The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Crew Resource Management Training Work? An Update, an Extension, and Some Critical Needs
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This review provides the state of crew resource management (CRM) training evaluations since the E. Salas, C. S. Burke, C. A. Bowers, and K. A. Wilson (2001) review and extends it to areas beyond aviation cockpits. Some critical evaluation needs in CRM training are also covered. Background: Because of the purported success of CRM training in aviation, other high-consequence domains have begun to implement CRM training for their workforces. However, the true impact of CRM training in aviation and these other domains has yet to be determined. Method: Using D. L. Kirkpatrick's (1976) framework for evaluating training (i.e., reactions, learning, behavior, and organizational impact), we reviewed 28 published accounts of CRM training to determine its effectiveness within aviation, medicine, offshore oil production and maintenance, shipping/maritime, and nuclear power domains. Results: Findings indicate that CRM training generally produced positive reactions from trainees; however, the impact of training on learning and behavioral changes suggest mixed results across and within domains. Furthermore, and as was found by Salas, Burke, et al. in 2001, we cannot ascertain whether CRM has had an impact on the organization's bottom line (i.e., safety). Conclusion: Based on the results, there are several critical needs that the CRM training community must address before CRM training can have the desired impact on safety: a mandate, access to data, and resources. Application: As CRM training expands to organizations beyond aviation, it is critical that its impact be understood such that it can be improved and achieve the intended results.
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
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 · Cited by 1,831
Cited by
The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612436661 · Cited by 1,104
Self-citationMedical Errors Involving Trainees: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims From 5 Insurers
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Petersen, L. A., & Studdert, D. M. (2007) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.167.19.2030 · Cited by 407
The Impact of Training on Human–Autonomy Team Communications and Trust Calibration
Johnson, C. J., Demir, M., McNeese, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Wolff, A. T., & Cooke, N. J. (2023) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208211047323 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 392-412
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2103113141
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Does Crew Resource Management Training Work? An Update, an Extension, and Some Critical Needs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1518/001872006777724444
- The paper
- Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does Crew Resource Management Training Work? An Update, an Extension, and Some Critical Needs. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006777724444
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.