评估一种简化版的团队内部人际规范的环形团队扫描量表

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED European Journal of Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2022-12-16 DOI:10.1027/1015-5759/a000752
K. Locke, Chris C. Martin
{"title":"评估一种简化版的团队内部人际规范的环形团队扫描量表","authors":"K. Locke, Chris C. Martin","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The Circumplex Team Scan (CTS) assesses the degree to which a team’s interaction/communication norms reflect each segment (16th) of the interpersonal circle/circumplex. We developed and evaluated an abbreviated 16-item CTS-16 that uses one CTS item to measure each segment. Undergraduates ( n = 446) completing engineering course projects in 139 teams completed the CTS-16. CTS-16 items showed a good fit to confirmatory structural models (e.g., that expect greater positive covariation between items theoretically closer to the circumplex). Individuals’ ratings sufficiently reflected team-level norms to justify averaging team members’ ratings. However, individual items’ marginal reliabilities suggest using the CTS-16 to assess general circumplex-wide patterns rather than specific segments. CTS-16 ratings correlated with respondents’ and their teammates’ ratings of team climate (inclusion, justice, psychological safety). Teams with more extraverted (introverted) members were perceived as having more confident/engaged (timid/hesitant) cultures. Members predisposed to social alienation perceived their team’s culture as relatively disrespectful/unengaged, but their teammates did not corroborate those perceptions. The results overall support the validity and utility of the CTS-16 and of an interpersonal circumplex model of team culture more generally.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating an Abbreviated Version of the Circumplex Team Scan Inventory of Within-Team Interpersonal Norms\",\"authors\":\"K. Locke, Chris C. Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1015-5759/a000752\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. The Circumplex Team Scan (CTS) assesses the degree to which a team’s interaction/communication norms reflect each segment (16th) of the interpersonal circle/circumplex. We developed and evaluated an abbreviated 16-item CTS-16 that uses one CTS item to measure each segment. Undergraduates ( n = 446) completing engineering course projects in 139 teams completed the CTS-16. CTS-16 items showed a good fit to confirmatory structural models (e.g., that expect greater positive covariation between items theoretically closer to the circumplex). Individuals’ ratings sufficiently reflected team-level norms to justify averaging team members’ ratings. However, individual items’ marginal reliabilities suggest using the CTS-16 to assess general circumplex-wide patterns rather than specific segments. CTS-16 ratings correlated with respondents’ and their teammates’ ratings of team climate (inclusion, justice, psychological safety). Teams with more extraverted (introverted) members were perceived as having more confident/engaged (timid/hesitant) cultures. Members predisposed to social alienation perceived their team’s culture as relatively disrespectful/unengaged, but their teammates did not corroborate those perceptions. The results overall support the validity and utility of the CTS-16 and of an interpersonal circumplex model of team culture more generally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000752\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000752","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要环圈团队扫描(CTS)评估团队的互动/沟通规范反映人际圈/环圈每个部分(第16位)的程度。我们开发并评估了一个简短的16项CTS-16,使用一个CTS项目来测量每个部分。在139个小组中完成工程课程项目的本科生(n = 446)完成了CTS-16。CTS-16项目显示出与验证性结构模型的良好契合(例如,理论上更接近圆周的项目之间期望更大的正共变)。个人的评分充分反映了团队水平的规范,以证明平均团队成员的评分是合理的。然而,个别项目的边际可靠性建议使用CTS-16来评估一般的环宽模式,而不是特定的部分。CTS-16评分与被调查者及其队友对团队氛围(包容、公正、心理安全)的评分相关。拥有更多外向(内向)成员的团队被认为拥有更自信/投入(胆怯/犹豫)的文化。倾向于社会异化的成员认为他们的团队文化相对不尊重/不投入,但他们的队友并没有证实这些看法。研究结果总体上支持了CTS-16和团队文化人际循环模型的有效性和实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating an Abbreviated Version of the Circumplex Team Scan Inventory of Within-Team Interpersonal Norms
Abstract. The Circumplex Team Scan (CTS) assesses the degree to which a team’s interaction/communication norms reflect each segment (16th) of the interpersonal circle/circumplex. We developed and evaluated an abbreviated 16-item CTS-16 that uses one CTS item to measure each segment. Undergraduates ( n = 446) completing engineering course projects in 139 teams completed the CTS-16. CTS-16 items showed a good fit to confirmatory structural models (e.g., that expect greater positive covariation between items theoretically closer to the circumplex). Individuals’ ratings sufficiently reflected team-level norms to justify averaging team members’ ratings. However, individual items’ marginal reliabilities suggest using the CTS-16 to assess general circumplex-wide patterns rather than specific segments. CTS-16 ratings correlated with respondents’ and their teammates’ ratings of team climate (inclusion, justice, psychological safety). Teams with more extraverted (introverted) members were perceived as having more confident/engaged (timid/hesitant) cultures. Members predisposed to social alienation perceived their team’s culture as relatively disrespectful/unengaged, but their teammates did not corroborate those perceptions. The results overall support the validity and utility of the CTS-16 and of an interpersonal circumplex model of team culture more generally.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.
期刊最新文献
The Potential of Machine Learning Methods in Psychological Assessment and Test Construction An Examination of the Role of Inverted Dark Tetrad Items on Structural Properties and Construct Validity Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Romanian Version of Thriving at Work Scale Development and Validation of the Work Orientation Questionnaire Short-Form (WOQ-SF) Seeing the Light in Self-Reported Glare
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1