Table 2. Summary Results of Interventions Assessing the Effects of Teamwork Training on Team Performance.
| Study | Relative Weight | Effect Size (SE) | 95% CI (lower, upper) | Z-value | p-value | ES with intervention removed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beck-Jones 2004 [41] a | 2.16 | .502 (.18) | .35, 1.04 | 3.91 | < .001 | 0.93 |
| b | 2.15 | .902 (.18) | .33, 1.30 | 3.83 | < .001 | 0.92 |
| Bjornberg 2014 [9] | 2.24 | .466 (.16) | .15, .78 | 2.91 | .004 | 0.93 |
| Brannick 2005 [5] | 2.20 | .237 (.21) | -.17, .64 | 1.15 | .249 | 0.94 |
| Brown 2003 [62] | 2.25 | .267 (.15) | -.02, .56 | 1.80 | .072 | 0.94 |
| Buller 1986 [63] a | 1.33 | 1.435 (.77) | -0.08, 2.95 | 1.86 | .063 | 0.91 |
| b* | 1.11 | 3.72 (.94) | 1.88, 5.56 | 3.96 | < .001 | 0.89 |
| C | 1.46 | 1.58 (.69) | .23, 2.94 | 2.30 | .022 | 0.91 |
| Bushe 1995 [43] a* | 1.67 | 4.57 (.56) | 3.47, 5.66 | 8.19 | < .001 | 0.86 |
| b* | 1.47 | 5.96 (.68) | 4.63, 7.29 | 8.75 | < .001 | 0.84 |
| Cannon-Bowers 1998 [64] | 2.22 | .46 (.19) | .09, .82 | 2.45 | .014 | 0.93 |
| Chang 2008 [65] | 2.04 | 1.344 (.33) | .70, 1.99 | 4.09 | < .001 | 0.91 |
| Dalenberg 2009 [45] | 2.24 | .653 (.16) | .34, .97 | 4.06 | < .001 | 0.93 |
| Dibble 2010 [47] | 2.29 | .181 (.09) | .01, .36 | 2.04 | .042 | 0.94 |
| Entin 1999 [50] | 1.92 | .927 (.41) | .13, 1.72 | 2.88 | .022 | 0.92 |
| Fandt 1990 [66] | 2.25 | .095 (.15) | -.19, .38 | 0.65 | .518 | 0.94 |
| Green 1994 [52] a | 1.67 | .655 (.56) | -.44, 1.75 | 1.17 | .243 | 0.92 |
| b | 1.62 | 1.212 (.59) | .05, 2.37 | 2.05 | .040 | 0.91 |
| Haslam 2009–1 [67] a | 2.08 | .223 (.30) | -.37, .82 | 0.73 | .464 | 0.93 |
| b | 2.06 | .690 (.31) | .07, 1.31 | 2.20 | .028 | 0.92 |
| Haslam 2009–2 [67] a | 2.02 | .941 (.34) | .27, 1.61 | 2.76 | .006 | 0.92 |
| b | 2.04 | .610 (.33) | -.03, 1.25 | 1.87 | .062 | 0.93 |
| c | 2.02 | .957 (.35) | .28, 1.63 | 2.78 | .005 | 0.92 |
| d | 2.03 | .963 (.34) | .31, 1.62 | 2.87 | .004 | 0.92 |
| Ikomi 1999 [68] | 2.06 | 1.008 (.32) | .39, 1.63 | 3.18 | .001 | 0.92 |
| Jankouskas 2010 [7] | 1.86 | -.173 (.44) | -1.04, .70 | -0.39 | .696 | 0.94 |
| Jarrett 2012 [69] a | 2.22 | .243 (.19) | -.12, .61 | 1.31 | .191 | 0.94 |
| b | 2.21 | .834 (.19) | .46, 1.21 | 4.34 | < .001 | 0.92 |
| c | 2.22 | .358 (.19) | -.01, .72 | 1.92 | .055 | 0.93 |
| d | 2.21 | .940 (.19) | .56, 1.32 | 4.84 | < .001 | 0.92 |
| Kring 2005 [70] a | 2.00 | .062 (.36) | -.64, .76 | 0.17 | .862 | 0.94 |
| b | 2.00 | -.092 (.36) | -.79, .61 | -0.26 | .795 | 0.94 |
| Longenecker 1994 [71] | 2.03 | 1.89 (.33) | 1.24, 2.54 | 5.66 | < .001 | 0.90 |
| Morey 2002 [3]* | 2.29 | 2.781 (.09) | 2.61, 2.95 | 31.51 | < .001 | 0.80 |
| Padmo Putri 2012 [6] | 2.23 | .542 (.17) | .21, .87 | 3.21 | .001 | 0.93 |
| Rapp 2007 [56] | 2.12 | .254 (.27) | -.28, .79 | 0.93 | .353 | 0.93 |
| Schurig 2013 [72] a | 2.26 | .513 (.27) | -.02, 1.05 | 1.88 | .061 | 0.93 |
| b | 2.26 | .688 (.28) | .15, 1.23 | 2.49 | .013 | 0.93 |
| Siegel 1973 [73] | 1.99 | .594 (.36) | -.11, 1.30 | 1.64 | .100 | 0.93 |
| Sikorski 2012 [74] | 2.26 | .272 (.14) | -.01, .56 | 1.89 | .059 | 0.94 |
| Smith-Jentsch 2008 [4]* | 1.91 | 3.729 (.41) | 2.92, 4.54 | 9.07 | < .001 | 0.86 |
| Smith-Jentsch 1996 [75] a | 1.74 | .206 (.52) | -.81, 1.22 | 0.40 | .690 | 0.93 |
| b | 1.74 | .025 (.52) | -.99, 1.04 | 0.05 | .961 | 0.94 |
| c | 1.71 | .901 (.54) | -.15, 1.95 | 1.68 | .092 | 0.92 |
| Stout 1997 [76] | 2.04 | .984 (.33) | .34, 1.63 | 3.00 | .003 | 0.92 |
| Villado 2013 [16] | 2.19 | .834 (.22) | .41, 1.36 | 3.88 | < .001 | 0.92 |
| Volpe 1996 [59] | 2.16 | .877 (.24) | .28, 1.12 | 3.70 | < .001 | 0.92 |
| Wegge 2005 [77] a | 1.91 | 1.004 (.41) | .19, 1.81 | 2.44 | .015 | 0.92 |
| b | 1.90 | .682 (.42) | -.14, 1.50 | 1.64 | .102 | 0.92 |
| c | 1.95 | .487 (.39) | -.28, 1.25 | 1.25 | .212 | 0.93 |
| OVERALL | 100 | .919 (.14) | .65, 1.19 | 6.72 | <0.001 |
Note. a, b, c, d = 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.