, TX: NASA-University of Texas.
17.
Jentsch, F., & Bowers, C. (1998). Evidence for the validity of PC-based simulations in studying aircrew coordination. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 243–260.
18.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
19.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), Training and development handbook: A guide to human resource development (pp. 18-1–18-27). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Kleinman, D. L., & Serfaty, D. (1989). Team performance assessment in distributed decision-making. In R. Gibson, J. Peter Kincaid, & B. Goldiez(Eds.), Proceedings from the Symposium on Interactive Networked Simulation for Training (pp. 22–27. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida, Institute for Simulation and Training.
21.
Koonce, J. M., & Bramble, W. J., Jr. (1998). Personal computerbased flight training devices. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 277–292.
22.
Leedom, D. K., & Simon, R. (1995). Improving team coordination: A case for behavioral-based training. Military Psychology, 7, 109–122.
23.
McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Lessons from complex environments. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 9–45. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Merket, D., Bergondy, M., & Salas, E. (in press). Making sense out of teamwork errors in military aviation environments. Transportation Human Factors.
25.
Orasanu, J. M. (1990). Shared mental models and crew decision-making (CSL Tech. Report No. 46). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Cognitive Science Laboratory.
26.
Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1993). Training research for teamwork in the military aircrew. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich(Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 337–366. Orlando: Academic.
27.
Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Payne, S. C., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (1998). Teams and teamwork in the military. In C. Cronin (Ed.), Military psychology: An introduction (pp. 71–88. Old Tappan, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
28.
Silverman, D. R., Spiker, V. A., Tourville, S. J., & Nullmeyer, R. T. (1997, December). Team coordination and performance during combat mission training. Paper presented at the Interservice-Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, Orlando, FL.
29.
Smith, K. A. (1994). Narrowing the gap between performance and potential: The effects of team climate on the transfer of training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.
30.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Jentsch, F. G., Payne, S. C., & Salas, E. (1996). Can pretraining experiences explain individual differences in learning?Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 110–116.
31.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Baker, D. P. (1996). Training team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49, 909–936.
32.
Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Milanovich, D. M. (1998). Planning, shared understanding and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61–71.
33.
Stout, R. J., Prince, C., Bergondy, M., Baker, D., & Salas, E. (1992). A methodology for determining aircrew coordination needs. Unpublished manuscript.
34.
Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997). Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training. Group Dynamics, 1, 169–182.
