Post on 27-Mar-2015
Measuring Team Effectiveness
Presented by Jill A. Marsteller, PhD, MPP
Based on work by Stephen Shortell, Jill Marsteller, Michael Lin, Marjorie Pearson, Shinyi Wu, Peter Mendel, Shan Cretin, and Mayde Rosen. “The Role of Team Effectiveness in Improving Chronic Illness
Care,” RAND/ UC Berkeley Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation. Medical Care, November 2004.
Outline of presentation
Define team effectivenessSituate in team performance theoryContextFactors, items & reliabilityShow associations -- “antecedents”
and “consequences”Conclusion
Team Effectiveness
Perceived organizational support Team self-assessed skill Goal agreement and participative
normsTeam autonomy/process ownershipInformation/help available
Figure 2.1--A Heuristic Model of Group Effectiveness
Internal Processese.g. conflict,communication
External Processese.g. conflict,communication
Task Designe.g. autonomy,interdependence
Group Compositione.g. size, tenure
Organizational Contexte.g. rewards,supervision
Effectiveness-Performance
Outcomese.g. qualityproductivity
-AttitudinalOutcomese.g. jobsatisfaction,trust
-BehavioralOutcomese.g. turnoverabsenteeism
EnvironmentalFactors
e.g. turbulence,industrycharacteristics
Group PsychosocialTraits
e.g. norms,shared mental models
Source: Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D.E., Journal of Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1997, page 244
Context in which measures were tested
40 teams participating in the Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation (ICICE)
Surveyed members of multi-disciplinary teams As many as 12 occupational categories Size 1 to 14 members
One disease-specific team per organization Organizations are hospitals, physician groups,
clinics, health plans, or health systems Participation was voluntary
Team Effectiveness Instrument
Original creator: G. Ross Baker at U. Toronto (ross.baker@utoronto.ca) (32)
We reduced number of items (23), defined own factors
ANOVA confirmed aggregation of individual-level responses to team level
Responses 1-7 (strongly agree to strongly disagree)
Varimax rotation, eigenvalues ≥1.0, clean loading ≥0.4
Factors, Items & Reliability
Organizational support (Alpha=0.85) This organization makes sure people have the skills
and knowledge to work in teams A team that does a good job in this organization does
not get any special rewards or recognition (reverse coded)
Senior management in the organization strongly supports our work
Senior management regularly reviews our progress in making change
Senior managers in my organization see success in this project as a high priority for the organization
Factors, Items & Reliability
Team Self-Assessed Skill (Alpha=0.90) Our team has been able to use measurement
very effectively to design and test changes After we have completed a change, team
members are excellent in reflecting and learning from the results
Members of our team were very successful in using information from our change cycles to design new tests of change
In making changes, our team was able to easily adapt change ideas to match the needs of our organization
Our team applied enough knowledge and skill to the work to get the work done well
Factors, Items & Reliability
Goal Agreement & Participative Norms (Alpha=0.90) Project team members agreed on the
project’s overall goals The project’s goals were understood by all
the project team members Most members of my team got a chance to
participate in decision-making Certain individuals in this group had special
skills and knowledge that the rest of us count on
The contribution of every group member was listened to and considered
Factors, Items & Reliability
Overall Perceived Team Effectiveness (Alpha=0.95) Organizational support Team self-assessed skill Goal agreement and participative norms Team autonomy (Alpha=0.81) Information/help available
Descriptives
Measure N Mean Std. Dev.
Min Max
Team Size 40 6.53 3.04 3 14
Team Skill 40 5.03 0.90 3.13 6.73
Goal Agree and Partic Norms 40 5.85 0.64 4.57 7
Organizational Support 40 4.78 0.93 2.20 6.27
Overall Perceived Team Effectiveness
40 5.24 0.74 3.47 6.64
Predicting Team Effectiveness
Independent Variable
Overall Perceived Team
Effectiveness
Coefficient (sig. lvl)
Constant 1.11
Team Size -0.06*
Team Champion 0.69***
Patient Satisfaction Focus 0.49**
Cultural Balance 3.10*
Asthma 0.09
Physician Percentage on Teams 1.27*
N 40
F 5.29
p-value 0.0006
Adj R-Sq 0.4
*indicates p<0.10; ** indicates p<0.05; *** indicates p<0.01
Predicting Quality Improvement ActivityIndependent Variable Number of
ChangesDepth of
Changes
Coefficient (sig. lvl)
Coefficient (sig. lvl)
Constant -49.62 -11.13
Team Size 5.79 3.90***
Team Size Squared -0.22 -0.19**
Patient Satisfaction Focus
-21.58*** -4.79**
Cultural Balance 118.85* 17.54
Asthma -10.75 -3.52**
Overall Perceived Team Effectiveness
12.00*** 4.69***
N 40 40
F 3.28 5.66
p-value 0.0122 0.0004
Adj R-Sq 0.26 0.42
* indicates p<0.10; ** indicates p<0.05; *** indicates p<0.01
Change in QI Clinical Process Score
Patient Survey~1300 patients, 29 organizations
Higher score greater improvement in process measures than average
Team effectiveness and team skill are consistently associated with greater process improvement
Conclusion
Applies to multiple settings Versatile Appropriate measures of team-level
phenomena Easily understood questions High Cronbach’s Alphas Well supported by theory Relate as expected to QI Questions are “actionable” Available free on the web,
www.rand.org/health/icice