Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Multistudy Report

Perceived Mutual Understanding (PMU)

Development and Initial Testing of a German Short Scale for Perceptual Team Cognition

Published Online:October 07, 2016https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000360

Abstract

Abstract. Team cognition plays an important role in predicting team processes and outcomes. Thus far, research has focused on structured cognition while paying little attention to perceptual cognition. The lack of research on perceptual team cognition can be attributed to the absence of an appropriate measure. To address this gap, we introduce the construct of perceived mutual understanding (PMU) as a type of perceptual team cognition and describe the development of a respective measure – the PMU-scale. Based on three samples from different team settings (NTotal = 566), our findings show that the scale has good psychometric properties – both at the individual as well as at the team-level. Item parameters were improved during a multistage process. Exploratory as well as confirmatory factor analyses indicate that PMU is a one-dimensional construct. The scale demonstrates sufficient internal reliability. Correlational analyses provide initial proof of construct validity. Finally, common indicators for inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement suggest that treating PMU as a team-level construct is justified. The PMU-scale represents a convenient and versatile measure that will potentially foster empirical research on perceptual team cognition and thereby contribute to the advancement of team cognition research in general.

References

  • Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York, NY: Free Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In S. W. J. KozlowskiK. J. KleinEds., Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Burtscher, M. J., Kolbe, M., Wacker, J. & Manser, T. (2011). Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 257–269. doi: 10.1037/a0025148 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Burtscher, M. J. & Manser, T. (2012). Team mental models and their potential to improve teamwork and safety: A review and implications for future research in healthcare. Safety Science, 50, 1344–1354. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.033 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202. doi: 10.1002/job.82 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. CastellanEd., Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeChurch, L. A. & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010a). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53. doi: 10.1037/a0017328 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeChurch, L. A. & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010b). Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 1–14. doi: 10.1037/a0017455 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T. & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12046 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ellis, B. B. & Mead, A. D. (2002). Item analysis: Theory and practice using classical and modern test theory. In S. G. RogelbergEd., Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 324–343). Malden, MA: Blackwell. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ellwart, T., Konradt, U. & Rack, O. (2014). Team mental models of expertise location: Validation of a field survey measure. Small Group Research, 45, 119–153. doi: 10.1177/1046496414521303 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Harrison, D. A. & Klein, K. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228. doi: 10.2307/20159363 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hollingshead, A. B., Gupta, N., Yoon, K. & Brandon, D. P. (2012). Transactive memory theory and teams: Past, present, and future. In E. SalasS. M. FioreM. P. LetskyEds., Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 421–455). New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Huber, G. P. & Lewis, K. (2010). Cross-Understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35, 6–26. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2010.45577787 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • James, L. E., Demaree, R. G. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • James, L. E., Demaree, R. G. & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. doi: 10.2307/2393638 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Johnson, T. E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D. L., Khalil, M. K. & Huang, X. (2007). Measuring sharedness of team-related knowledge: Design and validation of a shared mental model instrument. Human Resource Development International, 10, 437–454. doi: 10.1080/13678860701723802 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jung, D. I. & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups the role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313–336. doi: 10.1177/10496402033003002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Klimoski, R. & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437. doi: 10.1177/014920639402000206 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. KleinS. W. J. KozlowskiEds., Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Krauss, R. M. & Fussell, S. R. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In J. GalegherR. E. KrautC. EgidoEds., Intellectual teamwork: Social and technical bases of collaborative work (pp. 111–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • LeBreton, J. M. & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A. & Kauffeld, S. (2011). Task and relationship conflict at work: Construct validation of a German version of Jehn’s intragroup conflict scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 171–178. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000064 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.4845785 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (2005). Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–56. doi: 10.1002/job.296 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L. & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876–910. doi: 10.1177/0149206309356804 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R. & Rentsch, J. R. (2000). The measurement of team mental models: We have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 123–165. doi: 10.1177/109442810032001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mohammed, S. & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Are we all on the same temporal page? The moderating effects of temporal team cognition on the polychronicity diversity-team performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 404–422. doi: 10.1037/a0035640 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, I. (2004). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • R Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ren, Y. & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 189–229. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2011.590300 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rentsch, J. R., Delise, L. A. & Hutchison, S. (2009). Cognitive similarity configurations in teams: In search of the team MindMeld. In E. SalasG.-F. GoodwinC. S. BurkeEds., Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 241–266). New York, NY: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rentsch, J. R. & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). Why do “great minds” think alike? Antecedents of team member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 107–120. doi: 10.1002/job.81 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rentsch, J. R. & Mot, I. R. (2012). Elaborating cognitions in teams: Cognitive similarity configurations. In E. SalasS. M. FioreM. P. LetskyEds., Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 145–170). New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F. & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33, 163–184. doi: 10.2307/20159381 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Salas, E., Cooke, N. J. & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 540–547. doi: 10.1518/001872008x288457 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2009). Measuring team-related cognition: The devil is in the details. In E. SalasG.-F. GoodwinC. S. BurkeEds., Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 491–508). New York, NY: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. MullenG. R. GoethalsEds., Theories of group behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., Booth, T. & Bensch, D. (2013). Getting entangled in the nomological net. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 157–161. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000173 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar