↓ Skip to main content

Team Task Analysis: Identifying Tasks and Jobs That Are Team Based

Overview of attention for article published in Human Factors, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Team Task Analysis: Identifying Tasks and Jobs That Are Team Based
Published in
Human Factors, September 2016
DOI 10.1518/001872005774860087
Pubmed ID
Authors

Winfred Arthur, Bryan D. Edwards, Suzanne T. Bell, Anton J. Villado, Winston Bennett

Abstract

This paper presents initial information on the development and validation of three team task analysis scales. These scales were designed to quantitatively assess the extent to which a group of tasks or a job is team based. During a 2-week period, 52 male students working in 4-person teams were trained to perform a complex highly interdependent computer-simulated combat mission consisting of both individual- and team-based tasks. Our results indicated that the scales demonstrated high levels of interrater agreement. In addition, the scales differentiated between tasks that were predetermined to be individual versus team based. Finally, the results indicated that job-level ratings of team workflow were more strongly related to team performance than were aggregated task-level ratings of team-relatedness or team workflow. These results suggest that the scales presented here are an effective means of quantifying the extent to which tasks or jobs are team based. A research and practical implication of our findings is that the team task analysis scales could serve as criterion measures in the evaluation of team training interventions or predictors of team performance.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 107 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 34 29%
Unknown 7 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 30%
Engineering 20 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 17 14%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Unspecified 7 6%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 11 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#3,636,911
of 12,519,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Factors
#284
of 987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,864
of 252,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Factors
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.