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

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

doi:10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662

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

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

School of Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Despite their frequent use in the military and private sectors, the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed after-action reviews (AARs) is relatively unknown. Consequently, this study examined the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed AARs across taskwork and teamwork outcomes. Data were obtained from 492 participants randomly assigned to 123 four-person teams who participated in one of six AAR conditions. The results indicated that teams in the AAR conditions had significantly higher performance and team efficacy scores than the teams in the non-AAR conditions. In summary, the findings highlight that regardless of the training environment or type of AAR, the AAR remains an effective method at increasing performance and other outcomes. Therefore, the use of distributed AARs does not engender the posited process losses that were hypothesized.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	408-427
Number of pages	20
Journal	Human Performance
Volume	29
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662
State	Published - 19 Oct 2016

Access to Document

10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662

Cite this

@article{a7c99321a12b413cbc6acf11ed565585,

title = "The comparative effectiveness of distributed and colocated team after-action reviews",

abstract = "Despite their frequent use in the military and private sectors, the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed after-action reviews (AARs) is relatively unknown. Consequently, this study examined the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed AARs across taskwork and teamwork outcomes. Data were obtained from 492 participants randomly assigned to 123 four-person teams who participated in one of six AAR conditions. The results indicated that teams in the AAR conditions had significantly higher performance and team efficacy scores than the teams in the non-AAR conditions. In summary, the findings highlight that regardless of the training environment or type of AAR, the AAR remains an effective method at increasing performance and other outcomes. Therefore, the use of distributed AARs does not engender the posited process losses that were hypothesized.",

author = "Jarrett, {Steven M.} and Glaze, {Ryan M.} and Ira Schurig and Mu{\~n}oz, {Gonzalo J.} and Naber, {Andrew M.} and McDonald, {Jennifer N.} and Winston Bennett and Winfred Arthur",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016 Taylor & Francis.",

year = "2016",

month = oct,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "408--427",

journal = "Human Performance",

issn = "0895-9285",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The comparative effectiveness of distributed and colocated team after-action reviews

AU - Jarrett, Steven M.

AU - Glaze, Ryan M.

AU - Schurig, Ira

AU - Muñoz, Gonzalo J.

AU - Naber, Andrew M.

AU - McDonald, Jennifer N.

AU - Bennett, Winston

AU - Arthur, Winfred

PY - 2016/10/19

Y1 - 2016/10/19

N2 - Despite their frequent use in the military and private sectors, the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed after-action reviews (AARs) is relatively unknown. Consequently, this study examined the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed AARs across taskwork and teamwork outcomes. Data were obtained from 492 participants randomly assigned to 123 four-person teams who participated in one of six AAR conditions. The results indicated that teams in the AAR conditions had significantly higher performance and team efficacy scores than the teams in the non-AAR conditions. In summary, the findings highlight that regardless of the training environment or type of AAR, the AAR remains an effective method at increasing performance and other outcomes. Therefore, the use of distributed AARs does not engender the posited process losses that were hypothesized.

AB - Despite their frequent use in the military and private sectors, the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed after-action reviews (AARs) is relatively unknown. Consequently, this study examined the comparative effectiveness of colocated and distributed AARs across taskwork and teamwork outcomes. Data were obtained from 492 participants randomly assigned to 123 four-person teams who participated in one of six AAR conditions. The results indicated that teams in the AAR conditions had significantly higher performance and team efficacy scores than the teams in the non-AAR conditions. In summary, the findings highlight that regardless of the training environment or type of AAR, the AAR remains an effective method at increasing performance and other outcomes. Therefore, the use of distributed AARs does not engender the posited process losses that were hypothesized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991000773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662

DO - 10.1080/08959285.2016.1208662

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84991000773

SN - 0895-9285

VL - 29

SP - 408

EP - 427

JO - Human Performance

JF - Human Performance

IS - 5

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this