Table 1. Summary Results of Interventions Assessing the Effects of Teamwork Training on Teamwork.
| Study | Relative Weight | Effect Size (SE) | 95% CI (lower, upper) | Z-value | p-value | ES with intervetion removed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron 2014 [13] a | 2.43 | 1.432 (.35) | .74, 2.13 | 4.04 | < .001 | 0.67 |
| b | 2.48 | .869 (.33) | .22, 1.52 | 2.61 | .009 | 0.68 |
| Becker 2005 [40] | 2.75 | .635 (.21) | .22, 1.05 | 3.02 | .003 | 0.69 |
| Beck-Jones 2004 [41] a | 2.70 | -.030 (.24) | -.50, .44 | -0.13 | .898 | 0.70 |
| b | 2.69 | -.003 (.24) | -.47, .47 | -0.01 | .990 | 0.70 |
| Beranek 2005 [42] | 2.67 | .649 (.25) | .16, 1.13 | 2.62 | .009 | 0.68 |
| Bjornberg 2014 [9] | 2.83 | .080 (.16) | -.23, .39 | 0.50 | .615 | 0.69 |
| Brannick 2005 [5] | 2.72 | 1.229 (.23) | .79, 1.67 | 5.47 | < .001 | 0.69 |
| Bushe 1995 [43] a | 2.53 | .405 (.31) | -.20, 1.01 | 1.31 | .192 | 0.69 |
| b | 2.53 | .534 (.31) | -.08, 1.14 | 1.71 | .086 | 0.69 |
| Cheater 2005 [12] | 2.82 | .336 (.17) | .00, .67 | 1.97 | .049 | 0.69 |
| Clay-Willaims 2013 [44] a | 2.04 | .531 (.51) | -.46, 1.53 | 1.05 | .296 | 0.69 |
| b | 2.06 | -.213 (.50) | -1.20, .77 | -0.43 | .671 | 0.70 |
| c | 2.12 | 0.000 (.48) | -.94, .94 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.70 |
| Dalenberg 2009 [45] | 2.82 | 1.001 (.17) | .68, 1.33 | 6.02 | < .001 | 0.67 |
| Deneckere 2013 [46] | 2.92 | .129 (.09) | -.04, .29 | 1.52 | .129 | 0.70 |
| Dibble 2010 [47] | 2.92 | -.242 (.09) | -.42, -.07 | -2.72 | .007 | 0.71 |
| Eden 1986 [48] | 2.92 | .427 (.09) | .07, .42 | 2.73 | .006 | 0.70 |
| Ellis 2005 [14] | 2.88 | .792 (.13) | .54, 1.05 | 6.14 | < .001 | 0.68 |
| Emmert 2011 [49] | 2.54 | .763 (.31) | .16, 1.36 | 2.48 | .013 | 0.68 |
| Entin 1999 [50] | 2.32 | .771 (.40) | -.01, 1.55 | 1.93 | .054 | 0.68 |
| Friedlander 1967 [51] | 2.72 | .495 (.22) | .06, .94 | 2.21 | .027 | 0.69 |
| Green 1994 [52] a | 1.91 | .665 (.56) | -.44, 1.76 | 1.19 | .236 | 0.68 |
| b | 1.87 | 1.058 (.58) | -.08, 2.20 | 1.82 | .069 | 0.68 |
| Jankouskas 2010 [7] | 2.22 | .778 (.44) | -.08, 1.64 | 1.77 | .077 | 0.68 |
| Kim 2014 [53] | 2.65 | .062 (.26) | -.45, .57 | 0.24 | .813 | 0.70 |
| Marshall 2009 [22]* | 2.70 | 3.277 (.33) | 2.65, 3.95 | 9.90 | < .001 | 0.61 |
| Martinez-Moreno 2015 [54] | 2.86 | .503 (.14) | .23, .78 | 3.63 | < .001 | 0.69 |
| Morey 2002 [3]* | 2.93 | 1.896 (.08) | 1.75, 2.05 | 24.83 | < .001 | 0.64 |
| O’Leary 2011 [21] | 2.82 | .426 (.17) | .10, .76 | 2.54 | .011 | 0.69 |
| Padmo Putri 2012 [6] | 2.82 | -.097 (.17) | -.42, .23 | -0.58 | .561 | 0.71 |
| Prichard 2007 [55] | 2.40 | 1.981 (.37) | 1.26, 2.70 | 5.381 | < .001 | 0.65 |
| Rapp 2007 [56] | 2.61 | .535 (.28) | -.01, 1.08 | 1.93 | .053 | 0.69 |
| Shapiro 2004 [57] | 2.03 | .689 (.52) | -.32, 1.70 | 1.34 | .181 | 0.68 |
| Smith-Jentsch 2008 [4] | 2.63 | 1.103 (.27) | .58, 1.63 | 4.13 | < .001 | 0.67 |
| Thomas 2007 [58] | 2.39 | .891 (.37) | .16, 1.62 | 2.40 | .016 | 0.68 |
| Volpe 1996 [59] | 2.71 | .450 (.23) | .00, .90 | 1.97 | .049 | 0.69 |
| Weaver 2010 [60] | 2.41 | .580 (.36) | -.13, 1.29 | 1.61 | .109 | 0.69 |
| Weller 2014 [61] | 2.64 | 1.563 (.26) | 1.05, 2.08 | 5.92 | < .001 | 0.66 |
| OVERALL | 100 | .683 (0.13) | 0.43, 0.94 | 5.23 | <0.001 |
Note. a, b, c = intervention groups within study; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; ES = effect size.
* = Study identified as an outlier and removed from subsequent moderator analyses.
The final column marked ‘ES with study removed’ indicates the results of the sensitivity analysis for each respective intervention.