The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Team Knowledge
Open accessAbstract
Multioperator tasks often require complex cognitive processing at the team level. Many team cognitive processes, such as situation assessment and coordination, are thought to rely on team knowledge. Team knowledge is multifaceted and comprises relatively generic knowledge in the form of team mental models and more specific team situation models. In this methodological review paper, we review recent efforts to measure team knowledge in the context of mapping specific methods onto features of targeted team knowledge. Team knowledge features include type, homogeneity versus heterogeneity, and rate of knowledge change. Measurement features include knowledge elicitation method, team metric, and aggregation method. When available, we highlight analytical conclusions or empirical data that support a connection between team knowledge and measurement method. In addition, we present empirical results concerning the relation between team knowledge and performance for each measurement method and identify research and methodological needs. Addressing issues surrounding the measurement of team knowledge is a prerequisite to understanding team cognition and its relation to team performance and to designing training programs or devices to facilitate team cognition.
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
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 · Cited by 1,428 · cited 1×
“…the use of the word team, as described previously, restricts the problem domain to knowledge possessed by teams as opposed to dyads or groups in general, which are the targets for related work such as common ground in discourse (Clark, 1994) and group information processing (Hinsz & Tindale, 1997).”
Background
Cited by
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12009 · Cited by 522
Self-citationMiller, C. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007779598037 · Cited by 434
Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving.
Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0013119 · Cited by 336
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
Self-citationThe role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726708096639 · Cited by 215
Involvement in knowledge-acquisition activities by venture team members and venture performance
Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2009) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00317.x · Cited by 98
Gross, N., & Kluge, A. (2014) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343414540656 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 151-173
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2156274117
- Cited by
- 588
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.
