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 effectiveness
Situate in team performance theory
Context
Factors, items & reliability
Show associations -- “antecedents” and
“consequences”
Conclusion
Team Effectiveness
Perceived organizational support
Team self-assessed skill
Goal agreement and participative norms
Team autonomy/process ownership
Information/help available
Figure 2.1--A Heuristic Model of Group Effectiveness
Task Design
e.g. autonomy,
interdependence
Group Composition
e.g. size, tenure
Organizational Context
e.g. rewards,
supervision
Internal Processes
e.g. conflict,
communication
External Processes
e.g. conflict,
communication
Environmental
Factors
e.g. turbulence,
industry
characteristics
Group Psychosocial
Traits
e.g. norms,
shared mental models
Source: Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D.E., Journal of Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1997, page 244
Effectiveness
-Performance
Outcomes
e.g. quality
productivity
-Attitudinal
Outcomes
e.g. job
satisfaction,
trust
-Behavioral
Outcomes
e.g. turnover
absenteeism
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 individuallevel 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 Activity
Independent Variable
Number of Changes
Depth 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**
-21.58***
-4.79**
118.85*
17.54
-10.75
-3.52**
12.00***
4.69***
Patient Satisfaction Focus
Cultural Balance
Asthma
Overall Perceived Team
Effectiveness
N
40
40
F
3.28
5.66
0.0122
0.0004
0.26
0.42
p-value
Adj R-Sq
* 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