The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective.
Abstract
The authors developed and tested a longitudinal multilevel model of collective efficacy formation. In 50 self-managing student teams, they investigated the effects of individual-level and team-level factors on observed behaviors and the subsequent development of collective efficacy for mastering a complex team task. Self-efficacy for teamwork, task-relevant knowledge, and collective efficacy predicted individual teamwork behaviors (rated by peers). Aggregated measures of teamwork behavior were related to subsequent collective efficacy, which was significantly related to final team performance.
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
A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Wood, R. E. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 · Cited by 1,393
Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems
Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00003-1 · Cited by 218
Cited by
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0022465 · Cited by 563
Empowering Leadership and Effective Collaboration in Geographically Dispersed Teams
Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12108 · Cited by 170
Conceptualizing Emergent States: A Strategy to Advance the Study of Group Dynamics
Waller, M. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Saghafian, M. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1120958 · Cited by 143
CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: An impact-based perspective
Opoku‐Dakwa, A., Chen, C. C., & Rupp, D. E. (2018) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2281 · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-27
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2039279156
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 23.94
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17
- The paper
- Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17
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.
