CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 287Team Dynamics and PerformanceOrganizational Learning and LeadershipReflective Practices in Education

Reflexivity in Teams: A Measure and Correlates

Open access
Schippers, Michaéla C., Den Hartog, Deanne N., Koopman, Paul L.·2007·Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00250.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reflexivity—the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning—has been identified as a possible key factor in the effectiveness of work teams. The aim of the present study was to develop a questionnaire to measure (aspects of) reflexivity, with a focus on team reflection. The questionnaire was tested in two different samples, namely a first sample of 59 teams from 14 different organisations (Study 1) and a confirmation sample of 59 school management teams (Study 2). In both samples, two factors of reflection were identified. These were labeled evaluation/learning and discussing processes. Scale statistics showed good psychometric properties for the scales in both studies. We conclude that the scales form a parsimonious and valid instrument to assess reflexivity in teams. La réflexivité (dans quelle mesure les équipes remettent‐elles en cause leur fonctionnement et le modifient‐elles?) est apparue comme étant l’un des éventuels facteurs clés de l’efficience des groupes de travail. Cette recherche s’est donné pour tâche de développer un questionnaire pour évaluer certaines dimensions de la réflexivité en mettant l’accent sur la réflexion de groupe. Le questionnaire a été mis à l’épreuve auprès de deux échantillons, à savoir un premier échantillon composé de 59 équipes relevant de quatorze organisations différentes (Etude n°1) et un second échantillon de confirmation réunissant 59 équipes d’écoles de management (Etude n°2). Deux facteurs relatifs à la réflexion sont apparus dans chacune des deux études. Ils ont été dénommés évaluation/apprentissage et processus de discussion/principes. Dans les deux échantillons, les échelles ont obtenu des résultats statistiques satisfaisants sur le plan psychométrique. On arrive à la conclusion que ces échelles constituent un outil valide et économique pour évaluer la réflexivité dans les équipes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00250.x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Performance improvement in all kinds of domains may be achieved through a process of reflexivity-reflecting upon work processes and performance.

    “Indeed, performance improvement in all kinds of domains may be achieved through a process of reflexivity—reflecting upon work processes and performance (Schippers et al. 2007; West 1996, 2000).”

    From Energy Management of People in Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda (2011) · cites this paper as Schippers et al. 2007

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied Psychology.
  2. Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (1992). Problem identification by groups. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 17-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  3. © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied Psychology.
  4. Nunnally, J.C. (1976). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Schippers, Michaéla C.
ORCID
Schippers, Michaéla C.
Venue
Applied Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02-07
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
189-211
ISSN
  • 0269-994X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0597
DOI
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00250.x
OpenAlex
W2132697353
Cited by
287
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 14
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Learning and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
Keywords
team reflexivity, team reflection, work teams, team effectiveness, questionnaire development, scale validation, school management teams, psychometric properties

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