SA is a widely used cognitive construct in human factors, summarized as “knowing what is going on.” Generally, SA is theoretically posited to be a critical causal factor and/or construct for performance. However, some researchers have raised concerns that SA may be circular and also that SA may lack the appropriate psychological mechanisms relevant to performance. We address these conflicting perspectives using meta-analysis to evaluate the specific and general patterns of associations among SA-performance effect sizes. Specifically, we focus on the validity of SA for performance—the degree to which SA represents or captures the relevant psychological processes and mechanisms related to task performance. From the empirical literature, we coded associations of eight unique measures of SA with (task) performance: 492 effects from 38 papers met the systematic review inclusion criteria. In contrast to SA’s broadly theorized fundamental link with performance, the magnitude of most meta-analytic mean effect sizes for SA measures was limited to medium or lower effects. Although there was a significant overall mean effect, its magnitude was also limited (r = 0.24). In addition, there was high unexplained systematic variation with an enormous plausible range for individual effects (r = -0.20 to 0.60). The meta-analytic results are inconsistent with theories postulating SA is fundamental to performance. Instead, SA’s validity for performance tends to be, on average, weak with large variations among effects. Therefore, theories may need to be revised. Furthermore, even presuming SA is causally linked to performance as generally theorized, improvements in SA (such as SA-based design and training) may not correspond to meaningful increases in task performance.
Recent advances in the science of teams have provided much insight into the important attitudes (e.g., team cohesion and efficacy), cognitions (e.g., shared team cognition), and behaviors (e.g., teamwork communications) of high performing teams and how these competencies emerge as team members interact, and appropriate measurement methods for tracking development. Numerous training interventions have been found to effectively improve these competencies, and more recently have begun addressing the problem of team dynamics. Team science researchers have increasingly called for more field studies to better understand training and team development processes in the wild and to advance the theory of team development. In addition to the difficulty of gaining access to teams that operate in isolated, confined, and extreme environments (ICE), a major practical challenge for trainers of ICE teams whose schedules are already strained is the need to prioritize the most effective strategies to optimize the time available for implementation. To address these challenges, we describe an applied research experiment that developed and evaluated an integrated team training approach to improve Tactical Combat Casualty (TC3) skills in U.S. Army squads. Findings showed that employing effective team training best practices improved learning, team cognition, emergent team processes, and performance. We recommend future research should focus on understanding the types of training strategies needed to enable teams and team leaders to develop from novices to experts. Effectively modifying training to scale it to team expertise requires more research. More laboratory and field research is needed to further develop measures of team knowledge emergence for complex task domains, and include other potential emergent factors such as team leadership and resilience. Practical implications for research include developing automated tools and technologies needed to implement training and collect team data, and employ more sensitive indicators (e.g., behavioral markers) of team attitudes, cognitions and behaviors to model the dynamics of how they naturally change over time. These tools are critical to understanding the dynamics of team development and to implement interventions that more effectively support teams as they develop over time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.