The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
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
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667029 · Cited by 2,971
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behavior in Uncertain and Interdependent Contexts
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 · Cited by 2,533
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
Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258703 · Cited by 1,607
Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory
Pelled, L. H. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.6.615 · Cited by 1,489
Cited by
Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 · Cited by 15,744
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527128 · Cited by 3,103
Self-citationColquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031757 · Cited by 1,462
Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12183 · Cited by 1,231
Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014 · Cited by 1,173
Metadata
- Authors
- Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1128-1145
- ISSN
- 1939-1854
- 0021-9010
- Cited by
- 1,215
- References
- 18
- Language
- en
- Funders
- German Academic Exchange Service (D/05/45773)
- Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (2008-03592)
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: Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0015978
- The paper
- Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
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.
