Claims

Team attitudes predict team performance, with collective efficacy (20%) and psychological safety (17%) explaining the most variance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

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.

q3 i? Collective efficacy (rho = .45, 20% variance) and psychological safety (rho = .41, 17%) are the strongest attitudinal predictors of team performance; trust (rho = .30, 9%) and cohesion (rho = .39, 15%) also contribute. → 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

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analytic synthesis (Table 3) of attitudinal contributions to team performance from the same ~300-study database; overall attitudinal rho = .44 (19% variance), with collective efficacy rho = .45. The article reports "collective efficacy and psychological safety explain the most variance in team performance, 20% and 17% respectively."

"Results indicate that collective efficacy and psychological safety explain the most variance in team performance, 20% and 17% respectively. This is followed by trust and cohesion which also explain significant amounts of variance (9% and 15% respectively)."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.