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.

Efficient Team actions

Team is a widely represented phenomenon in sport. Despite this fact, sport psychology has yet to answers the question why some teams deliver more successful Performance and produce higher interpersonal satisfaction among athletes than others. While group cohesion, defined as "a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs" (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1997, p.°213) is considered to be one important factor contributing to performance, cognitive aspects of team performance depict a complementary view. More specifically, attitudes, efficacy beliefs, role understanding, common goals, and communication are present in any group of two or more people playing Sport together. The interactions between these cognitions and motivation, cohesion, performance, and satisfaction in teams sport is yet an under researched area in sport psychology. Reference Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1997). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-­226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

The impact of social presence on team performance in social networking platforms

Next to the extensive use of social networking platforms (SNPs) for communication and relationship building with friends and relatives, SNPs are also increasingly used for enhancing collaboration at work. SNP usage at the workplace is fundamentally different and it is unclear how SNPs can improve collaboration as well as in what way their designs should be modified and adapted to collaboration settings. This research identifies specific SNP functions that enhance social presence as particularly beneficial for collaboration. Consequently, two designs of SNPs, one with high social presence and one with low social presence, are outlined and its impacts on collaboration are discussed. A framework is constructed that illustrates how social presence in SNPs can improve team performance through enhancing transactive memory within teams (intra-group collaboration) and relational capital across teams (inter-group collaboration). In addition, it is outlined how this framework could be evaluated in an experimental setting of teams working on a complex group task.

Early prognostic value of the medical emergency team calling criteria in patients admitted to intensive care from the emergency department

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the early prognostic value of the medical emergency team (MET) calling criteria in patients admitted to intensive care from the emergency department. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Emergency department and department of intensive care medicine of a 960-bed tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 452 consecutive adult patients admitted to intensive care from the emergency department from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: MET calling criteria were retrospectively extracted from patient records, and the sum of positive criteria was calculated for the first hour in the emergency department (METinitial) and subsequently until admission to the intensive care unit in a series of time periods. The maximum number of positive MET calling criteria during any time period was defined (METmax). Logistic regression analysis revealed METinitial (odds ratio [OR] 3.392, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.534-4.540) and METmax (OR 3.867, 95% CI 2.816-5.312) to be significant predictors of hospital mortality, the need for mechanical ventilation (METinitial: OR 4.151, 95% CI 3.53-4.652; METmax: OR 4.292, 95% CI 3.151-5.846), and occurrence of hemodynamic instability (METinitial: OR 1.548, 95% CI 1.258-1.905; METmax: OR 1.685, 95% CI 1.355-2.094) (all p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: MET scores collected early after admission or throughout the stay in the emergency department allow for simple identification of patients at risk of unfavorable outcome during the subsequent intensive care unit stay.