Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data obtained on over 1,500 first-term U.S. Air Force enlisted personnel indicated that work sample administrators' global ratings of work sample performance substantially reflect actual ratee behavior in the work sample, and not potentially biasing factors (e.g., race, gender, amount of recent experience), supporting the "folk wisdom" that these global performance judgments are, in fact, valid and unbiased measures of performance. Good news! [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]