The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema

Susan Mohammed, Richard Klimoski, Joan R. Rentsch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

250 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and(c) evaluating a set of techniquesformeasuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-165
Number of pages43
JournalOrganizational Research Methods
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Mental models
Cognitive mapping
Psychometrics
Empirical research
Multidimensional scaling
Cognition

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Decision Sciences(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

Mohammed, Susan ; Klimoski, Richard ; Rentsch, Joan R. / The Measurement of Team Mental Models : We Have No Shared Schema. In: Organizational Research Methods. 2000 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 123-165.
@article{b262cec0750f4cd39f1c672fca19b112,
title = "The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema",
abstract = "This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and(c) evaluating a set of techniquesformeasuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.",
author = "Susan Mohammed and Richard Klimoski and Rentsch, {Joan R.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/109442810032001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "123--165",
journal = "Organizational Research Methods",
issn = "1094-4281",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

The Measurement of Team Mental Models : We Have No Shared Schema. / Mohammed, Susan; Klimoski, Richard; Rentsch, Joan R.

In: Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3, No. 2, 01.01.2000, p. 123-165.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Measurement of Team Mental Models

T2 - We Have No Shared Schema

AU - Mohammed, Susan

AU - Klimoski, Richard

AU - Rentsch, Joan R.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and(c) evaluating a set of techniquesformeasuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.

AB - This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and(c) evaluating a set of techniquesformeasuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0009951262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0009951262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/109442810032001

DO - 10.1177/109442810032001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0009951262

VL - 3

SP - 123

EP - 165

JO - Organizational Research Methods

JF - Organizational Research Methods

SN - 1094-4281

IS - 2

ER -