Search

Objective: We review the current state-of-the-art in team cognition research, but more importantly describe the limitations of existing theories, laboratory paradigms, and measures considering the increasing complexities of modern teams and the study of team cognition. Background: Research on, and applications of, team cognition has led to theories, data, and measures over the last several decades. Method: This article is based on research questions generated in a spring 2022 seminar on team cognition at Arizona State University led by the first author. Results: Future research directions are proposed for extending the conceptualization of teams and team cognition by examining dimensions of teamness; extending laboratory paradigms to attain more realistic teaming, including nonhuman teammates; and advancing measures of team cognition in a direction such that data can be collected unobtrusively, in real time, and automatically. Conclusion: The future of team cognition is one of the new discoveries, new research paradigms, and new measures. Application: Extending the concepts of teams and team cognition can also extend the potential applications of these concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Review the use of physiological measurement in team settings and propose recommendations to improve the state of the science.Background: New sensor and analytical capabilities enable exploration of relationships between team members' physiological dynamics. We conducted a review of physiological measures used in research on teams to understand (1) how these measures are theoretically and operationally related to team constructs and (2) what types of validity evidence exist for physiological measurement in team settings.Method: We identified 32 articles that investigated task-performing teams using physiological data. Articles were coded on several dimensions, including team characteristics. Study findings were categorized by relationships tested between team physiological dynamics (TPD) and team inputs, mediators/processes, outputs, or psychometric properties.Results: TPD researchers overwhelmingly measure single physiological systems. Although there is research linking TPD to inputs and outputs, the research on processes is underdeveloped.Conclusion: We recommend several theoretical, methodological, and statistical themes to expand the growth of the TPD field.Application: Physiological measures, once established as reliable indicators of team functioning, might be used to diagnose suboptimal team states and cue interventions to ameliorate these states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present study was designed to evaluate the team workload questionnaire (TWLQ) in a task that was distinct from the task used to create it.Background: The TWLQ was created from workload ratings generated by members of athletic sports teams. Given that such teams represent only a portion of the diversity of operational teams, we aimed to assess the generalizability of the TWLQ.Method: The present study applied the TWLQ in a collaborative choice task (hiring decision) to determine whether the factor structure reported in the initial publication of the scale would generalize from the execution tasks it was developed from to a disparate team task focused on consensus building.Results: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the present data (N = 144) were a poor fit for the three-factor structure of the TWLQ. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis revealed a much more interrelated model of team workload with no clear division between the three conceptual factors described in the original validation of the TWLQ.Conclusion: The factor structure of the TWLQ did not generalize to the present team-choice task.Application: Given that the duties of operational teams vary, it is critical that future research examine how the conceptual structure of team workload may be altered by task type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the measuring team cohesion. It mentions that cohesion is essential for team effectiveness and performance, leading researchers to focus attention on understanding how to enhance it. It also mentions that practitioners and researchers are encouraged to define cohesion with task and social subdimensions and to measure with behavioral and attitudinal operationalizations.