The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork.
Open accessAbstract
The rate of teamwork and collaboration within the workforce has burgeoned over the years, and the use of teams is projected to continue increasing. With the rise of teamwork comes the need for interventions designed to enhance teamwork effectiveness. Successful teams produce desired outcomes; however, it is critical that team members demonstrate effective processes to achieve these outcomes. Team development interventions (TDIs) increase effective team competencies and processes, thereby leading to improvements in proximal and distal outcomes. The effectiveness of TDIs is evident across domains (e.g., education, health care, military, aviation), and they are applicable in a wide range of settings. To stimulate the adoption and effective use of TDIs, the current article provides a review of four types of evidence-based TDIs including team training, leadership training, team building, and team debriefing. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles underlying TDIs and their impact on team dynamics. Moreover, we provide evidence-based recommendations regarding how to increase the effectiveness of TDIs as well as a discussion on future research needed within this domain. (PsycINFO Database Record
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
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
The origins of intelligence in children.
Piaget, J. (1952) · doi:10.1037/11494-000 · Cited by 10,687
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
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
Day, D. V. (2000) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(00)00061-8 · Cited by 2,180
The Role of Debriefing in Simulation-Based Learning
Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007) · Simulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0b013e3180315539 · Cited by 1,714
Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206309352880 · Cited by 1,477
The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36 · Cited by 1,265
Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234 · Cited by 1,252
Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000110 · Cited by 616
Cited by
Häusser, J. A., Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2020) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2668 · Cited by 91
Change management interventions: Taking stock and moving forward
Hagl, C., Kanitz, R., Gonzalez, K., & Hoegl, M. (2024) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.101000 · Cited by 47
McGuier, E. A., Kolko, D. J., Stadnick, N. A., Brookman-Frazee, L., Wolk, C. B., Yuan, C. T., Burke, C. S., & Aarons, G. A. (2023) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895231190855 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E.
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 517-531
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W2804780977
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 28.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.
