The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model.
Abstract
The authors examined relationships among collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance. Meta-analytic results (based on 6,128 groups, 31,019 individuals, 118 correlations adjusted for dependence, and 96 studies) reveal that collective efficacy was significantly related to group performance (.35). In the proposed nested 2-level model, collective efficacy assessment (aggregation and group discussion) was tested as the 1st-level moderator. It showed significantly different average correlations with group performance (.32 vs. .45), but the group discussion assessment was homogeneous, whereas the aggregation assessment was heterogeneous. Consequently, there was no 2nd-level moderation for the group discussion, and heterogeneity in the aggregation group was accounted for by the 2nd-level moderator, task interdependence (high, moderate, and low levels were significant; the higher the level, the stronger the relationship). The 2nd and 3rd meta-analyses indicated that group potency was related to group performance (.29) and to collective efficacy (.65). When tested in a structural equation modeling analysis based on meta-analytic findings, collective efficacy fully mediated the relationship between group potency and group performance. The authors suggest future research and convert their findings to a probability of success index to help facilitate practice.
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
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority
Asch, S. E. (1956) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0093718 · Cited by 4,267
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.124.2.262 · Cited by 4,180
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.678 · Cited by 2,126
Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations
Ven, A. H. V. D., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2094477 · Cited by 1,979
Cited by
The commerce and crossover of resources: resource conservation in the service of resilience
Chen, S., Westman, M., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2015) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.2574 · Cited by 404
Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda
Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., & Salas, E. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005 · Cited by 291
Abusive Supervision Climate: A Multiple-Mediation Model of its Impact on Group Outcomes
Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0237 · Cited by 230
Fransen, K., Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., & Boen, F. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000033 · Cited by 182
Criteria Issues and Team Effectiveness
Mathieu, J. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2012) · The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Volume 2 · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928286.013.0027 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 814-828
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1969667033
- Cited by
- 470
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 23.17
- 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.
