The purpose of this research was to establish the construct validity of a behaviorally anchored rating scale developed to measure team process behaviors. This scale contains six skills (i.e. leadership, assertiveness, decision making/mission analysis, situation awareness, communication, adaptability/flexibility) that were identified through a prior needs analysis with training specialists and subject matter experts. Student and instructor pilots (104 individuals, 51 teams) participated in two team tasks (simulated aviation tasks) which were designed to elicit the team process behaviors identified for the rating scale, and were rated on their behaviors. A multitrait-multimethod analysis on the resulting ratings (Campbell and Fiske, 1959) was conducted. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity as well as some method bias were found when the method investigated was team task. Implications for the use of the team process scale in training are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArtwickB. A. (1989). Flight simulator 4.0B (computer Program). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.
2.
BrannickM. T.PrinceA.PrinceC. W.SalasE. (in preparation). Team Coordination: Measuring an Elusive Construct. Tampa, FL: The University of South Florida.
3.
BrannickM. T.RoachR. M.SalasE. (1991). Understanding Team Performance: A multimethod study. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. St. Louis, Mo.
4.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
5.
FousheeH. C.ManosK. L. (1981). Information Transfer within the cockpit: Problems in intercockpit communications. In BillingsC. E.CheaneyE.S. (Eds.), Information of Transfer problems in the aviation system (NASA Technical Paper 1875, pp. 63–71). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
6.
GinnettR.C. (1987). First Encounters of the close kind: The formation process of airline flight crews. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
7.
GlickmanA. S.ZimmerS.MonteroR. C.GueretteP. J.CampbellW. J.MorganB. B.SalasE. (1987). The evolution of teamwork skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training (Technical Report 87-016). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
8.
GoodacreD. M. (1953). Group characteristics of good and poor performance combat units. Sociometry, 16, 168–178.
9.
HelmreichR. L.WilhelmJ. A.KelloJ. E.TaggartW. R.ButlerR. E. (1990). Reinforcing and evaluation crew resource management: Evaluator/LOS instructor reference manual (NASA/University of Texas Technical Manual 90-2. Austin: The University of Texas.
10.
KankiB. G.LozitoS.FousheeH. C. (1987). Communication indexes of crew coordination. In JensenR. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 406–412). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
11.
LauberJ. K. (1987). Cockpit resource management: Background studies and rationale. In OrlayH. W.FousheeH. C., (Eds.). Cockpit Resource Management Training, (Technical Report No. NASA CP-2455). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
12.
LeedomD. K. (1990). Aircrew coordination training and evaluation for Army rotary wing aircrews: Summary for the fiscal year 1990. Fort Rucker, AL: U. S. Army Research Institute Aviation Research and Developemnt Activity.
13.
MaherP. (1983). An analysis of common assessment center dimensions. Journal of Assessment Center Technology, Vol.6 (3), 1–8.
14.
MorganB.B.GlickmanA. S.WoodardE. ABlaiwesA. S.SalasE. (1986). Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (Report TR- 86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
15.
O'ReillyC. A.IIIRobertsK. H. (1977). Task group structure, communication, and effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 674–681.
16.
OrasanuJ. M. (1990). Shared mental models and crew decision making. Presented at the twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. M. I. T., Cambridge, MA.
17.
OserR.McCallumG. A.SalasE.MorganB. B. (1989). Toward a definition of teamwork: An analysis of critical team behaviors. (Report 89-004). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
18.
PrinceC. W.ChidesterT. R.Cannon-BowersJ.BowersC. (in press). Aircrew coordination-Achieving teamwork in the cockpit. In SweezyR.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their Training and Performance. New York: Ablex.
19.
PrinceC. W.SalasE. (in press). Training and Research for teamwork in military aircrews. In WienerE.KankiB.HelmreichR. (Eds.). Cockpit Resource Management. Orlando: Academic Press.
20.
PrinceC.OserR.SalasE.ShresthaL. (1992). Devising scenarios for crew resource management training: Reality and illusion. Paper presented at the International Training Equipment Conference, Luxembourg.
21.
PovenmireH. K.RockwayM.BuneckeJ. L.PattonM. W. (1989). Cockpit resource management skills enhance combat mission performance in B-52 simulator. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 489–494). Columbus: The Ohio State University.
22.
SmithRuffell H. P. (1979). A simulator study of the interaction of pilot workload with errors, vigilance, and decisions (NASA Technical Memorandum 78472). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
23.
SalasE.BlaiwesA. R.ReynoldsR. E.GlickmanA. S.MorganB. B. (1985). Teamwork and team training: New directions. Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training Systems Conference, 1985.
24.
StoutR.PrinceC.BergondyM.BakerD.SalasE. (in preparation). A methodology for determining aircrew coordination needs. Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
