The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Team Mental Models: Techniques, Methods, and Analytic Approaches
Abstract
Effective team functioning requires the existence of a shared or team mental model among members of a team. However, the best method for measuring team mental models is unclear. Methods reported vary in terms of how mental model content is elicited and analyzed or represented. We review the strengths and weaknesses of various methods that have been used to elicit, represent, and analyze individual and team mental models and provide recommendations for method selection and development. We describe the nature of mental models and review techniques that have been used to elicit and represent them. We focus on a case study on selecting a method to examine team mental models in industry. The processes involved in the selection and development of an appropriate method for eliciting, representing, and analyzing team mental models are described. The criteria for method selection were (a) applicability to the problem under investigation; (b) practical considerations---suitability for collecting data from the targeted research sample; and (c) theoretical rationale---the assumption that associative networks in memory are a basis for the development of mental models. We provide an evaluation of the method matched to the research problem and make recommendations for future research. The practical applications of this research include the provision of a technique for analyzing team mental models in organizations, the development of methods and processes for eliciting a mental model from research participants in their normal work environment, and a survey of available methodologies for mental model 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
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Kahle, J. B. (1984) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173469 · Cited by 5,199
Cited by
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
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12009 · Cited by 522
Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance.
Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., Salas, E., Stout, R., Bowers, C., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2003) · Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice · doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.3.179 · Cited by 228
Metadata
- Authors
- Langan-Fox, J., Code, S., & Langfield-Smith, K.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 242-271
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W1966352375
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.50
- 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: Team Mental Models: Techniques, Methods, and Analytic Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1518/001872000779656534
- The paper
- Langan-Fox, J., Code, S., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2000). Team Mental Models: Techniques, Methods, and Analytic Approaches. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779656534
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.