Information Elaboration Survey (FIT)

Abstract

The Information Elaboration Survey (FIT) is a concise, 5-item psychological instrument designed to measure the collective perception within a team regarding the processes of sharing, discussing, and integrating diverse knowledge. The primary goal of this collective activity is the development of novel ideas and effective solutions.

Rooted in established international team research, the FIT identifies five critical process steps that encapsulate the holistic information elaboration and integration of specialized knowledge. The quality of information elaboration is recognized as a significant predictor of various criteria of team effectiveness.

The scale demonstrates strong psychometric properties, including high internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = .89; McDonald’s Omega = .90). Furthermore, substantial correlations with other key organizational constructs confirm its convergent validity and criterion validity.

Keywords

Information elaboration, Team processes, Collective knowledge integration, Innovation, Co-creation, Quality of business meetings, Team effectiveness, Organizational psychology

Authors

Dr. Josef A. Fischer, Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The FIT was developed to provide a brief, psychometrically sound measure of team-level information processing quality, addressing the fragmentation found in existing instruments that often only capture partial aspects, such as mere information exchange. The instrument is fundamentally used for team diagnostics across various organizational settings, including student working groups, public administration departments, and industrial teams.

A key application area is the evaluation of the quality of team meetings and group discussions. Poor discussion quality, often characterized by dominant participants and underutilized information, leads to process losses and suboptimal decision-making. The FIT is particularly valuable in contexts requiring high rates of innovation, such as product development, where the generation of new knowledge relies heavily on the quality of information elaboration.

Construct

The central construct measured is Information Elaboration in Teams (Informationsverarbeitung im Team). This concept encompasses the synergistic discussion, processing, and integration of varied information, knowledge backgrounds, and experiences held by team members (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). High-quality information elaboration is a robust predictor of crucial team outcomes, including decision quality, performance, and innovation.

The scale is structured around a comprehensive five-step process model derived from foundational literature in group cognition and information processing. These five steps represent a holistic flow of information within the team, moving beyond simple information sharing to result-oriented integration. The operationalized steps are:

1. Informationsaustausch (Information Exchange): Open sharing of specific information by team members.
2. Informationsaufnahme (Information Intake): Acceptance and uptake of information from various team members.
3. Informationskombination (Information Combination): Development of new ideas based on the information provided by different team members.
4. Diskussion neu entwickelter Ideen (Discussion of Newly Developed Ideas): Open discussion of ideas generated during the information combination phase.
5. Ergebnisorientierte Integration neu entwickelter Ideen (Result-Oriented Integration of Newly Developed Ideas): Synthesis of the newly developed ideas to reach a final decision.

Validity

Evidence for the validity of the FIT includes both convergent construct validity and criterion validity, established through Pearson correlation coefficients with related team variables (N = 325).

Convergent Validity

The FIT showed substantial positive correlations with two key constructs. First, it correlated strongly with Procedural Justice (r = .65, p < .01). Procedural justice refers to the transparent and consistent adherence to fair decision-making rules within the team (Colquitt, 2001). Second, the FIT correlated highly with Psychological Safety (r = .67, p < .01), which measures the shared belief that the team environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, such as voicing constructive criticism or sharing expertise (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). The strength of these correlations supports the convergent validity of the FIT, indicating that effective information elaboration is closely linked to team fairness and psychological safety.

Criterion Validity

Criterion validity was established through a positive correlation with Identification with the Team (r = .35, p < .01). Team identification, measured via an adapted scale from Mael and Ashforth (1992), indicates the members’ sense of belonging and attachment to the group. The significant positive relationship suggests that high-quality information processing fosters stronger commitment and identification among team members.

Reliability

The reliability of the FIT scale is considered good, as demonstrated by high internal consistency estimators calculated from the validation sample (N = 325). The reported values are: Cronbach’s Alpha = .89 and McDonald’s Omega = .90. These high values confirm the robust internal consistency of the single-factor structure.

Furthermore, item characteristics analysis confirmed the quality of the individual items. The part-whole corrected item discriminability values ranged from .63 to .82, all significantly above the generally accepted minimum threshold of .50 (Bortz & Döring, 2006), indicating that each item effectively measures the underlying construct of information elaboration.

Factor Analysis

The scale development utilized both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the unidimensional structure of the FIT. Initially, an exploratory Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) analysis using Promax rotation on the final 5-item scale extracted a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1, accounting for 70% of the variance. The communalities of the items ranged between .57 and .80.

In the second step, the model fit of the FIT was determined using Linear Structural Equation Models (LSEM). The analysis yielded the following results: χ² = 16.87, df = 5, p < .01; CFI = .99, IFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .086, and SRMR = .022. Based on standard evaluation criteria (e.g., Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), these indices collectively describe the model fit as very good to excellent, confirming the intended single-factor structure of the Information Elaboration construct.

Instrument

Test Type: Questionnaire (Self-report team perception scale)

Format: 5 items, utilizing a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) stimme gar nicht zu (do not agree at all) to (7) stimme voll und ganz zu (fully agree). All items are positively coded.

Language Available: German (deutsch)

Population Group: Employees and professionals working in organizational teams across various industries (e.g., manufacturing, IT, finance).

Age Group: Adult working population.

Population Details: The validation sample (N=325) consisted of individuals primarily from German companies in industries such as metal and electrical, technology, telecommunications, and finance. The majority of participants were male (74%) and highly educated, working in teams averaging nine members.

Test Methodology: Computerized Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ) via online survey. The estimated processing time is approximately 1 minute. Scoring involves calculating a non-weighted mean index of the five items. Researchers are advised to only calculate the index if a participant has provided valid responses for at least three of the five items.

Keywords

Team diagnostics, Group cognition, Organizational behavior, Process loss, Team innovation, Information elaboration, Psychological safety

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Dr. Josef A. Fischer: [email protected]; Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann (University of St. Gallen): [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann, Universität St. Gallen, Institut für Führung und Personalmanagement (I.FPM-HSG).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale is categorized as “tested” (erprobt). The data collection for the validation study occurred during 2011 and 2012. Specific information regarding licensing fees or formal permissions for use is not detailed in the source content.

Reference’s

• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler.
• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.
• Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: An essential element of high-performing teams.
• Fischer, J. A., & Hüttermann, H. (2020a). PsySafety-Check.
• Fischer, J. A., & Hüttermann, H. (2020b). Speak-Up-Check.
• Gibson, C. B. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to knowledge integration: Mediating roles in the performance of multi-functional teams.
• Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Review.
• Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Curşeu, P. L. (2007). Team information processing, diversity, and team performance.
• Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team performance: The importance of team psychological safety and team-oriented leadership.
• Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). The role of procedural justice in the relationship between diversity and team effectiveness.
• Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification.
• Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. S., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication quality matter? A meta-analysis of the literature.
• Mesmer-Magnus, J., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis.
• Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). The costs and benefits of meeting time: A test of the Rogelberg et al. (2006) model.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models.
• van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Information Elaboration Survey (FIT)

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