Skip to main content
. 2022 May 4;9(2):e36579. doi: 10.2196/36579

Table 2.

Mean, SD, Spearman rank correlation coefficient (SRCC; 1-sided hypothesis test), and P values for team variables and outcomes.


 Value, mean (SD) Productivity of collaboration meetings Overall Productivity of collaboration Integration of results succeeds well Development of common language succeeds well Development of a common theoretical basis succeeds well Our project team is successful My subproject is successful In general, collaboration has improved my research productivity
Outcomes

Productivity of collaboration meetings (n=16) 3.13 (0.72) —a — — — — — — —


SRCC










P value









Overall Productivity of collaboration (n=16) 3.81 (0.66)
— — — — — — —


SRCC
0.30








P value
.13






In our project team

Integration of results succeeds well 3.67 (0.82)

— — — — — —


SRCC
−0.01 0.47







P value
.48 .04






Development of common language succeeds well 3.73 (0.59)


— — — — —


SRCC
0.28 0.48 0.67






P value
.16 .03 .003





Development of a common theoretical basis succeeds well 3.60 (0.74)



— — — —


SRCC
−0.06 0.16 0.51 0.38





P value
.41 .28 .03 .08



Measured by results so far

Our project team is successful 3.67 (0.82)




— — —


SRCC
0.05 0.61 0.66 0.39 0.30




P value
.43 .008 .003 .07 .14



My subproject is successful 3.73 (0.80)





— —


SRCC
0.06 0.48 0.60 0.29 0.20 0.93



P value
.41 .04 .01 .15 .23 <.001


In general, collaboration has improved my research productivity 4.07 (0.70)






—


SRCC
−0.06 −0.02 0.43 0.38 0.74 0.20 0.20


P value
.42 .42 .05 .08 .001 .24 .24
Team variables

Acceptance of new ideasb (n=16) 4.19 (0.91)









SRCC
0.50 0.43 0.28 0.39 0.57 0.49 0.38 0.21


P value
.02 .048 .15 .07 .01 .03 .08 .23

Communication among collaboratorsb (n=16) 3.88 (0.62)









SRCC
0.55 0.42 0.24 0.15 0.11 0.41 0.27 0.00


P value
.01 .06 .20 .30 .35 .06 .16 .50

Resolution of conflicts among collaboratorsb (n=16) 3.94 (0.57)









SRCC
0.22 0.18 −0.01 0.32 0.44 0.25 0.10 0.17


P value
.21 .25 .48 .13 .05 .19 .36 .27

Ability to accommodate different working styles of collaboratorsb (n=16) 4.13 (0.81)









SRCC
0.52 0.53 0.30 0.52 0.20 0.52 0.37 0.05


P value
.02 .02 .14 .02 .24 .02 .09 .43

Integration of research methods from different fieldsb (n=16) 3.69 (0.70)









SRCC
−0.02 0.38 0.67 0.23 0.40 0.67 0.51 0.19


P value
.47 .08 .003 .21 .07 .003 .03 .25

Integration of theories and models from different fieldsb(n=16) 3.63 (0.72)









SRCC
−0.01 0.34 0.76 0.37 0.50 0.59 0.43 0.19


P value
.48 .10 .001 .08 .03 .01 .05 .25

Involvement of collaborators from diverse disciplinesb (n=16) 4.19 (0.66)









SRCC
−0.23 0.47 0.55 0.48 0.51 0.62 0.46 0.12


P value
.20 .03 .02 .04 .03 .007 .04 .34

High motivation for collaborationc 4.40 (0.51)









SRCC
0.11 0.49 0.31 0.36 0.45 0.31 0.24 0.52


P value
.34 .03 .13 .09 .045 .13 .19 .02

Reliable fulfillment of tasks taken over within the project teamc 3.93 (0.60)









SRCC
0.40 0.71 0.51 0.38 0.11 0.43 0.29 0.17


P value
.0 .002 .03 .08 .35 .06 .15 .27

Willingness to coordinate one’s own research work with the others in the project team and to work intensively with the other project membersc 4.27 (0.80)









SRCC
−0.04 0.26 0.00 −0.04 0.49 0.27 0.13 0.58


P value
.44 .17 .50 .45 .03 .16 .32 .01

Interest in other disciplines involved and willingness to recognize other disciplines as equivalentc 4.33 (0.62)









SRCC
−0.09 0.27 0.53 0.66 0.49 0.35 0.19 0.66


P value
.38 .16 .02 .004 .03 .10 .25 .004

aNot applicable.

bWhen thinking about the researchers collaborating on the project, how do you evaluate the following aspects? Please use the gradation 1 “inadequate,” 2 “poor,” 3 “satisfactory,” 4 “good,” or 5 “excellent”!

cWith regard to your experiences in the project so far, what impressions do you have regarding the research contributions of your collaborators? How do the following statements apply: Please evaluate the mentioned issues using gradation 1 “does not apply at all,” 2 “does more likely apply,” 3 “does partly apply,” 4 “does more likely apply,” or 5 “does strongly apply.”