A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness.

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of the after-action review (AAR)-also commonly termed debrief-and 4 training characteristics within the context of Villado and Arthur's (2013) conceptual framework. Based on a bare-bones meta-analysis of the results from 61 studies (107 ds [915 teams and 3,499 individuals]), the AAR leads to an overall d of 0.79 improvement in multiple training evaluation criteria. This effect is larger than some of the largest training method effects reported in Arthur, Bennett, Edens, and Bell (2003), and it is also larger than Tannenbaum and Cerasoli's (2013) estimate of the effect of the AAR on task performance (d ϭ 0.67). Two training characteristics consistently contributed to the effectiveness of the AAR: (a) alignment to the individual or the team, and (b) objective performance review media. The effects of the other training characteristics were often interactive. Most notably, the facilitation approach contributes to the effectiveness of the AAR in combination with the individual versus the team and the type of review media, with the most effective combinations being the self-led facilitation approach coupled with a team-aligned AAR, and the self-led approach coupled with objective media. Additionally, the AAR that is highly structured is more effective than a less structured AAR in the military, but high and low structured AARs display comparable effectiveness in healthcare. Overall, this study suggests that the effectiveness of the AAR should be understood as a function of the combined influence among multiple interacting characteristics. Future theoretical development and research should be directed at better understanding these interactions.

Knowing Well, Being Well: well-being born of understanding: The Science of Teamwork

“…Indeed, meta-analyses demonstrate that de-briefs can improve team performance by more than 25% and are particularly effective when teams are given the opportunity to review objective performance information as part of the debriefing process. 38,39…”

A call for I-O psychologists to contribute to business continuity planning and assessment

“…One tool that I-O psychologists can implement in this context is an after action review, "a systematic technique that turns a recent event into a learning opportunity through a combination of task feedback, reflection, and discussion" (Keiser & Arthur, 2021). This technique is used extensively in the medical fields and in the military to review the intended outcome(s) of an event, effective and ineffective actions, future objectives, and strategies to facilitate meeting those objectives.…”

Optimizing Team Effectiveness: Key Takeaways From the Science With a Focus on the Virtual Context

“…31 Debriefing consists of the feedback, reflection, and discussion that takes place after an action phase. 32 These debriefs allow team members to turn the recent action phase into a learning opportunity by reflecting on where they've been and where they're going. Formal debriefs or after action reviews cover 5 dimensions: the team's initial objective, their actual outcome, the specific actions they took, their future objectives, and their strategy for moving into the next phase.…”

“…Formal debriefs or after action reviews cover 5 dimensions: the team's initial objective, their actual outcome, the specific actions they took, their future objectives, and their strategy for moving into the next phase. 32 First the team reviews what they initially set out to accomplish, then examines what outcomes they actually achieved. Next, the team examines the actions they took that both aided and hindered their ability to achieve the outcome they originally intended.…”

“…By taking the information they learned from their reflection on past actions, they can identify futures actions that are most likely to contribute to success and develop strategies accordingly. 32 Following these steps helps the team improve their taskwork processes both directly, and indirectly, by boosting their efficacy and psychological safety. 12…”