Self-report Likert measures of team constructs are subject to social desirability bias, availability heuristics, and scale-point interpretation problems, favoring behavioral markers as a measurement approach¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2021: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? Self-reported measures are more subject to social desirability bias than other measurement sources, and end-of-episode ratings are susceptible to availability heuristics and scale-point interpretation differences. → Robert A. Sottilare 2018
Evidence¶
Robert A. Sottilare 2018¶
Robert A. Sottilare, C. Shawn Burke, Eduardo Salas, Anne M. Sinatra, Joan H. Johnston, Stephen B. Gilbert. (2018). Designing Adaptive Instruction for Teams: a Meta-Analysis. Int J Artif Intell Educ 28:225–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0146-z
q1 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Theoretical argument in the article's measurement-methods discussion, citing prior literature; no empirical test is reported. The article states "self-reported measures are more subject to social desirability bias than other measurement sources" and argues behavioral markers rated during performance reduce these biases.
"First, self-reported measures are more subject to social desirability bias than other measurement sources (Budescu and Bruderman 1995)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.