Team Processes Survey Measure (TP-M)

Abstract

The Team Processes Survey Measure (TP-M) is a validated instrument used to diagnose and assess team functioning based on the theoretical framework proposed by Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001). This paper presents the validated German-language adaptation, derived from the original English scale (Mathieu et al., 2019). The TP-M is structured analogously to the English version, available in a comprehensive long version (30 items) and an abbreviated short version (10 items).

Statistical validation confirms the three-factor structure derived from the theoretical framework for both versions. The instrument exhibits high psychometric quality, demonstrating substantial relationships between the measured team processes and common team-level constructs such as team cohesion and collective efficacy. These findings establish both convergent validity and criterion validity for the TP-M as an effective tool for measuring and predicting team effectiveness.

Keywords

Team, Teamwork, Collaboration, Team Processes, Transition Processes, Action Processes, Interpersonal Processes, Organizational Psychology, Team Effectiveness, Scale, German.

Authors

Josef A. Fischer (German Validation), John E. Mathieu, Kristen L. Luciano, Laura D’Innocenzo, Brian R. Klock, Jeffrey A. LePine (Original English Scale).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Team Processes Survey Measure (TP-M) is comprehensive team diagnosis. It allows organizations to establish a current status report concerning the central characteristics of cooperation and collaborative work within a team. For this purpose, it is recommended that all members of a specific team are surveyed simultaneously.

The instrument is versatile and suitable for application across various types of teams or work groups, regardless of the organization or industry. The availability of both a 30-item long version and a 10-item short version allows practitioners to choose the appropriate level of detail: the long version provides a highly differentiated analysis, while the short version is ideal for quick pulse surveys due to its high economy.

Construct

The TP-M operationalizes team processes based on the temporally based framework developed by Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001). This model organizes team activities into three major, distinct process categories:

• Transition Processes: These are preparatory, task-oriented activities that occur between periods of action. They involve planning and strategizing for future execution. Subscales measured include Task Analysis, Goal Setting, and Strategy Formulation & Planning.
• Action Processes: These are execution-oriented activities focused on accomplishing the current task. They involve monitoring and coordinating immediate efforts. Subscales include Monitoring Goal Progress, Monitoring Resources & Environment, Team Monitoring & Back-Up, and Coordination.
• Interpersonal Processes: These relational, socio-emotional processes are continuous and phase-independent, ensuring the maintenance of effective teamwork throughout all task phases. Subscales include Conflict Management, Mutual Motivation, and Emotion Management.

The scale implicitly distinguishes between activities related to Taskwork (Transition and Action processes) and activities related to Teamwork (Interpersonal processes), providing a nuanced view of team functioning.

Validity

The validation study provided strong evidence for both convergent and criterion validity of the German TP-M (long and short versions). Convergent validity was assessed by examining the correlations between the three primary team process scales and established team-level constructs, as suggested by organizational psychology literature.

Results showed substantial positive correlations (p < .01) between all TP-M scales and both Collective Efficacy and Team Cohesion. Furthermore, criterion validity was supported by significant correlations between the TP-M scales and various indicators of team effectiveness, including Team Performance, Team Creativity, and Team Satisfaction, confirming the measure’s utility in predicting important team outcomes.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the TP-M scales was evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and McDonald’s Omega (ω). Overall, the psychometric quality is considered high, particularly for the full-length version.

• Long Version (30 items): Reliability estimates for the three main scales are excellent: Transition Processes (α = .85 / ω = .87), Action Processes (α = .88 / ω = .89), and Interpersonal Processes (α = .94 / ω = .93). Subscale reliabilities generally range from satisfactory to high, with the lowest value being α = .66 for Monitoring Resources & Environment.
• Short Version (10 items): Reliability for the short form remains satisfactory, with Transition Processes (α = .69 / ω = .69), Action Processes (α = .70 / ω = .70), and Interpersonal Processes (α = .77 / ω = .78).

Factor Analysis

The factor structure was investigated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), comparing the theoretical 3-factor model against alternative 1-factor and 2-factor models across both scale lengths. The 3-factor model, which distinguishes among Transition, Action, and Interpersonal Processes, consistently demonstrated the best fit statistics, supporting the underlying theoretical taxonomy proposed by Marks et al. (2001).

For the long version, the 3-factor model achieved acceptable fit (e.g., CFI = .90, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .071). Similarly, the short version confirmed the structure with good fit (CFI = .94, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .055). These results validate the differentiation between the three macro-level team processes, confirming that these aspects of teamwork are empirically distinct yet correlated constructs.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Survey Measure (Collective Construct)

Format: Online Questionnaire (CSAQ – Computerized Self-Administered Questionnaire)

Language Available: German (Documentation: German; Items: German), English (Original Version)

Population Group: Working adults, specifically members of functional teams or work groups.

Age Group: Not specified; assumed adult working population.

Population Details: The German validation sample (N=210 across 41 teams) consisted primarily of male employees in Innovation and Development teams within the German automotive industry. This specific context should be considered when applying the scale to different team types or industries.

Test Methodology: The instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“überhaupt nicht” / not at all) to 5 (“in sehr hohem Maße” / to a very high extent). Items are positively formulated and conceptualized as reference-shift-consensus models (Chan, 1998) to capture collective team perception rather than individual opinions.

Keywords

Team, Teamwork, Collaboration, Team Processes, Transition Processes, Action Processes, Interpersonal Processes, Organizational Psychology, Team Effectiveness, Scale, German.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected] (Contact Author)

Correspondence Address: Not provided.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding permissions and fees for commercial or academic use is not provided in the source material. Interested users should contact the corresponding author, Dr. Josef A. Fischer.

Test Year (German Validation): Data for the German validation study were collected in 2011.

Reference’s

The scale development and validation rely on the following foundational and contemporary works:

• Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
• Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in organizational work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71-88.
• Chan, D. (1998). Personal and organizational perceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 195.
• Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: The moderating role of team self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438.
• Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.
• LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of team processes: Tests of the Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 571–586.
• Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.
• Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical examination of an input-process-output model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 51-66.
• Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273.
• Mathieu, J. E., Luciano, K. L., D’Innocenzo, L., Klock, B. R., & LePine, J. A. (2019). The development and validation of the Team Processes Survey Measure. Small Group Research, 50(2), 173–201.
• Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a collective efficacy look ahead. Journal of Management, 34(4), 410-476.
• Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252.
• Wu, J., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differential responses to performance feedback: The roles of psychological safety and team trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 524.

Items of the team processes survey measure (TP-M)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Anmerkungen. Die mit * markierten Items bilden die 10 Items umfassende Kurzversion.