Efficient team actions: Outline of a theory of teams in sport

So far, social psychology in sport has preliminary focused on team cohesion, and many studies and meta analyses tried to demonstrate a relation between cohesiveness of a team and it's performance. How a team really co-operates and how the individual actions are integrated towards a team action is a question that has received relatively little attention in research. This may, at least in part, be due to a lack of a theoretical framework for collective actions, a dearth that has only recently begun to challenge sport psychologists. In this presentation a framework for a comprehensive theory of teams in sport is outlined and its potential to integrate the following presentations is put up for discussion. Based on a model developed by von Cranach, Ochsenbein and Valach (1986), teams are information processing organisms, and team actions need to be investigated on two levels: the individual team member and the group as an entity. Elements to be considered are the task, the social structure, the information processing structure and the execution structure. Obviously, different task require different social structures, communication and co-ordination. From a cognitivist point of view, internal representations (or mental models) guide the behaviour mainly in situations requiring quick reactions and adaptations, were deliberate or contingency planning are difficult. In sport teams, the collective representation contains the elements of the team situation, that is team task and team members, and of the team processes, that is communication and co-operation. Different meta-perspectives may be distinguished and bear a potential to explain the actions of efficient teams. Cranach, M. von, Ochsenbein, G., & Valach, L. (1986).The group as a self-active system: Outline of a theory of group action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 193-229.

Outline of a theory of efficient teams in Sport.

Introduction So far, social psychology in sport has preliminary focused on team cohesion, and many studies and meta-analyses tried to demonstrate a relation between cohesiveness of a team and its performance. How a team really co-operates and how the individual actions are integrated towards a team action is a question that has received relatively little attention in research. This may, at least in part, be due to a lack of a theoretical framework for collective actions, a dearth that has only recently begun to challenge sport psychologists. Objectives In this presentation a framework for a comprehensive theory of teams in sport is outlined and its potential to integrate research in the domain of team performance and, more specifically, the following presentations, is put up for discussion. Method Based on a model developed by von Cranach, Ochsenbein and Valach (1986), teams are considered to be information processing organisms, and team actions need to be investigated on two levels: the individual team member and the group as an entity. Elements to be considered are the task, the social structure, the information processing structure and the execution structure. Obviously, different task require different social structures, communication processes and co-ordination of individual movements. Especially in rapid interactive sports planning and execution of movements based on feedback loops are not possible. Deliberate planning may be a solution mainly for offensive actions, whereas defensive actions have to adjust to the opponent team's actions. Consequently, mental representations must be developed to allow a feed-forward regulation of team member's actions. Results and Conclusions Some preliminary findings based on this conceptual framework as well as further consequences for empirical investigations will be presented. References Cranach, M.v., Ochsenbein, G. & Valach, L. (1986). The group as a self-active system: Outline of a theory of group action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 193-229.

Lexical Pragmatics and Theory of Mind: The Acquisition of Connectives

The concept of theory of mind (ToM), a hot topic in cognitive psychology for the past twenty-five years, has gained increasing importance in the fields of linguistics and pragmatics. However, even though the relationship between ToM and verbal communication is now recognized, the extent, causality and full implications of this connection remain mostly to be explored. This book presents a comprehensive discussion of the interface between language, communication, and theory of mind, and puts forward an innovative proposal regarding the role of discourse connectives for this interface. The proposed analysis of connectives is tested from the perspective of their acquisition, using empirical methods such as corpus analysis and controlled experiments, thus placing the study of connectives within the emerging framework of experimental pragmatics.

Benefits of communication skills training after real patient exposure

The established communication skills training (CST) curriculum consists of continuous education, frequent practice with real patients, supervision and feedback from medical teachers. The limitation of this curriculum is that students have to directly apply the theoretical basis they are provided with to real patients. To improve the existing CST curriculum a CST module involving simulated patients was introduced in order to develop more complex communication skills.

Efficacy of communication skills training courses in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: Group training in communication skills [communication skills training (CST)] has become partly mandatory for oncology staff. However, so far, a comprehensive meta-analysis on the efficacy is lacking. Design: Included studies either compare the efficacy of a specific training with a control group or look at the additional effect of booster sessions on communication behaviour, attitudes or patient outcomes. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched up to July 2008 without language restriction, and reference lists of earlier reviews were screened. Effect sizes (ESs) were extracted and pooled in random effects meta-analyses. Results: We included 13 trials (three non-randomised), 10 with no specific intervention in the control group. Meta-analysis showed a moderate effect of CST on communication behaviour ES = 0.54. Three trials compared basic training courses with more extensive training courses and showed a small additional effect on communication skills ES = 0.37. Trials investigating participants' attitudes ES = 0.35 and patient outcomes ES = 0.13 (trend) confirmed this effect. Conclusions: Training health professionals by CST is a promising approach to change communication behaviour and attitudes. Patients might also benefit from specifically trained health professionals but strong studies are lacking. However, feasibility and economic aspects have to be kept in mind when considering providing a training of optimal length.