The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema

The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema

This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and (c) evaluating a set of techniques for meas...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Organizational research methods 2000-04, Vol.3 (2), p.123-165
Hauptverfasser: Mohammed, Susan, Klimoski, Richard, Rentsch, Joan R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 165
container_issue 2
container_start_page 123
container_title Organizational research methods
container_volume 3
creator Mohammed, Susan
Klimoski, Richard
Rentsch, Joan R.
description This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and (c) evaluating a set of techniques for measuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/109442810032001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_109442810032001</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_109442810032001</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_109442810032001</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a297t-7d523499b890ec05723f70c00e63c06d3c9d3d6e3405dcea8f9b7f8bdd1c824b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1T8tKAzEUDaJgra7d5gMce5NMJhM3IkWt0OqiIy6HTHLjWOYhSSv496bUleDqHu55cA4hlwyuGVNqxkDnOS8ZgOAA7IhMmJQ8UzmXxwknNtvTp-Qsxk0SCC71hNxWLdIVmrgL2OOwpaOnFZo-_Yat6ehqdNjFG_qGdGG-kD6PdN2agI6ubYu9OScn3nQRL37vlLw-3FfzRbZ8eXya3y0zw7XaZspJLnKtm1IDWpCKC6_AAmAhLBROWO2EK1DkIJ1FU3rdKF82zjFb8rwRUzI75NowxhjQ15_hozfhu2ZQ7_fXf_Ynx9XBEc071ptxF4ZU8F_5D4hcV-U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Mohammed, Susan ; Klimoski, Richard ; Rentsch, Joan R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mohammed, Susan ; Klimoski, Richard ; Rentsch, Joan R.</creatorcontrib><description>This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and (c) evaluating a set of techniques for measuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1094-4281</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-7425</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/109442810032001</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Organizational research methods, 2000-04, Vol.3 (2), p.123-165</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a297t-7d523499b890ec05723f70c00e63c06d3c9d3d6e3405dcea8f9b7f8bdd1c824b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a297t-7d523499b890ec05723f70c00e63c06d3c9d3d6e3405dcea8f9b7f8bdd1c824b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/109442810032001$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/109442810032001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,21800,27905,27906,43602,43603</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mohammed, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klimoski, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rentsch, Joan R.</creatorcontrib><title>The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema</title><title>Organizational research methods</title><description>This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and (c) evaluating a set of techniques for measuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.</description><issn>1094-4281</issn><issn>1552-7425</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1T8tKAzEUDaJgra7d5gMce5NMJhM3IkWt0OqiIy6HTHLjWOYhSSv496bUleDqHu55cA4hlwyuGVNqxkDnOS8ZgOAA7IhMmJQ8UzmXxwknNtvTp-Qsxk0SCC71hNxWLdIVmrgL2OOwpaOnFZo-_Yat6ehqdNjFG_qGdGG-kD6PdN2agI6ubYu9OScn3nQRL37vlLw-3FfzRbZ8eXya3y0zw7XaZspJLnKtm1IDWpCKC6_AAmAhLBROWO2EK1DkIJ1FU3rdKF82zjFb8rwRUzI75NowxhjQ15_hozfhu2ZQ7_fXf_Ynx9XBEc071ptxF4ZU8F_5D4hcV-U</recordid><startdate>20000401</startdate><enddate>20000401</enddate><creator>Mohammed, Susan</creator><creator>Klimoski, Richard</creator><creator>Rentsch, Joan R.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000401</creationdate><title>The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema</title><author>Mohammed, Susan ; Klimoski, Richard ; Rentsch, Joan R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a297t-7d523499b890ec05723f70c00e63c06d3c9d3d6e3405dcea8f9b7f8bdd1c824b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mohammed, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klimoski, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rentsch, Joan R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Organizational research methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mohammed, Susan</au><au>Klimoski, Richard</au><au>Rentsch, Joan R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema</atitle><jtitle>Organizational research methods</jtitle><date>2000-04-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>123</spage><epage>165</epage><pages>123-165</pages><issn>1094-4281</issn><eissn>1552-7425</eissn><abstract>This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and (c) evaluating a set of techniques for measuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.</abstract><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/109442810032001</doi><tpages>43</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1094-4281
ispartof Organizational research methods, 2000-04, Vol.3 (2), p.123-165
issn 1094-4281
1552-7425
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_109442810032001
source SAGE Complete
title The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T08%3A05%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Measurement%20of%20Team%20Mental%20Models:%20We%20Have%20No%20Shared%20Schema&rft.jtitle=Organizational%20research%20methods&rft.au=Mohammed,%20Susan&rft.date=2000-04-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=123&rft.epage=165&rft.pages=123-165&rft.issn=1094-4281&rft.eissn=1552-7425&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/109442810032001&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_109442810032001%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_109442810032001&rfr_iscdi=true