The comparative effectiveness of distributed and colocated team after-action reviews

Jarrett, Steven; Glaze, Ryan M.; Schurig, Ira; Muñoz, Gonzalo; Naber, Andrew M.; McDonald, Jennifer N.; Bennett, Winston; Arthur, Winfred

doi:10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with our eligibility criteria, all studies delivered the intervention in a group setting, with team size ranging from three to eight members ( M = 4.5, SD = 4.1). The majority of studies provided interventions using a face-to-face delivery style (64%, n = 16), followed by elements of virtuality in the delivery of interventions (28%, n = 7); two studies (Jarrett et al, 2016; Konradt et al, 2015) utilized both face-to-face and virtual delivery styles. For interventions delivered in a virtual environment, team communication occurred through chat functions or e-mails in all but one study in which team members could communicate via headsets with a voice activated microphone.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies ( K = 3) in which there was an experimental condition unrelated to the aims of the meta-analysis (e.g., individual reflection), the condition was excluded from the analysis. Fourth, two eligible studies were coded as containing two experiments (a and b); in one instance, two experiments were reported within the same study (pilot and experiment; Dyas, 2018), whereas experimental conditions were compared to control conditions in two different location conditions in the second paper (distributed and co-located; Jarrett et al, 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meta-analytical findings have demonstrated that virtual teams exhibit lower levels of performance (e.g., Lacerenza et al, 2017). With regard to the benefits of collective reflections within virtual teams, the findings are equivocal; in some instances, the effects of team reflections are stronger in face-to-face teams (Jarrett et al, 2016), yet in others team reflections improve performance in virtual teams (e.g., Gurtner et al, 2007; Konradt et al, 2015). For this reason, we examined the differential effects of team virtuality on the effectiveness of team reflexivity interventions, rather than proposed a specific hypothesis.…”

Section: Team Reflexivity—conceptual Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effectiveness of team reflexivity interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lines¹,

Pietsch²,

Crane³

et al. 2021

Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cumulating evidence from 24 independent randomized controlled trials or experiments (N = 4,339), we meta-analytically examined questions regarding the effectiveness of team reflexivity on collective performance outcomes and behaviors, and the conditions under which such effects are strongest. We addressed these questions by testing the overall effect of team reflexivity on performance outcomes (i.e., indices or metrics that quantify goal attainment) and behaviors (i.e., those actions or states that precede or influence goal attainment), and assessing the robustness of this pooled effect across study (e.g., team size), outcome (e.g., measurement approach), and intervention characteristics (e.g., virtuality) via a series of moderator analyses. We found a positive and significant medium overall effect of team reflexivity interventions on performance outcomes (g = .549) and performance behaviors (g = .548). Moderator analyses indicated that the team reflexivity-performance outcome effect is contingent upon the measurement approach (in favor of self-reports over objective indices or researcherassessed outcomes). With regard to performance behaviors, the effect of team reflexivity was strongest for cognitions and behaviors relative to affective dimensions, and when interventions were delivered to teams present physically relative to virtual teams. Collectively, our findings extend existing meta-analytic evidence regarding team reflexivity interventions in terms of resolution (i.e., inability to isolate unique effects), scope (i.e., primary studies missed via the systematic search), and methodological quality of primary evidence (i.e., incorporation of quasi-experimental designs).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Team Reflexivity—conceptual Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effectiveness of team reflexivity interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lines¹,

Pietsch²,

Crane³

et al. 2021

Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Department of the Army, 1993). Researchers continue to commonly use this facilitation approach (e.g., Jarrett et al, 2016; Qudrat-Ullah, 2007). However, the AAR has also and more recently been implemented using a self-led approach, in that there is no leader who facilitates the AAR (e.g., Boet et al, 2011, 2013).…”

Section: Factors That Contribute To the Effectiveness Of The Aar: Tas...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Objective performance review media (e.g., video) avoid potential issues with inaccurate recall and in turn lead to more precise feedback and better quality (e.g., more focused) goal setting (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013; Villado & Arthur, 2013). However, empirical comparisons find little observed differences in the effectiveness of AARs that incorporate more objective performance review media compared with those that rely solely on the memory of trainees (Jarrett et al, 2016; Savoldelli et al, 2006; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013; Villado & Arthur, 2013). Most notably, Tannenbaum and Cerasoli (2013) found no difference in the effectiveness of the AAR that included some type of recall aid, compared with those that did not.…”

Section: Factors That Contribute To the Effectiveness Of The Aar: Tas...mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Keiser¹,

Arthur²

2021

Journal of Applied Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Human-Centered Augmentation of xR Training Technologies with a Self-regulatory Cognitive Process

Ampo,

Moon,

Hesson

et al. 2022

Augmented Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The comparative effectiveness of distributed and colocated team after-action reviews

Cited by 13 publications

References 30 publications

The effectiveness of team reflexivity interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The effectiveness of team reflexivity interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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

Human-Centered Augmentation of xR Training Technologies with a Self-regulatory Cognitive Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About