Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Group & Organization Management
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gibson, C. B.
Right arrow Articles by Earley, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Understanding Group Efficacy

An Empirical Test of Multiple Assessment Methods

Cristina B. Gibson

University of Southern California

Amy E. Randel

Wake Forest University

P. Christopher Earley

Indiana University

Methods of assessing group efficacy were examined using a multiparty role play negotiation. Group efficacy is defined as a group’s perceived capability to perform. Three methods of measuring group efficacy were compared: (a) group potency, (b) an aggregation of group members’ estimates, and (c) group discussion. These methods were used to assess group efficacy regarding several group performance characteristics. Analyses were conducted to assess various validity and measurement issues. All methods and types demonstrated construct validity; however, predictive validity was modest and varied across the measures. The group discussion method predicted group outcomes better than the potency scale or aggregate method. As expected, generalized efficacy measures predicted general performance indicators, and task-specific measures predicted task-specific performance.

Group & Organization Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, 67-97 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1059601100251005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
H. van Mierlo, J. K. Vermunt, and C. G. Rutte
Composing Group-Level Constructs From Individual-Level Survey Data
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2009; 12(2): 368 - 392.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
A. G. Tekleab, N. R. Quigley, and P. E. Tesluk
A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness
Group Organization Management, April 1, 2009; 34(2): 170 - 205.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
K. L. Tyran and C. B. Gibson
Is What You See, What You Get?: The Relationship Among Surface- and Deep-Level Heterogeneity Characteristics, Group Efficacy, and Team Reputation
Group Organization Management, February 1, 2008; 33(1): 46 - 76.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
R. D. Goddard and L. F. LoGerfo
Measuring Emergent Organizational Properties: A Structural Equation Modeling Test of Self- Versus Group-Referent Perceptions
Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 2007; 67(5): 845 - 858.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
D. S. Staples and J. Webster
Exploring Traditional and Virtual Team Members' "Best Practices": A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective
Small Group Research, February 1, 2007; 38(1): 60 - 97.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
A. M. Hardin, M. A. Fuller, and R. M. Davison
I Know I Can, But Can We?: Culture and Efficacy Beliefs in Global Virtual Teams
Small Group Research, February 1, 2007; 38(1): 130 - 155.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
P. Van den Bossche, W. H. Gijselaers, M. Segers, and P. A. Kirschner
Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments: Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviors
Small Group Research, October 1, 2006; 37(5): 490 - 521.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
A. M. Hardin, M. A. Fuller, and J. S. Valacich
Measuring Group Efficacy in Virtual Teams: New Questions in an Old Debate
Small Group Research, February 1, 2006; 37(1): 65 - 85.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
C. M. Mason and M. A. Griffin
Group Task Satisfaction: The Group's Shared Attitude to its Task and Work Environment
Group Organization Management, December 1, 2005; 30(6): 625 - 652.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
B. L. Kirkman, P. E. Tesluk, and B. Rosen
The Impact of Demographic Heterogeneity and Team Leader-Team Member Demographic Fit on Team Empowerment and Effectiveness
Group Organization Management, June 1, 2004; 29(3): 334 - 368.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
J. W. Whiteoak, L. Chalip, and L. K. Hort
Assessing Group Efficacy: Comparing Three Methods of Measurement
Small Group Research, April 1, 2004; 35(2): 158 - 173.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
D. I. Jung and J. J. Sosik
Group Potency and Collective Efficacy: Examining their Predictive Validity, Level of Analysis, and Effects of Performance Feedback on Future Group Performance
Group Organization Management, September 1, 2003; 28(3): 366 - 391.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
K. W. Phillips
The Effects of Categorically Based Expectations on Minority Influence: The Importance of Congruence
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 2003; 29(1): 3 - 13.
[Abstract] [PDF]