The Science and Practice of Team Science (2025)
Chapter: Appendix D: Sampling of Survey-Based Team Assessments
Appendix D
Sampling of Survey-Based Team Assessments
Table D-1 provides a sampling of survey-based assessments used in the team literature, including a construct/scale description, measurement specifics (number of items, dimensions, rating scale), and references indicating scale development and validation evidence.
TABLE D-1 Sampling of Survey-Based Team Assessments
| Construct/Scale Name | Construct Definition/Scale Description |
|---|---|
| What Individual Characteristics Describe Your Team? | |
| To what extent are team members positioned for effective teamwork? | |
| Beliefs About Groups (BAG) | Beliefs about whether groups are desirable and effective |
| Team Role Experience and Orientation (TREO) | Predisposition to occupy different team roles |
| Multidimensional Perceived Person–Group Fit (MPPGF) |
Fit between individuals and the group is measured on several dimensions including:
|
| Are team members ready for team and cross-disciplinary collaboration? | |
| Research-orientation scale | Indicator of collaboration readiness that assesses team members’ values and attitudes toward cross-disciplinary research on a continuum including unidisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary research orientations |
| Measurement Specifics | Scale Development/Validation Evidence |
|---|---|
| 16-item BAG scale assessing 4 dimensions: preference for group versus individual work, positive group performance beliefs, negative group performance beliefs, and beliefs that others will work hard on group tasks. Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | Karau et al. (2009) |
48-item scale measuring members’ propensities to occupy six different team roles, including:
Rated on a 5-point scale (1=not at all; 5=to a very great extent) |
Mathieu et al. (2015b) |
| 28-item scale with 4 items each of the following 7 subscales: needs–supplies match, shared interests, perceived demographic similarity, complementary attributes, values congruence, goals similarity, and common workstyle. The extent to which the person performing the self-assessment agrees with the fit-related items is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) | Li et al. (2018) |
| 10-item scale assessing team members’ proclivity toward unidisciplinary (3 items, “researchers use theories and methods from a single discipline”), multidisciplinary (2 items, “researchers work in parallel or sequentially from disciplinary-specific base to address a common problem”), and interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary research orientations (5 items, “researchers work jointly but still from disciplinary-specific basis to address common problem” and “researchers work jointly using shared conceptual framework drawing together disciplinary-specific theories, concepts, and approaches to address common problems”; Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1351). Items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree | Hall et al. (2008) Rosenfield (1992) |
| Construct/Scale Name | Construct Definition/Scale Description |
|---|---|
| Interdisciplinary Perspectives Index (IPI) | Attitudes toward working with team members from different fields and beliefs about the outcomes of cross-disciplinary work |
| Transdisciplinary Orientation Scale | “Values, attitudes, beliefs, conceptual skills and knowledge, and behavioral repertoires that predispose an individual to collaborating effectively in cross-disciplinary science teams” (Misra et al., 2015, p. 1) |
| What Are the Shared Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral States in Your Team? | |
| How strongly do team members connect with each other and the team’s purpose emotionally and attitudinally? | |
| Team cohesion | Interpersonal/social cohesion: emotional bonding among team members, reflecting trust, mutual respect, and camaraderie. Task cohesion: shared commitment to the team’s mission that reflects dedication and responsibility to complete tasks and solve problems |
| Team trust | Trust is defined as a latent variable resulting from 2 distinct but related formative indicators (propensity to trust and perceived trustworthiness), which lead to 2 reflective and behavioral indicators (cooperation and monitoring) between team members |
| Perceived collective efficacy | Team members’ perceptions of the group’s ability to succeed |
| Collective team identification | Members’ emotional commitment to the team and its goals |
| To what extent is team knowledge shared and differentiated in your team? | |
| Referee Shared Mental Models Measure (RSMMM) | The extent to which team members believe that they share a similar understanding of taskwork (what the team is doing) and teamwork (how the work gets done and who accomplishes what) |
| Measurement Specifics | Scale Development/Validation Evidence |
|---|---|
| 6-item scale assessing attitudes about cross-disciplinary work, including the extent to which they value interdisciplinary work, are optimistic about the scientific outcome of such work, have tolerance of and open-mindedness toward research perspectives other than their own, use multiple research methods from many disciplines, believe that a high degree of goodwill exists among their research collaborators, and believe that the benefits of interdisciplinary research outweigh the inconveniences | Misra et al. (2009) |
| 12-item scale to measure team members’ transdisciplinary orientation on two dimensions: (a) values, attitudes, and beliefs (6 items) and (b) conceptual skills and behaviors (6 items) on a 5-item Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree | Misra et al. (2015) |
| 6-item scale measuring interpersonal (3 items) and task-oriented (3 items) team cohesion on a 1–7 Likert-type scale | Mathieu et al. (2015a) |
| 21-item multidimensional measure with 4 dimensions, including (a) propensity to trust (6 items), (b) perceived trustworthiness (6 items), (c) cooperation (6 items), and (d) monitoring between team members (3 items) rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree | Costa and Anderson (2010) |
| 4-item scale rated on a 5-point scale (1=never, 5=most of the time) | Salanova et al. (2003) |
| 4-item scale rated on a 7-point scale (1=completely disagree, 7=completely agree) | Van Der Vegt and Bunderson (2005) |
| 13-item measure assessing whether team members believe they are on the same page about relevant team knowledge, including decision-making, technology, procedures, interactions, and priorities. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1=totally disagree, 7=totally agree) | Sinval et al. (2020) |
| Construct/Scale Name | Construct Definition/Scale Description |
|---|---|
| Transactive memory systems scale | Unique member expertise plus a shared awareness of who knows what in the team |
| Team learning | The process through which team members collectively acquire, share, and apply knowledge to achieve common goals |
| How strongly do team members depend on each other and share the workload? | |
| Task interdependence | The degree to which team members rely on one another to complete their tasks and achieve the team’s goals |
| Workload sharing | Equitable distribution of tasks and responsibilities among team members to ensure that the overall workload is managed efficiently and fairly |
| What Is the Quality of Team Processes and Interactions in Your Team? | |
| Conflict | Task conflict involves differences among team members about the content and outcomes of the tasks being performed Relationship conflict refers to personal incompatibilities among team members and is characterized by tension and animosity between team members Process conflict centers on issues about logistics, the procedures used to accomplish tasks, and who will perform what roles |
| Conflict management | Strategies and processes used to resolve disputes among team members in a constructive manner |
| Team processes | Team processes capture interaction between team members. Transition processes: teams engage in evaluation and planning activities Action processes: teams perform activities that directly contribute to goal attainment Interpersonal processes: teams foster motivation, manage emotions, and resolve conflict |
| Implicit coordination | The process by which team members align their actions and synchronize their efforts without explicit communication |
| Measurement Specifics | Scale Development/Validation Evidence |
|---|---|
| 15-item scale divided into 3 dimensions (specialization, credibility, and coordination) of 5 items each and rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) | Lewis (2003) |
| 7-item scale rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=never, 7=always) | Edmondson (1999) |
| 5-item scale rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) | Van Der Vegt et al. (2000) |
| 3-item scale rated on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) | Campion et al. (1993) |
| 9-item scale with 3 sub-scales of 3 items each (task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict) rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 7=a lot) | Jehn and Mannix (2001) |
| 4-item scale rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) | Tekleab et al. (2009) |
| 50-item full scale (15-item transition processes scale with 3 subscales (mission analysis, goal specification, strategy formulation); 20-item action processes scale with 4 sub-scales (monitoring progress toward goals, systems monitoring, team monitoring and backup, coordination); 15-item interpersonal process scale with 3 sub-scales (conflict management, motivating and confidence-building, affect management) 30-item shorter form 10-item shorter form |
Mathieu et al. (2020) |
| 4-items rated on a 5-point scale (1=extremely inaccurate, 5=extremely accurate) | Fisher et al. (2012) |
| Construct/Scale Name | Construct Definition/Scale Description |
|---|---|
| Is the Climate in Your Team Supportive of Scientific Collaboration? | |
| Team climate | Collective perceptions and shared attitudes of team members regarding their team environment |
| Work group inclusion | The extent to which group members feel included in the team includes 2 dimensions: belonging (supportive and caring relationships among members) and uniqueness (differences between members are valued and respected) |
| Psychological safety | Shared belief among team members that the environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking such that members can ask questions, admit mistakes, and raise concerns without fear of embarrassment or ridicule |
| Team Perceived Virtuality | “Shared affective-cognitive emergent state that is characterized by team members’ co-constructed and collectively experienced 1) distance and 2) information deficits, thereby capturing the unrealized nature of the team as a collective system” (Handke et al., 2021, p. 626). Socio-constructivist perspective on team virtuality emphasizing how team members perceive virtuality |
| How Much Do Team Members Take on Different Leadership Roles in the Team? | |
| Team leadership |
Influence across 2 main phases in the team life cycle:
|
| Temporal leadership | The extent to which leaders schedule deadlines, synchronize team member behaviors, and allocate temporal resources |
| Measurement Specifics | Scale Development/Validation Evidence |
|---|---|
| The Team Climate Inventory is a 14-item scale (short version) that measures team climate in the areas of vision, participative safety, task orientation, and support for innovation rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) |
Kivimaki & Elovainio (1999) Strating & Nieboer (2009) |
| The Work Group Inclusion scale is a 10-item scale rated on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) | Chung et al. (2020) |
| 7-item scale rated on a 7-point scale (1=very inaccurate, 5=very accurate) | Edmondson (1999) |
| 10-item scale with 2 dimensions: (a) collectively experienced distance (5 items) and (b) collectively experienced information deficits (5 items) rated on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree | Handke et al. (2021, 2024) |
The Team Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) is an integrative measurement tool assessing 15 team leader function categories divided into 2 primary phases:
|
Morgeson et al. (2010) |
| 7-item scale rated on a 5-point scale (1=not at all, 5=a great deal) | Mohammed & Nadkarni (2011) |
| Construct/Scale Name | Construct Definition/Scale Description |
|---|---|
| What Are the Affective and Performance Outcomes of Team Interactions? | |
| How happy are team members with how they worked together? | |
| Team viability | Willingness for team members to continue working together in the future |
| Individual-level team satisfaction | Overall contentment and positive feelings team members have about their experiences in a team, including relationships with colleagues and task fulfillment |
| Collaboration | Team members working together to achieve common goals by sharing knowledge and communicating clearly to integrate different perspectives and ideas |
| How productive is your team? | |
| Team performance | The extent to which a team collectively achieves its goals and objectives |
| Comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness |
5 broad areas of team effectiveness:
|
| Measurement Specifics | Scale Development/Validation Evidence |
|---|---|
| 4-item scale rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) | Tekleab et al. (2009) |
| 5-item scale rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1=very dissatisfied, 7=very satisfied) | Tekleab et al. (2009) |
| 18-item scale measuring satisfaction with collaboration (8 items: acceptance of ideas, communication, researchers’ strengths, organization, resolution of conflict, working styles, outside involvement, and discipline involvement), collaboration impact (6 items: meeting productivity, products productivity, overall productivity, research productivity, quality of research, and time burden), and trust and respect (4 items: being comfortable in showing limits, trusting colleagues, being open to criticism, and respect) in research teams. Satisfaction with collaboration and 3 of the collaboration impact items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from inadequate to excellent. 3 collaboration impact items and trust and respect items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree | Mâsse et al. (2008) |
| 5-item scale (team learning behavior, context support, team leader coaching, team psychological safety, team efficacy) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=never, 5=always) | Edmondson (1999) |
| 33-item short scale designed for self- and peer-evaluations of team members in 5 areas: contributing to the team’s work, interacting with teammates, keeping the team on track, expecting quality, and having relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) 87-item full scale designed for self-and peer-evaluations in the 5 areas listed above rated on a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale in which raters read through behavioral examples describing a 1, 3, and 5 rating and select the option that best matches ratees’ behavior |
Ohland et al. (2012) |
| Construct/Scale Name | Construct Definition/Scale Description |
|---|---|
| What Is the Overall State of Readiness, Functioning, Climate, and Outcomes in Your Team? | |
| TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (T-TPQ) | A tool developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that helps to identify the strengths and areas for improvement in team dynamics in health care settings |
| Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS) | An extensive instrument based on a conceptual model of the five enabling conditions that increase the likelihood that a team will perform effectively. It also assesses individual affective reactions |
Note: The items to many of the scales provided in Appendix D are freely available at https://ctsi.psu.edu/research-support/team-science-toolbox/assessment/
REFERENCES
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.). TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/teamstepps-program/tools/ts-tpq-questionnaire.pdf
___. (2023). TeamSTEPPS: Research/evidence base. https://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps-program/evidence-base/index.html
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847.
Chung, B., Ehrhart, K., Shore, L. M., Randel, A., Dean, M., & Kedharnath, U. (2020). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and model. Group and Organization Management, 45(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119839858
Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2010). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 119–154.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Fisher, D. M., Bell, S. T., Dierdorff, E. C., & Belohlav, J. A. (2012). Facet personality and surface-level diversity as team mental model antecedents: Implications for implicit coordination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 825.
| Measurement Specifics | Scale Development/Validation Evidence |
|---|---|
| 35-item instrument assessing 5 dimensions (7 items each) of team functioning in a health care context: team structure, team leadership, situation monitoring, mutual support, and communication. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree | Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (n.d., 2023) |
| The TDS measures 5 enabling conditions underlying team success, including whether the task requires a real team rather than in name only (8 items), whether the team has a compelling direction (10 items), a well-designed enabling team structure (20 items), a supportive organizational context (11 items), and available expert coaching (27 items). The survey also measures process criteria of team effectiveness (9 items), the quality of team interpersonal processes (7 items), and individual learning and well-being (10 items). Most items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from highly inaccurate to highly accurate |
Wageman et al. (2005) |
Hall, K. L., Stokols, D., Moser, R. P., Taylor, B. K., Thornquist, M. D., Nebeling, L. C., Ehret, C. C., Barnett, M. J., McTiernan, A., Berger, N. A., Goran, M. I., & Jeffery, R. W. (2008). The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers findings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC Year-One evaluation study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2 Suppl), S161–S172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.035
Handke, L., Costa, P., & Feitosa, J. (2024). How virtual are we? Introducing the team perceived virtuality scale. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1–24.
Handke, L., Costa, P. L., Klonek, F. E., O’Neill, T. A., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Team perceived virtuality: An emergent state perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(5), 624–638.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069453
Karau, S. J., & Elsaid, A. M. M. K. (2009). Individual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(1), 1–13. https://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/a0013366
Kivimaki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the Team Climate Inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 241–246.
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.88.4.587
Li, C. S., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Nielsen, J. D. (2018). Fitting in a group: Theoretical development and validation of the Multidimensional Perceived Person–Group Fit scale. Personnel Psychology,72, 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12295
Mâsse, L. C., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., Taylor, B. K., Marcus, S. E., Morgan, G. D., Hall, K. L., Croyle, R. T., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S151–S160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.020
Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D’Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015a). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion–performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713–734.
Mathieu, J. E., Luciano, M. M., D’Innocenzo, L., Klock, E. A., & LePine, J. A. (2020). The development and construct validity of a team processes survey measure. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 399–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119840801
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015b). Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management, 40(1), 6–34.
Misra, S., Stokols, D., & Cheng, L. (2015). The transdisciplinary orientation scale: Factor structure and relation to the integrative quality and scope of scientific publications. Journal of Translational Medicine and Epidemiology, 3(2), 1042.
Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderating role of temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 489–508.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., & Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 609–630. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0177
Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 35(11), 1343–1357.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402239577
Sinval, J., Aragão e Pina, J., Sinval, J., Marôco, J., Santos, C. M., Uitdewilligen, S., Maynard, M. T., & Passos, A. M. (2020). Development of the referee shared mental models measure (RSMMM). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 550271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.550271
Strating, M. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2009). Psychometric test of the Team Climate Inventory-short version investigated in Dutch quality improvement teams. BMC Health Services Research, 9(1), 1–7.
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170–205.
Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600403
Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532–547.
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373–398.
This page intentionally left blank.
