The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Group Efficacy: An Empirical Test of Multiple Assessment Methods
Abstract
Methods of assessing group efficacy were examined using a multiparty role play negotiation. Group efficacy is defined as a group’s perceived capability to perform. Three methods of measuring group efficacy were compared: (a) group potency, (b) an aggregation of group members’ estimates, and (c) group discussion. These methods were used to assess group efficacy regarding several group performance characteristics. Analyses were conducted to assess various validity and measurement issues. All methods and types demonstrated construct validity; however, predictive validity was modest and varied across the measures. The group discussion method predicted group outcomes better than the potency scale or aggregate method. As expected, generalized efficacy measures predicted general performance indicators, and task-specific measures predicted task-specific 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
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
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
Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource management
Gist, M. E. (1987) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1987.4306562 · Cited by 1,447
Personality, affect, and behavior in groups
George, J. M. (1990) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107 · Cited by 1,372
Earley, P. C. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256525 · Cited by 878
Self-citation
Cited by
Empowering Leadership in Management Teams: Effects on Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy, And Performance
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.23478718 · Cited by 1,768
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159571 · Cited by 889
Self-citationShin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709 · Cited by 845
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496406292938 · Cited by 792
Cognitive Team Diversity and Individual Team Member Creativity: A Cross-Level Interaction
Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0270 · Cited by 616
Metadata
- Authors
- Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C.
- Venue
- Group & Organization Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-97
- ISSN
- 1059-6011 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3993
- OpenAlex
- W2108490082
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 11.90
- 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: Understanding Group Efficacy: An Empirical Test of Multiple Assessment Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1059601100251005
- The paper
- Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding Group Efficacy: An Empirical Test of Multiple Assessment Methods. Group & Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100251005
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.
