Assessing peer teamwork competence: adapting and validating the comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness–short in university students

Abstract

Introduction:

The Bologna Plan has promoted competency-based training in European higher education, which requires developing accurate, appropriate assessment tools for its measurement and evaluation.

Method:

This study adapted and validated the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness questionnaire on teamwork competence in a university population in the Basque Country, Spain. The questionnaire was first back-translated and adapted by two experts in educational research and then completed by 642 students pursuing baccalaureate degrees in primary education and physical activity and sport sciences at the University of Deusto [215 women, 426 men; ages: 17–25 years (M = 21.5; SD = 1.3)].

Results and discussion:

A confirmatory factor analysis yielded adequate goodness-of-fit indices, confirming the validity of the instrument’s measurement model and indicating that it may be an appropriate tool for assessing teamwork competence among peers for university students in the Basque Country.

Introduction

Competency-based training enables linking the work and civic or social environment with the educational sphere (Ramírez and Morales, 2009). The term competence embraces knowing, knowing how to do and knowing how to be (Bunk, 1994; Cajide, 2004; Colás, 2005; Echeverría, 2002; Le Boterf, 2001; Lévy-Leboyer, 2003; Zabala and Arnau, 2007) as well as knowing how to live together (Delors, 1996). These include curricular governance, facilitator training, and assessment strategies, because these components are less commonly or robustly defended (Hean et al., 2018).

Teamwork is one of the more frequently presented transversal competencies as an educational objective in various university studies in diverse areas due to, among other reasons, its high demand in the labour market (García-Garnica et al., 2023; Robles, 2012), which is increasingly globalised, dynamic and complex (De Prada et al., 2022). The labour market’s great competitiveness and continual need for innovation demand a wide variety of skills, a high level of specialised knowledge and a broad capacity for adaptation (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006), which are difficult to find unless people collaborate in teams (Kozlowski et al., 1999).

Teamwork competence is understood as the ability to relate to and integrate into a work group to contribute to achieving a common goal (Atxurra and Villardón-Gallego, 2015; Barraycoa and Lasaga, 2010; Mora-Vicarioli and Hooper-Simpson, 2016). It includes a sense of belonging and commitment to the team and its activity; interaction and communication among members; planning the actions to be undertaken; and the capacity for continual adaptation to achieve objectives (Torrelles et al., 2011). These dimensions of teamwork competence involve the development of skills such as empathy, responsibility, interpersonal communication and conflict resolution.

In this line, several studies confirm the multidimensional configuration of teamwork competence, including cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Gil et al., 2008; González-Romá, 2008; Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006; Rousseau et al., 2008) or a combination of knowledge, techniques, attitudes and behaviours (Perrenoud, 2003; Sarasola, 2000). Furthermore, without being properly dimensions of the concept of teamwork, Interprofessional Education Collaborative (2023) states that this competence is composed of 10 principles.

Measurements of a team’s effectiveness should take into account the components that structure teamwork (Table 1) and other variables, such as training (Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997), team composition (Carpenter, 2002), the characteristics of team members (LePine, 2003; Mohammed and Angell, 2004) and processes such as communication (Baldwin et al., 1997; Jordan et al., 2002). In addition to skills, some authors contend that team members’ relevant knowledge is a key element of team effectiveness (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Stevens and Campion, 1994).

Once teamwork has been defined and its dimensions identified, focusing university education on the development of its competencies requires redefining teaching and learning methods and revising the assessment system towards a performance assessment that not only verifies the acquired theoretical and practical knowledge but also measures how appropriately it is implemented in professional and social contexts (Villardón-Gallego, 2015). This approach to assessment involves collecting information using a variety of sources and techniques (Allen, 2000; Bain, 2006; Barberá, 1999; Dochy et al., 2002; McDonald et al., 2000) to facilitate student learning (Nicol and MacFarlane, 2006), enabling students to become aware of what they have learnt and how they have learnt it. Active participation in assessment through self-assessment, peer assessment and shared assessment promotes this process of metacognition (Bretones, 2008).

Applying these indications of teamwork competence in the peer assessment of this competence, learners measure or weigh the level or quality of collaboration of members of the same group (Topping, 2009), as peers in a group can be a valid source for assessing this competence (Loughry et al., 2007; Marks et al., 2002). Moreover, such assessment has advantages for both the evaluated and the evaluator, as it activates several cognitive, motivational and emotional processes in both (Topping, 2009; Van Gennip et al., 2009), promoting the development of communication, critical thinking and conflict resolution skills (Lower et al., 2017), among others. Additionally, peer feedback tends to be more accepted than feedback from an authority figure, such as a teacher (Cole, 1991).

For peer assessment to be effective as a formative activity, a trusting relationship between the assessor and the assessed is required (Panadero et al., 2016; Van Gennip et al., 2009). However, anonymity can be ensured in the early stages of the assessment to avoid negative repercussions on social relationships (Rotsaert et al., 2018).

There are various ways of carrying out peer evaluation, including through project diaries (Rafiq and Fullerton, 1996) that provide information on the participation of each group member throughout the process. The peer ranking method (Kane and Lawler, 1978) is based on ranking other people in the group from best to worst. Point allocation, another method used in peer assessment, consists in distributing a total number of points (as determined by the teacher) among the group members (Drexler et al., 2001). The use of rating scales is suggested to allocate points, with each member of the group rating the others on the basis of specific performance or personal characteristics (Kane and Lawler, 1978). One of the seemingly more popular of these scales is the behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS; Kane and Lawler, 1978). In these scales, each interval is anchored by the description of an incident that exemplifies a corresponding level of the assessed construct (Kane and Lawler, 1978).

Peer assessment instruments for teamwork competence such as Varela and Mead's (2018) scale have recently been validated, but were not validated in a population of undergraduate students. The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) scale is a specific tool for the assessment of work competence through peer assessment (Loughry et al., 2007). Its original version consists of 87 items, and it has been used in several studies to assess teamwork competence in university students (Camiel et al., 2017; Escribá-Pérez et al., 2018; Farland and Beck, 2019). Loughry et al. (2007) reduced the original version of the CATME to an abbreviated version, comprising five factors that encompass all the dimensions and elements cited by authors who have investigated both the concept of teamwork and its effectiveness. These factors are (a) contributing to the team’s work, (b) interacting with teammates, (c) keeping the team on track, (d) expecting quality and (e) having relevant knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs; Ohland et al., 2012). Their analysis concluded that the five-factor model is superior to all other models, as it fits the data well and is parsimonious. The goodness-of-fit indices of the seven-factor model (a previous version of CATME) and the five-factor model are very similar, and the factors that are combined to create the five-factor model are highly correlated (Loughry et al., 2007). Moreover, the CATME-S dimensions coincide to a large extent with the widely accepted constructs proposed by Salas et al. (2005) better known as the big five of teamwork, which make up the concept of teamwork (Ohland et al. 2012).

The present study used the abbreviated version (CATME-Short), which consists of 33 items (each with five response options) distributed among five factors or dimensions (Loughry et al., 2007). In the adapted version, seven response options are proposed. This version offers the advantage of brevity while preserving the dimensions that make up the construct and yielding adequate psychometric results. Given that there was no known instrument with these characteristics designed and validated for the peer assessment of teamwork competence in the Spanish university context, this study translated and adapted the CATME-Short questionnaire.

Methodology

Participants

This research used convenience sampling to recruit 642 students from the University of Deusto in the Basque Country, aged 17–25 years (M = 21.5; SD = 1.3). Among them, 426 were male and 215 female; 188 were in their first academic year, 183 in their second, 118 in their third, 120 in their fourth and 33 in their fifth.

Instrument

The original CATME-Short (Ohland et al., 2012) peer assessment instrument is answered by colleagues in a work team. It comprises 33 items distributed in five factors that have the following internal consistencies in its original version (Loughry et al., 2007): contribution to teamwork, Cronbach’s alpha (α) = 0.90; interaction with colleagues, α = 0.91; keeping the team on track, α = 0.87; commitment to quality, α = 0.81; possession of relevant knowledge, skills and abilities, α = 0.78. The first factor comprises 8 items, the second 10, the third 7, the fourth 4 and the fifth 4. A Likert-type scale of seven response options was used (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = rather disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = rather agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).

Procedure

This research was approved by the ethics committee of the host university, ensuring compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013). The students were informed of the objective of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation and the confidential nature of the information collected.

For the translation and adaptation of the CATME, a back-translation process was carried out with the participation of two bilingual experts in educational research. One researcher translated the original items from English into Spanish, and the other person translated them back into English. The versions were compared, and the final formulation of the items was decided by consensus. The translation took into account cultural differences in order to adapt the meaning of the indicators as best as possible.

This translated version was used in a pilot study to check its functioning and comprehension by the university students who were the target of the main study. Seventy-five students in the second year of the bachelor’s programme in physical activity and sport sciences took part in the pilot study. The students were asked about the clarity of the items’ wording.

This revised version was administered to the final sample of 642 during academic year 2022–2023. For the final study, the link to the scale was provided to each student to enable responding in the classroom. Subsequently, the instructions for completing it were explained, and the students were informed that the results would be confidential and used exclusively for the research. Once the students provided consent, each participant was assigned a code that was given to the person evaluating them so that the latter could indicate who they were evaluating. The estimated time to complete the scale was 10 min.

Analysis

To test the validity and reliability of the measurements of the translated and adapted instrument, exploratory analyses, confirmatory factor analyses and estimates of the level of internal consistency were carried out. The analyses were conducted using the Jamovi v2.4 application (Jamovi Project, 2023) and the structural equation modelling (SEM) module (Gallucci and Jentschke, 2021).

Results

Exploratory analyses

In the exploratory analyses, the mean in every item is around 6 points, and the standard deviation is around 1 point; the most frequent answers are between 5 and 7. All the skewness are negative, reflecting the favourable tendency when it comes to rating the teamwork competence of peers. None of these measures of skewness reaches 2 points. All kurtosis values are positive, as the distributions are sharp, but most of them do not reach 3 points, and none of them reaches 5. The confirmatory factor analysis employed a robust method (maximum likelihood estimation) with the Satorra-Bentler correction (Table 2).

Confirmatory factor analysis

The results of the goodness-of-fit indices are as follows: chi-squared = 1737, df = 485, normed chi-squared = 3.58, the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) test has a value of 0.060 (95% CI: 0.055, 0.064), which can be considered acceptable, as it is below 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1998). The standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) has a value of 0.044, also below 0.08. As for the incremental indices, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) indicates a value of 0.915, the Bentler-Bonett normalised fit index (NFI) a value of 0.915 and the comparative fit index (CFI) a value of 0.915. In all three cases, the values are above 0.90 (Figure 1: Table 3).

Figure 1

Confirmatory factor analysis

All the indicators show statistically significant relationships with the latent factors (Table 3), with standardised estimates higher than 0.6 in all cases (Figure 1). These results confirm the validity of the five-factor measurement model. The correlations between the factors are higher than 0.82, and the relationship between factor 4 (Expecting quality) and factor 5 (Having relevant knowledge, skills and abilities [KSAs]) is noteworthy at 0.94. Table 4 shows that the various internal consistency indices, Cronbach’s α and omega (ω) are also adequate.

Discussion

This study adapted and validated the CATME-Short scale (Loughry et al., 2007) to measure teamwork competence in Spanish in a university population. By comparison, one of the most recent examples of validating an instrument to assess teamwork competence is the instrument developed by Varela and Mead (2018). In the results of our confirmatory factor analysis, the RMSEA yielded a somewhat better goodness-of-fit index than was found for Varela and Mead’s (2018) instrument, which gave a value of 0.065 in validating the teamwork measure as compared to the CATME-Short’s value of 0.060 in our study. However, the results of the CFI value in our study are in line with those obtained by Varela and Mead (2018) (0.914 and 0.915, respectively). Like the CATME-Short in this study, the latter instrument used a 7-point Likert scale (Varela and Mead, 2018).

The relationship between the various dimensions or factors in our study is high (above 0.82), which may be related to the similarity of their predictor variables (such as personality traits, agreeableness or conscientiousness), which influence the behaviour of team members (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Factor F1 (Contributing to the team’s work) and factor F4 (Expecting quality) and factor F1 and F5 (Having relevant knowledge, skills and abilities) have correlations of 0.88 and 0.91, respectively. According to Stevens and Campion (1999), knowledge, skills and general teamwork skills correlate almost perfectly with cognitive ability. Loughry et al. (2007) say that high student ability may enable students to be more responsible in personal interactions and make good decisions to keep the team on track, which may explain the relationships between factor F1 and F2 (Interacting with teammates) and F1 and F3 (Keeping the team on track), which are both above 0.85. In the case of the factor scores, although there are common antecedents, the high scores may result from the peer evaluation’s being influenced by the halo effect (Harris and Barnes-Farrell, 1997), which is defined as an individual’s bias when evaluating a specific aspect based on that individual’s overall evaluation, which leads him/her to evaluate all the elements associated with it consistently with the overall impression (Thorndike, 1920).

The exploratory analyses indicate that the mean score of the 33 items on the scale is close to 6.0, a favourable outcome that seems to be common in peer evaluations, which tend to be at least as high, and often higher, than teacher evaluations (Topping, 1998). The explanation for the concentration of scores between 5 and 7 points can be found in a meta-analysis that revealed that the correlations between dimensions of job performance, when the assessment has been conducted among peers, are weighted by 63% due to the halo bias (Viswesvaran et al., 2005).

The values of the goodness-of-fit and internal consistency indices show that the CATME-Short instrument has adequate psychometric properties. To our knowledge, no previous study has translated and validated the CATME-Short for the peer assessment of teamwork competence in Spanish.

Conclusion

This study provides a valid tool for assessing teamwork competence among peers as evidenced by the results: an RMSEA of 0.060, an SRMR of 0.044 (both less than 0.08) and TLI, NFI and CFI incremental indices close to 1.0 (all with a value of 0.915). In addition, the factor loadings confirm the internal consistency of the constructs, all of them being above 0.82.

Among the limitations of this study is the geographical homogeneity of the sample, as it employed a convenience sample. In addition, we did not consider the phase of the project or the assigned work of each evaluator and evaluated participant, which are relevant, as the importance of the dimensions and contributions of each team member are relative based on the phase of the team’s development (Loughry et al., 2007). Another limitation may be the halo effect on peer ratings. For this reason, a potential line of research is determining the halo effect on senior students and whether it varies by gender, grade, quality of relationships, etc. If this effect is identified, a corrective index could be devised so that these scales more accurately reflect reality. It would also be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study to measure whether teamwork competence improves over the course of higher education and thus confirm that this competence indeed develops during this academic period. To conclude the discussion of future lines of research, it is suggested to find the relationship of the development of teamwork competence to academic performance as well as to the use of peer assessment to measure it; authors such as Van Zundert et al. (2010) relate improvement in students’ academic performance to this type of well-designed assessment. As another future line of research, it is necessary to investigate the possible roles that team members may have played, such as leadership. To this end, consideration could be given to incorporating possible individual interviews and thus enrich the research. In addition, it may be interesting to analyse the burden of the cultural context, as this may have been a determining factor in understanding both the functioning of the team and the co-evaluation scale itself.

Ultimately, this study contributes to the field of competency-based assessment in higher education by providing a validated tool to measure peer teamwork competence, which is essential for the academic and professional development of students in the European context.

References

• 1

  AllenD. (2000). La evaluación de los aprendizajes de los estudiantes. Una herramienta para el desarrollo profesional de los docentes. Paidós.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AtxurraC. Y.Villardón-GallegoL. (2015). “La competencia trabajo en equipo” in Competencias genéricas en educación superior. Metodologías específicas Para su desarrollo. ed. Villardón-GallegoL. (Madrid: Narcea), 79–102.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BainK. (2006). Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios. Valencia: Publicacions Universitat de València.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BaldwinT. T.BedellM. D.JohnsonJ. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. Program: network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Acad. Manag. J.40, 1369–1397. doi: 10.2307/257037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BarberáE. (1999). Evaluación de la enseñanza, evaluación del aprendizaje. Edebé.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BarraycoaJ.LasagaO. (2010). La competencia de trabajo en equipo: Más allá del corta y pega. Vivat Acad.111, 65–69. doi: 10.15178/va.2010.111.65-69

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BarrickM. R.MountM. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol.44, 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BretonesA. (2008). Participación del alumnado de Educación Superior en su evaluación. Rev. Educ.347, 181–202.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BunkG. P. (1994). La transmisión de las competencias en la formación y perfeccionamiento profesionales de la RFA. Rev. Europea Formación Prof.1, 8–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  CajideJ. (2004). Calidad universitaria y empleo. Madrid: Dykinson S. L.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CamielL. D.Kostka-RokoszM.TataronisG.GoldmanJ. (2017). Performance and perceptions of student teams created and stratified based on academic abilities. Am. J. Pharm. Educ.81:47. doi: 10.5688/ajpe81347

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Cannon-BowersJ.TannenbaumS. I.SalasE.VolpeC. E. (1995). “Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements” in Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. eds. GuzzoR.SalasE. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 330–380.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CarpenterM. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J.23, 275–284. doi: 10.1002/smj.226

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  CohenS. G.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J. Manag.23, 239–290. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300303

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  ColásP. (2005). La formación universitaria en base a competencias. In ColásP.PablosJ.de (Eds.), El Espacio Europeo de Educación superior y su impacto en la docencia (pp. 101–123). Málaga: Aljibe.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  ColeD. A. (1991). Change in self-perceived competence as a function of peer and teacher evaluation. Dev. Psychol.27, 682–688. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.4.682

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  CortezC.NussbaumM.WoywoodG.AravenaR. (2009). Learning to collaborate by collaborating: a face-to-face collaborative activity for measuring and learning basics about teamwork. J. Comput. Assist. Learn.25, 126–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00298.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  De PradaE. D.MarequeM.Pino-JusteM. (2022). Teamwork skills in higher education: is university training contributing to their mastery?Psicol. Reflexao Crit.35, 5–13. doi: 10.1186/s41155-022-00207-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DelorsJ. (1996). La educación encierra un tesoro. Informe a la UNESCO de la Comisión Internacional sobre la Educación para el Siglo XXI. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/DELORS_S.PDFv (Accessed March 15, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DochyF.SegersM.DierickS. (2002). Nuevas vías de aprendizaje y enseñanza y sus consecuencias: Una nueva era de evaluación. Boletín Red Estatal de Docencia Univ.2, 13–29.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  DrexlerJ. A.Jr.BeehrT. A.StetzT. A. (2001). Peer appraisals: differentiation of individual performance on group tasks. Hum. Resour. Manag.40, 333–345. doi: 10.1002/hrm.1023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  EcheverríaB. (2002). Gestión de la competencia de acción profesional. Rev. Invest. Educ.20, 7–43.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Escribá-PérezC.BavieraT.Baviera-PuigM. A.Buitrago-VeraJ. M. (2018). “Cómo evaluar la competencia transversal “trabajo en equipo” desde un enfoque 180° en estudiantes universitarios” in IN-RED 2018. IV Congreso Nacional de Innovación Educativa y Docencia en Red. eds. VegaI. V.VendrellE. (Valencia: Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València), 1453–1461.

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  FarlandM. Z.BeckD. E. (2019). Collaborative learning teams to longitudinally teach and assess teamwork behaviors and attitudes. Am. J. Pharm. Educ.83, 1966–1973. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7255

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  FernándezR.KozlowskiS. W. J.ShapiroM. J.SalasE. (2008). Toward a definition of teamwork in emergency medicine. Acad. Emerg. Med.15, 1104–1112. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00250.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  GallucciM.JentschkeS. (2021). SEMLj: Jamovi SEM Analysis [Jamovi module].Available at: https://semlj.github.io/ (Accessed December 16, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  García-GarnicaM.de la Guardia Romero DíazJ. J.Olmos- GómezM. D. C. (2023). Influencia de la competencia para trabajar en equipo en las habilidades para el futuro laboral. Rev. Española Orientación Pedagógica34, 86–109. doi: 10.5944/reop.vol.34.num.2.2023.38068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  GilF.RicoR.Sanchez-ManzanaresM. (2008). Eficacia de equipos de trabajo. Papeles del Psicól.29, 25–31.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  González-RomáV. (2008). La innovación en los equipos de trabajo. Papeles del Psicól.29, 32–40.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HarrisT. C.Barnes-FarrellJ. L. (1997). Components of teamwork: impact on evaluations of contributions to work team effectiveness. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.27, 1694–1715. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01620.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HeanS.GreenC.AndersonE.MorrisD.JohnC.PittR.et al. (2018). The contribution of theory to the design, delivery, and evaluation of interprofessional curricula: BEME Guide No. 49. Med. Teach.40, 542–558. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1432851

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HeblesM.Yániz-Álvarez-de-EulateC.Alonso-Dos-SantosM. (2022). Teamwork Competency Scale (TCS) from the individual perspective in university students. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.12, 510–528. doi: 10.3926/jotse.1478

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods3, 424–453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HumphreyS. E.KaramE. P.MorgesonF. P. (2010). “Towards a typology of team effectiveness: a meta-analytic review [conference session].” in 25th annual meeting of the society for industrial and organizational psychology. Atlanta, GA.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  HyattD. E.RuddyT. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: once more into the breech. Pers. Psychol.50, 553–585. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00703.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol.56, 517–543. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Interprofessional Education Collaborative (2023). IPEC Core competencies for Interprofessional collaborative practice: version 3. Interprofessional Education Collaborative.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Jamovi Project (2023). Jamovi (Version 2.4) [Computer software]. Available at: https://www.jamovi.org (Accessed December 16, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  JordanM. H.FieldH. S.ArmenakisA. A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance—a team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Res.33, 121–150. doi: 10.1177/104649640203300104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KaneJ. S.LawlerE. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychol. Bull.85, 555–586. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  KozlowskiS. W. J.GullyS. M.NasonE. R.SmithE. M. (1999)). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In: The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and 390 development. (eds.) IlgenD. R.PulakosE. D.. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), pp. 240–292.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KozlowskiS. W. J.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest7, 77–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Le BoterfG. (2001). Ingeniería de las competencias. Gestión 2000.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LeggatS. G. (2007). Effective healthcare teams require effective team members: defining teamwork competencies. BMC Health Serv. Res.7, 1–10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  LePineJ. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: effects of team composition in terms of members cognitive ability and personality. J. Appl. Psychol.88, 27–39. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.27

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Lévy-LeboyerC. (2003). Gestión de las competencias. Cómo analizarlas, cómo evaluarlas, cómo desarrollarlas. Gestión 2000.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  LoughryM. L.OhlandM. W.DeWayne MooreD. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educ. Psychol. Meas.67, 505–524. doi: 10.1177/0013164406292085

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  LowerL. M.NewmanT. J.Anderson-ButcherD. (2017). Validity and reliability of the teamwork scale for youth. Res. Soc. Work. Pract.27, 716–725. doi: 10.1177/1049731515589614

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MarksM. A.BurkeC. S.SabellaM. J.ZaccaroS. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol.87, 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  McDonaldR.BoudD.FrancisJ.GoncziA. (2000). Nuevas perspectivas sobre la evaluación. Boletín Cinterfor149, 41–72.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  MohammedS.AngellL. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. J. Organ. Behav.25, 1015–1039. doi: 10.1002/job.293

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Mora-VicarioliF.Hooper-SimpsonC. (2016). Trabajo colaborativo en ambientes virtuales de aprendizaje: Algunas reflexiones y perspectivas estudiantiles. Rev. Elect. Educ.20, 1–26. doi: 10.15359/ree.20-2.19

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ.31, 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  OhlandM. W.LoughryM. L.WoehrD. J.BullardL. G.FelderR. M.FinelliC. J.et al. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self-and peer evaluation. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ.11, 609–630. doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0177

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  PanaderoE.BrownG. T. L.StrijbosJ. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev.28, 803–830. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  PerrenoudP. (2003). “Nouvelles identités professionnelles: De quelques enjeux de formation” in Éducation et formation: Nouvelles questions, nouveaux métiers. ed. AstolfiJ. P. (Issy – les – Moulineaux: ESF), 311–342.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  RafiqR.FullertonH. (1996). Peer assessment of group projects in civil engineering. Assess. Eval. High. Educ.21, 69–81. doi: 10.1080/0260293960210106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  RamírezM.MoralesG. (2009). Ciclo filosofía y educación: El claroscuro de la formación por competencias. Xipe Totek18, 193–215.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  RoblesM. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. Bus. Commun. Q.75, 453–465. doi: 10.1177/1080569912460400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  RotsaertT.PanaderoE.SchellensT. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ.33, 75–99. doi: 10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  RousseauV.AubeC.ChiocchioF.BoudriasJ.MorinE. M. (2008). Social interactions at work and psychological health: the role of leader-member exchange and work group integration. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.38, 1755–1777. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00368.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  SalasE.SimsD. E.BurkeC. S. (2005). Is there a ―Big Five‖ in teamwork?Small Group Res.36, 555–599. doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  SarasolaL. (2000). La competencia de acción Como nuevo referente profesional. Lección magistral del proyecto docente. San Sebastián. UPV.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  StevensM. J.CampionM. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management. J. Manag.20, 503–530. doi: 10.1177/014920639402000210

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  StevensM. J.CampionM. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. J. Manag.25, 207–228. doi: 10.1177/014920639902500205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ThorndikeE. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological and theoretical concerns. J. Appl. Psychol.4, 25–29. doi: 10.1037/h0071663

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  ToppingK. (1998). Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities. Rev. Educ. Res.68, 249–276. doi: 10.2307/1170598

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ToppingK. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Pract.48, 20–27. doi: 10.1080/00405840802577569

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  TorrellesC.CoidurasJ.IsusS.CarreraF. X.París-MañasG.CelaM. J. (2011). Competencia de trabajo en equipo: Definición y categorización. PRO15, 329–344.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Van GennipN. A. E.SegersM. S. R.TillemaH. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: the influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educ. Res. Rev.4, 41–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Van ZundertM.SluijsmansD.van MerriënboerJ. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn. Instr.20, 270–279. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  VarelaO.MeadE. (2018). Teamwork skill assessment: development of a measure for academia. J. Educ. Bus.93, 172–182. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1433124

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Villardón-GallegoL. (2015). Competencias genéricas en educación superior: Metodologías específicas para su desarrollo. Madrid: Narcea.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  ViswesvaranC.SchmidtF. L.OnesD. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. J. Appl. Psychol.90, 108–131. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.108

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  WeaverS. J.RosenM. A.DiazGranadosD.AzzaraE.LyonsR.SalasE.et al. (2010). Does teamwork improve performance in the operating room? A multilevel evaluation. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf.36, 133–142. doi: 10.1016/S1553-7250(10)36022-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  World Medical Association (2013). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA310, 2191–2194.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  ZabalaA.ArnauL. (2007). 11 ideas clave. Graó: Cómo aprender y enseñar competencias.

  • Google Scholar