American Psychologist
© 2018 American Psychological Association
0003-066X/18/$12.00
2018, Vol. 73, No. 4, 407– 419
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000254
Evaluating Problem-Solving Teams in K–12 Schools: Do They Work?
Sylvia Rosenfield
Markeda Newell and Scott Zwolski Jr.
University of Maryland
Loyola University—Chicago
Lauren E. Benishek
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Teams and other collaborative structures have become commonplace in American schools,
although historically school staff members functioned more independently from one another.
In this article, we describe the growing influence of collaboration and teaming in a variety of
school contexts, but focus on the empirical literature on problem-solving teams as reflecting
the state of research and practice in the schools. A review of the research on problem-solving
teams, using an input–mediator– outcome–input framework, provides evidence for how
teaming could become more effective and efficient in this context as well as sets an agenda
for what additional research is needed. Key challenges to school teams are considered next,
along with recommendations for change. The first challenge is the lack of training of school
staff in the key components of teaming. A second issue is the difficulty in implementing
teams in the organizational context of schools.
Keywords: teams and collaboration in schools, problem-solving teams, research on problemsolving teams, training of team members, organizational factors impacting implementation
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000254.supp
Teams and collaborative structures have become commonplace in American schools, serving multiple functions.
But it was not always so (e.g., Huberman, 1993; Lortie,
1975). Huberman (1993) characterized teachers historically
as “independent artisans,” working within the privacy of
their own classroom, although having periodic contact with
colleagues to expand their knowledge and skills. It took
over 100 years for serious opposition to this model of
schooling to arise (Lortie, 1975), but these roots in independence and isolation continue to impact school culture
even as schools have sought to move to more collaborative
structures.
The purpose of this article is fourfold: (1) to describe the
change from isolation to collaboration and teaming in
schools; (2) to introduce problem solving teams, which
grew in popularity and number to address student needs; (3)
to review the empirical evidence on school-based problem
solving teams using a team science framework; and (4) to
summarize the state of the science on problem solving
teams in schools, including recommendations.
Change in School Culture: A Move to Teams
and Collaboration
Editor’s note. This article is part of a special issue, “The Science of
Teamwork,” published in the May–June 2018 issue of American Psychologist. Susan H. McDaniel and Eduardo Salas served as guest editors of the
special issue, with Anne E. Kazak as advisory editor.
Researchers and policymakers have identified collaboration and teaming as structures enabling schools to more
effectively educate the increasingly diverse population of
students in America. In addition to the diversity of students,
the growing number of specialists, including reading teachers, teachers who support students whose first language is
not English, and mental health providers such as school
counselors and school psychologists, has accelerated the
need for collaborative structures such as teams (Sosa &
McGrath, 2013). But specialization has led to fragmented
services and the need for comprehensive service delivery
Authors’ note. Sylvia Rosenfield, Department of Counseling, Higher
Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland; Markeda Newell and Scott Zwolski Jr., School Psychology, Loyola University—Chicago; Lauren E. Benishek, Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care
Medicine, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sylvia
Rosenfield, Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special
Education, University of Maryland, 3119 Benjamin Building, College
Park, MD 20742. E-mail: srosenf@umd.edu
407
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
408
ROSENFIELD, NEWELL, ZWOLSKI, AND BENISHEK
among regular educators and specialists, a collaboration that
is still a work in progress (Pugach, Blanton, & Correa,
2011). Because of the concerns around the special education
process, researchers and practitioners turned to another type
of team with different names and structures, generically
termed problem-solving teams, to reduce the number of
inappropriate referrals for special education evaluation and
provide support to teachers who had to meet the needs of an
increasingly diverse student population. Despite the importance of problem-solving teams in schools, the empirical
base for these teams lacks a consistent conceptual framework or theoretical base, dictating the need to further examine collaborative, problem-solving structures in schools.
Collaboration in Schools
Sylvia Rosenfield
approaches that require functioning teams and collaboration
at district, school and classroom levels (Gravois, 2013).
Special Education
One of the earliest applications of teaming in schools was
an outgrowth of the first federal special education law, The
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94 –142)
in 1975, which mandated multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)
to implement the required assessment and planning functions for classifying students as handicapped. Yoshida
(1983) described how MDTs in schools were developed
based on group research, unrelated to school teams, which
supported the belief that MDTs make better and less biased
decisions than individuals working alone. However, he concluded insufficient evidence supported their use, citing numerous changes needed to the organization of schools for
these teams to be effective, such as increasing coordination
and communication among various school units, and training members how to function on teams. School personnel
have struggled to implement MDTs from the start, struggling with adhering to effective team processes (Klingner &
Harry, 2006), engaging full participation from all members
(Menlove, Hudson, & Suter, 2001), and making unbiased
decisions for minority students (Klingner & Harry, 2006).
Assessing team effectiveness in improving outcomes has
also been problematic, as there is still no clear definition of
or consensus on appropriate special education placement or
outcomes (Kleinhammer-Tramill, Burrello, & Sailor, 2013).
Newer policy options for students experiencing academic
and behavioral issues to spend more time in regular education settings have increased the need for collaboration
As the special education and problem-solving team structures were developing in the 1970s and 1980s, schools also
began incorporating more collaborative structures in other
areas, including teacher professional development and
school reform (Hord, 2008). Hord (2008) described a “shift
in the glacier of isolation and the breaking of the physical
barriers to teacher interaction,” leading to “the idea of
teachers coming together to share their work” (p. 10). A
growing literature emerged about teachers’ workplace, detailing how school culture affected teachers’ knowledge,
skills, and morale (Little, 2007). After describing how professional community empowers teachers and schools toward improvement and student achievement, Little (2007)
recognized the continuing tensions that undercut collaboration in schools, including time and energy demands, especially in schools that do not value teamwork.
However, insufficient attention has been paid to training and implementation issues, as educators sought to
change and sustain a more collaborative school culture.
Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) acknowledged the power
of collaboration, but reflected on the difficulty of moving
to an effective culture of collaboration. A number of
authors have raised the larger issue of whether schools as
organizations are conducive to teams and collaboration
(e.g., Doll et al., 2005; Pugach et al., 2011). These
challenges are not unlike those faced by other industries,
such as health care, that are shifting from individualfocused cultures to team-based work structures.
Our Challenge
Thus, although the potential value of collaboration and
teaming is increasingly recognized, the conditions for effective and efficient practice in schools remain elusive. The
introduction and expansion of teams as a site for problem
solving, decision-making, professional development, and
school reform requires schools have access to programs
built on evidence in their development and implementation
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAMS
Markeda Newell
procedures. We next explore how well that has been accomplished with problem-solving teams.
Problem-solving teams have proliferated over the past 40
years (for descriptions of different problem-solving team
models, see Dowd-Eagle & Eagle, 2014), although lacking
a solid theoretical base. According to D’Zurilla and Goldfried’s (1971) classic article, problem-solving processes
came into applied psychology from basic research and theoretical literature to address problem situations that are
complex, ambiguous, or have conflicting demands. Working with student concerns in schools fit this pattern of messy
real-world problems, where the information needed was not
obvious and the direction for solving them was unclear.
Structured problem solving processes potentially provide
clarity about the problem, generate multiple alternatives,
and increase the probability an effective solution will be
found (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). However, they
warned that most individuals do not approach problems
systematically unless specially trained to do so, repeating
Yoshida’s (1983) concern.
Although problem-solving teams have become commonplace in schools, not as much attention has been paid to
what team members did and the processes they used when
they met (e.g., Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Santangelo
(2009) suggested, “. . . collaborative problem-solving is
influenced by complex interactions among multiple factors.
Thus, rather than looking to generally classify collaborative
problem-solving as effective or ineffective, it is more useful
to examine factors shown to influence implementation and
sustainability” (p. 186). For this reason, we review the
challenges to implementing and sustaining problem-solving
teams in schools, applying a team science framework to
409
identify ways in which these teams can maximize the likelihood of achieving effective outcomes. Given that schools
are organizational settings with their own culture and
norms, we will address how research on teaming in other
organizations might be applied to address these challenges
in K–12 schools.
Truscott, Cohen, Sams, Sanborn, and Frank (2005) found
that 86% of states required or recommended the use of
problem-solving teams to (a) reduce inappropriate referrals
for special education evaluation and (b) improve the performance of students in the general education environment.
Yet only 14% of state Departments of Education provided
guidance to schools on how to implement these teams
(Truscott et al., 2005). As might be expected, Burns,
Vanderwood, and Ruby (2005) found inconsistent implementation of problem-solving teams, representing a major
obstacle to effective replication and outcomes. Although no
systematic studies of the number of states requiring
problem-solving teams have been published since Truscott
et al. (2005), problem-solving teams continue to be commonplace because of the implementation of multitiered
systems of support models (Nellis, 2012) and the reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), which provided funding for early intervention teams prior to formal referral of students to the
special education evaluation process. (Yetter, 2010; Zirkel
& Thomas, 2010).
Review of Problem Solving Team Implementation
Factors
A comprehensive review of all research on school-based
problem-solving teams is beyond the scope of this paper
(see Dowd-Eagle & Eagle, 2014, for a recent review).
Instead, we aim to support evidence-based practice. Given
the significant variability in the implementation of problemsolving teams across school-based settings and a literature
replete with proposed factors without an underlying conceptual framework other than generic problem solving, the
purpose of this review is to identify factors that both
enhance and inhibit the effectiveness of school-based
problem-solving teams. To accomplish our objective, we
draw from the broader team science literature, utilizing an
evidence-based, team science framework to aide in the
organization and interpretation of research on problem solving teams.
To be effective, teams must successfully accomplish both
taskwork and teamwork (Burke, Wilson, & Salas, 2003).
Taskwork refers to performance of the specific work-related
tasks or activities critical to achieving team goals. Teamwork aids the accomplishment of taskwork and refers to the
shared cognitions (what team members must think), behaviors (what team members must do), and attitudes (what team
members must feel, value, or believe) necessary to accom-
ROSENFIELD, NEWELL, ZWOLSKI, AND BENISHEK
410
the impact of antecedent, mediators, and/or outcomes on
team performance and/or effectiveness of school-based
problem solving teams. In addition, quantitative reviews on
problem-solving team outcomes were included. Articles
that included advice, conceptual frameworks, and nondatabased recommendations were excluded. Our final review
includes 29 articles that meet our inclusion criteria.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Results
In the sections that follow, we describe the state-of-thescience of school-based problem-solving teams in accordance with research that addresses the antecedents (i.e.,
inputs), mediators, and outcomes of team performance, respectively. We then summarize our findings, acknowledging what is currently known about problem-solving teams
and what merits further research attention. Given space
limitations, methodological details for each study in the
review are included in Table 1 in the online supplementary
materials.
Scott Zwolski Jr.
plish these tasks (Wildman et al., 2012). Teams complete
taskwork and teamwork in a dynamic, iterative process that
unfolds over time. To capture the temporal nature of team
performance and the dynamism of the teamwork mechanisms, team scientists describe team performance using the
input–mediator– outcome–input (IMOI) framework (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). The IMOI approach depicts team
performance as a system, wherein antecedents are converted
to desirable outcomes by intervening mechanisms. According to this model, a variety of antecedent factors (i.e.,
inputs) influence the activities, cognitions, and attitudes
(i.e., mediators) the team engages in to drive team outcomes
(Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). The IMOI
model lends itself nicely as a framework for deconstructing
what is currently known about problem-solving teams. It is
used to structure our review, allowing us to collate factors
integral to optimal team performance and discern the scope
of evidence that these school teams are working.
Method
We searched PsychInfo, PsychArticles, and Academic
Search Complete databases using the following terms:
school, problem-solving, team, input, mediator, output, outcomes, training, process, attitudes, size, composition, training, and knowledge. Our search returned 781 abstracts addressing a large range of topics (e.g., teacher satisfaction,
legal/professional/cultural issues, histories, and models).
After reviewing all abstracts, only empirical articles that
met the following criteria were included: (a) published
between 2000 and present; (b) written in English; (c) published in the United States; and (d) empirically examined
Inputs to School-Based Problem-Solving Team
Performance
Input factors (e.g., team member characteristics, organizational support) create the conditions for teamwork to
occur (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Our review identified a
number of inputs that have been linked to the performance
of problem-solving teams. These inputs are categorized as
either (a) team composition or (b) administrative support.
Team composition. Team composition refers to (a)
team membership stability and size and (b) team member
abilities/skills (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). Team composition is of practical and research
interest because it can powerfully influence team performance (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). According to team research, membership stability generally falls into two categories: (1) intact teams (i.e., teams that have long-standing
membership and (2) ad hoc teams (i.e., teams that have
short-term membership; Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008).
Problem-solving teams demonstrate characteristics of both
types. Their life span generally extends the entirety of an
academic year (and oftentimes several years), yet many of
their members are transitory, changing from meeting to
meeting, based on the student being discussed (Bennett,
Erchul, Young, & Bartel, 2012; Burns, Peters, & Noell,
2008). These teams in some ways are intact, but the phenomena of transitory members can impact their stability,
which has parallels to an ad hoc team. Currently, there is no
empirical research on how this hybrid intact/ad hoc team
structure impacts team performance and/or effectiveness.
However, in their study of implementation fidelity, Burns et
al. (2008) found that rotating members (e.g., general education teachers) did not always receive performance feed-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAMS
Lauren E.
Benishek
back on implementation; therefore, these members did not
always implement the problem-solving process with integrity.
Team size is also a key variable. In a survey of personnel
from 200 schools across 50 states, Truscott et al. (2005)
found that problem-solving teams range from 2–14 members with an average of nine members. Researchers often
report the team size in their studies (e.g., Algozzine et al.,
2016; Bartels & Mortenson, 2006; Ruby, Crosby-Cooper, &
Vanderwood, 2011). None have linked size to outcomes or
team performance, leaving us unable to recommend an ideal
team size.
Other research indicates that ideal team size depends on
the nature of the task and performance environment (Stewart, 2006). For example, Gravois (2013) provides a guideline for the instructional consultation team that aligns resources in a building by incorporating the special service
providers on the team, which vary by school building and
district. A one-size-fits-all model may not be useful and
teams instead might customize size dependent on a variety
of criteria such as resources and scope. Perhaps more important than the simple question of team size is who should
serve and what roles they should fill.
Team member abilities/skills. The problem-solving
teams literature identifies a diverse cast. School personnel
asked to list their teammates identified 52 different titles/roles,
citing general education administrators (e.g., principals) most
frequently (Truscott et al., 2005). Problem-solving teams are
interdisciplinary, often including general education teachers,
administrators, and various specialists (e.g., counselors, nurses,
psychologists, special education teachers). Researchers have
found that problem-solving teams with a diverse membership
411
of competent educational professionals who reflect a range of
areas of expertise relevant to team objectives demonstrate
successful team performance (Etscheidt & Knesting, 2007;
Iachini, Anderson-Butcher, & Mellin, 2013). In their review,
Friend and Cook (1997) observed that problem-solving team
members are most often selected based on their role, knowledge, and expertise. However, selecting members for their
ability to carry out taskwork without consideration of teamwork competency may inhibit team performance (Salas,
Cooke, et al., 2008), making training in teamwork even more
essential.
Administrative input. The most frequently cited input
impacting the performance of problem-solving teams is
administrative input (Dowd-Eagle & Eagle, 2014; Rafoth &
Foriska, 2006), typically referring to team members’ desire
to have the support of the building principal; district support
is also a critical factor (Gravois, 2013). However, exploration of administrative input is complex because support and
participation are conflated. Some teams prefer active participation of administrators, whereas others prefer support
and not participation (see Rafoth & Foriska, 2006, for a
review). At the school level, administrative support generally refers to resources administrators provide to support
teamwork, including but not limited to dedicated meeting
time and space, clerical assistance, professional development, compensation, and emotional support (Rafoth &
Foriska, 2006). No research has linked administrative support to student outcomes, but researchers have found that
administrative support impacts teacher utilization of teams,
team member satisfaction, and attitudes toward teamwork
(Berger et al., 2014; Doll et al., 2005; Yetter & Doll, 2007).
Moreover, Knotek (2012) found that administrator support
was critical to implementing a culturally responsive team
process in a rural Native American school.
Although administrative support has been repeatedly
identified as integral to team success (see Kovaleski &
Glew, 2006; McDougal, Clonan, & Martens, 2000), researchers have not determined whether administrator participation affects team performance any more than other
professionals (Berger et al., 2014). Research is needed to
answer this question, particularly with a lens toward elucidating which leadership characteristics (e.g., type [formal,
informal], style [transactional, transformational]) are most
important. It may be less a question of who participates as
it is how they engage.
Organizational support. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012),
reflecting on the difficulty of moving to an effective culture
of collaboration, described a range of formats including
“contrived collegiality,” in which administrative procedures
are set up to encourage collaboration, although not necessarily providing all the conditions for collaboration. Creating a collaborative culture is significant because it is reflective of the ability and/or willingness of schools as
organizations to more fully embrace team-based approaches
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
412
ROSENFIELD, NEWELL, ZWOLSKI, AND BENISHEK
to serving students. However, only two studies were found
that linked organizational support to team performance.
McDougal et al. (2000) obtained district and building administrative support, and their efforts resulted in building
administrators providing time and space for problemsolving teams as well as district administrators providing
funding for training and other supports. Truscott, Cosgrove,
Meyers, and Eidle-Barkman (2000) detailed their one and a
half year long process to obtain organizational support for
teams. They found that teams acceptance of the organizational support process resulted in increased adherence to the
team process. Although these studies are important, the
problem-solving team research is replete with myriad ways
in which educators lack the appropriate support and resources to engage in problem-solving teamwork (e.g., Gravois, 2013; Pugach et al., 2011).
The limited organizational support raises the question as
to whether problem-solving teams fit within the current
organizational structure of schools. Doll et al. (2005) examined whether teams were incompatible with the structure of
schools, finding that teams were not implementing practices
with integrity for a variety reasons (e.g., cumbersome process; misalignment between team and professional roles,
and lack of administrative support and resources). They
suggest that team practices “may not fit naturally into
school practices and routines” (p. 131). The very organizational structure of schools, in many ways, may not be
conducive to problem-solving teams, and, as Rosenfield
(1992) stated over 25 years ago, may require organizational
change.
The assessment that organizational context matters for
team performance is not unique to schools. Couplings
between teams and other components of the organization
undoubtedly affect team processes and outcomes; yet,
there are few rigorous studies of teams outside of controlled or laboratory settings (Salas, Cooke, et al., 2008).
Organizational context is an important input for the performance of teams, and this context influences administrators’ ability to support problem-solving teams. Therefore, administrative support and, ultimately, organizational
context are inputs that can affect the performance of problemsolving teams.
Summary of inputs. Our review shows that team composition and administrative support are the most salient
inputs that influence performance. Although these inputs
have not been linked to student outcomes, they have been
empirically linked to team member satisfaction, the ability
of teams to complete their tasks, and team member attitudes
about team-based work. In seeking guidance from team
science, it appears that team composition and organizational
support have been identified as important inputs, but the
science is limited on optimal team size, ideal composition of
team member personalities/abilities, and influence of organizational support. School-based problem-solving teams are
grappling with input challenges similar to those of teams in
other organizations, reflecting a significant research need
for all teams.
Mediators of School-Based Problem-Solving
Team Performance
Mediators include the affective and cognitive (i.e., emergent) states of team members as well as behavioral processes needed for team performance (Mathieu et al., 2008).
Affective states. Research has shown that values and
attitudes about teamwork are related to team performance
(Bell, 2007). Attitudes refer to educators’ feelings about the
team process, performance, and/or effectiveness as well as
their feelings about their role on the team. Attitudes have
been linked to team member participation in the problemsolving team process, making these attitudes an important
factor in team performance. Evidence indicates that when
educators believe that teams are ineffective, do not value
teacher input, delay services to students, and, ultimately are
a waste of time (see Doll et al., 2005; Rubinson, 2002;
Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004; Yetter & Doll, 2007), the
use of and participation on problem-solving teams is diminished. Moreover, when team members believe the problem
lies within the student or home environment (Knotek, 2003;
Rubinson, 2002), they are less likely to effectively engage
in the team process. The movement toward the use of
culturally responsive practices in schools is designed to
equip educators with the competence to take a communitydriven, strengths-based approach as opposed to deficitbased perspectives on student performance, particularly that
of minority students (Knotek, 2012; Lopez & Bursztyn,
2013).
In addition to member feelings about team process and
performance, affective states also include members’ feelings of trust, cohesion, and collective efficacy (Shuffler,
DiazGranados, & Salas, 2011). Trust (De Jong, Dirks, &
Gillespie, 2016; Slonski-Fowler, & Truscott, 2004), collective efficacy (Stajkovi, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009), and cohesion
(Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003) are critical to
team members fully engaging in team processes (Kozlowski
& Bell, 2003). Based on this review, only one study linked
team cohesion to team performance. Etscheidt and Knesting
(2007) found that established teams with greater cohesion
were identified as more effective.
In evaluating the evidence on member attitudes, it is
important to remember that, in schools, selection of team
members is complicated by several factors that inhibit the
ability to select members based on attitudes (Friend &
Cook, 1997). Often membership on problem-solving teams
is not voluntary as there may only be one person who can
serve in a specific role (e.g., school psychologist). For this
reason, it is important to examine the research on how
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAMS
educator’s affective states can be changed once they are
members of a team.
Researchers have begun applying an intervention acceptability framework to the implementation of problem-solving
teams in schools (Truscott et al., 2000). The treatment
acceptability framework posits that when people believe an
intervention is useful and appropriate, they are more likely
to implement the intervention with integrity (Kazdin, 2000).
In applying this framework to teamwork, Yetter and Doll
(2007) explained, “When teachers and administrators believe that consultation teams are not useful or feasible, the
teams are more likely to have poor procedural integrity and
limited impact” (p. 342). Relatedly, Truscott et al. (2000)
found that using an acceptability framework resulted in
increased adherence to the problem solving process. In
addition to the use of an acceptability framework, Powers
(2001) found that training on team process can change
educators’ attitudes about the team functioning and effectiveness. She conducted a study on the relationship between
the changes in teachers’ attitudes toward the problem solving team and team performance before and after the team
received training. She found that when teacher’s attitudes
changed (e.g., team was no longer viewed as a waste of
time, fewer teachers viewed the team as just a “hoop” and
more teachers felt that the team produces positive outcomes), more students were served by the team, two thirds
of the students met their intervention goals, and African
American students were no longer overrepresented in special education. The results of these studies indicate the
promise of acceptability frameworks and training to change
negative attitudes about team functioning and performance,
which given the limited flexibility in selecting team members, makes the need for this line of research critical.
Beyond interventions to address team member attitudes
about team performance, researchers in team science have
identified the importance of team building interventions to
address team cohesion and collective efficacy. Team building interventions are a “class of formal and informal teamlevel interventions that focus on improving social relations
and clarifying roles, as well as solving task and interpersonal problems that affect team functioning” (Klein et al.,
2009, p. 182). Klein et al.’s meta-analysis of 20 team
building studies, representing 1,562 teams, found that team
building interventions have the largest effect on affective
states and processes. They also found that although effective
for all teams, team-building interventions are most effective
for larger teams of 10 or more members. Moreover, Shuffler
et al. (2011) found that team-building interventions were
most often used with intact teams. Given that problemsolving teams average about nine members (range is 2–14;
Truscott et al., 2005), are mostly intact, and oftentimes
impacted by adverse affective states linked to flawed inputs
such as team composition and administrative/organizational
support, team building interventions may help improve the
413
affective states of problem-solving teams. Our search found
no researchers studying team building interventions with
school-based problem-solving teams, a significant gap in
the literature.
Cognitive states. Cognitive states refer to (a) team
members’ knowledge and experience, such as understanding of each other’s roles/responsibilities; (b) knowledge
about the tasks; and (c) knowledge about what it takes to
complete the tasks; this knowledge must be shared among
all team members (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998; Shuffler
et al., 2011). In reviewing the research on problem-solving
teams, role confusion and lack of knowledge were identified
as cognitive states that impacted team performance. In their
qualitative study of 41 problem-solving teams, Iachini et al.
(2013) found that team members did not always know their
role. Relatedly, Doll and colleagues (2005) found that team
members thought their role on the team was not aligned
with their professional role. Rubinson (2002) also found
that team members did not know enough about classroom
instruction to assist teachers who came to the team. Ruby et
al. (2011) found that educators had limited understanding of
problem-solving teams. Finally, Young and Gaughan
(2010) found that teams with clear roles had better
follow-up and used a wider range of evaluation outcomes.
Based on this review, it is evident that more attention to
cognitive states is needed. Researchers have focused on how
well team members understand and implement the problemsolving process (i.e., problem identification, data collection
and analysis, and intervention implementation and evaluation; Dowd-Eagle & Eagle, 2014). To explain, Algozzine et
al. (2016) have created a robust research program in which
they train problem-solving teams on the foundations of
teaming (e.g., having an agenda, having clearly defined
roles, starting/ending meeting on time) and problem-solving
process (e.g., identify the problem, develop an intervention,
monitor implementation, and evaluate intervention). They
refer to this training as team-initiated problem-solving, and
they developed an observation protocol called the decision
observation, recording, and analysis tool to assess the extent
to which teams have adhered to team-initiated problemsolving. They have consistently found that teams can be
trained in team foundations and problem-solving process
and can adhere to the foundations and process. However,
data linking this training to student outcomes is limited
(Newton, Algozzine, Algozzine, Horner, & Todd, 2011;
Newton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & Algozzine, 2012;
Todd et al., 2011). The focus on the problem-solving process is expected given that training on problem-solving
skills is often not provided to educators (Burns et al., 2005;
Newell & Newman, 2014). In addition to the work of
Algozzine and colleagues, Telzrow, McNamara, and Hollinger (2000) found that the following behavioral processes
correlate with positive student outcomes: (a) develop a
behavioral definition of the problem, (b) collect baseline
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
414
ROSENFIELD, NEWELL, ZWOLSKI, AND BENISHEK
data, (c) develop systematic intervention plans, and (d)
compare intervention outcomes to baseline. However, researchers have also shown that teams typically do not sustain high levels of implementation of problem solving,
although performance feedback and checklists have been
shown to help sustain implementation of the process (Bartels & Mortenson, 2006; Burns et al., 2008).
Despite the need for training on the problem-solving
process, Ruby et al. (2011) explained that this type of
training may not be sufficient. In their study, they found that
teams trained in the problem-solving process were not significantly different from untrained teams with regard to
adhering to the problem-solving model. Moreover, the training did not have a significant effect on student outcomes.
They concluded that other factors beyond training may be
important considerations for team effectiveness. As a result
of this focus on the problem-solving process, much of the
research on problem-solving team performance is on taskwork rather than teamwork (cognitions, attitudes, or behaviors).
Behavioral processes. Given that educators are selected to problem-solving teams based on expertise rather
than teamwork competency (Friend & Cook, 1997),
problem-solving team members often lack team process
skills (e.g., communication, coordination, and collaboration) to effectively engage in teamwork. Team members
need skills in all of these areas to maximize team performance (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In reviewing the research,
two studies examining communication on teams was found.
Lee and Jamison (2003) examined communication patterns
on one team in an elementary school, using the consultation
analysis record to examine verbal exchanges among team
members. After transcribing the meetings about four students, they found teachers made the most statements during
problem identification and fewest statements during data
analysis. On the other hand, communication among all team
members was most balanced during the discussion of
whether the data confirmed or rejected the hypothesis. Of
note, Lee and Jamison found that team members made
fewer statements about the students’ backgrounds or personal characteristics and more statements about the behavioral setting when using the functional behavioral assessment process. They concluded that the functional behavioral
assessment process may move teams to focus more on
behavioral setting than the students’ background. However,
they did not link these communication processes to student
outcomes.
More recently, Bennett et al. (2012) examined the relational communication patterns among teams at two elementary schools. They found that team members had similar
levels of one-up (messages to control conversation) and
one-down messages (messages indicating acceptance of
control from another speaker), which indicated shared directedness and influence among team members. As a result,
they concluded that no one team member disproportionately
influenced group members. Moreover, teachers had similar
levels of dominance to other team members, which indicated that team members were listening to teachers and
accepting their attempts to control the conversation. Bennett
et al. also examined the relationship between message control and adherence to the problem-solving process, finding
that the extent to which a team member controls the conversation did not relate to adherence to the problem-solving
process.
As part of this review, we searched for articles that
studied the relationship between coordination and team
performance, but could not identify any studies that specifically examined how coordination impacted team performance and/or effectiveness. Researchers have used increased collaboration as an indicator of team effectiveness,
but we could not identify research that examined how
collaboration contributed to team performance. Research on
collaboration as an indicator of success is reviewed later.
Again, there is much literature on the importance of collaboration, but empirical examination of how collaboration
impacts team performance and effectiveness is needed.
Summary of mediators. Research has shown that
problem-solving teams are affected by affective states (i.e.,
team member attitudes/beliefs), cognitive states (i.e., knowledge of roles and tasks), and behavioral process (i.e., teamwork
skills). Our review of school-based problem-solving teams
demonstrates that most research on mediators is focused on the
relationship between team problem solving processes and team
effectiveness with little to no attention to the affective and
cognitive states of team members. The significant imbalance in
attention to affective and cognitive states is concerning. The
lack of attention to these mediators seems to be explained by
the intense focus on the problem-solving process (i.e., taskwork). However, problem-solving teams need to have competency across all mediators, especially because teams may enter
the process with limitations in team composition and administrative support that are very difficult to change due to the
organizational structure of schools. Given the input and mediator challenges, team effectiveness is often compromised.
Outcomes of School-Based Problem-Solving
Team Performance
Research on the effectiveness of problem-solving teams is
flawed by less rigorous designs, methodological issues, lack
of evaluation of outcomes, and general datedness of the
research (Burns & Symington, 2002; Dowd-Eagle & Eagle,
2014). Although Dowd-Eagle and Eagle (2014) concluded
that the evidence is promising, little is known about what
actually makes a problem-solving team effective. Nevertheless, this evidence base provides some insight into how
educators are evaluating team effectiveness. Kozlowski and
Ilgen (2006) explained that team effectiveness is assessed
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAMS
by a range of internal (e.g., team satisfaction and cohesion,
adherence to process, etc.) and external (e.g., student and
teacher outcomes) indicators. The review of problemsolving team research shows that educators are using both
types of indicators to assess problem-solving teams.
Internal indicators. With regard to internal indicators,
researchers have focused on examining how well teams
follow procedures, adhere to the problem-solving process,
and use effective collaboration and communication strategies (McNamara, Rasheed, & Delamatre, 2008; Newton et
al., 2012; Rosenfield, Gravois, & Silva, 2014). In addition
to team process, teacher satisfaction, teacher use of strategies, and teacher use of team process have been used as
outcome indicators for school-based teams (Berger et al.,
2014; Gravois & Rosenfield, 2002; Kaiser, Rosenfield, &
Gravois, 2009; Rosenfield et al., 2014). Given the input and
mediator challenges, evaluating internal processes is important.
External indicators. However, the external indicators
(i.e., student outcomes) are the most important outputs for
school-based problem-solving teams because of the accountability teams have for student learning. These outcomes are often missing or limited in scope (Dowd-Eagle &
Eagle, 2014). Given the goals articulated above, problemsolving team effectiveness should be determined by reductions in special education referrals and improvements in the
academic and behavioral performance of individual students
(Burns et al., 2005). In the most recent meta-analysis of
problem-solving teams, Burns and Symington (2002) found
the average effect size for student outcomes was 1.15 (Cohen’s d) and the average effect size for system outcomes
(i.e., special education referral and placement) was .90.
Though large effects, they are estimated from only nine
studies as many studies could not be included due to methodological and/or measurement flaws.
Student outcomes include system-level outcomes such as
referral to and/or placement in special education (Burns &
Symington, 2002). Some researchers have used these indicators to evaluate team performance (e.g., Gravois &
Rosenfield, 2002, 2006). These indicators are often not
evaluated because there are myriad factors that contribute to
referral and placement of students in special education
beyond the problem-solving team. As it is very difficult to
ascertain the extent to which problem-solving team contribute to any changes in special education referrals or placements (Burns et al., 2005; Rosenfield, 2002), special education referrals and placements are viewed as an imprecise
indicator of the effectiveness of problem-solving teams.
The challenge to evaluate the impact on individual students is completely different. Teams can collect individualized data on the impact of interventions on the academic
and/or behavioral performance of students, but the challenge is that the implementation of the intervention and
collection of data generally occurs outside of the context
415
and control of the problem-solving team. Problem-solving
teams often do not take steps to ensure that the interventions
they recommend to teachers are implemented with integrity
and that data are collected (Burns et al., 2008). As a result,
teams often do not know if the intervention worked or even
if it was implemented; educators simply do not know how
effectively teams design interventions that improve student
performance, which significantly inhibits the future performance of the team as well as educator attitudes about the
team. Or, in many cases, teams blame teachers for not
implementing their recommendations, rather than look at
team factors to explain teacher unwillingness or inability to
conduct the intervention in the classroom.
Summary of outputs. According to team science, team
effectiveness should be measured using internal and external indicators. Problem-solving teams have been evaluated
using both, but teams use external indicators (e.g., student
outcomes) much less often because it is challenging for
teams to collect these data. There is a lack of long-term
studies showing outcomes over time, and an abundance of
snapshots of specific models, usually completed by the
authors of those models, so that a systematic empirical base
over time and varying conditions has not been established.
This lack of data on student outcomes gives rise to questions
about whether problem-solving teams are effective in reaching their goals. Teams must find ways to evaluate student
outcomes over time and circumstances to maintain their
viability in school-based settings.
Using Team Science to Improve Problem-Solving
Teams in Schools
What Do We Know About Problem Solving
Teams in Schools?
The IMOI framework was used to bring cohesion to the
empirical literature on teams to determine the extent to
which there is evidence how problem-solving teams are
working in schools and how effective they are. By using this
framework, we identified factors integral to optimal team
performance and were able to identify studies that specifically examine how inputs, mediators, and outputs impact
team performance and/or effectiveness. Although the literature is replete with studies that include teams, there is less
information on how teams function to produce teacher,
student, and/or system-level outcomes. Researchers assume
that outcomes are explained by using a team, without examination of how the team contributed to the outcomes.
Inputs. Our review of problem-solving teams indicates
that teams vary in size, composition, and stability, and often do
not have sufficient administrative or organizational support.
Compounding these input challenges is the fact that researchers have found that educators can hold negative attitudes and
beliefs about teams that diminish their use of and participation
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
416
ROSENFIELD, NEWELL, ZWOLSKI, AND BENISHEK
on teams. Research is only recently emerging on how to
change these attitudes to increase acceptability of problem
solving teams. Finally, although teams can be trained to implement the problem-solving process, often, they do not sustain
their adherence, suggesting that additional ongoing support is
needed.
Mediators. Little to no attention has been paid to the
affective and cognitive states of team members. It is evident
that skill in the problem solving process is recognized as an
important mediator of team performance; however, there is a
need to bring balance to the focus on the other mediator skills
to maximize the performance of problem-solving teams.
Teams need training on taskwork and teamwork to be effective
(Salas, Cooke, et al., 2008); therefore, addressing affective and
cognitive states of team members has the potential to improve
the performance of problem-solving teams. Moreover, evidence suggests that teams do not receive training in teamwork
competencies (e.g., communication and collaboration) along
with training in the problem-solving process; therefore, teams
may not have the teamwork skills to carry out the problem
solving process.
Outputs. A primary challenge in the problem solving
research is the lack of data on team process and team performance that is linked to important outcomes (e.g., improvement
in student performance). Researchers often do not collect data
on student outcomes. Research on the impact that problemsolving teams have on student and/or teacher outcomes is very
limited and imprecise. Without significant attention to linking
inputs, mediators, and outputs to student and/or teacher performance, support for problem solving teams will likely continue to struggle in schools.
Implications
Nearly 40 years after their introduction (Chalfant, Pysh, &
Moultrie, 1979), educators continue to grapple with how to
optimally develop, implement, and sustain problem-solving
teams in schools (e.g., Dowd-Eagle & Eagle, 2014). The cost
of supporting these team-based, problem-solving systems is
high, taking significant human and fiscal resources to maintain.
Therefore, it is important for educators to take a science-based
approach to developing, implementing, and sustaining
problem-solving teams in schools. We draw two major recommendations from this review that are supported by team science literature: the need for team training and for increased
focus on the organizational context for team effectiveness.
Team Training Based on Team Science
Despite the increasingly interdependent nature of their work
and the expectation that they will collaborate, most school
personnel have not received formal instruction regarding how
effectively to serve or lead a team. Too frequently it is assumed
that school staff will automatically and organically come to-
gether to be an effective team (e.g., Troen & Boles, 2011).
Although some school-based teams are highly successful, benefitting from particular team members who do have team
training and/or do an exceptional job of motivating others,
inspiring mutual support, and enhancing overall team functioning, not all school staff members find teamwork processes
natural. Teachers who are accustomed to having sole responsibility for their classrooms or specialists who have served
individual students out of the classroom setting may be particularly challenged in this domain. For these reasons, evidencebased team training is critical for all educators.
The recommendation for team training is based on evidence
of its significant positive effect on team performance (Salas,
Cooke, et al., 2008). In a meta-analysis of 45 studies representing 2,650 teams across military, aviation, medical, classroom, and business settings, team training significantly correlated with team performance (.34). Team training improved
affective, cognitive, and most significantly, process outcomes.
This finding is especially relevant for problem-solving teams
because evidence indicates problem-solving teams have breakdowns in all of these elements of teaming. In addition, they
found that their effects were more significant for large (fiveplus members) intact teams, characteristic of school problemsolving teams. Salas, Cooke, et al. (2008) concluded that
training both taskwork and teamwork is important. For a review of team training approaches, readers are referred to Salas,
Nichols, and Driskell (2007).
One challenge is taking the cumulative knowledge about
team training gleaned from extensive research in other fields
and communicating it effectively to school personnel. It is
critical to find a way to educate future and current school
personnel on these important skills. One approach is to provide
structured training programs systematically designed to address the teamwork needs of school personnel. Indeed, teamwork training has been used in a number of other organizational contexts with good success (Hughes et al., 2016; Salas,
DiazGranados, et al., 2008).
Deciding what teamwork competencies to train is a natural
first step. Competencies can be categorized based on their
relation to the team as well as the task, resulting in contextdriven, team-contingent, task-contingent, or transportable
teamwork competencies (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995). Transportable competencies are the most
general as they are applicable to all teams and tasks. For
example, good communication is essential in all team functioning. The other competency types increasingly narrow in
focus. Task-contingent competencies are only applicable to
certain tasks. For example, K–12 educators and staff may need
to understand special education policies, depending on their
team purpose. Similarly, team-contingent competencies refer
to those team-specific requirements, such as knowledge of
different team member characteristics (e.g., educational background, personal strengths, experience). Finally, contextdriven competencies are the narrowest and refer to those that a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAMS
specific team requires to complete a specific task, such as
school reading curriculum materials.
A focus on transportable competencies is a critical first step
to broadly develop a strong foundation of teamwork among
current and future educators. Once these competencies are in
place, teams can shift focus to any other team- or task-related
competencies needed to meet their particular team goals. Two
frameworks useful for describing universally transportable
competencies are: the “Big Five” (Salas, Sims, & Burke,
2005), which distills the large number of teamwork processes
and emergent states in the literature into five core components
of effective team performance (team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, adaptability, and team
orientation) and three coordinating mechanisms (shared mental
models, closed-loop communication, and mutual trust); and the
Cs framework, which outlines six teamwork processes and
emergent states— cooperation, conflict, coordination, communication, coaching, and cognition—and three conditions—
team composition, context, and culture—that influence teamwork (Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell, & Lazzara, 2015).
Many of the elements of the two frameworks overlap, and are
a reorganization of similar concepts.
To provide instruction in transportable competencies, a
training program, called Teach Teamwork was developed for
school team members (Benishek et al., 2016). Teach Teamwork is modeled after TeamSTEPPS (i.e., Team Strategies and
Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), an
evidence-based training program that has been successfully
used to improve the performance of a diverse range of health
care teams (Hughes et al., 2014). Teach Teamwork is
grounded in the same evidence-base as TeamSTEPPS. The
competencies presented within both programs are rooted in the
Big Five framework and also address many of the additional
considerations outlined by the Cs heuristic (e.g., conflict management). Training these competencies is known to improve
teamwork in health care (Hughes et al., 2014, 2016), which,
like schools, is migrating from an individualistic to collaborative culture. The same should be expected of similar training
for school teams. Interested readers may freely access the
modules and supporting materials online (http://www.apa.org/
education/k12/teach-tea
mwork.aspx).
Organizational Context
Perhaps the most challenging result of this analysis is the
need to understand how school context impacts team functioning. Although schooling in America has moved from isolation
to a more collaborative culture, the roots of the older structures
remain and continue to subvert collaborative practices. It may
be more difficult now for teachers to refer students to special
education, but school teams still struggle with the coordinated
and collaborative services that are required to address student
issues in the classroom (Gravois, 2013). Several authors have
417
concluded that organizational change is needed for problemsolving teams to succeed in schools (Doll et al., 2005; Gravois,
2013; Pugach et al., 2011; Rosenfield, 1992; Yoshida, 1983);
team science research indicates other organizations struggle
with this as well (Salas, Cooke, et al., 2008). This issue is a
major challenge educators need to address to ensure that
school-based teams in the future will be successful.
Concluding Comments
How well do problem-solving teams in schools work—the
answer is with limited success. Teams and other collaborative
structures emerged in American schools over the last halfcentury, but, as in other contexts, the research to enhance their
efficiency and effectiveness has lagged behind their creation
and use. Here we have presented a view of the critical elements
needed for effective team functioning in schools. Prioritizing
attention to the importance of research results in the development of teams is needed to achieve the promise of teaming in
education. Moreover, there are significant gaps in evaluating
how teams impact important school outcomes as well as in
addressing challenging implementation issues. The lack of
training of educational personnel and insufficient consideration
of the culture of the schools as a barrier to collaborative
practices impact the potential for team success. Given there is
now an acceptance of collaborative and team structures in
education and a growing empirical base being developed in
other organizational setting, this is an optimal time for psychologists to engage in the research and development that
would enable teams to be an even more significant resource to
American schools.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies described in detail
that can be found in the supplementary materials.
ⴱ
Algozzine, B., Horner, R., Todd, A., Newton, J., Algozzine, K., &
Cusumano, D. (2016). Measuring the process and outcomes of team
problem solving. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 211–
229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282915592535
ⴱ
Bartels, S., & Mortenson, B. (2006). Enhancing adherence to a
problem-solving model for middle-school pre-referral teams. Journal
of Applied School Psychology, 22, 109 –123. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1300/J370v22n01_06
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003).
Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of
construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989 –1004.
Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–
615.
Benishek, L. E., Gregory, M. E., Hodges, K., Newell, M., Hughes, A. M.,
Marlow, S., . . . Salas, E. (2016). Bringing the science of team training
to school-based teams. Theory Into Practice, 55, 111–118.
ⴱ
Bennett, M., Erchul, W., Young, H., & Bartel, C. (2012). Exploring
relational communication patterns in prereferral intervention teams.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22, 187–207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2012.706128
418
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ⴱ
ROSENFIELD, NEWELL, ZWOLSKI, AND BENISHEK
Berger, J., Yiu, H., Nelson, D., Vaganek, M., Rosenfield, S., Gravois, T.,
& Hong, V. (2014). Teacher utilization of instructional consultation
teams. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24,
211–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.917931
Burke, C. S., Wilson, K. A., & Salas, E. (2003). Teamwork at 35,000 feet:
Enhancing safety through team training. Human Factors and Aerospace
Safety, 3, 287–312.
ⴱ
Burns, M., Peters, R., & Noell, G. (2008). Using performance feedback to
enhance implementation fidelity of the problem-solving team process.
Journal of School Psychology, 46, 537–550.
ⴱ
Burns, M. K., & Symington, T. (2002). A meta-analysis of prereferral
intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School
Psychology, 40, 437– 447.
Burns, M., Vanderwood, M., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness
of pre-referral intervention teams for use in a problem-solving model.
School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 89 –105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/
scpq.20.1.89.64192
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (1998). Making decisions under stress:
Implications for individual and team training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cannon-Bowers, J., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995).
Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In
R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 330 –380). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Chalfant, J. C., Pysh, M. V. D., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance
teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85–96.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team
performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134 –1150.
ⴱ
Doll, B., Haack, K., Kosse, S., Osterloh, M., Siemers, E., & Pray, B.
(2005). The dilemma of pragmatics: Why schools don’t use quality team
consultation practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, 127–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1603_1
Dowd-Eagle, S. E., & Eagle, J. W. (2014). Research examining group/
team-based school consultation. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.),
Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for
the field (2nd ed., pp. 450 – 472). New York, NY: Routledge.
D’Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior
modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 107–126.
ⴱ
Etscheidt, S., & Knesting, K. (2007). A qualitative analysis of factors
influencing the interpersonal dynamics of a prereferral team. School
Psychology Quarterly, 22, 264 –288.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1997). Student-centered teams in schools: Still in
search of an identity. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8, 3–20.
Gravois, T. A. (2013). Aligned service delivery: Ending the era of triage
education. In L. C. Burrello, W. Sailor, & J. Kleinhammer-Tramill
(Eds.), Unifying educational systems: Leadership and policy perspectives (pp. 109 –134). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
ⴱ
Gravois, T., & Rosenfield, S. (2002). A multi-dimensional framework for
evaluation of instructional consultation teams. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 19, 5–29.
ⴱ
Gravois, T., & Rosenfield, S. A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority
students in special education. Remedial and special education, 27,
42–52.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming
teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hord, S. M. (2008). Evolution of the professional learning community:
Revolutionary concept is based on intentional collegial learning. Journal
of Staff Development, 29, 10 –13.
Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers’
professional relations. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.),
Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 11–50). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hughes, A. M., Benishek, L. E., Sonesh, S., Gregory, M. E., Joseph, D. L.,
King, H. B., & Salas, E. (2014, June). The effectiveness of team training
in medicine: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 2014 TeamSTEPPS
National Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Hughes, A. M., Gregory, M. E., Joseph, D. L., Sonesh, S. C., Marlow,
S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., . . . Salas, E. (2016). Saving lives: A metaanalysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101, 1266 –1304.
ⴱ
Iachini, A. L., Anderson-Butcher, D., & Mellin, E. (2013). Exploring best
practice teaming strategies among school-based teams: Implications for
school mental health practice and research, Advances in School Mental
Health Promotion, 6, 139 –154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1754730X
.2013.784618
ⴱ
Kaiser, L., Rosenfield, S., & Gravois, T. (2009). Teacher’s perception of
satisfaction, skill development, and skill application after instructional
consultation services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 444 – 457.
Kazdin, A. E. (2000). Perceived barriers to treatment participation and
treatment acceptability among antisocial children and their families.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 157–174.
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C., Lyons, R., &
Goodwin, G. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research,
40, 181–222.
Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., Burrello, L. C., & Sailor, W. (Eds.). (2013).
Special education: A critical perspective on reframing public policy for
students with disabilities. Unifying educational systems: Leadership and
policy perspectives (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and
decision-making process for English Language Learners: Child study
team meetings and staffings. Teacher College Record, 108, 2247–2281.
ⴱ
Knotek, S. (2003). Bias in problem-solving and the social process of
student study teams: A qualitative investigation. The Journal of Special
Education, 37, 2–14.
ⴱ
Knotek, S. (2012). Utilizing culturally responsive consultation to support
innovation implementation in a rural school. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 46 – 62.
Kovaleski, J., & Glew, M. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to
scale. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16 –25.
Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations.
Handbook of psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kozlowski, S., & Ilgen, D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work
groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7,
77–124.
ⴱ
Lee, S., & Jamison, T. (2003). Including the FBA process in student
assistance teams: An exploratory study of team communications and
intervention selection. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 209 –239.
Little, J. W. (2007). Professional communication and collaboration. In
W. S. Hawley & D. L. Rollie (Eds.), The keys to effective schools:
Educational reform as continuous improvement (pp. 51– 65). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lopez, E., & Bursztyn, A. (2013). Future challenges and opportunities:
Toward culturally responsive training in school psychology. Psychology
in the Schools, 50, 212–228.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mathieu, J., 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. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAMS
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M.
(2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving
toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40,
130 –160.
ⴱ
McDougal, J., Clonan, S., & Martens, B. (2000). Using organizational
change procedures to promote acceptability of prereferral intervention
services: The school-based intervention team project. School Psychology
Quarterly, 15, 149 –171.
ⴱ
McNamara, K., Rasheed, H., & Delamatre, J. (2008). A statewide study of
school-based intervention teams: Characteristics, member perceptions,
and outcomes. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
18, 5–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474410701864107
Menlove, R. R., Hudson, P. J., & Suter, D. (2001). A field of IEP dreams:
Increasing general education teacher participation in the IEP development process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 28 –33.
Nellis, L. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in
response to intervention implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49,
245–256.
Newell, M., & Newman, D. (2014). Assessing the state of evidence in
consultation training. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of
research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 421– 449). New York, NY:
Routledge.
ⴱ
Newton, J. S., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., Horner, R., & Todd, A.
(2011). Building local capacity for training and coaching data-based
problem solving with positive behavior intervention and support teams.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 228 –245. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15377903.2011.590104
ⴱ
Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Algozzine, R., Todd, A. W., & Algozzine,
K. (2012). A randomized wait-list controlled analysis of the implementation integrity of team-initiated problem solving processes. Journal of
School Psychology, 50, 421– 441.
ⴱ
Powers, K. (2001). Problem solving student support teams. The California
School Psychologist, 6, 19 –30.
Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., & Correa, V. I. (2011). A historical
perspective on the role of collaboration in teacher education reform:
Making good on the promise of teaching all students. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 34, 183–200.
Rafoth, M., & Foriska, T. (2006). Administrator participation in promoting
effective problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 27,
130 –135.
Rosenfield, S. (1992). Developing school-based consultation teams: A
design for organizational change. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 27.
Rosenfield, S. (2002). Developing instructional consultants: From novice
to competent to expert. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 97–111.
Rosenfield, S., Gravois, T. A., & Silva, A. E. (2014). Bringing instructional
consultation to scale: Research and development of IC and IC teams. In
W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school
consultation (2nd ed., pp. 248 –275). New York, NY: Routledge.
ⴱ
Rubinson, F. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing problem-solving
teams in urban high schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 13, 185–217.
ⴱ
Ruby, S., Crosby-Cooper, T., & Vanderwood, M. (2011). Fidelity of
problem solving in everyday practice: Typical training may miss the
mark. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21, 233–
258.
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and
team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50,
540 –547.
Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). Does team training improve team
performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 50, 903–933.
419
Salas, E., Nichols, D., & Driskell, J. (2007). Testing three team training
strategies in intact teams a meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 38,
471– 488.
Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H.
(2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A
scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54,
599 – 622.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in
teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599.
Santangelo, T. (2009). Collaborative problem solving effectively implemented, but not sustained: A case for aligning the sun, the moon, and the
stars. Exceptional Children, 75, 185–209.
Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’s a science
for that team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 365–372.
ⴱ
Slonski-Fowler, K., & Truscott, S. (2004). General education teachers’
perceptions of the prereferral intervention team process. Journal of
educational and psychological consultation, 15, 1–39.
Sosa, L. V., & McGrath, B. (2013). Collaboration from the ground up:
Creating effective teams. School Social Work Journal, 38, 34 – 48.
Stajkovi, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group
potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships,
and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
814 – 828.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between
team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32,
29 –54.
ⴱ
Telzrow, C., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2000). Fidelity of problemsolving implementation and relationship to student performance. School
Psychology Review, 29, 443– 461.
ⴱ
Todd Anne, W., Horner Robert, H., Newton, J. Stephen, Algozzine,
Robert F., Algozzine, Kate M., & Frank, Jennifer L. (2011). Effects of
team-initiated problem solving on decision making by schoolwide behavior support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 42–59.
Troen, V., & Boles, K. C. (2011). The power of teacher teams: With cases,
analyses, and strategies for success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
ⴱ
Truscott, S., Cohen, C., Sams, D., Sanborn, K., & Frank, A. (2005). The
current state(s) of prereferral intervention teams. Remedial and Special
Education, 26, 130 –140.
ⴱ
Truscott, S., Cosgrove, G., Meyers, J., & Eidle-Barkman, (2000). The
acceptability of organizational consultation with prereferral intervention
teams. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 172–206.
Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., &
Rayne, S. R. (2012). Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of
team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11,
97–129.
Yetter, G. (2010). Assessing the acceptability of problem-solving procedures by school teams: Preliminary development of the pre-referral
intervention inventory. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 139 –168.
ⴱ
Yetter, G., & Doll, B. (2007). The impact of logistical resources on
prereferral team acceptability. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 340.
Yoshida, R. K. (1983). Are multidisciplinary teams worth the investment?
School Psychology Review, 12, 137–143.
ⴱ
Young, H., & Gaughan, E. (2010). A multiple method longitudinal investigation of pre-referral intervention team functioning: Four years in rural
schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20,
106 –138.
Zirkel, P., & Thomas, L. (2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 56 – 63.
Received January 1, 2017
Revision received October 19, 2017
Accepted October 30, 2017 䡲