Team Assessment Instruments

Teams ◽  
1996 ◽  
pp. 211-249
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Recardo ◽  
David Wade ◽  
Charles A. Mention ◽  
Jennifer A. Jolly
2022 ◽  
pp. 104687812110663
Author(s):  
John T. Paige ◽  
Camille L. Rogers ◽  
Kathryn E. Kerdolff ◽  
Deborah D. Garbee ◽  
Laura S. Bonanno ◽  
...  

Background Current team assessment instruments in healthcare tend to involve rater-based evaluations that are susceptible to well-known biases. Recent advances in technology include portable devices to measure team-based activities. Consequently, the possibility exists to move away from rater-based assessments of team function by identifying quantitative measures to replace them. Aim This article aims to provide potential approaches to developing quantitative measurement suites involving large amounts of data to address the challenges of assessment presented by the complex nature of teamwork. Conclusion By addressing construct, measurement, and context components, we provide a practical approach to developing a suite to capture quantitative measurements that, through incorporation of social network analysis and aggregated other values, aligns with the Team Strategies & Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient SafetyTM (TeamSTEPPSTM) dimensions for fostering teamwork.


1985 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-255
Author(s):  
Penelope K. Hall ◽  
Linda S. Jordan

The performance of 123 language-disordered children on the DeRenzi and Faglioni form of the Token Test and the DeRenzi and Ferrari Reporter's Test were analyzed using two scoring conventions, and then compared with the performances of children with presumed normal language development. Correlations with other commonly used language assessment instruments are cited. Use of the Token and Reporter's Tests with children exhibiting language disorders is suggested.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Greiff ◽  
Katarina Krkovic ◽  
Jarkko Hautamäki

Abstract. In this study, we explored the network of relations between fluid reasoning, working memory, and the two dimensions of complex problem solving, rule knowledge and rule application. In doing so, we replicated the recent study by Bühner, Kröner, and Ziegler (2008) and the structural relations investigated therein [ Bühner, Kröner, & Ziegler, (2008) . Working memory, visual-spatial intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving. Intelligence, 36, 672–680]. However, in the present study, we used different assessment instruments by employing assessments of figural, numerical, and verbal fluid reasoning, an assessment of numerical working memory, and a complex problem solving assessment using the MicroDYN approach. In a sample of N = 2,029 Finnish sixth-grade students of which 328 students took the numerical working memory assessment, the findings diverged substantially from the results reported by Bühner et al. Importantly, in the present study, fluid reasoning was the main source of variation for rule knowledge and rule application, and working memory contributed only a little added value. Albeit generally in line with previously conducted research on the relation between complex problem solving and other cognitive abilities, these findings directly contrast the results of Bühner et al. (2008) who reported that only working memory was a source of variation in complex problem solving, whereas fluid reasoning was not. Explanations for the different patterns of results are sought, and implications for the use of assessment instruments and for research on interindividual differences in complex problem solving are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document