The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why do ‘great minds’ think alike?: antecedents of team member schema agreement
Abstract
The primary contribution of the present study, as implied by the title of this paper, was to delineate and to test antecedents of team member schema agreement and their indirect effects on team effectiveness. The study was conducted in a naturalistic setting involving 315 individuals who comprised 41 teams. Team member teamwork schema agreement was assessed using multidimensional scaling to analyse paired comparison ratings. Demography, team experience, team member recruitment, and team size were significantly related to team member schema agreement, which in turn was significantly related to team effectiveness. Several antecedents were related to team effectiveness indirectly through team member teamwork schema agreement. The results have implications for research on cognition in teams. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Cannon‐Bowers JA, 1993, Individual and Group Decision Making, 221
- 10.2307/256956 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1981.tb00478.x · DOI
- 10.1177/014920638701300204 · DOI
- Hackman JR, 1990, Groups that Work (and those that don't)
- Jackson SE, 1996, In Handbook of Work Group Psychology, 531
- 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/014920639402000206 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4135/9781412985130 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.003101 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/BF02291666 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273 · DOI
- 10.1177/002188638602200105 · DOI
- 10.1177/109442810032001 · DOI · Paper page
- Organizational Research Group, 1998, Team Assessment & Evaluation Measures
- 10.1177/105960119001500206 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.668 · DOI · Paper page
- Rentsch JR, 1994, Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 223
- 10.1177/1059601194194004 · DOI
- Schiffman SS, 1981, Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications
- 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/2393297 · DOI · Paper page
- SPSS, 1988, (Computer program manual)
- Sundstrom E, 1999, Supporting Work Team Effectiveness: Best Management Practices for Fostering High Performance
- 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90012-X · DOI
- 10.2307/256366 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork?
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496405277134 · Cited by 1,930
Organizational Response to Adversity: Fusing Crisis Management and Resilience Research Streams
Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0134 · Cited by 1,945
Understanding the elusive black Box of dynamic capabilities
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x · Cited by 1,329
Aarons, G. A. (2004) · Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1023/b:mhsr.0000024351.12294.65 · Cited by 1,272
Metadata
- Authors
- Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 107-120
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2004043265
- Cited by
- 770
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
