Cardiac Measures of Cognitive Workload: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide an assessment of the impact of workload manipulations on various cardiac measurements. We further sought to determine the most effective measurement approaches of cognitive workload as well as quantify the conditions under which these measures are most effective for interpretation. BACKGROUND: Cognitive workload affects human performance, particularly when load is relatively high (overload) or low (underload). Despite ongoing interest in assessing cognitive workload through cardiac measures, it is currently unclear which cardiac-based assessments best indicate cognitive workload. Although several quantitative studies and qualitative reviews have sought to provide guidance, no meta-analytic integration of cardiac assessment(s) of cognitive workload exists to date. METHOD: We used Morris and DeShon's meta-analytic procedures to quantify the changes in cardiac measures due to task load conditions. RESULTS: Sample-weighted Cohen's d values suggest that several metrics of cardiac activity demonstrate sensitivity in response to cognitive workload manipulations. Heart rate variability measures show sensitivity to task load, conditions of event rate, and task duration. Authors of future work should seek to quantify the utility of leveraging multiple metrics to understand workload. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that assessment of cognitive workload can be done using various cardiac activity indicators. Further, given the number of valid and reliable measures available, researchers and practitioners should base their selection of a psychophysiological measure on the experimental and practical concerns inherent to their task/protocol. APPLICATIONS: Findings bear implications for future assessment of cognitive workload within basic and applied settings. Future research should seek to validate conditions under which measurements are best interpreted, including but not limited to individual differences.

Multiple Patient Casualty Scenarios: A Measurement Tool for Teamwork.

INTRODUCTION: Teamwork is a critical aspect of patient care and is especially salient in response to multiple patient casualties. Effective training and measurement improve team performance. However, the literature currently lacks a scientifically developed measure of team performance within multiple causality scenarios, making training and feedback efforts difficult. The present effort addresses this gap by integrating the input of subject matter experts and the science of multicasualty teams and training to (1) identify overarching teamwork processes and corresponding behaviors necessary for team performance and (2) develop a behavioral observation tool to optimize teamwork in multicasualty training efforts. METHOD: A search of articles including team performance frameworks associated with team training was conducted, leading to the identification of a total of 14 articles. Trained coders extracted teamwork processes and the corresponding team behaviors indicative of effective performance from these articles. Five subject matter experts were interviewed using the critical incident technique to identify additional behaviors. RESULTS: Team situation awareness, team leadership, coordination, and information exchange emerged as the four core team processes required for team performance in scenarios with multiple patient casualties. Relevant behaviors and subbehaviors within these overarching processes were identified to inform a pilot behavioral framework of team performance. CONCLUSIONS: The processes and associated behaviors identified within this effort serve as scientifically grounded behaviors of team performance in the case of multiple patient casualties simulated training scenarios. Future work can use and further refine these results to ensure that measures of team performance are grounded in specific, observable, and scientifically delineated behaviors.

Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork.

The rate of teamwork and collaboration within the workforce has burgeoned over the years, and the use of teams is projected to continue increasing. With the rise of teamwork comes the need for interventions designed to enhance teamwork effectiveness. Successful teams produce desired outcomes; however, it is critical that team members demonstrate effective processes to achieve these outcomes. Team development interventions (TDIs) increase effective team competencies and processes, thereby leading to improvements in proximal and distal outcomes. The effectiveness of TDIs is evident across domains (e.g., education, health care, military, aviation), and they are applicable in a wide range of settings. To stimulate the adoption and effective use of TDIs, the current article provides a review of four types of evidence-based TDIs including team training, leadership training, team building, and team debriefing. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles underlying TDIs and their impact on team dynamics. Moreover, we provide evidence-based recommendations regarding how to increase the effectiveness of TDIs as well as a discussion on future research needed within this domain. (PsycINFO Database Record

Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis.

Recent estimates suggest that although a majority of funds in organizational training budgets tend to be allocated to leadership training (Ho, 2016; O'Leonard, 2014), only a small minority of organizations believe their leadership training programs are highly effective (Schwartz, Bersin, & Pelster, 2014), calling into question the effectiveness of current leadership development initiatives. To help address this issue, this meta-analysis estimates the extent to which leadership training is effective and identifies the conditions under which these programs are most effective. In doing so, we estimate the effectiveness of leadership training across four criteria (reactions, learning, transfer, and results; Kirkpatrick, 1959) using only employee data and we examine 15 moderators of training design and delivery to determine which elements are associated with the most effective leadership training interventions. Data from 335 independent samples suggest that leadership training is substantially more effective than previously thought, leading to improvements in reactions (δ = .63), learning (δ = .73), transfer (δ = .82), and results (δ = .72), the strength of these effects differs based on various design, delivery, and implementation characteristics. Moderator analyses support the use of needs analysis, feedback, multiple delivery methods (especially practice), spaced training sessions, a location that is on-site, and face-to-face delivery that is not self-administered. Results also suggest that the content of training, attendance policy, and duration influence the effectiveness of the training program. Practical implications for training development and theoretical implications for leadership and training literatures are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

A Systematic Review of Team Training in Health Care: Ten Questions.

BACKGROUND: As a result of the recent proliferation of health care team training (HTT), there was a need to update previous systematic reviews examining the underlying structure driving team training initiatives. METHODS: This investigation was guided by 10 research questions. A literature search identified 197 empirical samples detailing the evaluation of team training programs within the health care context; 1,764 measures of HTT effectiveness were identified within these samples. Trained coders extracted information related to study design and training development, implementation, and evaluation to calculate percentages detailing the prevalence of certain training features. RESULTS: HTT was rarely informed by a training needs analysis (k = 47, 23.9%) and most commonly addressed communication strategies (k = 167, 84.8%). HTT programs that incorporated practice (k = 163, 82.7%) often employed high-fidelity patient simulators (k = 38, 25.2%) and provided participants with feedback opportunities (k = 107, 65.6%). Participants were typically practicing clinicians (k = 154, 78.2%) with a lower prevalence of health care students (k = 35, 17.8). Evaluations primarily relied on repeated measures designs (k = 123, 62.4%) and self-reported data (k = 1,257, 71.3%). Additional trends were identified and are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Many trends in HTT practice and evaluation were identified. The results of this review suggested that, in the literature, HTT programs are more frequently following recommendations for training design and implementation (for example, providing feedback) in comparison to findings from previous reviews. However, there were still many areas in which improvement could be achieved to improve patient care.

Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare.

As the nature of work becomes more complex, teams have become necessary to ensure effective functioning within organizations. The healthcare industry is no exception. As such, the prevalence of training interventions designed to optimize teamwork in this industry has increased substantially over the last 10 years (Weaver, Dy, & Rosen, 2014). Using Kirkpatrick's (1956, 1996) training evaluation framework, we conducted a meta-analytic examination of healthcare team training to quantify its effectiveness and understand the conditions under which it is most successful. Results demonstrate that healthcare team training improves each of Kirkpatrick's criteria (reactions, learning, transfer, results; d = .37 to .89). Second, findings indicate that healthcare team training is largely robust to trainee composition, training strategy, and characteristics of the work environment, with the only exception being the reduced effectiveness of team training programs that involve feedback. As a tertiary goal, we proposed and found empirical support for a sequential model of healthcare team training where team training affects results via learning, which leads to transfer, which increases results. We find support for this sequential model in the healthcare industry (i.e., the current meta-analysis) and in training across all industries (i.e., using meta-analytic estimates from Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003), suggesting the sequential benefits of training are not unique to medical teams. Ultimately, this meta-analysis supports the expanded use of team training and points toward recommendations for optimizing its effectiveness within healthcare settings. (PsycINFO Database Record